Boruch and Shimon take a day trip to visit some of the quaint bungalow colonies located in the scenic Catskill Mountains. Of course, when newly built, they were a pristine vacation destination. Now, some look like they are a prime example of poverty in America. While walking around one colony, they notice rusty bikes and scooters. Wanting to peek inside a bungalow, they walk on the porch.
Boruch: Wow, this bungalow is sporting a new mezuzah!
Shimon: The owner of this bungalow must learn the Daf.
Boruch: Why do you say that?
Shimon: Didn’t you notice that right next to the new mezuzah there is an old mezuzah covered up by years of paint?
Boruch: Nice. Your reference is, of course, to the curtain in the Beis HaMikdash that had years of blood on it. Rebbe Elazar ben Rebbe Yosi miraculously cured the Caesar’s daughter who had been possessed by a demon. As a display of gratitude, the Caesea let him enter his treasury and take whatever he wanted. He tore up the parchment that contained evil decrees against the Bnei Yisrael, thereby nullifying them. While there, he spotted the actual paroches from the Beis HaMikodash that had been plundered, r”l, by the Romans. (Quoted by Rashi in Yoma on 57a.) Nice, Shimon, your mind is always on Torah.
Shimon: Nice, Boruch, for remembering that. Actually, you got the right Daf, but I was referring to something else.
Boruch: Same Daf? Maybe you are referring to Rebbe Chanina’s statement that no matter how far we strayed or what we have done, Hashem still rests his Divine Presence among us? Even in this forlorn bungalow colony?
Shimon: Cute, but no. I’m referring to the double mezuza!
Boruch: Hmmm, now that I think about it, I see it may be an issue. Putting up two mezuzos on one doorpost is an apparent violation of the issur min haTorah of baal tosif. One may not add to the mitzvos of the Torah, like putting five parshiyos in tefillin instead of four. Also, one may not add a fifth variety to the lulav on Sukkos. Putting up two mezuzos instead of one is likewise forbidden. That’s a nice observation, Shimon, but what in the world does that have to do with the Daf that primarily discusses the service in the Beis HaMikdosh on Yom Kippur?
Shimon: The Gemara discusses the possibility that the blood of the sacrifices may have gotten mixed up on Yom Kippur. The Kohen Gadol is supposed to perform two sets of sprinkling – one with the blood of a goat and one with the blood of a bull. The sprinkling of the blood of the bull is supposed to take place first. Unfortunately, the kohen doesn’t know which receptacle contains bull blood and which contains goat blood. So how does the Kohen Gadol ensure that the bull blood sprinkling takes place first?
Boruch: Yes, that was a nice riddle. The Gemara explains that he sprinkles three sets as opposed to two. Whichever receptacle he starts with, he also finishes with. The result is that he either sprinkled bull-goat-bull, in which case the last sprinkling is meaningless, or he sprinkled goat-bull-goat, in which case the first sprinkling is meaningless. Either way, he certainly fulfilled the mitzvah by sprinkling the proper sequence of bull-goat, either as the first and second set or the second and third set.
Shimon: Didn’t it bother you that the Kohen Gadol on the holiest day of the year is violating the biblical prohibition of baal tosif?! The Torah told him to sprinkle two sets, and he is doing three!
Boruch: Wow, good point. I seem to recall that the Tosfos Yeshanim suggests that since he is only performing the third set, not to add to the mitzvah but only as an ingenious way to escape his predicament of the mixed-up blood, it’s permitted. Still, what does that have to do with putting two mezuzos on the same doorpost?
Shimon: I suspect the resident of the bungalow was not sure if the first mezuza was kosher or not. Therefore, he put on the new mezuza to get out of a situation of doubt – not to add to the mitzvah. He relied on the tosfos yeshanim!
Boruch: It’s nice that you are always judging everyone favorably. Still, this exact case was discussed by the Pischei Teshuva (YD 291:2). He says that one should not put up a second mezuza to escape from checking the first one. It is a serious issue of baal tosif.
Shimon: Perhaps, the resident of the bungalow mentally decided not to use the first mezuza, and when he put up the second mezuza, he is actively showing that he is just “storing” the first mezuza there and not using it for the mitzvah?
Boruch: Someone actually suggested this trick to Rav Moshe Feinstei,n zt”l. (Igros Moshe YD 1:183). He refused to accept it. He reasoned: “If it worked, why didn’t the Pischei Teshuva suggest it?” Moreover, he brought proof from a seemingly similar situation. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 10:6) discusses a situation about one who wishes to change his tzitzis strings. He attaches the second set while the first set is still attached. The result is that he has 8 strings on every corner, instead of 4. The Rema writes that even if his intention was to nullify the first set of strings, his tzitzis are invalid until he removes the first set. So too, the second mezuza is invalid until he removes the first, even if his intention was to nullify the first mezuzah.
Shimon: That teshuva rings a bell. I seem to recall that the Beis Yosef said that Rashi argues this point.
Boruch: Yes, but we hold like the Rema, and the Shulchan Aruch didn’t even cite that opinion. Moreover, paradoxically, that opinion actually holds that when you intend to nullify the first set, you are yotzei, but only with the first set of strings and not the second set! So whatever reason you had for putting up a second mezuza, it would be meaningless anyway. (The reasoning behind this is somewhat perplexing. See there.)
Shimon: Perhaps, he held that a bungalow is not obligated to have a mezuza and was just putting up a mezuza as a hiddur.
Boruch: Yes, there is an opinion that a crowded and non-winterized bungalow is not obligated in mezuza if the husband doesn’t live there during the week. Rav Moshe Feinstein didn’t accept this opinion, but perhaps the resident did.
Shimon: I seem to recall that when the Minchas Elazar rented a certain dwelling for more than thirty days, he put up a mezuza, although there was one there already.
Boruch: That’s a good point. The Shut Betzail HaChochma (4:165) explains that the situation was that the Minchas Elazar knew that most, if not all, of the mezuzos in that establishment were invalid. It could be likewise that the resident of the bungalow surmised that a sixty-year-old mezuza left on the outside of the bungalow was most likely invalid. It’s unclear if Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, would accept that rationale. He said that even if it would be an expense to unearth an existing mezuza, one should take it off and check it and not simply affix another one. However, he wasn’t discussing a case where it was definitely invalid.
Shimon: Can there be an issue of baal tosif if the mezuza is definitely invalid?
Boruch: It’s not unheard of. There are two well-known opinions as to the proper way to make tefillin – Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. According to Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam’s tefillin are invalid and vice versa. Yet, putting them both on simultaneously runs afoul of baal tosif. However, there we say that the intention to only fulfill the mitzvah with one helps. (SA OC 34:2)
Shimon: Let me guess, you’re going to say that eating in a sukkah on Shemini Atzeres is baal tosif as well.
Boruch: Sorry, for that you’ll have to wait until the Daf gets up to Masechta Sukkah on the 29th of Tammuz.
Maggid shiur and Rebbe at Yeshiva Ateres Shimon in Far Rockaway. He leads the Daf Yomi chaburah at Eitz Chayim of Dogwood Park in West Hempstead, and writes “Delving into the Daf” each week for The Jewish Home.
