Mezuzah: Protective Amulet or Religious Symbol?

Transcription

Martin L. Gordon
Dr. Gordon, AssistantProfessorof Judaic Studies,
at Stern Coliege, Yeshiva University is currently on
SabbaticalLeavein Israel.
MEZUZAH: PROTECTIVEAMULET OR
RELIGIOUSSYMBOL?
Among those ideas enjoying wide circulation in the religious
community, and an ominous popularity, is the conception of.mezuzahas a protectivedevice.Assigning mechanisticpotencyto
the Biblical inscription appearing on the face of the parchment,
as well as to the Divine name Shaddaion the outer side, this view
imputes inherent defensivepower to the very object of mezuzah
per se, claiming for it deterrente{Iectagainstevil. Thus, the mitsvaft appeals as a pressing practical expedient, addressedto the
individual's concern for his personalphysical security and that of
his family. When taken to its extreme, this perspectivecalls for
being "bodek mezuzot" (examining the condition of the inscription) in the wake of tragedy, suggestingthat the unfortunate circumstancesmight be attributable to the inoperative defensesof
an invalid mezuzah.
,
:l-
This perception of mezuzahhas been widely popularized during the past several years in the literature of the Lubavitcher
movement, particularly since the terrorist attack at Ma'alot in
1,974, and more recently since Entebbe. One particular Chabad
brochure, circulated in the wake of Ma'alot, calls upon Jews to
marshal their spiritual "defenses," depicting specific mitsvotand mezuza&is prominent among thsrnl-2s "helmets," which
"military
strategy" advisesz( a battlefield analogy which is more
than figurative). Following the rescueat Entebbe,and a discourse
by the Lubavitcher Rebbe in which the protective view was articulated in learned formulation,3 a student'branchof the movement distributed a flyer suggestingthat the ordeai of the hostages
may be linked to the collective inefficacy of their mezuzoti
TRADITION'.
A Journal ol Orthodox Thought
A koshermezuzahon your door postsnot only makesyour housean
abodefor G-dliness,but is also your security measureeven after you
have left home for the day. And sinceall Jewsare one large body, it
increasesthe securityof the entire Jewishnation. Due to the fact that
were
most of the mezuzotin the homesof hostages,
upon examination,
found to be defective,improperly placed or not on every door post,
cll Jewsshouldchecktheir mezuzotimmediately.+
The protective perception of mezuzah is formulated in the
mystical literature of the medieval period. It appears in works
such as Seler Raziel, associated with the thirteenth century ideology of German Hasidism; in the Zohar, the major work of the
Kabbalah; and accedes to widespread influence via the sixteenth
century teaching of the Ari with its strong anti-demonic element.s
But it is our purpose to examine whether this doctrine is consistent with the ideology of. Chazal, as incorporated in tannaitic
and amoraic literature. Our objective is to determine whether the
protective view may not, indeed, constitute a radical departure
from classic rabbinic thinkins.
I.
- t;: rir :r....1
.:, i:!.,t.
:j.. ,..:
THE ISSUE DEFINED
When we refer to the protectiveview of mezuzah,whosecontroversiality we shall explore, we havg in mind the belief in a
mechanisticpotency inherent within the mezuzahas an objectits parshiyyol (scriptural passages) or the name Shaddai inscribed upon it. Such a view is unique to a particular tendency
in religiousthought of a magical-mysticalorientation,which depicts mezuzah as a screen against shedim (malevolent spirits).6
Our intention is not, of course,to questionthe protective benefits
granted by Divine providence as a reward for the observanceof
mitsvat mezuzah, a fundamental traditional conception, applicable to the observanceof mitsvot generally. Such reward,
however,is not an effect generatedby the mitsvah-objectas such,
nor by the shem (the Divine name) inscribed upon it, but a personal responseof God acknowledgingthe merit of the mekayyem
ha-mitsvah (the executor of the precept), whose religious commitment is reflectedin his fulfillment of the commandment. An
ongoing contemplation of the inscription affixed to the doorpost
fostersa profound relationship with God, with its attendantprovi8
dential dividends. Nor do we question the psychological effect
of mitsvot as deterrentof sin. Certainly one'sregular contact with
the mezuzaftat his door contributesto a sustainedreligious consciousness,enhancing the prospectof virtuous behavior. At issue
is the ascriptionof an occult potency to the mezuzah,which acts,
allegedly, to shield a man against physical harm, a particular
mystical conception, attributing protective power to the heftsa
shel mitsvah (mitsvah-object) per se.
II.
SOURCES
Biblical Passages
Mitsvat mezuzahappearsin two Biblical passages.The context
of the first of thesepassages(Deuteronomy6:4-9) clearly points
to an instructional role for the mitsvah,.no protective function is
in any way suggested.Calling upon the Israelite to devote his
attention to the Divine unity and the love of God-,.And these
words which I command thee this day shall be upon thy hear1"the parshahformulatesseveralpracticesintended to facilitate that
end:
And thoushaltteachthemdiligently
unto thy children,andshalttalk
of themwhenthou sittestin thy house,and whenthou walkestby the
way . . . And thou shaltbind themfor a signuponthy hand,andthey
shallbe for frontletsbetweenthine eyes.And thou ihalt write them
uponthe doorposts
of thy house. . .
j
I
:t1..:i;i.
. r ,
;il
r ::,.1"..
The function of mezuzah, together with that of tefiilin, is to
arouse the religious consciousness,just as diligently teaching
"these
words" to one's children and regularly talking of them
will serveto intensify and perpetuateone'scommitment-.
In fact, the affirmation of the unity principle (Shema yisrael . ..), which opensthe parshah,and the command to ,.love
the Lord thy God with all fhy heart, and with all thv soul, and
with all thy might"-lyhatever the sacrifice, as Rabbi Akiva,s
martyrdom demonstratedT-would preclude a concern for one,s
physical security, even as a passing thought, in the process of
implementing mitsvat mezuzah.sThe meiuzah is to te posted,
TRADITION:
A lournal of Orthodox Thought
just as the tefillin are to be worn, as an expressionof an exclusively spiritual senseof purpose.In this light, recourseto mezuzah
as a device for self-protectionis a distortion of its fundamental
purpose.e
But even where material reward is linked with mezuzah-in
the second passage(Deuteronomy 11 :I3-21)-as a benefit of,
if not reward for, the mitsvah (". . . that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children . . ."),nosuch recompenseis
a gestureof God's beneficenthand ("1will give the rain of your
land in its season. . . And / will give grassin thy fields
.").
The mezuzaft itself does not generate any benefit by the mere
virtue of being positioned strategically at the doorway. Add to
this the plain senseof the parshah,according to which long years
are promised not specifically for mitnat mezuzah, but for an
all-embracingcommitment to the totality of the Divine commandments.
In fact, the Torah implicitly rejects the notion that Divine
namesare possessed
of inherent power,loa strikingly unique position when viewed againstthe background of the literatures of the
ancient world. Among the ancients,divine names were considered a source of supernatural power, which, if activated by the
skilled magical practitioner, could control and coerce even the
gods themselves,who were thought to be reliant for their strength
on thesesecret name formulae.ll The Torah, on the other hand,
in its formulation of the monotheisticideal, deniesany such doctrine. God Himself is the exclusivesource of all power, and His
name(s) is in no way possessedof independentpotency. Divine
namesmerely designateGod and serveto convey to the worshipper a senseof His closeness.l2
A rejection of the doctrine of magical name-powerwas, in fact,
communicatedby God to Moses at the Burning Bush, according
to several scholars.lsHaving been asked to redeem the people,
Moses puts the question to God:
,,:r:-.-:,,:, :
Behold,whenI comeunto the childrenof Israel,and shall say unto
them:The God of your fathershathsentme unto you; and theyshall
sayto me: What is His name?What shallI sayunto them?(Exodus
3 :l 3 )
t0
Mezuzah: Protective Amulet or Religious Syrnbol?
,.
" ,'' ,'.. ,,
,
;
,i..,|r
.
We haveherean allusionon Moses'partto Egyptianname-magic,
ask to know the name of their God, in orcier to tap its potency
for theurgic use. To which God responds:"I shall be [presentl
as I shall be lpresentl" (ibid. 3:14). Let Israel know that I am
no pagan deity, whose power is deftly drawn from the mystery
of his name.I am a personalGod, Who will be dynamicallyavailable.to them and responsiveto them in every crisis, out of a concerned awarenessof their plight. Ironicaliy, then, the protective
notion, which imputes power to the mezuzah inscription itself,
blunts one of the most distinctivefeaturesof the Torah's theological posturein its battle with ancientmythology.
Tannaitic and Amoraic Sourcesla
The protectiveperceptionof mezuzahdoes not appear in the
tannaiticmidrashim.In the .lilrei (Deuteronomy6:9), me7u7ah,
together with tefillin and tsirsfr,serve to foster the bond between
God and Israel. Out of His love for Israel, God has ,,encompassedthem with mitsvot," which serve the people as perpetual
reminders of that love.l5 God is particularly responsiveto Israel, when she expressesher devotion tO Him through thesemifsvot, as reflectedin a parabie depicting Israel as a queen, ,,desirable" unto the king when adorned with her .,jewelry."
The Mekhilla is emphatic in denying any protective interpretation in an analogouscass-the blood sprinkled on the Israelite
doorposts the night of the Exodus.16Noting that God had instructed,"And the blood shall be for you as a sign" (Exodus
12:13), the Mekhilta (ad /oc.) explicatesthe Divine intent:
_As a sign for you, not as a sign for Me." Clearly, explains R.
Ishmael, God, before Whom all is revealed,did nof ,.quire btood
at the entrancesin order to distinguish the Israelite homes on
that wrathful night.l7Rather, the sprinklingof the blood was an
act expressiveof obedienceto the Divine command.ls.a meri_
torious gesture,in reward for which "I shall appear," saysGod,
"and
have compassionle
for you" (Mekhiita, piodus tZ:i3, Z3).
The Mekhilrc (Exodus 12:23), in fact, compares the two
sa5ss-fhg blood on the doorposts and the parihiyyot of our
1l
TRADITION:
A tournal ol Orthodox Thought
mezuzah-in terms typical of classic rabbinic reasoning, measuring the respective weight of each as a mitsvaft, not as an
apotropaic rite. Raising the issueof Jewish suffering, the Mekhil/d posesa question: Why is it that destruction never penetrated
the Israelite homes in Egypt, which were sprinkled wiih blood
(a lessermitsvah, since it was applicable only on that single occasion,only at night and not in future generations),while suffering does befall Jewish homes through the ages, which are
adorned with mezuzah (a greater mitsvah, since it comprisesten
Divine names, is applicable through both day and night and
for all generations)? Now, if the intent of the Mekhilta had
been to weigh respective strengths of deflective power, rather
than degreesof importance as a mitsvah, there would have been
no significanceto the frequencyor infrequencywith which each
ritual applies. Clearly, there would be no reason for the blood
on the doorposts on the night of the Exodus to have been considered relatively any less potent by virtue of its inapplicability
on any other occasion; or, conversely, for mezuzaftto be considered any more potent at a given moment by virtue of its regularity.It is obvious that both mezuzahand dam (the blood) are
being evaluated by the Mekhilta for their respectiveimportance
as Divine commands-or religious experiences,if you will. The
greater frequency of mezuzah, its perpetuity as a mitsvah ledorot-even its incorporation of ten Divine names with their
