## Yoma Daf 11a

###### Yoma 11a:1
[Yoma 11a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:1)

כׇּל הַשְּׁעָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם לֹא הָיָה לָהֶם מְזוּזָה, חוּץ מִשַּׁעַר נִיקָנוֹר, שֶׁלִּפְנִים מִמֶּנּוּ לִשְׁכַּת פַּרְהֶדְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**All the gates that were there** on the east side of the Temple courtyard **did not have a *mezuza* except for the Gate of Nicanor, as** in the courtyard just **inside** the gate was **the Chamber of *Parhedrin*,** in which there is an obligation to affix a *mezuza*. Therefore, a *mezuza* was affixed to the gate as well.


###### Yoma 11a:2
[Yoma 11a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:2)

לֵימָא רַבָּנַן הִיא וְלָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הִיא גּוּפַהּ גְּזֵירָה, וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְנִגְזוֹר גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כּוּלַּהּ חֲדָא גְּזֵירָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let us say** that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis and not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, as, if** it were in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** a difficulty arises. The principle is that decrees are issued only to prevent violation of a Torah prohibition. The fact that a *mezuza* was affixed to the *Parhedrin* chamber **itself** is due to a rabbinic **decree, and will we** then **proceed to issue a decree** to affix a *mezuza* on the gate before the chamber in order **to** prevent violation of the existing **decree?** The Gemara rejects this reasoning: **Even** if **you say** that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** it is not difficult, as the **entire** obligation to affix the *mezuza* on both the chamber and the gate is the result of **a single decree.**


###### Yoma 11a:3
[Yoma 11a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״ — אֶחָד שַׁעֲרֵי בָתִּים וְאֶחָד שַׁעֲרֵי חֲצֵירוֹת וְאֶחָד שַׁעֲרֵי מְדִינוֹת וְאֶחָד שַׁעֲרֵי עֲיָירוֹת יֵשׁ בָּהֶן חוֹבַת מִצְוָה לַמָּקוֹם, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל מְזוּזוֹת בֵּיתֶךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the *mezuza* in the High Priest’s chamber, the Gemara discusses other *halakhot* of *mezuza*. **The Sages taught** with regard to the verse: “And you will write them upon the doorposts of your houses and **upon your gates”** (Deuteronomy 6:9): With regard to **the gates of houses, and the gates of courtyards, and the gates of cities, and the gates of towns, all** of them are **obligated** in **the mitzva** of *mezuza* in that **place, due to** the fact **that it is stated: “And you will write them upon the doorposts of your houses and upon your gates.”**


###### Yoma 11a:4
[Yoma 11a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב סָפְרָא: הָנֵי אֲבוּלֵּי דְמָחוֹזָא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא עֲבַדוּ לְהוּ רַבָּנַן מְזוּזָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנְהוּ חִזּוּק לְאַקְרָא דְכוּבֵי הוּא דַּעֲבִידִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ: וְאַקְרָא דְכוּבֵי גּוּפַהּ תִּבְעֵי מְזוּזָה, דְּהָא אִית בַּהּ דִּירָה לְשׁוֹמֵר בֵּית הָאֲסוּרִין, דְּהָא תַּנְיָא: בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ בֵּית דִּירָה לְחַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת חַיֶּיבֶת בִּמְזוּזָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rav Safra:** If there is an obligation to affix a *mezuza* on city gates, with regard to **those** city **gates [*abbulei*] of Meḥoza,** a city with a Jewish majority, **what is the reason** that **the Sages did not affix a *mezuza* on them?** Rav Safra **said to him: Those** gates are not the city gates. They are **made as reinforcement to the fort [*akra*] of turrets** above the gate, and therefore no *mezuza* is required. Abaye **said to him: And shouldn’t the fort of turrets itself require a *mezuza*, since** there **is a residence for the prison guard in** the fort? **As, wasn’t** a similar case **taught** in a *baraita*: **A synagogue in which there is a residence for the synagogue attendant requires a *mezuza*?** Although no one lives in the synagogue itself, since the attendant lives in an adjacent room, the synagogue requires a *mezuza*.


