a gatehouse, used to guard the entrance to a courtyard, a portico [akhsadra], an open porch, and a balcony serving as a corridor to several residences. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is designated for residence and is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, so too all similar structures are obligated. This is to the exclusion of those structures that are not designated for residence but for other purposes, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza.

I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a ritual bath for immersion. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is designed to honor people who enter it, so too, all places that are designed to honor those who enter are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, excluding those structures that are not designed to honor.

I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even the Temple Mount and its chambers and courtyards. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is non-sacred, so too any place that is non-sacred is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, excluding those places that are sacred. For the purposes of this discussion, the baraita teaches that there are Sages who hold that barns and storehouses whose use is standard require a mezuza, contrary to the opinion of Rav Yehuda that everyone agrees that these structures are exempt. Consequently, the baraita is a conclusive refutation of his opinion and support for the contention of Rav Kahana that this matter is the subject of a tannaitic debate.

§ Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught a baraita before Rava: Six gates are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza: The gate of a storehouse for hay, and of a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, and a Median gate, which is a dome, lacking two doorposts and a lintel, and an unroofed gate, and a gate that is not ten handbreadths high. Rava said to him: You began your statement with six gates that do not require a mezuza, and you concluded with seven.

Rava said to him: The obligation to affix a mezuza to a Median gate is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the gateway of a dome, i.e., an arched gateway, Rabbi Meir obligates it in the mitzva of mezuza, and the Rabbis exempt it. And they agree that if, at the foot of the entrance, there are doorposts ten handbreadths high before the arch of the dome begins narrowing the width of the entrance, it is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza since the sides form a usual doorway. Abaye said: However, everyone agrees that if the entire opening is only ten handbreadths high and at the foot of its entrance there are doorposts not even three handbreadths high, it is nothing. It is not considered an entrance and is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza. Alternatively, if at the foot of its entrance there are doorposts three handbreadths high, but the entrance is not ten handbreadths high, it is nothing, as it is not considered a viable entrance.

They disagree only with regard to a case where the entrance is ten handbreadths high, and at the foot of the entrance there are doorposts three handbreadths high, but at no point is the width of the opening four handbreadths. However, the space in the dome alongside the entrance is wide enough to theoretically carve out space to complete a width of four handbreadths. Rabbi Meir holds that in all cases where a certain minimum area is required for a specific halakha to take effect and the existing area is smaller, if circumstances would theoretically allow one to carve out and create an area of the requisite size, its legal status is as if one carves out the space to complete it. Therefore, the opening is considered wide enough to require a mezuza. And the Rabbis hold: One does not carve out the space to complete it. Since the width of the opening is not actually four handbreadths, it is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: A synagogue, a woman’s house, and a house jointly owned by partners are all obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why would these structures be exempt? Lest you say that it is written: “Your house,” in the masculine, and not her house; “Your house,” in the singular, and not their house, excluding a jointly owned house. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that those houses are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza like all others.

And say it is indeed so that a woman’s house and a jointly owned house are exempt. The Gemara rejects this possibility: Immediately following the mitzva of mezuza is the reward for its fulfillment, as the verse states: “So that your days be numerous, as well as the days of your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:21). If these structures were exempt from the mitzva, the question would arise: Do these men and individuals require long life, and these, meaning women and partners, do not require long life? The mitzva of mezuza clearly applies to all of them.

The Gemara then asks: Rather, why do I need the emphasis of the verse: Your house, if every house is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza? The Gemara answers: This could be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: Your house is interpreted to mean that the mezuza is placed in the way that you enter the house. And when a person lifts his foot to begin walking, he lifts his right foot first. Therefore, the mezuza is affixed on the right side of the doorway.

§ Apropos the baraita just cited, the Gemara cites a related baraita that addresses a different topic. It was taught in another baraita: A synagogue, a house jointly owned by partners, and a woman’s house become impure with the impurity of leprosy of the house, like all other houses. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why wouldn’t they become impure? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that it is written with regard to leprosy: “And the one whom the house is his will come” (Leviticus 14:35), which could be interpreted: His and not hers; his and not theirs, to the exclusion of a house owned by a woman or by partners. Therefore, it teaches us that these houses are also included in this halakha.

And say it is indeed so that a woman’s house and a jointly owned house are excluded from the impurity of leprosy. The Gemara responds that the verse states: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34). The word your is written in the plural form to teach that all houses in Eretz Yisrael are subject to this impurity. The Gemara asks: Rather, why do I need the emphasis of the term: His, if every house is subject to the impurity of leprosy? The Gemara answers that the term does not teach a halakha but reveals why a house might be afflicted with leprosy. The house belonging to one who dedicates his house to himself alone, who refuses to lend his vessels to others and says that he does not have them, will be punished. The Holy One, Blessed be He, publicizes his possessions for all to see when he is forced to empty them from his house due to leprosy. This excludes one who lends his vessels to others; his house is not afflicted with leprosy.

The Gemara raises another question: And with regard to a synagogue, does it become impure with the impurity of leprosy? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One might have thought that synagogues and study halls become impure with the impurity of leprosy. Therefore, the verse states: And the one whom the house is his will come; this is referring to a house that is designated for him, excluding those houses that are not designated for him but are public property.

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as it is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. This baraita, which states that a synagogue can become impure with the impurity of leprosy, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; that baraita, which states that a synagogue cannot become impure with the impurity of leprosy, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: A synagogue in which there is a residence for the synagogue attendant is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, as it is a dwelling. With regard to a synagogue in which there is no residence, Rabbi Meir obligates it in the mitzva of mezuza, and the Rabbis exempt it. Rabbi Meir deems a synagogue like a residence with regard to both a mezuza and its susceptibility to leprosy.

And if you wish, say instead a different resolution to the contradiction between the baraitot with regard to the synagogue. Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is not difficult. This baraita, which states that it can become impure, is referring to a synagogue in which there is a place of residence; that baraita, which states that it cannot become impure, is referring to a synagogue in which there is not a place of residence.

And if you wish, say instead yet a different resolution to the contradiction between the baraitot: Both this baraita and that baraita are referring to synagogues in which there is not a place of residence,