Anonymous

Mezuzah: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
2,647 bytes added ,  2 December 2020
m
Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"
m (Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical")
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
* However, the [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37191&pgnum=18 Mikdash Me'at 287:1:5] suggests that perhaps a roof can function as a lintel. Also, the Chovat Hadar 7:5 fnt. 8 equates the issue with that of having the edge of a roof function as a lintel to the opinion of the Rosh who holds that the edge of a wall can function as a doorpost. The Netivot in [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31812&st=&pgnum=49 Derech Hachaim Siddur 239:1] also holds that a roof can serve as a lintel. Minchat Yitzchak 10:91 explains that a roof doesn't function as a lintel but if the roof has an edge where the door is according to some opinions it functions as a lintel. Yet, if the roof extends beyond the door in both directions it doesn't function as a lintel. He compares it to the Machloket Rama 630:2 and Magen Avraham 630:2 if there's doorposts and no lintel if that can serve as a tzurat hapetach. He admits that it seems not to be a proof though from further analysis.  
* However, the [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37191&pgnum=18 Mikdash Me'at 287:1:5] suggests that perhaps a roof can function as a lintel. Also, the Chovat Hadar 7:5 fnt. 8 equates the issue with that of having the edge of a roof function as a lintel to the opinion of the Rosh who holds that the edge of a wall can function as a doorpost. The Netivot in [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31812&st=&pgnum=49 Derech Hachaim Siddur 239:1] also holds that a roof can serve as a lintel. Minchat Yitzchak 10:91 explains that a roof doesn't function as a lintel but if the roof has an edge where the door is according to some opinions it functions as a lintel. Yet, if the roof extends beyond the door in both directions it doesn't function as a lintel. He compares it to the Machloket Rama 630:2 and Magen Avraham 630:2 if there's doorposts and no lintel if that can serve as a tzurat hapetach. He admits that it seems not to be a proof though from further analysis.  
* Adoney Paz 2:121:1 sides with the Chazon Ish though he recommends being strict for all opinions to put up a mezuzah without a bracha. Mezuzah Vehilchoteha 10:3 concurs.</ref>
* Adoney Paz 2:121:1 sides with the Chazon Ish though he recommends being strict for all opinions to put up a mezuzah without a bracha. Mezuzah Vehilchoteha 10:3 concurs.</ref>
===Small Room Opening into Big Room===
#A small room which opens into a big room if the big room is an entrance into the small room, if that entrance is created by the ends of walls and not doorposts it is exempt. If the small room is an entrance into the big room that entrance is obligated even it is created by the ends of the walls.<ref>Chovat Hadar 7:7 writes that if there's a small room which opens into a big room if the big room is an entrance to the small room it is considered exempt. If the small room is an entrance to the big room it is obligated since the walls of the big room serve as the mezuzot for the entrance going into the big room.</ref>


===Porch===
===Porch===
Line 52: Line 54:
===Elevator===
===Elevator===


#An elevator is obligated in a mezuzah from the elevator shaft to the building.<ref>Lehorot Natan 3:72 writes that there should be a mezuzah from the elevator to the building. He writes that it is like a foyer (bet shaar) that leads to a house. Additionally he adds that according to Rabbi Akiva Eiger 286:13 even if it doesn't require a mezuzah itself it needs a mezuzah since it opens to a room that requires a mezuzah.</ref>
#Some say that an elevator is obligated in a mezuzah from the elevator shaft to the building.<ref>Lehorot Natan 3:72 writes that there should be a mezuzah from the elevator to the building. He writes that it is like a foyer (bet shaar) that leads to a house. Additionally he adds that according to Rabbi Akiva Eiger 286:13 even if it doesn't require a mezuzah itself it needs a mezuzah since it opens to a room that requires a mezuzah.</ref> Others hold that an elevator is exempt.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=887&st=&pgnum=419 Beer Moshe 2:88] thinks that an elevator and the entrances are exempt since the elevator isn't suited for living and the shaft isn't either. [https://www.yeshiva.co/ask/2933 Rabbi Elchanan Lewis] quotes the Chovat Hadar p. 43 who thinks that elevator and the entrances need a mezuzah, while Minchat Yitzchak 4:93 thinks that only the elevator needs one and not each floor.</ref>


