QUESTION: Rav Huna rules that where there are two openings into a loft, both openings require a Mezuzah. Rav Papa derives from Rav Huna's ruling that the structure known as an "Indrona," which has four openings, requires four Mezuzos, one for each opening. The Gemara asks that Rav Papa's ruling is obvious. The Gemara answers that Rav Papa's ruling is necessary in a case in which one of the four openings is used more often than the others, in which case one might have thought that the other openings do not need a Mezuzah.

RASHI asks that the Gemara earlier (33a) says that "the entranceway through which Rebbi would enter the study hall did not have a Mezuzah." (Rashi there points out that there was a door near Rebbi's seat in the study hall through which he would enter, instead of using the main entrance, in order not to trouble all of the students to rise for him.) The Gemara there questions this from the entranceway to the study hall of Rav Huna, which did have a Mezuzah. The Gemara answers that the doorway that Rav Huna used was "Ragil" -- it was used frequently, and the rule is that with regard to the obligation to affix a Mezuzah, we "follow the doorway which is used frequently" and require that a Mezuzah be placed only on a doorway which is used often.

Accordingly, why does Rav Papa rule that all of the openings of an Indrona require Mezuzos when one is used more frequently than the others? Only the opening that is "Ragil," that is used most frequently, should need a Mezuzah.

(a) In his first answer, Rashi explains that when there are only two doorways (and not more) and one is "Ragil" and one is not, the doorway that is not "Ragil" is considered subordinate and "Batel" to the doorway that is "Ragil," and it is exempt. When, however, there are three or four doorways and only one of them is "Ragil," all of the doorways remain obligated to have a Mezuzah, because three doorways do not become "Batel" to one doorway to become exempt from a Mezuzah. Only one doorway can become "Batel" to another doorway.

(b) In his second answer, Rashi quotes the TESHUVAS HA'GE'ONIM who answer that in the case of the Gemara, all four doorways were built for the use of all of the people entering and leaving the room. Although use of the room became less frequent as time went by, and it sufficed to use only one of the doorways regularly, the obligation of all four doorways to have a Mezuzah remains.

In contrast, in the case of the Gemara earlier (33a), the doorway that Rebbi used was used exclusively by Rebbi and by no one else. Such a doorway is considered "Eino Ragil," infrequently used, and is exempt from a Mezuzah. Rav Huna's doorway, however, was used by the general public as well as by Rav Huna, and therefore it was considered "Ragil" and was obligated to have a Mezuzah.

(c) The RAMBAM seems to have a different answer for Rashi's question. The Rambam (Hilchos Mezuzah 6:10) rules that a house that has many doorways must have a Mezuzah on every doorway, even though only one of the doorways is regularly used. It is clear from the Rambam's ruling that the Rambam does not learn like Rashi that when the Gemara says that we "follow the doorway which is used frequently," it means that a door that is not used regularly (when it is one of two doors), or a door that is used by only one of the many people who enter the room, does not require a Mezuzah. If it would have been exempt in such a case, the Rambam would have written a new Halachah, saying that if there are only two doors, or if one of the doors was originally implemented for one person, the less used door is exempt from a Mezuzah.

The Rambam (6:11) then rules that a doorway between a synagogue or study hall and a house is obligated to have a Mezuzah only when it is regularly used. The Rambam does not mean that if a door between a study hall and a house is not used regularly, then it is exempt because we follow the doorway that is used regularly. The Rambam makes no mention of this reasoning. Rather, the Rambam is saying that such a door, when not regularly used, is exempt because it is a doorway between a study hall and a house. Only this type of door is exempt from a Mezuzah when it is not regularly used. (See KESEF MISHNEH.)

What, though, is the logic behind this ruling? Why should a door between a study hall and a house need to be used regularly in order to be obligated to have a Mezuzah, if a normal doorway does not need to be used regularly in order to be obligated? This ruling is based on another ruling of the Rambam. The Rambam (6:6) rules that a synagogue and study hall are exempt from a Mezuzah, since they themselves are Kadosh, holy. The Rambam learns from the Gemara in Yoma (11b) that a holy place, designated exclusively for purposes of Kedushah, is exempt from a Mezuzah.

If the Rambam exempts doorways of holy places from a Mezuzah, then why did Rav Huna's doorway need one? The answer is that since Rav Huna used it regularly to enter the study hall from his house, the door was considered one of the doors of his house. A door of a house is obligated to have a Mezuzah. (The Mezuzah of Rav Huna's doorway into the study hall was placed on the right side of the doorway as one entered the house.) However, in the case of Rebbi, the private doorway was used infrequently, and thus it was exempt from a Mezuzah. In such a case, the doorway does not have the status of a door to the house, but it remains just another door to the study hall, and a door to the study hall is exempt from a Mezuzah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

Rav Huna rules that where there are two openings into a loft, both openings require a Mezuzah. Rav Papa derives from Rav Huna's ruling that the structure known as an "Indrona," which has four openings, requires four Mezuzos, one for each opening. The Gemara asks that Rav Papa's ruling is obvious. The Gemara answers that Rav Papa's ruling is necessary in a case in which one of the four openings is used more often than the others, in which case one might have thought that the other openings do not need a Mezuzah.

As discussed earlier (see previous Insight), RASHI asks that the Gemara earlier (33a) says that "the entranceway through which Rebbi would enter the study hall did not have a Mezuzah." The Gemara there questions this from the entranceway to the study hall of Rav Huna, which did have a Mezuzah. The Gemara answers that the doorway that Rav Huna used was "Ragil" -- it was used frequently, and the rule is that with regard to the obligation to affix a Mezuzah, we "follow the doorway which is used frequently" and require that a Mezuzah be placed only on a doorway which is used often. Accordingly, why does Rav Papa rule that all of the openings of an Indrona require Mezuzos when one is used more frequently than the others? Only the opening that is "Ragil," that is used most frequently, should need a Mezuzah.