inspirational and instructional value-reflect a mitsvaft deemed
more vital and impactual in terms of drawing the Jew closer to
God. No protective function is at all involved.
Particularly in its solution to the question-why Jewish suffering in the face of mitsvat mezuTahl-the Mekhiha makes
clear that the fortunes of Israel are, after all, in no way tied to
some specialpower of the mezuzah:
Whatis thecause?
Our sins,asit is said:"But your sinshaveseparated
between you and your God" (Isaiah 59:2)
Mezuzah is effective as is any mitsvah only when its observance
is indicative of a general devotion to the service of God. No
particular mitsvah-act or mitsvah-object can generate a pro-
12
Mezuzah: ProtectiveAmulet or Religious Symbol?
tective effect, when a man is unworthy of Divine beneficence.
And when he is worthy, it is God Who will protect him as a
gestureof His personalconcern.Thus the Mekhilta text depicts
the circumstancesin which evil is renderedimpotent as attributable not to some inherent effect of the mezuzah itself or its
Divine names,but, as the Biblical phrase itself would suggest,
to a free act of the Divine will: "He would not permit the mashhit . . ." (Exodus l2:23).2o
Nor do talmudic sourceslend support to the protectiveview.
One particular baraita (Menahot 43b), quoted as the theme of
mezuzahby virtually all post-talmudicworks dealingwith the
mitsvah, defines its effect exclusively in terms of moral restraint:
R. Eliezer ben Ya'akov says: Anyone who has tefillin upon his head
and tefillin on his arm, tsirsi/ on his garment and a mezuzaft at his
entrance has a strong reinforcement against sin.21
A passageappearingin the JerusalemTalmud (Pe'ah I:l)
might seem to suggest,at first blush, the protectivepotencv of
mezuzah. The account is related of Artavan, Parthian king
(probably the V),22 who sent"Rabbenuha-Kado.sh"(ostensibly
R. Judah ha-Nasi) a pricelessjewel, riquesting an item of comparable value in return. Rebbi, reciprocating,sent Artavan a
mezuzah,to which the king reacted with disbelief: ,The item
I sent you was of immeasurableworth, and you send me something worth a pittance?"To this Rebbi replied:
Neither the things you nor I might desire [material wealth] are comparable to it Ithe mezuTah]; and, furthermore, what vou have sent me
requires.my protection, whereas what I have sent you protects you,
even while you sleep.23
A surface reading of the above account could suggestthe
protectiveview; but this is not the case. The point Rebbi was
expressingwas not the mysteriouspotencyof a religiousinscrip_
tion-though to a pagan king this might have been the superfcial sense;rather, the enlightening spiritual effect of the words
of Torah, representedby and articulatedwithin the passagesof
the mezuzah,2r as well as their providential dividlnds when
13
TRADITION:
adoptedas the guide of one'slife. This is confirmedby the verse
cited by Rebbi at the conclusionof his response-"When thou
walkest it shall lead thee, rvhen thou liest down it shall watch
over thee
," (Proverbs 6:22)-a passagewhich lauds the
merit of wisdom or Torah study,2*"as is clear from the context
of the sugyah, establishingthe superiority of such study even
over the practice of mitsvot.25Rebbi was far from any attempt
at selling the mechanisticpotency of a specificma'asehmitsvah
or heltsa shel mitsvah.He rvas projecting the Torah, generally,
as the key to an entire corpus of redemptiveva1ues.26
The protectiveview of.nteaeah is suggestedin one talmudic
passage(Menahot 33b), but as the non-normativeposition.The
context is a statementof Rava to the effect that a mezuz.ah
should be affixed to the doorpost within a handbreadthof the
entrance.Two explanationsare offered in the Talmud for this
requirement:
Rabbanansay: That he encounterthe mezuzah(the mitsvah) with
immediacyR
. . H a n i n a o f S u r a s a y s : That Ithe mezuzahf protect
i t h e e n t i r eh o u s e l .
R. Hanina of Sura (sixth _ueneration
ar.nora)explainsthe firsthandbreadth principle in terms of the security of the home,
w^h9se
interior is, apparently,maximally embracid by the
Fower
of the mezuzah,when it is positionedat the very threshold.Rabbanan, however, the collective majority, do not subscribero
this interpretation.For them, Rava'i considerationis an enthusiasm for mitsvot, expressedin a desireto encounter the mezuzah with greatestimmediacyas one entersthe home. The predominant interpretation,then, implicitly denies any notion of
a protectiveforce generatedby mezuzah.2T
The rejection of R. Hanina of Sura's rigidly apotropaic (or
mechanisticallyprotective) position,on the pait oi the^mesader
ha-sugyah (the talmudic editor of the passage),Doy, indeed,
be inferred from a statementcited e|id.) ln immloiate sequenceto the Suran view:
Considerhow the mannerof mortal men is unlike that of the
Holy
One BlessedBe He. The mannerof mortal men is such that
a king
t4
dwellswithin [his palace],whilehisservants
guardhim from without.
Not so the mannerof the Holy OneBlessed
Be He, Whoseservants
dwellwithin ftheirhomes],whileHe guardsthemfrom without.As it
is said:"TheLord guardsthee. . ." (Psalml2l:5).
Unlike the view of R. Hanina of Sura, this passage,quoted
in the name of R. Hanina b. Hama, a studentof R. Judah haNasi, formulates a providential position, identifying the source
of protection as God Himself, Whose presenceis only symbolized by the mezuzah.2s
(In fact, title to the Divine protectionis
not associatedby R. Hanina b. Hama with the specific fulfillment of mitsvat mezuzahper se, nor with the performanceof
any one particular mitsvah, for that matter, but with an all-inclusive commitment to the serviceof God, as suggestedby his
reference to the Lord's "servants," who dwell within.se) By
quoting R. Hanina b. Hama at this point, the mesaderha-sugyah
appearsto have intended,in effect, to override the mechanistic
view of R. Hanina of Sura, either by replacingit with the more
acceptableprovidentialposition or by redefiningit innocuously
in providential terms (contrary, of course, to R. Hanina of
Sura'sown intent).30
Another talmudic passage(Avodah Zarah 11a) places the
identical statementof R. Hanina b. Hama on the tonsue of
onkeles the Proselyte. onkeles is depicted as having sucleeded
in making Jews of successivetroops of Roman soldiers sent to
seize him following his conversion.In the finar such encounter,
the soldiers are attracted by the mezuzahon the doorpost, upon
which onkeles had placed his hand. Inquiring as to its significance, they are moved to conversionby his st-atementof G6d's
protective concern for Israel. Here too no prophylactic power
^clear,
is attributed to the mezuzah-objectas such. In iact, it is
as well, from onkeles' earlier exchangewith the troops that God
Himself is the subject of discussion.onkeles cites ihe Biblical
passagedepicting how God walked before Israel in the desert,
"with
a pillar of fire to give them light,, (Exodus 13:21), which
he contrasts with the distant air of a mofial king, who would
never serve his people.with any such gesture unbecoming his,
station. Be it His illumination of their way in the desert oI ui,
protection of their homes, God is a personally interested
Guardl5
TRADITION:. A lournal ol Orthodox Thought
ian of Israel, Whose concern is articulated in the inscription on
the doorpost,a personalGod, responsiveto all who place their
trust in Him.31
We have cited severalsugyot to demonstratethat any surface
impressionsuggestingthe protectiveview of mezuzahdoes not
stand up under investigation.There are, furthermore, several
sugyot which implicitly exclude the protective notion. The case
is cited (Yoma 11a) of an examinerof mezuzot,who was apprehendedby the Roman quaestorwhile inspectingthe mezuzot
posted at the gates of the city of Sepphoris.The Talmud, noting
that the authorities leveled a costly fine upon him, is disturbed
by the issue of Divine justice, pointing to the principle of R.
Eleazar, "Those engaged in a mission of. mitnah are immune
to injury." Now, were mezuzah considered endowed with a
distinctive,mechanistically-protective
power, the Talmud would
surely have pursued the issue in those terms, rather than confining its inquiry to the general providential principle of R.
Eleazar.
Similarly, the talmudic criteria determining the schedule for
examining a mezuzah (to insure that the inscription remains
intact) betray indifference toward any notion of protection
from evil as the function of the mitsvah. The mezuiah of. an
individual is to be inspected twice in seven years, and that of
a community, twice in fifty years (ibid ). The rationale underlying these time intervals is based on a projection that the inscription is not likely to become alteredin the interim, and therefore a hezkat kashrut (presumption of legitimacy) is established.
Now, had the Talmud subscribed to the magical-mystical perception of mezuzahas an anti-demonicdevice,whose mvsteriou,
potency requires a flawless inscription,32it surely would not
have relied on the probabilities implicit in hazakah, but would
have.required a regular scrutiny of the parchment to guarantee
the fact of a valid mezuzah.
The twice-in-fifty-years examination period prescribed for a
public mezuzah (ibid.), as interpreted by seviral rishonim, is
particularly irreconcilable with any protective notion. These
commentatorsexplain that no more frequent inspection schedule
could have been realistically imposed on a community, because
16'
its members tend, individually, to shirk public responsibility.33
Now, were demonic incursions of concern, no such reasoning
would have-prevailed.Certainly, a concern for self-protection
would have been expected to elicit the diligent participation
of all. Clearly, the potency of the mezuzahinscription was not
maintained by Chazal. A hezkat kashrut, the halakhic presumption of. the integrity of the text, was deemed sufficient.
Similarly indicative of a lack of concern on the part of talmudic tradition for any protective role served by mezu4h are
the severalinstanceswhere a residenceor particular rooms are
absolvedof the mitsvah becauseof structural or functional technicality. A severelyarched doorway, for example,requires no
mezuzah(Eruvin 11b, Yoma 11b); nor does a rented dwelling
(outside of.Eretz Yisrael) or hotel lodging, prior to thirty days
(Menahot 44a). Add to this the predominantview amongstthe
rishonim to the effect that even following thirty days the obligation of the tenant, who does not own the residence,is only
mide-rabbanan(rabbinic).3aCertainly, had the halakhah per_
ceived mezuzah as anti-demonic, the structure of the doorway
would have been irrelevant in determining hiyyuv mezuzah; and
a tenant too would have been obligated to affix one, or would
at least have been advised to do so in the name of "sakkanah,'
(danger).35It is first the mystically-orientedlegal literature following the period of the rishonim that introduc-esthe suggestion
that the tenant affix
mezuzah prior to thirty days f"o",pur-his "mazikin,'
poses of protection from
(injurious ipiriis)_u
,..ommendation which precipitates considerablecontroversy, raising the issue whether such a procedure might not, in fa.t,
U.
inconsistentwith particular haiakhic norms.Su
The non-protective perception of. mezuzah is reflected, as
w_ell,in a baraita (Menahot 32b), describing a pious practice
of the houseof Monobaz, ruler of Adiabene, *ho irad converted
to. Judaism. During its travers, the royal entourage would
carry
with it a mezuzah, affixed to a staff, which *ouiJ
U" ,"i uf-i"
of any inn. in which they might d lodgi;g ;;er_
l:,9oo^T,uy
rught. Atthough a transient residence is absolved
of- mizuzah,
this practice was undertaken, explains the baraita,l,riiii)-n_
mezuzah" (as a remembrance of mezuzah), a devout-effort
to
I7
TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
perpetuatethe mitsvah even when not actually operative.Clearly, were mezuzah perceived as endowed with an amulet-like
potency, the baraita would have pointed to the motive of shemirah, a protective concern.
The Mishnah (Kelim l7:16) makesreferenceto the practice