###### Yoma 11a:5
[Yoma 11a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנָה. דְּתַנְיָא: מְזוּזַת יָחִיד נִבְדֶּקֶת פַּעֲמַיִם בַּשָּׁבוּעַ, וְשֶׁל רַבִּים פַּעֲמַיִם בַּיּוֹבֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said:** The reason that no *mezuza* was affixed there was **due to** the **danger** involved. The gates of a city populated by Jews certainly require a *mezuza*; however, since gentiles live there as well, the danger is that the gentiles would suspect the Jews of witchcraft or espionage, **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **The *mezuza*** belonging to **an individual is examined twice every seven years** to determine whether it was stolen or became disqualified. And in order to avoid excessive burden on the community, the *mezuza* belonging to **the public** is examined **twice in a** fifty-year **Jubilee** period.


###### Yoma 11a:6
[Yoma 11a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:6)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַרְטָבִין אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹדֵק מְזוּזוֹת בַּשּׁוּק הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁל צִפּוֹרִי, וּמְצָאוֹ קַסְדּוֹר אֶחָד וְנָטַל מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלֶף זוּז. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁלוּחֵי מִצְוָה אֵין נִיזּוֹקִין? הֵיכָא דִּקְבִיעַ הֶיזֵּקָא, שָׁאנֵי. דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵיךְ אֵלֵךְ וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל וַהֲרָגָנִי וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ עֶגְלַת בָּקָר תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ וְאָמַרְתָּ לִזְבּוֹחַ לַה׳ בָּאתִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehuda said:** There was **an incident** involving **an examiner [*artavin*], who was examining *mezuzot* in the upper marketplace of Tzippori** during a period when decrees were issued against the Jewish people, **and a** Roman **official [*kasdor*] found him and collected** a fine of **one thousand *zuz* from him.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say** that **those on the path to perform a mitzva are not** susceptible to **harm** throughout the process of performing the mitzva? The Gemara responds: In a place **where danger is permanent it is different,** as one should not rely on a miracle, **as it is written** with regard to God’s command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: **“And Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to offer a sacrifice to God”** (I Samuel 16:2). Even when God Himself issues the command, there is concern with regard to a clear and present danger.


###### Yoma 11a:7
[Yoma 11a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:7)

תָּנֵי רַב כָּהֲנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: בֵּית הַתֶּבֶן וּבֵית הַבָּקָר וּבֵית הָעֵצִים וּבֵית הָאוֹצָרוֹת פְּטוּרִים מִן הַמְּזוּזָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים נְאוֹתוֹת בָּהֶן. וּמַאי ״נְאוֹתוֹת״? רוֹחֲצוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה: טַעְמָא דְּרוֹחֲצוֹת, הָא סְתָמָא — חַיָּיבִין? וְהָתַנְיָא: רֶפֶת בָּקָר פְּטוּרָה מִן הַמְּזוּזָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Kahana taught** a *baraita* **before Rav Yehuda: A storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse are exempt from** the obligation of ***mezuza*, due to** the fact **that the women make use of them. And what** is the meaning of the term: **Make use?** It means that the women **bathe** in them. Since women bathe there unclothed, it is inappropriate to affix a *mezuza* there. **Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The reason** that there is no requirement to affix a *mezuza* there is due to the fact **that** women **bathe** there; one can learn by inference **that standard** buildings of this kind, where women do not bathe, **are obligated** in the mitzva of affixing a *mezuza* there. **But wasn’t it taught** in a different *baraita*: **A cattle barn is exempt from** the obligation of ***mezuza*,** unrelated to whether or not women bathe there?


