Yoma 22

the porter's lodge,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a gate-house'.');">¹</span> a veranda<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Exedra.');">²</span>

and a balcony, therefore the text reads, 'house' - [meaning] just as 'house' means a building appointed for a dwelling it thus excludes all other buildings not appointed for a dwelling. One might have wanted to include also the privy, the tannery, the bath-house and the house for ritual immersion, therefore the text says, 'house': just as a 'house is made for dignity, so only all such are implied, which also are made for dignity, to the exclusion of these, which are not made for dignity.

One might have wanted to include the mountain of the Sanctuary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Temple mount.');">³</span> the cells and the courts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the singular: The Temple court. In the plural the various compartments there, as the men's compartment, the women's compartment.');">⁴</span>

Therefore the text says 'house': just as a 'house' is for common use so are only such [houses] as are for common use [liable] to a mezuzah - to the exclusion of these which are sacred!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This proves that the places enumerated in the teaching of R. Kahana, even when restricted to their ordinary use, are also subject to a difference of opinion of Tannaim whether or not they are liable to a mezuzah, which contradicts Rab Judah.]');">⁵</span> This is a refutation.

R'Samuel son of Rab Judah recited before Raba: Six gates are exempt from the mezuzah. - [the gates of] the straw-shed, the stable, the wood-house, the store-house, the Median<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Median gate was usually made with an arched doorway, hence gates with such doorways came to be called Median.');">⁶</span>

gate, a gate without beams and a gate that is not ten handbreadths high. He [Raba] said to him: You started by saying six and you ended up with seven? -He replied: There is Tannaitic division of opinion concerning the Median gate, for it has been taught: An arched doorway<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the same as a Median gate.');">⁷</span>

- R'Meir declares it liable to the mezuzah, while the Sages exempt it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since it narrows down at the arch to less than four handbreadths, the required minimum of a gate, v. n. 10.]');">⁸</span> All agree, however, that, if the posts are ten handbreadths<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the entrance began to narrow down at the arch.');">⁹</span>

[high], it is liable to the mezuzah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Er. 11b.');">¹⁰</span> Said Abaye: All agree that if the [whole] doorway is ten handbreadths in height, but the post is not even three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It began to narrow down at less than three handbreadths from the ground.');">¹¹</span>

it is considered nothing;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And requires no mezuzah, for the minimum for any doorway is ten in height for the whole doorway, four in width, three for the posts; below it is but 'solid' earth.');">¹²</span> again, if the post is three handbreadths in height, but the [whole] doorway not even ten,it is also considered nothing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And requires no mezuzah, for the minimum for any doorway is ten in height for the whole doorway, four in width, three for the posts; below it is but 'solid' earth.');">¹²</span>

They are disputing only concerning doorways the [whole] height of which is ten, with the posts three in height, but with a width less than four handbreadths, space however being left to extend it to four handbreadths.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within the ten handbreadths, the minimum required height of the doorway.');">¹³</span> R'Meir holds one may extend<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By legal fiction. As long as the doorway starts on a breadth of four by three, allowing space for continued dimension up to ten, we look upon it as continuing in the same size, hence as entitled to the designation 'door', with the implication of being subject to the law of mezuzah');">¹⁴</span>

it by digging [to the required minimum of four handbreadths], whilst the Sages hold that we do not extend it by digging it. Our Rabbis taught: The synagogue, the women's apartment, and the house belonging to partners are liable to mezuzah - Is that not self-evident? - You might have said [the scriptural] 'Thy house'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The possessive suffix in the Hebrew is masc. sing.');">¹⁵</span>

[means] her - but not [the woman's] house; 'thy house' but not their [partners'] house, hence we are taught [that they are included in the law of mezuzah]. But would you expound similarly: That your days may be multiplied and the days of your sons?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XI, 21. If you press the text so hard, excluding woman because the possessive is in the masculine form, then you should consistently expound: In order that your days, may be, where the possessive suffix, too, is masculine, that God holds out no promise for the prolongation of women's life. Perhaps benekem, which literally means 'your sons', although it is understood to include 'daughters', being usually translated as 'children' might render the consequence of such pedantic interpretation more absurd still.');">¹⁶</span>

Do only their [sons] need life, not the others [women and their daughters]? What then is the significance of 'Thy house'? - It is as Raba said: For Raba said: The way thou enterest [thy house], and when a man moves, he moves with the right foot first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Read ad hoc: instead of betheka, bi'atheka, i.e., 'thy coming in' instead of 'Thy house', to infer thence that the mezuzah should be affixed on the door-post at the right hand of him who enters. In this manner, indeed, the mezuzah is affixed, in the upper third of the post.');">¹⁷</span>

Another [Baraitha] taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 34a.');">¹⁸</span> The synagogue, the house belonging to partners, and the women's compartment are subject to uncleanness from house plagues.

Is that not self-evident? You might have said: Then shall come he who has the house to him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 35. So lit., E.V. 'he that owneth the house shall come',');">¹⁹</span> to him' [implies] but not 'to her' [woman], 'to him' but not 'to them' [partners], therefore we are told [that this is not so]. Perhaps it is really so? - Scripture says, In house of the land of your possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 34.');">²⁰</span> [which includes both] - Why then 'to him'? [That means to say that] if one devotes his house to himself exclusively, refusing to lend his belongings by pretending he did not own them, the Holy One, blessed be He, exposes him as he removes his belongings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accord with the priest's command, as prescribed: And the priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest go in to see the plague. Lev. XIV, 36.');">²¹</span> Thus 'to him' excludes [from the infliction of the house plague] him who lends his belongings to others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plague is thus seen as a punishment for niggardliness.');">²²</span> But is a synagogue subject to uncleanness from house plagues? Has it not been taught: One might assume that synagogues and houses of learning are subject to uncleanness from house plagues, therefore Scripture says: 'He who has the house to him', i.e., he to whom alone the house belongs, that excludes those [houses] which do not belong to him alone? - This is no difficulty: The first teaching is in accord with R'Meir, the second with Rabba, for it has been taught: A synagogue which contains a dwelling for the synagogue attendant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 47 n. 8.');">²³</span> is liable to a mezuzah, but one which has no dwelling apartment, R'Meir declares it liable but the Sages exempt it. Or, if you wish, you might say: Both teachings are in accord with the Rabbis. In the one case the synagogue referred to has a dwelling [apartment], in the other it has no dwelling apartment. Or, if you wish, you might say [in accounting for the discrepancy] that in both cases the synagogue has no dwelling apartment