of encasing a mezuzah within a staff, which Toselot yom Tov
(seventeenthcentury commentaryto the Mishnah) suggestswas
carried about in the belief that the procedure was .,a mitsvah
and self-protective."37The expianation, however, of the meforeshei ha-Mishnah, generally, such as R. Samson of Sens, Rosh
and Bertinoro, omits any such interpretation.consistent with
the larger context of the Mishnah, which deals with illicit, deceptivepractices,thesecommentatorsexplain the purposeof the
mezuzah, in this case, as a camouflagefor contraband (such
as jewelry) concealedwithin the staff.3sThus, no inferenceof
a protective motive may legitimately be drawn. Indeed, even
Tosefot Yom Tov's readin-eof the Mishnaic text,3s^differentiating the referenceto mear:ah from the list of deceptiveorac_
tices, does not compel a protective interpretation, since the
staff might have been carried about simply zekher li_mezuzah,
as in the case of the house of Monobai,'above. Finally, even
if we were to account for the practice, as Tosefot yim Tov
suggests,in terms of the protective motive, this would not
con_
firm the procedure as a normative one. R. David Hayyim
corin-in
aldi (eighteenth century, Italy) already observes,
reaction
to the suggestionof Tosefot yom Tov: i'If th.re were
such persons (carrying mezuTaft about for self-protection) they
were
fools, comparable to those of whom Rambam wrote . . .,i30
We have demonstrated,then, that the Talmud nowhere (with
the exception of one late view, overridden by the sugyah\
as_
prophylactic power to the mezuzah as such. ariy prot.._
:Ii!.:
trve benelits connected with mezuzah are manifestitions
of
Divine providence, reward for the execution of the
mitsvah and
the
-contemplationof the orinciples contained in its inscrip,ior.
fn fact,_the Dir.;ne pro-ise of long years, with
which mitsvat
mezuzah is associated.tt
il immediate sequencein Deuteronomy
ll:20-21, is linked by the Sifreiat (as well
as one talmudic
viewa2)in more fundamental connection with
the study of Torah
18
Mezuzah: ProtectiveAmulet or ReligiottsSymbol?
'.
i
:r."
(ibid. 11:19), the previousreferent,which is, after all, one of
the principal values inscribed on the parchment. fn an even
broader sense,the promise of long life actually refers, in terms
of the literal senseof the text, to the entire parshalz (from verse
13),** and its benefitsare granted for an all-embracingcommitment to the Divine law, the classic rabbinic principle of
kabbalat ol mitsvot.aa
Until this point, we have dealt with the implications of lalfiUing the mitsvah of meutzah. which, we have shown, is not
depictedat all, either in the Torah or in the mainstreamthought
of. Chazal, as a mechanistically-effective
deterrent against evil.
But the converseis also true. A lailure to fulfill the mitsvah is
nowhere said to exposea man defenselessly
to affiiction. The
consequences
of omitting mezuzah are framed in providential
terms, as a possibleforfeiture of the Divine promiseof extended
years. For even in terms of Divine providence,the Talmud indicatesno substantivepunishmentfor the failure to post a mezuzah, unless a consistentll, delfierate circumvention or negation of the mitsvah is intended.a;The obligation of mea,tzah involves, by halakhic definition, a kiyyum aseh (.a positive performance), not an issuraseh (a culpableviolation).a6Thus, the
suggestion,according to one talmudic view, that the death of
children may be attributableto derelictionwith respectto mezuzah (Shabbat 32b)17is not to be taken in simpiisticallyliteral terms.asNo abrupt, punitive shortening of life is intended.
Meiri notes4ethat it is a pedagogic method of Chazal to mag_
nify the consequencesof spiritual or moral laxity, in short, jolt_
ing statements,for maximum impact. R. Hillel Herz (seven_
teenth century, Poland) observesthat a normal life span cannot
be precluded for one who has omitted mezuzah, since there is
no legitimate logical inference from the promise of arikhat
yamim (extension of days) to kitsur yamim (diminution
of
days). The only valid inferenceis a retention of the life span
as originally designed("lo yirbu ve-lo yitkatsri,l.lo Thus Me_
iri's further obsegvation-which is borne out by the context
and tone of the talmudic discussion(ad toc.)-that even in its
most severesense' any such punishment referred to in the sugyah applies to a defiant, categorical rejection of. mezuzah
in
19
TRADITION:
A Iournal of Orthodox Thought
principle, not to a caseof laxity, and certainly not to a case of
inadvertenterror.'rlBe that as it may, the issueis the quality of
one's relationshipwith God, expressedin and fosteredby a mitsvah such as mezuzah-not the operational condition of the mezuzah as a security device.
It is againstthis backgroundthat we must evaluatea passage
in Targum Yerushalmi I (Pseudo-lonathan), linking a soldier's
failure to have fulfilled mitsvat mezuzah with threatening consequenceson the battlefield. In translation of Deuteronomv
20:5, the Targum reads:
Who is the man who has built a new house. but has not affixed to it
a mezuzah thereby completing it, let him go and return to his house,
lest he incur guilt thereby and die in battle, and another man complete
it.
As we have already noted, talmudic principle denies Divine
punishmentfor the omission of a positive command, unless a
consistentlydeliberate rejection of the mitsvah is intended. So
that unless this Targum passagepresumessuch a negative motive, its position is inconsistentwith our talmudic norm. Indeed,
the very substanceof the Targum's rendering of these several
versesis, in fact, in conflict with the tarinaitic is well as amoraic
tradition,s2according to which the three categoriesof persons
excusedfrom the battlefield depart not becauseof any sin they
have incurred,s3but becauseof the special nature of their personal circumstances,warranting deferment from combat.daBe
that as it may, the severeimpiications of an unaffixed mezuzah
are depicted even in this passagein providential terms, as retribution by God for an unfulfilled obligation,5i not in terms of
any protective potency within the mezuzalr-object.bo
_ Ominous implications are suggestedfor a missing mezuzah
by an opinion of Tosalot in its exposition of a particular baraita
(Bava Metsia 102a); but a formidable g.oni" consensusimplicitly rejects this interpretation. The baiaita in question prescribes that upon vacating a premises, one should not remlove
the mezuzot (considering that another party will be taking up
residencethere). The basis for this rulef arguesTosafot, is-apotropaic: "Since injurious spirits enter a house lacking d mezuiah,
20
removing it is tantamount to injuring those who will live in the
house."s7For R. Aha Ba'al ha-She'iltotand R. Hai Gaon, however, the baraita entertained no such considerations.To their
mind the issueis a much more sober one-a concern for bizayyon mitsvah; it is deemed an affront to a functioning mitsvahobject that its service-be prematurely terminated. Thus, R. Aha
and R. Hai reason,if the mezuzah wlll be immediately installed
(hence,put back into service)in his new residence,the vacating
party is entitled to remove it.53There is, therefore,no compelling
evidencefor the protective position from this talmudic passage.
Nor is the protective function of mezuzah a valid inference
from the following baraita:
If he hangs lthe mezuzah] on a staff [against the doorway.], or places
it behind the doorway, it is a danger and no mitsvah ltttiiahot-32b).
Rashi accounts for the "danger" in terms of injurious spirits,
which are free to attack a house whose mezuzah is not affixed
within the doorway as halakhically required.5eR. Tam, how_
ever, criticizes Rashi's understanding of the baraita, from a
textual point of view, suggestinginstead that the danger is a
practical one-a mezuzalt projecting in so awkward a position,
as in either of the two casesdescribed,-islikely to causi a head
injury to anyone passing through the entranci.60R. Tam's re_
jection of Rashi's view is upheld, in the literature of the medieval period, by the Ashkenazic halakhic consensus.6l
we have established,then, that an examination of the classic
literature of.Chazal-tannaitic and amoraig rnnlglisl-yields no
sound basis for the protective conception of mezuzah. With the
exceptionof the overriden view of R. Hanina of Sura, the sources
are either oblivious of any such notion, or implicitly deny the
doctrine. No inherent potency is ascribed to the' parshiyyot
(scriptural passages)of the mezuzah,not to mention
the Di_
vine name shaddai, whose appearanceon the outer side of the
parchment is not even recorded as talmudic practice. The in_
scription of this name, which mystical sourceJconsider critical
for-the efficacy of the protective function, emerged,in fact,
no
earlier than the geonic period,62and is referred io in the
liierature of the rishonim as a custom rather than a normative
re-
2l
TRADITION:
quirement.osEven those halakhic works-dating no earlier than
the end of the thirteenth century-which record the mnemonic
interprerationoi Shaddai as Shomer Dirat (Iater, Daltot) Yisrael (Guardian of the Dwelling Place of the Israelite),6{take
it simpiy as a designationof God and attribuie to it no potency.o'
Thus, the function of mitsvat mezuzah remained, during the
talmudic period, an expressionof commitment to and reiiance
upon God,'a profound inner posture,in responseto which the
providential Divine hand promises its personally protective
favor.
III
EVALUATION
The protecti'review is rooted, of course,in a belief in shedim
(malevolent spirits), a popular phenomenonin the talmudic
period. However,even where they may have sharedthe common
belief in the demonic, the rabbis of the Talmud never permitted
the function of ffLitsvotto be interpretedin theseterms. Chazal
ciearly separatedthe realm of religion from that of the occuit.
They never consideredthe phenomenonof shedim a theological
category,tc be counteredby the allegediyanti-demonicpotency
of mitsvot.65"The beiief in evii spirits-a universal tendency
amongst the intelligentsiaas weil as the masses,prior to the
modern age-was a speculativeattempt (not specificallyJewish)
to come to terms with the severe realities of the human condition, such as illness, physical injury, mental derangement,
death (phenomena which the modern mind understands in
clearer terms as attributable to disease-producingmicroorganisms, human negligence,psycho-emotionalstrain, the natural
aging process). Whatever procedureswere prescribed by the
empirical method in an eftort to counter the feared demonic
threat, such as the inscription of amulets and the pronouncement of incantations, m"itsvotwere not among them. Mezuza|t
was never seen by Chazai as an apotropaic ritual, any more
than the contemporaryrabbinic mind would vibw it as a potent
defenseagainst epidemic contagia or as an anti-terrorist device.
The Jew today, like his talmudic predecessor,affixes a mezuzah
to his doorpost, as he fulfills mitsvot generally, to express his
22
:
,,; ,.', ',li.,,t,l
;..:: ,.' : .-.:' ...l:,, 1,.',
.
t:
..
'-i
-
:.
._. ..::,
commitmentto God, Who respondsto the sincerityof that commitment with a promise of personal protective concern over his
life. It is this providential response,originating in GorJ, not in
the mitsvah-object,that constitutesthe source of our securitysustainingthe physician'sskilled therapeuticeffort, supporting
Israel'sdeft counter-guerrillainitiative, and interveningdirectlv
when human agency offers no hope. Thus, whether the nature
of the threat be described as a "shed" or a virus. a "mazik" or
a flesh-and-bloodterrcrist, it is the Divine hand, of whose favor
one has been deemedworthy, coupled with competenthuman
initiative, that thwarts its clesigns.
Neue. did the classicrabbinic
tradition consider the mezuzah inscription itself a source of
protection.
A serious ideological difficulty plagues the protective viewnamely, its corrosive implicationsfor the quality of the Godman relationship.While the material experiencesof our lives
involve us in an impersonal cause-and-effs6f