###### Yoma 11a:8
[Yoma 11a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:8)

אֶלָּא: מַאי ״נְאוֹתוֹת״ — מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת. וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת בָּהֶן, פְּטוּרִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: וְשֶׁהַנָּשִׁים מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת בָּהֶן פְּטוּרִין, וְהָתַנְיָא: רֶפֶת בָּקָר פְּטוּרָה מִן הַמְּזוּזָה, וְשֶׁהַנָּשִׁים מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת בָּהּ חַיֶּיבֶת בִּמְזוּזָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the term should be understood otherwise. **What** is the meaning of the term: **Make use?** It means that the women **adorn** themselves there, **and this** is what the *baraita* **is teaching: Although** these structures are solid and clean to the extent that **the women adorn themselves in them, they are exempt** from the obligation of *mezuza* since they are not residences. **Rav Kahana said to him:** Are you saying that structures where **the women adorn themselves are exempt** from the mitzva of *mezuza*? **But wasn’t it taught** in a different *baraita*: **A cattle stable is exempt from** the obligation of ***mezuza*,** and a barn **in which women adorn themselves is obligated in** the mitzva of ***mezuza*?**


###### Yoma 11a:9
[Yoma 11a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:9)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר, מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? לְדִידִי נָמֵי סְתָמָא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ — בֵּיתְךָ הַמְיוּחָד לָךְ, פְּרָט לְבֵית הַתֶּבֶן וּלְבֵית הַבָּקָר וּלְבֵית הָעֵצִים וּלְבֵית הָאוֹצָרוֹת, שֶׁפְּטוּרִין מִן הַמְּזוּזָה, וְיֵשׁ מְחַיְּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what have you to say,** that with regard to the requirement of *mezuza* the status of places where **women adorn themselves is** subject to a dispute between ***tanna’im*?** Just as there are different opinions in that case, **in my** opinion, the status of **standard** cattle barns **is also** subject to a dispute between ***tanna’im*, as it was taught** in a *baraita* that it is written: Upon the doorposts **of your house,** meaning **your house** that is **designated** as a residence, **to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from** the mitzva of ***mezuza*, and some obligate** these structures in the mitzva of *mezuza*. Apparently, the Rabbis dispute the requirement of affixing a *mezuza* in a standard stable.


###### Yoma 11a:10
[Yoma 11a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:10)

בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וּבֵית הַבּוּרְסְקִי וּבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ וּבֵית הַטְּבִילָה, וְשֶׁהַנָּשִׁים נְאוֹתוֹת בָּהֶן פְּטוּרִים מִן הַמְּזוּזָה. רַב כָּהֲנָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ וְרַב יְהוּדָה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Actually they said:** There is a legal tradition that **a building** housing **a bathroom, and a building** housing **a tannery [*burseki*], and a bathhouse, and a building** housing a ritual bath for **immersion,** and any places of **which women make use are exempt from** the obligation of ***mezuza*.** This *baraita* is inconsistent with the opinions of both Rav Kahana and Rav Yehuda. Therefore, **Rav Kahana interprets** the *baraita* **according to his** line of **reasoning, and Rav Yehuda interprets** it **according to his** line of **reasoning.**


###### Yoma 11a:11
[Yoma 11a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:11)

רַב כָּהֲנָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ — בֵּיתְךָ הַמְיוּחָד לָךְ, פְּרָט לְבֵית הַתֶּבֶן וּלְבֵית הַבָּקָר וּלְבֵית הָעֵצִים וּלְבֵית הָאוֹצָרוֹת, שֶׁפְּטוּרִים מִן הַמְּזוּזָה בִּסְתָם. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁמְּחַיְּיבִים בִּסְתָם. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ: בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וּבֵית הַבּוּרְסְקִי וּבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ וּבֵית הַטְּבִילָה וְשֶׁהַנָּשִׁים נְאוֹתוֹת בָּהֶן, וּמַאי ״נְאוֹתוֹת״ — רוֹחֲצוֹת, פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמְּזוּזָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana interprets** it **according to his** line of **reasoning: Your house** means **your house that is designated** for **your** residence, **to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from** the mitzva of ***mezuza* in** a case where their use is **standard** and they are not used for bathing or other immodest acts. **And some obligate** these structures in the mitzva of *mezuza* **in** a case where their use is **standard. In truth they said** the following with regard to **a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a** ritual bath for **immersion,** and any places of **which women make use; and what** is the meaning of the term: **Make use?** It is that women **bathe** there. These places **are exempt from** the obligation of ***mezuza*.**