Rashi answers (in his first answer; see (a) of previous Insight) that when there are only two doorways (and not more) and one is "Ragil" and one is not, the doorway that is not "Ragil" is considered subordinate and "Batel" to the doorway that is "Ragil," and it is exempt. When, however, there are three or four doorways and only one of them is "Ragil," all of the doorways remain obligated to have a Mezuzah, because three doorways cannot become "Batel" to one doorway to become exempt from a Mezuzah. Only one doorway can become "Batel" to another doorway.

RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l (Igros Moshe YD 1:177) adds an important point. Rashi's rule that an infrequently-used door becomes "Batel" to a door that is "Ragil" applies only when both doors serve the same purpose and could have been used regularly but, for some reason, only one of them is used regularly. In this case, the door that is not used regularly is "Batel" to the other door. However, if the reason why one of the doors is not used regularly is that it opens to a different courtyard or street where there are less people, then it is obligated to have a Mezuzah. In such a case, the reason why the door is used less frequently is not that it is considered a "minor" door to people. Rather, it is used less frequently because it is less accessible to the people coming from the more populated area. For the people who enter from the less populated area, this door is their primary entranceway, and there is no reason to exempt it from a Mezuzah.

Rav Moshe points out that this Halachah is stated clearly by the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 286:18). The Shulchan Aruch writes that "a house that has many entranceways requires a Mezuzah in each one, even though only one of them is used regularly for entering and leaving." In the previous Halachah (286:17), the Shulchan Aruch rules like Rashi's second answer (see previous Insight) that only when both doors were originally used by the public are they both obligated to have a Mezuzah. How, then, can the Shulchan Aruch rule that even when the other doors were used infrequently from the start, they are obligated to have a Mezuzah? It must be that the Shulchan Aruch here is discussing a case in which each door of the room or house opens to a different area, and, therefore, no door is secondary to the other. Only in the previous Halachah, where the doorways all open to the same area, is there a condition that each door originally be made to be used equally by everyone in order to be obligated to have a Mezuzah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that a new Tefilin Shel Rosh ("Chadetasa"), that was prepared for use but not actually used, may be used as a Tefilin Shel Yad, according to the opinion that maintains that preparation for use is inconsequential ("Hazmanah Lav Milsa Hi").

The Acharonim question this ruling from a Halachah regarding the parchment used for Tefilin. The Halachah is that a parchment that was processed with intention that it be used for Tefilin may not be used for a mundane purpose, even according to the opinion that maintains "Hazmanah Lav Milsa Hi" (REMA OC 42:3). The reason for this is that the question of whether Hazmanah is consequential or not applies only to items that are "Tashmishei Kedushah" -- items used for a purpose of Kedushah, such as a Tefilin case. Items that are themselves Kadosh cannot be used for another purpose, even if they were merely prepared for use and not yet used. For this reason, a parchment prepared for Tefilin may not be used for a non-holy purpose.

Why, then, may a Tefilin that was prepared to be used as a Tefilin Shel Rosh be changed to a Tefilin Shel Yad? The Tefilin itself is an item of Kedushah, as the Gemara here says that changing from a Tefilin Shel Rosh to a Tefilin Shel Yad is considered lowering the Kedushah of the Tefilin.

(a) The LEVUSHEI SERAD (cited by the YOSEF DA'AS) writes that the prohibition against decreasing the Kedushah of an item by changing its use applies only to using a Kadosh item for an entirely non-Kadosh purpose. It may be changed from one Kedushah to another, even when the second Kedushah is a lower degree of Kedushah.

REBBI AKIVA EIGER (Teshuvos #3), however, argues with the Levushei Serad. He says that those who rule that an item that itself has Kedushah cannot be used for another purpose also rule that it may not be used even for a lower Kedushah.

(b) RAV CHAIM SOLOVEITCHIK (Hilchos Tefilin 10:11) explains that Hazmanah can establish that this Tefilin is meant to be a Tefilin Shel Rosh, and -- if "Hazmanah Milsa Hi" -- the Tefilin cannot be changed to a Tefilin Shel Yad. However, the prohibition to change an item of Kedushah that had Hazmanah to an item of a lower degree of Kedushah, even if "Hazmanah Milsa Hi," is based on an additional consideration. Hazmanah prevents an item from being changed to a different Kedushah only when the second Kedushah is brought about in way that is different from the way that the first Kedushah is created. The Kedushah of a Tefilin Shel Rosh and the Kedushah of a Tefilin Shel Yad are brought about in exactly the same way. There is no requirement that the leather used for making each Tefilin be processed specifically with intention that it be used for a Tefilin Shel Rosh or Shel Yad; it needs to be processed only with intention that it be used for Kedushas Tefilin. Therefore, according to the opinion that maintains "Hazmanah Lav Milsa Hi," a Tefilin Shel Rosh may be changed to a Tefilin Shel Yad. This makes the Kedushah itself different.

In contrast, when there is a difference in the preparation of the Kedushah of the item, the Halachah is that even if "Hazmanah Lav Milsa Hi," the item may not be changed to a different Kedushah. Here, the Kedushah itself is taken into account and it cannot be lowered.

Another application of this Halachah is parchment prepared to be used for a Sefer Torah. The parchment must be prepared with intention that it be used for Kedushas Sefer Torah. Consequently, the parchment may not be used for any other purpose, even for a purpose of a lower Kedushah (as mentioned on 32a, "Sefer Torah she'Balah... Ein Osin Bahen Mezuzah, l'Fi she'Ein Moridin m'Kedushah Chamurah l'Kedushah Kalah"). (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)