nsxu5-the inexorable necessityof natural law, the spiritual dimension of life
transcendsmechanicalcausation.The promise of relieious experiencemust never be confusedwith the prog.u-*Jd effects
of an automated securiqz system. Certainly, mitsrat mezuzah
has its formal requirements-sirtut, 1tiyyot ke-tsuratan, hekel
gevil, etc. (conditions intended to insure the quality of the in_
scription). But once properly constitutedas a heltsaihel mitsvah
(mitsvah-object), the mezuzah functions not as a self_sufficient
apparatus, but as a vehicle of religious inspiration. Indeed, the
whole is greater than the sum of its parts. ihe otiyyot (letters),
the shemot (Divine names), the parshiyyot of the mezuzah are
componentsof a conceptualsysiem,communicatingthe funoa_
mentals of Judaism-"smiysfu shel Torah,,,u6whici thrusts the
Jew, who pondersits content,6'beyond his earthrycircumstance
into regions of spirituai encountei. onc" rendezvous has been
achieved, the booster vehicle is no longer consequential. The
dynamic center of the mitsvah is not in the objeci (the me,zu_
zah),but in the subject (the Jew), who has been inspired. The
benefits accruing from mezuzah are measured not in terms
of
th: ?otency of_its letters as such, but in terms of the potency
of the spirit which the letters have, hopefuily, cultivateo.
ano
23
TRADITION:
it is, indeed, in the depth of the spiritual relationship-and only
in that relationship-that the source of protection ultimately
lies. Having encountered God, the Jew, to the degree that he
has drawn meaning from the mezuzah, will be under the protective grace of His hashgahah (Divine providence).68 The
trouble with perceiving meluTah as a protective device is that
it replaces the depth quality of the religious experiencewith a
technical gesture,Ge
where the anticipated response comes not
from a personally-concerned,omnipotent Ribbono shel Olam,
Who acknowledgesthe inner commitment of the individual who
has posted it, but from a mechanizedinstrument. which alleeedly generatesa defensive screen-for whom it may "on...-nprovided, of course, it's in good working order!
One may argue that one elementdoes not precludethe other,
that the mezuzah itself yields a direct protective effect, in addition to its primary function of fostering a relationship'with God.
Indeed, are there not many mitsvot that provide miterial benefit? But this argument is not tenable. There is, to be sure, a
category of.mitsvot which produce direct material benefit-mitsvot such as ma'akeh (Deuteronomy22:8), lo ta,amod al dam
re'ekha (Leviticus 19:8), tsedakqh (Leviricus 25:35-36; Deu_
teronomy 15:7-8), etc. But such mitsVot,rooted in a concern
for safety, a senseof social responsibility,achievetheir practical
ends by marshalling man's natural capacities-his iechnical
skill (to erect a secureparapet), his reservoir of moral courage
(to savehis fellow from death), his financial resources(to assist
a needy neighbor)-in a dynamic human initiative. But the al_
leged power of mezuzah to provide material security does not
tap the resourcefulnessof the human initiative. It appealsrather
to the senseof the occult in man, encouraging a^passivereliance'. on supposed mysterious forces lateni in-theînscription,
rather than a responsible practical concern for realistic iafety
standards. (The reflex reaction of being ,,bodek mezLtzot,,'ex_
amining the condition of the inscription in the wake of misfortuRe, such as-'illnessor accident, can have the subtle effect of
distracting the individual from sufficient attention to the conlrilutory hurnan factors underlying his circumstance.?1)The
halakhic concern for physical proteition would require, in the
' ' ; ' : .
24
:" :;
t
:_
t .,:,,..,,'
, , r ' : ,
:;
,
':ri..
.
.;:.-,:::
' , i : . ; r
:l:;:. ;:ir',..,r':"r::i'::..,"i,
, r : . . r t . . ' : l ' 1 : : . , .
interest of a securehome, measuressuch as the installation of a
dependable lock on one's door, a reliable burglar alarm system, etc.-just as it prescribesthe removal of a faulty ladder
or vicious dog from one's premi5s572-1sf the inscription of a
shem (Divine name).
To claim that mezuzaftfunctions in the sameway as a secure
door lock or a potent medicine-a kind of "super-/sy6"-ig
begging the question. Talmudic thought does not subscribe to
the occult principle, according to which shemot and mitsvot generate a set of mysterious mechanistic forces.73Chazal speak of
mitsvot channeling existing natural forces toward moral or spiritual ends, be they forces such as those of social responsibility,
moral courageor technical know-how, noted above,or the forces
of spiritual communion, which characterizethe dynamics of the
ritual mitsvor. rndeed, it is exclusively as a spiriiual force that
mitsvot such as mezuzah function, fostering i relationship between the Jew and God. Thus the parable cited earlier, dipicting Israel as a queen, "desirable" unto her kine when adoined
with_her'jewelry" (mezuzah, tefillin, tsitsitll+"-u relationship
which yields an intensified religio-moral sensitivity, providing,
as we have seen, "a strong reinforcement against sin.itu
Clearly, mezuzah, together with teftllin ind. tsitsit, and.mits_
vot such as tefillah (prayer) and keriat shema, comprise initiatives of a spiritual nature, whose purpose is to elevaie man beyond the short-rangeconcern for his immediate material circumstance to a transcendentrelationship with God, with its attendant enhancementof his consciousnessof sin. Mezuzah is concerned with the quality of Jewish life, not its security. To claim,
then, that the Divine inscription, which directs the attention of
the Jew-to God, is possessedof its own potency, generatingprotective_belefits,perverts a spiritual instrumentili[, into u".ulti.
is precisely this type of conception which R. Samson
1na1m-.?i_{t
Rafael Hirsch attacks in hiJ Nineteen Leilers, when
he criticizes the kabbalistic position for its perception of. mitsvot
as a
"magical
mechanism," a means of "inhuencing o. i.rirtin!- trr.osophical worlds and anti-worrds."??A berief-in the pote?cy
of
the shem fits int'o neither of the two classic categories'of.
mitsvah
initiative we have referred to. rt fosters neithei the
resourceful
25
TRADITION;
A lournal ol Orthodox Thought
practical effort toward physical security, nor the profoundly
spiritual bond with God.
The point is that the only legitimate criterion by which the
efficacy of. mitsvat mezuzah should be measured is the depth
relationshipwith God that it has inspired.While the technical
accuracyof the inscription is important, to be sure, nonetheless,
the consequences
bf a pesul (a disqualification)cannot be of
such ominous proportionsas the protectiveview would have us
believe.The essenceof the issueis this. If a Jew has affixed a
mezuzah to his doorpost, thus-as far as he knows-having
fulfilled the mitsvah, but unbeknown to him one of the letters
is actually pesulah (invalid), or eventually becomespesulah,
by what perceptionof the man-God relationshipcan it be said
that he is rendereddefenseless
thereby against the incursion of
evil? Even in purely halakhicterms,ii the parchmenthad been
carefully checked before it was posted, the mezuzaftwould enjoy a hezkat kashrut (a presumptionof legitimacy), requiring
reexaminationonly twice in sevenyears.?s
But evenif the parchment had not originally been checked, so that no hazakah was
legitimatelyestablished,and the inscription was, in fact, fauity
from the outset, the most that can be said is that the mitsvah
has been unfulfilled; but such a circurmtanceis not classifiedas
a sin-the obligation of mezuzah involves, by halakhic definition, a kiyyum aseh, not an issuraseh,as we hive ssgnze-n61 i5
Divine punishmentindicated,exceptwhere the omissionreflects
a conscious,consistentlydeliberateeffort to circumvent or negate the mitsvah.soThus, to contend that despite the honest intentions of the dweller and his freedom from culpability, he is,
nonetheless, u precariousstate by virtue of inoperativedein
fensesis to distort the religiousconceptinto a form of magic.
It is one thing to fault a man who has failed to estabfiJhthe
legitimacy of the inscription for raxity, and adjudge his relationship with God diminished to the d.gre. ttrai nJ *ur .r.gtigent in seeing the mitsvah through properly (and yet, "u.n'on
this count he.may be innocent,having iefieO on ,orn" un..put_
able dealer); indeed, a heftsashet mitivaft deservesand requîres
scrutiny in its production. But it is quite another to declare
him
defenselessby virtue of the techniiar deficiency, ana tnen
to
26
Mezuzah: Proiective Amulet or Religious Symbol?
compound the issue by suggestingthe most dire consequences
for his inadvertency,sl
when the true theologicalyardstick should
be the depth quality of his shemirat mitsvot (religious observance) generally,and his overall relationshipwith God. Bedikat
levavot (an examination of hearts)-not bedikat mezuzot-is
the classicJewishresponseto the vicissitudesof life.
NOTES
l . I n k a b b a l i s t i c d o c t r i n e , a l l n i t s t , o t r v e r e e v e n t u a l l y a s s i g n e da m e c h a n i s t i c
f u n c t i o n a s p r o g r a m m e d e l i c i t o r s o f D i v i n e f o r c e s ; b u t n t e z u z a hs e r v e d a s o e c i a l
a p o t r o p a i c f . n c t i o n i n p r e - k a b b a l i s t i cm y s t i c a l t e a c h i n g . s e e b e l o r v , n o t e 5 .
"The
Fi'e-Poirrt Nlitzvah Campaign," distribured by Nlitzvah campaig'
2'
Headquarters, Lubavitch Yo.th organizarion, iiO lastern parkway, Brooklvr,
N. Y.
I i::,t
3 . P u b l i s h e d i n L i h h u t e i S i h o t ( . E k e u ,b 7 Z 6 ) .
4. "Jews and NIiracles," Lubar.irch Studenr Organization, Nlorristorvn, N.
J.
( w h e n t a k e n t o i t s p o p u l a r e x t r e m e , t h e b e d i h a t n r e z , z a h n o t i o n c o r r e l a t e ss p e cific phvsical disabilities rvith particular rvords on the helaf
Iparchment] rvhich
are said to be pesulot.) similarlv, Aryeh Kaplan, in an article entitled ..Kutzo
Shel Yud-'fhe Point of a Yud," The Jeu'ish obserrer (Tisttrei b736-sept. 1975),
published by Agudath Israel: "\\'henever recur.rent tragedy occurs in a house,
o u r s a g e sh a v e p r e s c r i b e d a c a r e f u l i n s p e c t i o n o f i t s m e z u z o t , ( p . 2 g ) . A l s o r e flective of the mechanistic protecti'e 'ierv is a short story feature by Basya Lenc h e v s k y , " N { o s h e ' sS e c r e t , " a p p e a r i n g i n O l o m e i n u ( T a m m u z 5 7 3 5 - J u n e 1 9 7 5 ) ,
the day school magazine published by Torah l.lmesorah, in rvhich a severe storm
levels all the tents at a religious summer camp, except for the one to which a
mezuzah had been affixed; even though, as the author concedes, a temporary
dwelling-the camp stay rvas rhree weeks-requires no nrczuzah.
5. In a separatestudy, being prepared for publication, we treat the concepr
o f . r n e z u , z a ha s i t i s d e v e l o p e d i n t h e m , v s t i c a l a n d k a b b a l i s t i c l i t e r a t u r e o f t h e
medieval period.
6. The development of the apotropaic (or mechanisticallyprotective) conception in kabbalistic sourcesis much more complex, involving the dynamics of
celestial sefirah activity set into motion by the mezuzah. rn a pre-kabbalistic.rvork
such as seler Raziel, on the orher hand. the aporropaic function is a simpler,
direct efiect of the Shaddad inscription. See previous note.
7. Berakhot 6lb. R. Akiva, at rhe moment of martyrdom, saw in his supreme
sacrifice the ultimate fulfillment of the biblical command to love God ,,with all
thy soul"-"even to rhe point of His taking thy soul.,'
27
TRADITION:
';.
r'
8 . O f c o u r s e , t h i s i s n o t t h e f u n d a m e n t a l i s s u e .O n e c o u l d a r g u e t h a t g r a n t e d ,
self-protection should not be one's ntotiue in performing the mitsvah, but that
n o n e t h e l e s ss u c h p r o t e c t i o n , d e r i v i n g f r o m t h e m e z u z a h , i s - a b y - p r o d u c t o f t h e
mitsvah. However, in the following paragraph of the text, rve indicate that even