###### Yoma 11a:12
[Yoma 11a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:12)

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ מֶרְחָץ! אַשְׁמְעִינַן מֶרְחָץ דְּרַבִּים וְאַשְׁמְעִינַן מֶרְחָץ דְּיָחִיד. דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מֶרְחָץ דְּרַבִּים דִּנְפִישׁ זוּהֲמֵיהּ, אֲבָל מֶרְחָץ דְּיָחִיד דְּלָא נְפִישׁ זוּהֲמֵיהּ — אֵימָא לִיחַיַּיב בִּמְזוּזָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this interpretation: **If so,** that make use in this context means bathe, **this is** identical to the **bathhouse.** Why would the *baraita* need to list both a bathhouse and a place where women bathe? The Gemara answers: The *baraita* **teaches us** the *halakha* with regard to **the bathhouse of the public, and it teaches us** the *halakha* with regard to **the bathhouse of an individual. As it could enter your mind to say: A bathhouse of the public, whose filth is extensive,** is exempt from *mezuza*; **however, the bathhouse of an individual, whose filth is not extensive,** as only women of that house bathe there, **I** would **say it is obligated in** the mitzva of affixing a ***mezuza***. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that the bathhouse of an individual is also exempt.


###### Yoma 11a:13
[Yoma 11a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:13)

וְרַב יְהוּדָה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ — בֵּיתְךָ הַמְיוּחָד לָךְ, פְּרָט לְבֵית הַתֶּבֶן וּבֵית הַבָּקָר וּבֵית הָעֵצִים וּבֵית הָאוֹצָרוֹת שֶׁפְּטוּרִין מִן הַמְּזוּזָה, אֲפִילּוּ מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת, וְיֵשׁ מְחַיְּיבִין בְּמִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת, אֲבָל סְתָם דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּטוּר. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ: בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וּבֵית הַבּוּרְסְקִי וּבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ וּבֵית הַטְּבִילָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת בָּהֶן פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמְּזוּזָה, מִשּׁוּם דִּנְפִישׁ זוּהֲמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yehuda interprets** the *baraita* **according to his** line of **reasoning, and this** is what it **is teaching: Your house** means **your house that is designated** for **your** residence, **to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from** the mitzva of ***mezuza* even** in a case where women **adorn themselves there. And some obligate** these structures in the mitzva of *mezuza* **in** a case where **women adorn themselves** there. **However, in** a case where use of the building is **standard,** everyone **agrees** that these structures **are exempt from** the mitzva of *mezuza*. **In truth they said** that **a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a** ritual bath for **immersion, even though women adorn themselves** there, **are exempt from** the obligation of ***mezuza*, because its filth is extensive.**


###### Yoma 11a:14
[Yoma 11a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/11a:14)

וּלְרַב יְהוּדָה סְתָמָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּטוּר, וְהָתַנְיָא: ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״ — אֶחָד שַׁעֲרֵי בָתִּים וְאֶחָד שַׁעֲרֵי חֲצֵירוֹת וְאֶחָד שַׁעֲרֵי מְדִינוֹת וְאֶחָד שַׁעֲרֵי עֲיָירוֹת, וְרֶפֶת וְלוּלִין וּמַתְבֵּן וְאוֹצְרוֹת יַיִן וְאוֹצְרוֹת שֶׁמֶן חַיָּיבִין בִּמְזוּזָה. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rav Yehuda,** in cases where use of the building is **standard,** does **everyone agree** that a storehouse **is exempt from** the mitzva of *mezuza*? **But wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that it is written with regard to the mitzva to affix a *mezuza*: **And upon your gates,** meaning that with regard to **the gates of houses, and the gates of courtyards, and the gates of cities, and the gates of towns, and a barn, and chicken coops, and a hay storehouse, and wine storehouses, and oil storehouses, all** of them are **obligated** in the mitzva of *mezuza*? I **might** have thought **that I include** in the obligation of *mezuza* **even**