Menachot 63

ועושה ריוח מלמעלה וריוח מלמטה ועושה פרשיותיה פתוחות אמרתי לו רבי מה טעם אמר לי הואיל ואין סמוכות מן התורה

leaving a space above and a space below, and leaving [the space between] the sections open.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second passage is begun on a fresh line, leaving blank the rest of the line in which the first passage ended.');">¹</span> And I said to him, Master, what is the reason for this?

ואמר רב חננאל אמר רב הלכה כר"ש בן אלעזר מאי לאו אפתוחות

And he answered, Because [the portions] are not close to each other in the Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two passages of the mezuzah are not consecutive in the Torah, the one comes from Deut. VI, 4-9 and the other from XI, 13-21. The second passage is therefore to be begun on a separate line.');">²</span> And R'Hananel said in the name of Rab that the halachah follows R'Simeon B'Eleazar.

לא אריוח וכמה ריוח אמר רב מנשיא בר יעקב ואמרי לה אמר רב שמואל בר יעקב כמלא אטבא דסיפרי

Now presumably [the halachah referred to the ruling] of leaving [the space between] the sections open? - No, it referred to the ruling of leaving a space [above and below]. And how much space must there be? - R'Menashya B'Jacob (others say: R'Samuel B'Jacob) said, The space taken up by the clasps of the scribes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Clasps were used by scribes to prevent the sheets of parchment from rolling up.');">³</span>

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף ואת לא תסברא דכי אמר רב אריוח והא רב אית ליה מנהגא והאידנא נהוג עלמא בסתומות

Said Abaye to R'Joseph, And do you not hold that Rab's statement [of the halachah] referred to the leaving of the space [above and below]? But is it not the fact that Rab usually relies upon the practice of people, and the general practice is to leave [the space between] the sections closed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly Rab would certainly not have ruled that the space between the sections must be left open which is contrary to the general practice. Hence his ruling could only refer to the space to be left above and below. vmhkj');">⁴</span>

דאמר רבה אמר רב כהנא אמר רב אם יבא אליהו ויאמר חולצין במנעל שומעין לו אין חולצין בסנדל אין שומעין לו שכבר נהגו העם בסנדל

For Rabbah said in the name of R'Kahana who had it from Rab, If Elijah were to come and say that halizah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' lit., 'drawing off' sc. the shoe; v. Deut. XXV, 5-9. The adopted practice was for the widow to take off a sandal from the foot of her brother-in-law. There was some doubt, however, whether the ceremony may be performed with a covered shoe instead of a sandal. Cf. Yeb. 102a.');">⁵</span> may be performed with a covered shoe, he would be obeyed; [were he, however, to say] that halizah may not be performed with a sandal, he would not be obeyed, for the people have long ago adopted the practice [of performing it] with a sandal.

ורב יוסף אמר רב כהנא אמר רב אם יבא אליהו ויאמר אין חולצין במנעל שומעין לו אין חולצין בסנדל אין שומעין לו שכבר נהגו העם בסנדל

R'Joseph, however, reported in the name of R'Kahana who had it from Rab, If Elijah were to come and say that halizah may not be performed with a covered shoe, he would be obeyed; [were he, however, to say] that halizah may not be performed with a sandal, he would not be obeyed, for the people have long ago adopted the practice [of performing it] with a sandal. And it was asked, What is the difference between them?

ואמרינן מאי בינייהו מנעל לכתחילה איכא בינייהו אלא לאו שמע מינה אריוח ש"מ

And it was suggested that the practical difference between them was as to whether a covered shoe may be used in the first instance!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rabbah's version it is not right nowadays to use a covered shoe for this ceremony in the first instance when a sandal is available, until there has been a definite ruling by Elijah that it is permitted. On the other hand, according to R. Joseph's version a covered shoe may be used nowadays even though a sandal is available, until we have a ruling to the contrary. It is thus evident that Rab relies upon the practice of the people.');">⁶</span> - We must say therefore [that Rab's statement of the halachah referred] to the leaving of the space;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But on the question as to whether the space between the sections is to be left open or closed, Rab as usual follows the general practice, which is that it is to be closed.');">⁷</span>

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מצוה לעשותן סתומות ואי עבדינהו פתוחות שפיר דמי ומאי פתוחות דקאמר רשב"א אף פתוחות

this proves it. R'Nahman B'Isaac said, The precept is to leave [the space between the sections] closed, nevertheless if it was left open it is valid; for when R'Simeon B'Eleazar spoke of 'leaving the space between the sections open', he meant, even open.

לימא מסייע ליה כיוצא בו ספר תורה שבלה ותפילין שבלו אין עושין מהן מזוזה לפי שאין מורידין מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה הא מורידין עושין

Shall we say that the following supports his view? For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 79b.');">⁸</span>

אמאי הכא סתומות והכא פתוחות דלמא להשלים

Similarly, if scrolls of the Law or tefillin had worn out, one may not make out of them a mezuzah, for one may not bring down what is of a higher sanctity to a lower sanctity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mezuzah is deemed to be of a lesser sanctity since it contains only two Scriptural portions, whereas the tefillin contain four. gna');">⁹</span> Now it follows that if it were permitted to bring down to a lower sanctity one would be allowed to make [a mezuzah out of tefillin or a scroll of the Law]; but how is this possible?

הא מורידין עושין והתניא הלכה למשה מסיני תפילין על הקלף ומזוזה על דוכסוסטוס קלף במקום בשר דוכסוסטוס במקום שער למצוה

Here the portions are closed but there they are open!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the scroll of the Law the space after the (i.e., Deut. VI, 4-9, the first passage in the mezuzah) is closed, and in the mezuzah it is to be left open. We must therefore say that R. Simeon b. Eleazar meant that it may even be left open, thus supporting R. Nahman's view!');">¹⁰</span> - Perhaps [it would have been permitted] only to complete<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a word or a line was missing in the mezuzah it would be permitted to patch it up with the same word or the same line cut out from the worn out scroll of the Law or from the tefillin, were it not for the general restriction against lowering the sanctity of a sacred object. But the space between the sections of the mezuzah must in fact be left open.');">¹¹</span>

והתניא שינה פסול בתפילין והתניא שינה בין בזה ובין בזה פסול אידי ואידי בתפילין והא דכתבינהו אקלף במקום שער והא

[the mezuzah]. And if it were permitted to bring down what is of a higher sanctity to a lower sanctity, [you say that] one would be allowed to make [a mezuzah out of tefillin]? But it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 79b.');">¹²</span> It is a law handed to Moses at Sinai that the [Scriptural portions in the] tefillin must be written on kelaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 202, n. 5.');">¹³</span> and the mezuzah on duksustus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 202, n. 5.');">¹³</span> Kelaf is the side [of the skin] next to the flesh, and duksustus is the side next to the hair!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 202, n. 5.');">¹³</span> - This is only a recommendation. But it was taught: If one did otherwise, it is invalid! - That refers only to the tefillin. But it was taught that if one did otherwise in either case, it is invalid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably the expression 'in either case' refers to the tefillin and the mezuzah, and we are here taught that any variation, e.g., writing the mezuzah on kelaf or the tefillin on duksustus, renders them invalid.');">¹⁴</span> - The two cases refer to the tefillin only, but in the one case he wrote the portions on that side of kelaf nearest to the hair, and in t other case