as a post. facto benefit, shentirah as a potency within the mezuzah has no basis
in the Torah.
9. This is precisely the thrust of Rambam's critique of the protective view of
mezuzalt'. "For
they have treated a major mitsvah, namely the [affirmation
o f t h e ] u n i t y o f t h e n a m e o f t h e H o l y O n e B l e s s e dB e H e . . . a s i f i t w e r e a n
amulet for their personal advantage ..."
(Hilkhot trIe:uzah5:4). His criticism
is not confined to mezuzot featuring angelic and magical interpolations, but applies equally to a protective perception of the standard mezuzah (see Haggahot
Maimuniyyot, Hilhhot Tefillin, | :i).
9a. According to one talmu(lic vierv, the promise of long years relates specif i c a l l y t o t n i t s a a t t n e z u z a h r v i t h w h i c h i t i s l i n k e d i n i m m e d i a t e s e q u e n c e .B u t
t h i s v i e w i s n o t u n a n i m o u s . S e e d i s c u s s i o nb e l o w i n t h e b o d y o f o u r p a p e r .
1 0 . I n a s t u d y t o b e p u b l i s h e d s h o r t l y , t h i s w r i t e r d e m o n s t r a t e st h a t t h e r a b binic mainstream during the talmudic period rejected the notion of Divine-name
p o t e n c y . T h e l i m i t e d n u m b e r o f t a l m u d i c a g g a d o t a n d m i d r a s h i c p a s s a g e sr e flecting such a doctrine are shown to be overridden by the rabbinic consensus.
ll. SeeJ. G. Frazer, The Colden Aouglr, Abridged Edition (New York: IVIacm i l l a n , 1 9 7 2 ) ,p p . 3 0 2 - 0 5 .
12. The posture of the devotee in relation to God is altered by a belief in the
power of the Divine name. The religionist rvho relies on an omnipotent personal
G o d a s s u m e sa s t a n c e o f h u m i l i t y b e f o r e t h e U l t i m a t e S o u r c e o f p o w e r a n d g r a c e ,
w h i l e t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r o f r i t e s i n v o l v i n g t h e p o t e n c y o f t h e n a m e a s s u m e sa n
assertive, self-assured posture, as a resourceftrl manipulator of Divine powerl
These conflicting orientations actually represent the conceptual distinction be-
.i
'-:i
'',
,:
.l:
I il,
' ' .r';r i ii, l
,.
t,rr' -
r'
:
tween mysticism and magic, the one cultivating a mood of surrender, the other
fostering the dynamics of control. See E. Underhill, Nlysticism (New York: Noond a y , 1 9 5 5 ) ,p p . 7 0 - 7 1 .
13. See Martin Buber, Kingship ol God, trans. by Richard Scheimann (New
York: Harper and Row, 1967), pp. 104-06. The latter reference is cited with
concurrence by E. Urbach, Emunot ue-De'ot Chazal (Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ e r s i t y P r e s s ,1 9 7 1 ) ,p . 1 0 3 , n . 6 .
14. Similarly, in the literature of the Hellenistic period, nte:uzah bears no
apotropaic interpretation. ln the Letter ol Aristeas, 158, the parshiyyot of mezuzah serye as a "reminder" of the existence of God, Who Himself is "Ruler and
"the
Guardian" (157).In Josephus'Antiquities,
principal blessings
. received
"remembrance"
from God" are to be inscribed as a
upon the doors (IV, 8:13).
Note also Philo's formulation of the function of the inscription-that the people
may "keep in perpetual memory 1{hat they should say and do, careful alike to
do and to allow no injustice . . ;' (The Special Lau,s, IV, 27, trans. by F. H.
C o l s o n , i n P h i l o [ C a m b r i d g e : H a n ' a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,1 9 5 4 ] , V o l . V I I I , p . 9 7 ) .
"encompassment" passage
15. See also Menahot 43b. Parallels to the
of the
Sifrei are found in Toselta Berakl'tot, concluding citation (7:25), and at the close
28
of Tl Berakhot 9:5.
1 6 . S e e a l s o U . C a s s u t o ,P c r u s l t a l S e l c r S l t e m o t ( E n g l i s h : A C o m m e n t a r y o n
the Book ol Exodus), l2:5, 7, rvhere,sirnilarlr', the apotropaic, cultic function of
the blood is denied.
17. Although the previous derasltalt ("As a sign for you, not as a sign for l!fe")
is not cited in the name of R. Ishmael, and, in fact, R. Ishmael (if the Llehhilta's
d , e r a s h a ht o E x o d u s I 2 : 7 i n t h e n a m e o f R . S i m e o n i s a c t u a l l y h i s - s e e N f e i r I s h
Shalom edition, p. 6a, note 3, and }falbim on this derashah, no. 34) may have
h e l d t h a t t h e b l o o d d i d s e r v e t o e l i c i t a r e s p o n s ef r o m G o d ( " [ r h e b l o o d ] a p p e a r i n g t o M e , n o t t o o t h e r s " ) , n o n e t h c l e s s ,t h e u n d e r l y i n g t h r u s t i s t h e s a m e the blood is not apotropaic or deflective.The nature of God's response to the
b l o o d i s , a s R . I s h m a e l e x p l i c a t e s i t i n t h e p a s s a g ew e h a v e c i t e d i n o u r t e x t ,
an acknowlcdgment of Israel's obedience, reflected in the sprinkling of the
blood.
18. The designation and sacrifice of the korban pesalr, rvhose blood rvas sprinkled on the doorposts rvas critical for establishing Israel's worthiness for redemption (see Nlehhilta, Exodus I2:6). R. Ishrnael also links the worthiness of
I s r a e l t o a k e d a t Y i t z h a k ( t h e b i n d i n g o f I s a a c ) , r v h o s es a c r i f i c i a l t h e m e r v a s s y m bolized, as well, bv the blood on the doorposts (see trIehhilta,Exodus l2:13,23).
Similarly, later in the Mekhilta (Exodus l4:29), Israel's anticipated commirment to Torah and her exercise of tefillalt (Yalhut: tefillin)-as 'w'ell as her
prospective fulfillment of meutzah and tef llin-represent her "merit" before God,
entitling her to safe passage through the Red Sea. No mechanistic effect is
involved.
19. R. Ishmael interprets the terms "u-fasahti" (Exodus 12:13) and "u-fasah"
(ibid. 12:23) as connoting compassion (see Mekhilta
to rhese verses).
20. The anti-demonic role of mezuzah appears to be suggested in Targurn
Shir ha-Shirim (8:3), a post-talmudic source.However, even here the apotropaic
tendency is qualified by the introduction of the providential principle. The demonic forces, maintains the Targum, "have no permission" to afflict, when !afillin and, mezuzah are in place-a phrase which shifts the sense of the passage
toward a personal Divine judgment in acknowledgment of the zneril of the
mekayyem ha-mitsuah. In contrast, the unadulterated apotropaic notion is expressed in a Zohar I'Iadaslt passage, rvhere the malahh hamnsh-hit is deflected
by the Shad-dai inscription, even though Providence hdr granted permission for
artack (Zohar Hadaslt, ed. Ashlag, [London, 5730] p. 102, n. 457).
21. The reference to the saving angel, in the supportive verse (Psalm 34:8)
quoted by the baraita, depicts the porver of the mitsuah in a psychological sense,
as channeling the individual au'ay from sin. See Sefer ha.Eshhol, ed. Auerbach
(Halberstadt, 1869), II, p. 80: "For each and every mitsaah is like an angel, protecting him from sin." (The latter explanatory statement does not appear, how-ever,
in the Albeck edition of the Eshhot [Jerusalem,5695], I, p.202.) Rambam
(Hilhhot Mezuzah 6:13) and Semag (Aseh #3, developing rhe same theme, describe the mitsvot as "mazkirin" (reminders) of one's religious commitment. The
t"rlrd
(Menahot 44a), in a passage following the citation of. the baraita, cor-
29
TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
':..:'_
t
,
..'.:1.,' t'.",,
a t t h e p o i n t o f c o m r n i t i n g : e n i l t , \ v a s c o n f r o bn yt et h< e. Is t r a n d s o fh i s t s i t s i t .
22. See obsenations of II. l{irkin, Beresltit Rabbalt, Vol. 2 (Tel Aviv, l97l),
pp. 63-61 ("Artavan . . .").
2 3 . N o t e a I ' e l a n t d e n t Lp a s s a g e ,q u o t e d i n Y a l k u t 1 l : 8 i 9 , r v h e r e a n a n a l o g o u s
contrast is formulated benveen idols of silver and gold, rvhich require the protection of their n'orshippels, and God, \\'ho protecrs us rvhile rve are aslcep in
our homes.
The Rebbi-Arravan accoul)t also appears in Bereslit Rabbah 35:3. see also
Y a l f t u i ( D e u t . 8 . 1 4 ,I ' r o r ' . 9 3 4 ) , r r h e r e t h e a c c o u n t a p p e a r s , b u t r v i t h o u t t h e
clause, "even ryhile vou sleep." (On the significanceof this clause, see n. 25,
below.)
I n t h e S h e ' j l l o t ( . E h e a ,1 4 5 ) , t h e s r o r v i s r e l a t e d , w i t h t h e u n e x p e c t e d a d d i t i o n o f a s e q u e l i n r v h i c h a s / r e d p o s s e s s eAs r t a v a n ' s d a u g h t e r . N o - t h e r a p , v a v a i l s
J
u n t i l h i s p o s t i n g o f t h e n r e ; r r . : a hs u c c e e d si n b a n i s h i n g t h e s p i r i t . T h i s s e q u e l
appears in neither the talmudic or midrashic versions noted, nor in anv other
p o s t - t a l m u d i c r s o r k q u o t i n g t h e a c c o u n t . T h e l i n g u i s t i c c h a r . a c r e ro f t h e s e g m e n t ,
composed as it is in Hebrerv, is obvioush' different from the Aramaic in rvhich
the body of the account is formulated.
L o u i s G i n z b e r g s u g g e s t st h a r r h e a u t h o r o f t h e S h e ' i l t o t , R . A h a h i m s e l f ,
d r e w t h e s l r e d - s e g m e n t ,a n a d m i t t e d l v d i s t i n c t c o m p o n e n t , f r o m a B a b y l o n i a n
aggadic source, since it is reminiscent of the account depictinq R. Simeon b.
Y o h a i ' s h e a l i n g o f a d e m o n i a c a l l y - p o s s e s s epdr i n c e s s ( r e c o u n t e d b r i e f l y i n L I e ' i l a h
17b)-though there is, he rvould granr, no textual affinity between the formulat i o n o f t h e t l s o n a r r a t i v e s ( s e e G i n z b e r g , G e o n i c a , I , p p . 8 P - 8 3 ) .B u t G i n z b e r g
fails to consider that even if the general theme of demoniac possession has its
parallel in this old aggaclic tradition, the remedial recorlrse to mezuzah-a rJ,istinctively novel feature of the She'ilto, segment-does not. Nor, as our study
d e m o n s t r a t e s ,i s t h e r e a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a p o t r o p a i c f u n c t i o n o f m e z u z a h ,
generally, t'as developed earlier than the close of the talmudic period. So that
there are, in reality, no grounds for identifying the She'iltot segment as having
been drawn from the hoary Babylonian aggadah. To the contrary, considering
the evidence we marshal below (re: Baua lV[etsia l02a) pointing to rhe nonapotropaic view of ntezuzah held by R. Aha Ba'al ha-She'iltot, this segment is
undoubtedly a later interpolation.
R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes suggests that the sfted-segment might have been a part
of the original source during the talmudic period, but was expunged from the
final talmudic text prior to hatimat ha-Talmud, because it rvas found objectionable; the She'iltot, though, preserved the original text (see L[eto ha-Talmud,
Ch.3l). However, as we have indicated, it is our view that there is no basis for
an early dating of this segment.
24. Thus R. Tam (Tosafot, Cittin 6b) explains the talinudic term, "amitah
shel Torah" (iltegillah l6b), as a reference to mezuzah, sihce it contains in its
inscription the fundamental theological principle of habbalat oI malkhut shamayim. See also Tosafot, Sotah l7b and Menahot 32b.
24a. See Silrei, Deuteronomy 6:.7.
30
' I -
2 5 . I t i s i n t h e i d e n t i c a l s e n s et h a t t h e v e r s e i s t a k e n i n S o t a h 2 l a . ( I n f a c t ,
Rebbi's comment, "even while you sleep," probably alludes to the time of death,
the figurative sense of "rvhen thou liest down," at which time one's litetime
study of Torah rvill provide him rvith rnerit before the heavenly tribunal. The
verse is so interpreted in Sotah, ad loc., and Bereshit Rabbah 3i:3, as well as
.llfrei, Deuteronomy 6:7.) But even if the verse be taken as referring to tnitsuot
na'asiyyot, as well as to Torah study, as it is in Aaot 6:9, its point is to laud
the enlightenme-nt of Torah and its disciplinary impact. It certainly has no
reference to sofre mysterious, ph,vsically-protective force latent in a mitsttaltobject.
26. This sense of the account is reflected, as well, in a passage in l\Lidrash
D e v a r i m R a b b a h ( e d . L i e b e r m a n n , 2 d e d . , p . 7 l ) , w h e r e a c o n s c i o u s n e s so f t h e
