Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 12

1) HALACHAH: MEZUZOS ON HOUSES IN YERUSHALAYIM

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that according to the Tana Kama, houses in Yerushalayim do not become Tamei with Nega'im, because the Torah says that only houses which are built on land which is "Achuzaschem" (Vayikra 14:34) - - "in your possession" -- can become Tamei. Yerushalayim is not considered "Achuzaschem," because it was not divided among the tribes. The Gemara compares the laws of Nega'im to the laws of Mezuzos.

Does that mean that according to the Tana Kama, l'Halachah none of the houses in Yerushalayim are required mid'Oraisa to have Mezuzos?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Mezuzah 6:6) writes that synagogues are exempt from Mezuzos because of their *Kedushah*, just like Har ha'Bayis, the Lishkos, and other sanctified places are exempt, as the Gemara said earlier (11b). Regarding Nega'im, the Gemara (11b) said that a synagogue does not become Tamei with Nega'im because it is not a place that is designated for a defined owner. It is not because of the Kedushah of the place.

Obviously, there is a whole different set of criteria that determines the status of the place with regard to Nega'im than the criteria that determine its status with regard to Mezuzah. Why, then, does the Gemara say that a synagogue of a small town ("Beis K'neses Shel Kefarim") *requires* a Mezuzah? It is a Makom Kadosh!

The Rambam explains that it was the normal manner of synagogues in small towns to be used as guest houses. They did not sanctify the synagogues, for otherwise guests would not be able to sleep there. (The RITVA (11a) offers a similar explanation.)

(b) RASHI (DH d'Kefarim) does not learn like the Rambam. Rashi writes that a synagogue of a small town requires a Mezuzah because it has "Ba'alim Nikarim" -- we know who the owners are, and it is like a house owned by partners. A synagogue of a large town ("Beis ha'Keneses Shel Kerachim"), though, does not have discernible owners. Rashi seems to equate the criteria of Mezuzah to the criteria of Nega'im; regarding both Halachos, if we do not know who owns the house, it is not Chayav.

What about the houses in Yerushalayim, which do not become Tamei with Nega'im? Perhaps the houses in Yerushalayim require Mezuzos, because although the land is not owned by anyone, the houses upon the land do have owners. Why, then, does the Beraisa say that one is not allowed to rent out a house in Yerushalayim? The house has a private owner, so let him rent out the right to dwell in the house! Perhaps the answer is that at the time of the allotment of the land, there was a condition made that whoever builds a house in Yerushalayim and uses the land is not allowed to keep others out. Therefore, one cannot take rental money for a house in Yerushalayim. However, the house itself certainly has a private owner so it does require a Mezuzah.

QUESTION: The Gemara concludes that a synagogue of a small town ("Beis K'neses Shel Kefarim") does not become Tamei with Nega'im, because even if we know who the owners are, that fact that it is owned by a group exempts it from the laws of Tum'as Nega'im. It is like houses on land that was allotted to a tribe but not yet divided among the specific families; those houses do not become Tamei with Nega'im.

Why, then, does the Gemara (11b) say that a house owned by partners *does* become Tamei with Nega'im? According to the Gemara here, a house owned by partners should not become Tamei with Nega'im!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS YESHANIM and TOSFOS HA'ROSH explain that the Gemara here assumes that the two Beraisos are arguing. According to the Beraisa here, a house owned by partners does not become Tamei with Nega'im and is exempt from a Mezuzah.

(b) The TOSFOS YESHANIM adds that perhaps the two Beraisos can be reconciled. A house owned by partners must have a Mezuzah. When the Beraisa says that houses built on land that has not yet been divided does not become Tamei with Nega'im, that is because that land has *never* had an owner, and not merely because that land is jointly owned by more than one person. Similarly, a synagogue of a small town, which is jointly owned is different than a house owned by partners, because no person has the right to reclaim his portion of the synagogue, while a house owned by partners can be split up whenever any of the partners so decide. Therefore it is exempt from Mezuzah.

(c) The RITVA and RI HA'LAVAN explain that indeed, a house owned by partners is exempt from a Mezuzah and does not become Tamei with Nega'im. The only time such a house requires a Mezuzah, or can become Tamei with Nega'im, is when each partner-owner has his own particular section of the house, distinct from everyone else's section. They only share a common door at the main entrance to the property. Thus, each owner is Chayav to put up a Mezuzah on his part of the house.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 286:1) rules that a house owned by partners is required to have a Mezuzah.

12b