content of the parshiyyor is emphasized as central to mitsuat mezuzah. citing
Proverbs 8:34, rvhere wisdom depicts the blessed man as hearkening to her,
"watching
daily at my gates, tvaiting at the posts of my doors," the Midrash
observes:"If you have fulfilled the precept of reading the Shema, of which it
is written, '\Vhen )'ou lie dorvn and when ,vou rise up,, as you sit in your house,
the Torah will speak in 1'our defense in the Future World.', Explains R. Aha
b. Simon: "She will argue for your merit."
A conceptual interpretation of the account (in medieval rationalist terms)
is developed bv R. Abba Nlari ben Joseph, late thirteenth-early fourteenth century leader of the so-called anti-rationalist forces in the provence. ln ]nis lvlinhat
K e n a ' o t ( P r e s s b u r g ,1 8 3 8 ) ,p . 1 1 , h e e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v e o f R .
Judah haNasi was to urge Artavan to conremplate the primary philosophic truths, the
existence of God and His unity, principles recorded in the mezuzaft, which even
a non-Jerv is obligated to grasp in compliance with the Noahide larv enjoining
idolatry. This knowledge, R. Abba Nlari explains, would procure for him the
necessary providential protection. (R. Abba Mari, clearly no obscurantist as he
was portrayed by scholars of the last generation, appreciated the primacy of a
philosophic apprehension of God. He attacked only the excessesof rationalism,
which had led to a denial altogether of the literal sense of Biblical narrative
and law.)
27. Similarly, in Shabbat 22a, where the first handbreadth principle is cited
in association with mitntat ner Hanuhkah, the sense of the szgyah suggests that
purely halakhic considerations are involved. specifically, the sugyah prohibirs
the placement of ner Hanukhah, if it is positioned outside the doorway, more
than a handbreadth away from the entrance, where it would not be identified
with the particular home whose proprieror had kindled it (see Rashi, ad loc.).
The conclusion of the sugyah, stipulating that mezuzah and, ner Hanukkah function as a corporate set of mitsuot at the doorway,,,ner Hanuhhah at the left,
mezuzah at the right," suggests that the positioning of either mitsvah.-object
is.based not on any apotropaic concern, but on experiential religious cbnsiderations; namely, that one be embraced by mitnot as he enters the home. For
there is certainly no intimation anywhere in the Talmud that ner Hanukkah
functions apotropaically.
With respect to the talmudic passagein Berakhot 23b, pointing to shemirah
31
TRADITION:
;
in connection with tefillin
1; I
..,'..].:-'.i|-'.-i:i.:.,''
1
,:'.1
(depicting two sages who would
carry theft tefiIlin
l e r a n " ( . n e t a r ,t o g u a r d ) a p P e a r s n o t t o b e i n d i g e n o u s t o t h e s z p a f t . T h e N I u n i c h m a n u s c r i p t o m i t s i t , w h i l e i n o t h e r s o u r c e s ( s e eD i h d u h e i S o f e r i m , B e r a h h o t ,
p. 115,n. 70), including the texts of Rif and Pkkei Rid, the reading is altogether
different-"/o nalralf' (atrah, to tronble). According to the latter reading, the
s e n s eo f t h e s u g y a / r i s t h a t R . J o h a n a n a n c l R . N a h m a n u o u l d n o t t r o u b l e t h e i t
students to care for their .tefillin trhile they tvere indisposed. Rashi, horvever,
i n t e r p r e t s t h e p a s s a g ei n t e r m s o f o u r r e a d i n g - " n i n l e r a n " ( t h i r d p e r s o n , f e m "they will grrard"), taking it aPotroPaically; namely, the tefillin
inine, plural:
"will
protect me from the ntazikin." (Rashi, indeed, is one of a minority of
rishoninr who interpret mezuzalr aporropaicallv.) Talmidei R. Jonah, though,
(see also Dikduhei Soferirn, ad
in exposition of a similar rearJing-"linleran"
1or.), quotes "yesh meforeshint.," ttho explain the passage as an affirmation by
e a c h o f t h e s a g e st h a t h e u , i l l P r o t e c t h i s t e f i l l i r t ( r a t h e r t h a n a n y n o t i o n o f t h e
tefillin protecting their orvner!).
28. This senseof the ma'amar is reflected, as tvell, in the Deuarim Rabbah
"mezuzah" to connote the
p a s s a g ec i t e d i n n o t e 2 6 . R a t h e r t h a n u s e t h e t e r m
inscription which might be considered to be guarding the house, the Midrash
r e f e r s t o " m e z u z a l t " i n i t s s c r i p t u r a l s e n s e ,a s t h e d o o r p o s t , p r o t e c t e d b y G o d .
S e e a l s o e a r l i e r n o t e 2 3 , r v h e r e a 1 ' e l a m d e n u P a s s a g ed e p i c t s G o d a s o u r P r o t e c t o r
'
while rve sleep in our homes.
2 9 . S e e t h e D e u a r i m R a b b a h p a s s a g ec i t e d i n n o t e 2 6 , w h e r e a n o v e r a l l c o n '
s c i o u s n e s so f o n e ' s c o m m i t n l e n t t o G o d , a s d e p i c t e d i n t b e p a r s h i y y o l , i s c r i t i c a l
to mitsuat mezuzah.
30. These two possible interpretations of the function served by R. Hanina
b. Hama's statement, within the sugâh, are rehected in the literature of the
rishonim. One group of rishonim omits the Suran view altogether, indicating
their understanding of the sugyah as having rejected it. These rishonim, as a
general rule, do not quote R. Hanina b. Hama's nta'atnar, since their elimina'
tion of the Suran view accomplishes the objective of his providential statement
(see Semag, Nlordecai). A second group of rishonim, citing the Suran view along
with the view of Rabbanan, immediately quotes R. Hanina b. Hama, in order
to dissolve the mechanistically protective sense of the Suran position. These
rishonim understand the thrust of the szgyah as intending to redefine or remold
the Suran view into a symbolic statement; so that one could subscribe to the
Suran statement rvithout its rigorous apotropaic sense.The first-handbreadth requirement would no longer be deemed a critical factor in a protectively-potent
procedure (as R. Hanina of Sura had originally intended) but simply a fitting,
though in no way vital, symboi of God's personal protection, which, after all,
does embrace the entire home (see Rif, Rosh). It is a minority stance in the
literature of the rishonim which reverses the thrust of the sugah, and attemPts
to interpret R. Hanina b. Hama's statement as'consistent with the rigid, apotropaic sense of R. Hanina of Sura's ma'amar, (This is the position of the Tur,
whose radical formulation thrust the apotropaic position to prominence.)
:r :
-i-:i:
31. R. Moses ha-Kohen of Lunel
32
(Ramakh), contemporary of Rambam and
a.. :.
.i-
.
''
:l_
commentator on his Mrlrnclt Tornh, understands the onkeles account as supp o r t i n g t h e n o r i o n o f a p r o t e c t i v e r n e : t t z a h - o b 1 e c rr,r h i c h r v o u l c l b e i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n , R a m a k h o b s e r v e s ,t o R a m b a m ' s c r i t i q u e o f s u c h a c o n c e p t i o n ( s e e n .
9, above). He therefore s.ggcsrs. in order ro vi.clkare Rambam s position, that
Onkeles'remarks were polemical, intended to.'lend esteem to Israel,,,but were
n o t e x p r e s s i v eo f s y s t e m a t i cr a b b i n i c t h i n k i n g ( s e eK e s e f t r I i s h n e h , H i l h h o t M e u t zalt 5:4). It is possible to explain the onkeles account as we have, as perceiving
tnezuzaltsvmbolically (representati'e of Gocl's personal protection), and yet t6
s u g g e s t ,i n l i n e w i t h R a m a k h ' s p o i n t , t h a t o n k e l e s ' s y m b o l i c e x p l a n a t i o n c o u l d
not help but be understood by non-abstracting pagans as depicting the protec_
tive effect of the object itself. Significantly, Ramakh is unconcerned with the
apotropaic implications of R. Hanina of sura's position, undoubtedly because,
as we have indicated, the szgl'ah overrides this I,ierv.
32. The severeimplications of a defecti'e inscription, according to kabbalistic
doctrine, .w'illbe treated in a separatestudv (seeabove, note 5).
33. See Rashi, ad loc-; Nimukei Yosef on Allas, Hirhhot tr[ezttzah; anrl. NIordecai, Halahhot Ketanot,969. In Seler ha-Esltho|,ed. Auerbach, II, p. ?9, R. Hai
Gaon is cited as offering a contran'rationale; namery, a community mezuzah
d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a s g r e a t a f r e q . e n c v o f b e d i k a h , b e c a u s et h e p u b l i c i s r e g u l a r l y
more careful in protecting it from conditions that miEht cause corrosion. In
Tosefot Yeshanim, Yoma 11a, a third rationale is offereil. The frequent examination of a public mezuzah is dangerous,exposing the boclehto a greater likelihood of apprehension by the alien authorities, as, in fact, transpired at the
gates of the city of Sepphoris, in the account cited above in our text.
34. See Tosalot, Itlenahot 44a, second and conclucling vierv, ancl Tosalot, Auodah Zarah 2la; also shitah Mekubetset, Baaa L[etsia l}lb, in name of Rosh an<.r
Ritva, rhe latrer citing this posirion as rhar of ii.
35. Tosafot, Menahot 44a, in its opening view, does invoke shemiraft as the
basis for its position that the tenant's obligation after thirty datls is mide-oraita.
However, even for this view of rosafot (rvhich is later superseded by its second
and concluding position), the shemirah argument cannot obligate the tenant
prior to thirty days.
36. See Sedei Hemed, Vol. 4, p. 242, rvhere the view of R. Eleazar Rokeah
(eighteenth cenrury, Amsrerdam), is cited, advising the procedure (.'Let him not
delay in affixing it, out of concern for the maziiin"). one issue raised by this
practice is the halakhic leeitimacy of a mezuzah fixed in place prematurely, rvith
the related issue of ta'aseh ue-lo min he-assui, the ante facto construction
of a
h e l t s a s h e l m i t s a a h ( s e e M i n h a t H i n u h h , - t / a - E t h a n a n ) .T h e p r o n o u n c e m e n t o f
the berakhah in such a case is also at issue,with both the pre-thirty-day and
post-thirty-day options fraught rvith halakhic complication. see Setlei Hemed,
4, pp. 239.42.
The pitfalls involved in any attempt at reconciring the apotropaic notion
with the norms of the halakhah are reflected in Sefat Emet on sftas. The comment is first made that a transient residence (an inn), by virtue of the fact that
it is halakhically absolved of mezuzah, is thereby immune to demonic attack,
and, therefore, requires no protection (perush on Menahot B2b). yet in a subse-
JJ
TRADITION:
quent observation (Alenahot 41a\, Selat Emet a:gles with inconsistency that the
reason rvhy rented quarters in Eretz Yisrael-for whose security we are especially
concerned-had to be made subject to hi,-yuu meatzah immediately (even prior
t o t h i r t y d a y s , u n l i k e r e s i d e n c e sh u t z l a - a r e t z ) w a s i n o r d e r t o a s s u r e t h a t t h e y
be protected against an apparently indiscriminate demonic threatl
37. Commentary to Mishnah, ad loc.
3 8 . S e e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v ec o m n l e n t a r i e s t o l t i s h n a h , a d / o c .
38a. Based on Rambam, Hilhhot Kelitn 2:2.
3 9 . C i t e d i n T o s e f o t A n s h e i S l t e m o n l l i s h n a h , a d l o c . S e ea b o v e , n . 9 .
40. Accordingly, one talmudic vierv, Shabbat 32b (see also Massehhet Kallah,
V i l n a S l r a s , 5 l a , s e c o n d c o l u m n ) , a s s o c i a t e st h i s r e w a r d s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h m e z u z a h .
But as rve indicate belorv in note 43, the larger referents-/imrnud, Torah and
habbalat oI mitsuot at large-are not excluded.
The linkage of long vears specificallvrvith mezuzah is the basis for the talmudic argurnent establishing the obligation of n'omen in the mitsaah-"Do
women not require life?" (Kiddushin 34a).
41. Sifrei, Deuteronomv ll:19; cited also by Rashi in paraphrase.
42. Shabbat 32b.
4 3 . S e e I . H e i n e m a n n , D a r h h e l t a - A g g a d a h ( J e r u s a l e m , 5 7 1 4 ) ,p . 1 3 6 . C e r t a i n l y ,
Chazal, in their midrashic association of proximate verses,dicl not intend to
exclude the larger context of the pesltat.
44. So that certainly the ideal fulfillment of mitynt mezuzah is in a study of
and commitment to the content of the entire parshah. Seeabove, note 26.
4 5 . T h i s i s t h e s e n s e o f t h e t a l m u d i c s u g . r r a hl M e n a h o t 4 l a ) a n a l y z i n g a d i a logue benveen Rav Ketina and an angel rvho had threatened him tvith punishment for failing to fulfill rnitsual ,ritsit. The Talmud's conclusion is that Rav
Ketina was subject to punishment for consistently circumventing mitsuat tsitsit,
that is by intentionally, rvith regularin', donning garments that do not require
tsitsit.
T o d w e l l i n a h o u s e r e q u i r i n g m e z u z a h ,a n d v e t t o f a i l t o a f f i x o n e , r v o u l d
be comparable to actually wearing a garmenr requiring ,sitsi, without attaching
them, clearly a more direct disregard for the mitsuah than the circumstances of
Rav Ketina's omission. Yet, as is clear from Tosaf ot (ad loc.), punishment even
in such a case rvould be applicable onlv if the negation of the mitsvah involved
a c o n s i s t e n t r e s i s t a n c et o i t s f u l f i l l m e n t .
Similarly, the aggadic depiction (Pesahint lI3b) of the man who does nor
observe tefillin, tsitsit and. mezuzah as "excommunicated by Heaven" (,,as tl excommunicated by Heaven," a variant reading) is taken by Tosalot as referring
t o a s i t u a t i o n r v h e r e h e p o s s e s s etsh e m b u t d o e s n o t f u l f i l l t h e m , o r w h e r e , a s i n
t h e c a s e o f t s i t s i t ( s e e R . A k i v a E g e r , G i l y o n h a - S h a s ,a d l o c . ) , h e c o n s i s t e n t l v
avoids, as did Rav Ketina, creating conditions that would require lsifsil.
r:r
: 11.i:'
1,1:1';
\f ith regard to the talmudic passage (Rosh lm.Shanah 17a) itlentifying
poshe'ei yisrael be-gut'an (who suffer severely after death) as ,,karkafta de-lo
manah tefllin"
(those upon .whose head.s tefillin is not placed), the reading of
our tal-mudictext supporrs R. Tam's interpretation (ad loc., upheld bv Rosh, as
well, ad /oc.) to the effect that this classification applies only "*'hen the mitnah
34
j
--.
Mezuzah: Protective Amulet or Religious SymbolT
is despicable in his eyes." Thus, a recent exhortative article in The Jeuislt
O b s e r u e r ( r e f e r r e d t o i n n . 4 , a b o l e ) i s m i s l e a d i n g r v h e n i t a s s e r t s ,c a t e g o r i c a l l v ,
that the donning "through neglect" of tefillin rhar are (;esulot renders a man
poshe'a yisrael be-gttfo (p. 30). It is true that R. Hananel, Rif and Rambam,
according to their reading of the talmudic text, define knrkafta as one who has
neuer fulfrlled, the mitsaalt, which might implv that even without disparagement
o f f h e n t i t s u a h o n e i s c o n d e m n e d , r i h a t e v e r t h e c x t e n u a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,f o r h i s
failure ever to have donned tefillin. Bnt this implication does not necessarilv
follow. The comment of Ran on Rif (cd /oc.) would suggesr that the latter's
position is not inconsistent with the fundamental thrust of R. Tam's vierv;
namely, harhalta would apply onlv if the lifetime failure to fulfill the mitsan|t
w a s a s s o c i a t e dr v i t h a n e l e m e n t o f c o n s c i o u s r e j e c t i o n . ( B e t h a t a s i t m a y , t h e
application of the principle of karkafta bv R. Hananel, Rif and Rambam appears
to be limited to tef llin. It is only Ran, rvhoseinterpretation of the principle is,
at any rate, a more liberal one, as *'e have seen, rvho extends its application
as a broader category to other nits-uot dseh.)
4 6 . S e e l l l o r d e c a i , H a l a h h o t K e t a n o t , 9 l 1 - X . I o r d e c a ic i t e s t h i s p o s i t i o n i n t h e
name of R. Isaac of Dampielre (Ri), irith respect to both meutzah and fsilsit.
See n. 79, belorv.
4 7 . S e e a l s o r e f e r e n c e t o t r [ a s s e k h e tK a l l a h i n n . 4 0 , a b o v e .
48. See opening commenr of Tosalot, Kiddushin 34a (,,Caura',), referring to
the type of derashalt formulated in this sugya/t (Shabbat 32b) as ,,asmahhta,"
a derashalt rvhich does not claim for itself methoclological rigor.
..
iL-
.
\\rith few exceptions, the risltonim, in their silrei mitnalt and compilations
o f h i l h h o t m e z t t , z a l to, m i t r h e t a l m u d i c r e f e r e n c e t o t h e d e a t h o f c h i l d r e n , f o r m u l a t i n g i n s t e a d o n l y t h e p o s i t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s ( . a r i h h a ty a m i m ) o f r h e o b s e r v a n c e
of the mitsaah
49. ]\{eiri, Beit ha-Behirah, Shabbat, commenr on 32a-33b.
50. Beit Hillel to Sltulhan Aruhh, Yoreh De'ah, 185:1. R. Herz points to the
implicit rejection by another talmudic sugyah of any inference from arikhat
yamim to hitsttr yamim-the szgl'aft of tenai halul (Kiddushin 6la-62a). In its
treatment of Genesis4:7, Leviticus 26:3 and Isaiah l:19, exhortative scriptural
p a s s a g e ss i m i l a r t o D e u t e r o n o m y l l : 2 1 , t h e T a l m u d i n d i c a t e s t h a t n e i t h e r f o r
R. Meir, who altogether denies the legitimacy of any inference from a conditional
statement, nor R. Hanina ben Gamaliel, rvho permits it, may an inference of
punitive loss be drawn. Even for the latrer position, only a forfeiture of the
promise may be inferred.
It is of course true that the Silrei (Deuteronomy ll:19) rvith respect to
Iimmud rorah, draws the inference of hitsur yamim, but in an exhortative context such as this, phrases of this type are not necessarily to be taken in a rigorous
sense. Kirsur yamim may very rvell refer to a .,shortening', of the life span in
terms-of its additiondl potential segment, rvhich has ntlw been forfeited. Note
also that tlte Sifrei, in the cotrrse of its development of the theme, employs the
reference to death not as a prescription of punishment, but as an elaluative
description in hvperbolic terms of rhe rvorthlessness of a life rvithout Torah:
"If
he [the father] does not speak the holv tongue to him
[his son], nor teach
3.5
TRADITION:
him Torah, it is as if he were worthy of burying him." Similarly, the Toselta
Hagigah l:2 says of a son whose father rvould fail to train him in the performance of mitsaot, as well as .Shernc,Torah and the holy tongue, ',it is as if he
were worthy of not having been born."
Rashi, citing the Silrei in paraphrase, records the phrase "/o yirbu" in place
of "yiktseru," while in Exodus 20:12 (rvith reference to hibbud aa va-em), he,
like the lvtehhilta, uses the term "yihtserun." However, in his commentary to
Hullin 110\, in explication of the principle of mitsuat aseh she-mattan sehharah
be-tsidah, he states that in its promise of long years for hibbud aa aa-em, the
Torah implicitly advises a son thar if he does not fulfill tlr.e mitsuah his punishment will be that he "will not acquire this reward," clearly indicating Rashi's
preference for the "/o ylrbu" position.
51. This is indicated in Meiri's referenceto "perikat oI ha-mitsuah" (ad loc.).
52. R. David Zvi Hoffrnann takes note of the non-normative character of this
Targum passage when he obsenes that in verse 6 the Targum prescribes the
redemption of the fruit of the line from the priest. According to talmudic trad i t i o n t h e p r i e s t h a s n o s u c h r o l e ( s e eD . Z . H o f f m a n n , C o m m e n t a r ) t o D e u t e r onomy 20:6 and Leviticus 19:24,25). Nor, in fact, is the redemption of the fruit
an absolute obligation. According ro ralmudic tradition, the fruit of the fourth
year is to be eaten in Jerusalem; except that the farmer is permitted the option
(considering the difficulty of transporting a large supply of goods)of exchanging
the fruit for its value in money, ivhich he e'ould then take to
Jerusalem for the
purchase of items to be consumed in the citv (see Rambam, Hilhhot Ma,aser
S h e n i v e - N e t a R e v a ' i , 9 : 1, 2 ' , 4 : l ) .
5 3 . R . A k i v a d e n i e s e n t i r e l y t h a t a f e a r o f t h e c o n s e q u e n c e so f s i n i s g r o u n d s
f o r e x e m p t i o n f r o m b a t t l e ( N { i s h n a h ,S o t a h 8 : 5 ; S i f r e i t o D e u t e r o n o m y 2 0 : g ) , a
position adopted by Rambam in his rVishneh lTorah (Hilkhot Melahhtm, Ch.
7). But even R. Jose ha-Gelili and R. Jose, who excuse the sinner from the
battlefield on the basis of Deuteronomy 20:8 (Mishnah, Sotah, ad. loc., and talmudic discussion, Sotah 44b), do not interpret the three categories of Deuteronomy 20:5-7 as indicative of sin. To the contrary, R.
Jose ha-Gelili maintains
(Mishnah, Sotah, ad /oc.) that it is precisely because these three categories of
persons return home without anv intimation of sin that they effectively serve
as a face-saving device for the sinner, who can leave under these pretenses.
54. The grounds for this deferment are variously interpreted: The degree of
personal tragedy that would be involved were a man to die in the course of
f u l f i l l i n g a m i l e s t o n e i n h i s l i f e ( s e eR a s h i , D e u t e r o n o m y 2 0 : 5 , a n d D . Z . H o f f mann's position, Commentary ro Deuteronomy 20:b, p. 398); his psychological
incapacity for stamina on the battleFeld, considering his emotional tie to a yetu n f u l f i l l e d e n t e r p r i s e ( s e eI b n E z r a , R a m b a n , a d l o c . ) ; t h e d i c t a r e s o f s o c i a l w i s dom, recommending that the primary initiatives of civilian life (consolidationof
home, vineyard a-nd marriage) be protected, in the interest of encouraging sertlement of the land (see comment of Ish-Shalom to Sifrei, Piska 192
[". . . rhat the
cities of Israel nor lie desolate."], n. l,p. ll0a; cf. Malbim, Silrei, l0l).
55. This is evident from the Targum's rendering of the following two verses
(Deuteronomy 20:6, 7), where, similarly, a failure to have fulfilled a particular
36'
Mezuzah:'ProtectiveAmulet or Religious Symbol?
mitsttah-the redemption of the fruit.of one's vine and the consummation in
marriage of his betrothal-incurs gujlt.
_ 56. Thus, even in its rendering of Deuteronomy ll:20-21, the Targum intro.
duces no apotropaic theme.
57. Tosafot, Baua Metsia l0lb; see also Haggahot Shitah Mehubetset (#24) to
Tosafot, ll[enahot 4lb. In T'osafot, Shabbat 22a, the apotropaic interpretation is
cited alongside an opposing,view, which supports the geonic understanding of
the baraita.
58. See She'illot, Shelalt,126; Scfer ha-Eshhol, ed. Auerbach, ll, p.78; Ritua,
standard editions, Raua L.Ietsia 102a. (\Vith reference to She'iltot, see above, n.
23.) The apotropaic position of Tosaf ot Baua Metsia, on the other hand, which
sees in the situation a very real danger, brooks no compromise, and insists that
under no circumstances may the mezuzot be removed.
'.
il"'
The baraita, in reinforcement of its stipulation that the mezuzot remain in
place, recounts the ominous story of a man who violated the principle an.l suffered the loss of his family. The apotropaic view claims support for its position
in this account. Since the vacating party was unconcerned for the welfare of the
entering family, the members of his orvn family suffer accordingly (see Ritaa,
s t a n d a r d e d i t i o n s , a d l o c . ) . N o s u c h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , o f c o u r s e ,c o u l d b e g i v e n t h e
story by R. Aha or R. Hai, since rhey see no endangerment of'life in the cir.
c u m s t a n c e o f a n a b s e n t m e z u z a h .A s a l i t e r a l p u n i s h m e n t , s u c h a c a l a m i t y w o u l d
certainly seem far out of proportion to the nature of the transgression as they
define it. While they offer no alternate explanation of the account, they would
probably take it as a figurative reflection on the nature of the violation; perhaps,
the sudden loss of a viable family points, as a pedagogic parallel, to the abrupt
termination of a functioning mitsaah, an indiscretion of which the vacating party
was guilty. (Seethe comment of M. Mirkin, Bereshit Rabbah, Vol.4
[Tel Aviv,
1972), p.3a [85:3], rvhere he explains a parallel ma'amar accordingly: "Anyone
who begins a mitstah but does not complete it will bury his wife and children.")
Such supportive stories represent a particular genre of talmudic passage,designed
to create exhortative impact. Like the sugyah in Shabbat 32b, this reference
need not be taken literally as the prescription of a definitive punishment. (See
passagecited in n. 50, above, where burial is invoked not as a threat of an actual
punishment, but in order to depict in hyperbolic terms the worthlessness of an
unspiritual existence.)
59. Rashi, Menahot 32b. See also Pishei R. Isaiah b. Eliiah Di Trani (Jerusalem, 5731), p. 256.
Rashi invokes the apotropaic. element in his explanation of another sugah,
as well, involving the principle of hovat ha-dar,which obliges the renanr-rather
than the landlord-to
afrix a ntezuzali to the dwelling (Pesahirn 4a). The rishonim, generally, account for.the tenant's obligation (be it mide-rab.banan ot mideoraita) in sober halakhic terms, on the basis,.of his functional residence on the
premises, in contrast .to the landlord, who is not actually present. Rashi, however, accompanies the functional explanation with the additional apotropaic
consideration: "for it protects him." Not only do the preponderance of rishonim
ignore Rashi's apotropaic interpretation of this sugyaft, but even among the
J I
TRADITION: A Journalol Orthodox Thought
limited number who introduce a "protective" element, the apotropaic principle
i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l yi m p l i e d . R . J o n a t h a n h a - K o h e n o f L u n e l ( t w e l f t h c e n t u r y p r o vencal), for example, defines the hotat ha-dar_rule in terms of shemirah, but'rs
quick to explain that his reference is to the statement of R, Hanina b. Hama,
who seesthe mezuzah as a srmbol of God's protection (see Shitah Mekubetset,
Bava l+[etsial0lb). l?isionirn will at times speak of the party who is,'protected
by the mezuzaft" not in a rigorous mechanistic sense, but merely as an iden_tification of the individual with whom the mezuzah is halakhically associated.
60. Tosafot, ad loc.ln Megillah 24b, where a "rounded" (elliptical) tefillin shel
rosh is termed similarly by the Nlishnah, "a danger and no mitsuah," Ptashi
offers the practicai explanation, Iest it penetrate the skull. R. Tam, on the other
hand (Tosafot, ad loc.), describes the danger in terms of being unprotected by
the mitnah, since a rounded. bayit is invalid. Horvever, R. Tam's reference to
the protection of the mitsuah is framed in providential rather than apotropaic
terms-alluding to the merit of the mekayyem ha-mitsuah before God, not to
any potency of Lhe mitsuah-object. Thus, R. Tam draws the analogy to Elisha
Ba'al Kenafayyim (Shabbat 49a), for whom a "miracle" (an act of God) rvas
wrought when the tefillin he had removed from his head, as he was fleeing the
Roman quaestor,was transformed into an innocent dove upon inspection.
61. The Tosafot in Menahot 32b, rvhich cites R. Tam's view uith ;ts critique
of Rashi's position, is part of a compilation of R. Samson of Sens, from whom
a l l s u c c e e d i n gg e n e r a t i o n s d r e r v , a n d u p o n r v h o s e a u t h o r i t y t h e y r e l i e d . S e e E ,
U r b a c h , B a ' a l e i h a - T o s a l o l ( J e r u s a l e m , 1 9 5 5 ) ,p p . 2 3 2 , 5 1 2 . 5 1 4 ,a n d S e f e r T e r u mat ha-Deshen, Teshuuah 19, to which he refers. Like Tosafot, F.osh (Halahhot
Ketanot, 8) and trlord.ecai (Halakhot Ketanot, 961) conclude their citation of
Rashi's view with R. Tam's critique
62. See Shem Tov b. Abraham lbn Gaon, f.tigdat Oz, Hilkhot Mezuzah 5:1.
Rambam is able to come to terms with this post-talmudic addition to the helaf
only because it is confined to the outer side of the scroTl (ad loc.).
63. See, for example, Semag, Aseh #23; Rosh, Hilkhot Mezuzah, 18; Mordecai,
Halahhot Ketanot, 960. tr[ordecai also cites a reference to the Shaddai inscription in the geonic work, FIalakhot Gedolot, which he discussesin a non-normative context 1961).
64. The earliest record of this mnemonic interpretation appears in KoI Bo
(Ch. 90), as well as in Orhot Hayyim, ed. M. Schlesinger 1n"iti.r, 1902),II, p.
192, a Provencal work of R. Aaron ha-Kohen of Lunel (end of lSth-beginning
of l4th century). Kol Bo too was probably his work, the first edition or first
draft of Orhot Hayyim.
65. In fact, in both KoI Bo and Orhot Hayyim, Rambam's critique of those
who interpret mezuzah as a self-protective device is cited. See n. 9, above.
The inscription on the outer side of the helaf of the letters, Kozu Bemohhsaz
I(ozu, cbrresponding to the let(ers of YHWH Elohenu YHWH, which they foll o w i n a l p h a b e t i c a l s u c c e s s i o na n d w h i c h t h e y f a c e b a c k - t o . b a c k o n t h e h e l a f ,
is also a post-talmudic development. It is found in the lSth century German
Hasidic component of the mystical Sefer Raziel (Amsterdam, 1701), 8b, as well
as in French and German halakhic works of the period. See Mahzor Vitn. ed,.
38
:
'
,
:--
. ' . ,
'
:
. _
: ' - . t"
' .
r"
- ::
; : ' i
by S. Hurwitz (Jerusalem, 57
- _ - ' _ - ' - 5
r '
_ ' Mordecai,960. A French-German phenomenon, not practiced originally in Spain
(seeRosh, 18, and R. Jeroham, Toledot Adant ue-HaaaA (Venice, 53l3), Vol. l,
p. l79c), it was not knorvn ro Rambam. \Vhile for Seler Raziel this inscription,
like the shent Shaddai, is of critical apotropaic importance, for the rishonirn rvho
c i t e i t ( s e en . 6 3 ) i t i s o n l y a c u s t o m o f n o d o c u m e n t e d r a t i o n a l e .
6 5 a . T h e a n t i ' s a t a n i c i n t e r p r c t a t i o n o l m i t s v o t d e v c l o p e c lb y t h e m e c l i e v a l K a b balah will be treated in a separatestudy (see above, note b).
66. See n. 24, above.
67. See forrnulation of Ranrbarn, Flilkhot I)Iezuzah6:lZ.
68. chazal speak of the zekhut (merir) of rhe tnitsaah performance, rvhich
yields protective benellts for the rraAnlyent Ita-nitsvah (Sotah 2la). N,Ieritis, of
c o t l r s e ,a q u a l i t a t i v e t c l r n , r c f l e c t i n g t h e s t a t u s o f t h e i n d i v i c l u a l b e f o r e G o t l . N o
r n e c h a n i s t i c e f l e c t o f t h c n i i l s u a l r - o b j e c to r t n i t s u a h - a c ti s i n t e n d e d . I n f a c t , t h e
Talmud (ad loc.) (ltlestions the duration even of zekhut ha-nitsuch, once the
e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e n t i t l ; . t u l ri s o v e r . O n c e a n t i t s u a hh a s l ; e e n e x e c u t e d , i n t h i s c a s e
t h e r n e z u z a hh a v i n g b e e n a f l i r c d t o t h e d o o r p o s t , a n d t h e i n t l i v i r l u a l i s n o l o n g e r
c o n s c i o u s l yi n v o l l e d i n t h e r n i l s r r n l , t h e p r o t e c t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a c t i s n o l o n g e r
i n e f f e c t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p l a i n s e t t s eo f r h e b a r a i t a a n c l t h e v i e w o f R a v i n a , t h e
concluding arnoraic position citcd in the sus)ah. perpettral protective merit is
e a r n e d o n l y t h r o t r g h a c o n s i s t e n t ,d e e p - s e a t e di t l e n t i f i c a t i o n r v i t h t h e r o o t o f t h e
religious systern-the stutly of Torah (such as an ongoing contemplation of the
contents of the ntentzalr inscliption) or a devoted comrnitment to the limnud
T o r a h o f o t h e r s . ( S e e T a z , l ' o r e h D e , a h , 2 8 i > : 1 , w h o c o n c c t l e st h a t t h e c l a i m o f
a perpetual shcnirult derivirtg frorn the tcchnical act of having posted a nra:uzah f"even when a rna'is tloing nothitrg b,t rleeping in his bed',] is inconsistent .wirh the principle developed in the above sug;yuh.)
69' It is true that accortling to the more cornplex kabbalistic vierv o[ mezuzah
(as distinct front the sirnplcr ple-kabbalistic occult view), which sees the ntitnah
as a microcosrn of Divine sefrot from rvhich it derives its power, an element
' ' :. , '-
-
-
.. 5:;:
'
l:.::_.:
l^
.
,:'
of hawanah is called for, rvhich relates the earthly act of affixing the mezuzah
t o i t s D i v i n e r o o t a b o v e . N o n e t h e l e s s ,t h i s h a u u a n a h p l a y s a p r i m a r i l y t e c h n i c a l
ro'le, functioning to activate the impersonal sefir'ah forces inextricably linke4
w i t h t h e n t e z t n a h ' o b j e c t ,r a t h e r t h a n a p i e t i s t i c r o l e , w h i c h w o u l c l t r a n s c e n d t h e
t r t i t s u a l ta n d b r i n g t h e J e w i n t o p e r s o n a l a s s o c i a t i o nr v i t h G o d H i m s e l f . S e e n o t e
5, above.
70. Of course there is a dynamic activisrn involved in the rvorld of the mystic.
The ba'al sltez (master of the name) is a porverful figure in his manipulation of
s u p e r n a t u r a l f o r c e s .T h e k a b b a l i s t s t a u g h t t h a t m a n ' s e x e c u t i o n o f r i t u a l a c t s c a n
i n f l u e n c e t h e f o r c e s o f t h e D i v i n e p e r s o n a l i t y , N o n e t h e l e s s ,s u c h a c h a n n e l i n g o f
mans activist thrust toward purely spiritual initiatives tends to remove him
from the concrete realities of the material world, with the resulrant neglect of
practical measures; hence the passivity to rvhich we refer.
7l-' One is reminded of Rambam's attack on the fatalistic belief in astrology,
a key element in ancient idolatry (Letter on Astrology to the Sagesol prouenie),
where he attributes the destruction of the First Temple to the failure of the
39
TRADITION'. A Journalol Orthodox Thought
people to undertake the normal recourseof effectivemilitary training in anticipation of confronting their enemv. A belief in the occult tends to blunt normal,
n e c e s s a r yh u m a n i n i t i a t i v e s .
72. Ketubbot 4ib. See Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen trIishpat,40g:3, 427-8.
7 3 . E f r a i m U r b a c h i n E m u n o t v e - D e ' o t C / r a z a ld i s c u s s e st h e a b s e n c ei n t a l m u d i c t h o u g h t o f a n y m y s t i c a l m a g i c a l p e r c e p t i o n o f . m i t s u o t ( p p . 2 2 2 - Z 2 a ) .T h e k a b balists, frorn the nvelfth and thirteenth centuries on, introduced a radical transformation into the interpretation of mitsvot, investing religious acts and religious
objects rvith enormous cosmic potency, the capacity to affect even the activity
o f t h e D i v i n e p e r s o n a l i t y ( s e en o t e 5 , a b o v e ) .
74. Sifrei, Deuteronomy 6:9.
75. Baraita, Menahot 43b.
76. See n. 9, above.
77. The Nineteen letlers (Nen'York, i950), ed. Jacob Breuer, based on translation of Bernard Drachman, Letter 18, p. 122. R. Hirsch's point here is cited
by Scholem,Major Trends, p. 30, and J. Katz, Masoret u-trIashber,p. 255, n. i6.
78. Yoma lla; see our earlier discussion.
79. See n.46, above, where the position of Ri is cited. The drveller remains,
o f c o u r s e , u n d e r a p e r p e t u a l o b l i g a t i o n t o a f f i x t h e n t e z u z a h ,a n d , i n t h i s s e n s e ,
i s s a i d t o b e " t r a n s g r e s s i n g " ( , o u e r )t h e n t i t s u a h a l l t h e w h i l e h e d e l a y s i t s f u l f i l l m e n t ; b u t h e h a s , n e v e r t h e l e s s c, o m m i t t e d n o s i n - t h e h o u s e i s n o t f o r b i d d e n
(eino asur) to drvell in. It is in rerms of this concept that the ,,transgression"
of "two positive commands" for failing to post a mezuzah (N[enahot 44a) is to
be understood; not a substantiveviolation, but the ornission of an oblisation
8 0 . S e e e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n ,a n d n . 4 5 .
8 1 . S e e n . 5 8 , a b o v e , a n d r e l a t e d d i s c u s s i o ni n b o d y o f p a p e r .
. b -
40

Mezuzah: Protective Amulet or Religious Symbol?

Transcription

Similar documents

Mezuzahs - InterfaithFamily

PRICE TOTAL $ FIBA Shot Clock *pair

KOL KINLOSS

ilahinoor and the gift of the sufis

2016 Called by Love Full Year Scedule

The flame-resistant fabric for protective clothing

Our Products: FirstBIKE

EZ Green, cat# 873

Worldwide Local Flyer yb 7

Plants Spiritualities