===Summer House===
===Summer House===
Line 108: Line 110:


#A balcony or deck that opens to a house and has no other entrance or exit should have a mezuzah on the right going from the house to the balcony.<ref>The Maharil quoted by the Taz 289:4 writes that if a house opens to enclosed courtyard and it doesn't have any other opening then certainly the doorway to the courtyard is considered an entrance to the courtyard since there's no other way in. However, the Bet Meir 289 argues with the Maharil and says that since the house is used more than the courtyard it is considered an entrance into the house. Chazon Ish YD 168:5 (cited by Yabia Omer) and Binyan Tzion (cited by Chelkat Yakov) agree with the Bet Meir. Maharam Shik 287, Maharsham 1:71 and 3:154, and Chelkat Yakov YD 162 agree with the Maharil against the Bet Meir. The Daat Kedoshim agrees with the Bet Meir unless it is an area less than 4x4 amot which might not be obligated at all in which case he follows the Maharil. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Yabia Omer YD 4:23:6 cites the Masechet Mezuzah ch. 2 which amazingly has an explicit dispute between the Tana Kama and Rabbi Yosi about this exact case where a house opens to a courtyard that doesn't have another entrance. Rav Ovadia quotes dozens of sources whether we generally follow Rabbi Yosi over Tana Kama or not and additionally if it is possible to disregard this source since it is post-talmudic. In any event, he is convinced of the argument of the Bet Meir but still follows the opinion of the Maharil being that he was quoted by the Bet Yosef and is an earlier source.</ref>
#A balcony or deck that opens to a house and has no other entrance or exit should have a mezuzah on the right going from the house to the balcony.<ref>The Maharil quoted by the Taz 289:4 writes that if a house opens to enclosed courtyard and it doesn't have any other opening then certainly the doorway to the courtyard is considered an entrance to the courtyard since there's no other way in. However, the Bet Meir 289 argues with the Maharil and says that since the house is used more than the courtyard it is considered an entrance into the house. Chazon Ish YD 168:5 (cited by Yabia Omer) and Binyan Tzion (cited by Chelkat Yakov) agree with the Bet Meir. Maharam Shik 287, Maharsham 1:71 and 3:154, and Chelkat Yakov YD 162 agree with the Maharil against the Bet Meir. The Daat Kedoshim agrees with the Bet Meir unless it is an area less than 4x4 amot which might not be obligated at all in which case he follows the Maharil. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Yabia Omer YD 4:23:6 cites the Masechet Mezuzah ch. 2 which amazingly has an explicit dispute between the Tana Kama and Rabbi Yosi about this exact case where a house opens to a courtyard that doesn't have another entrance. Rav Ovadia quotes dozens of sources whether we generally follow Rabbi Yosi over Tana Kama or not and additionally if it is possible to disregard this source since it is post-talmudic. In any event, he is convinced of the argument of the Bet Meir but still follows the opinion of the Maharil being that he was quoted by the Bet Yosef and is an earlier source.</ref>
#Even if the balcony is less than 4x4 amot and isn't roofed, according to Sephardim, the mezuzah should be placed on the right side going from the house to the balcony.<ref>Yabia Omer 4:23:6, Or Letzion 1:14, Hamezuzah Vehilchoteha 3:11. Or Letzion 1:14 writes that the minhag is to put a mezuzah on the right going from the house to the balcony. He explains that if the balcony is less than 4x4 amot it isn't considered obligated in a mezuzah in it of itself. Additionally, if it doesn't have a roof it isn't obligated in it of itself. However, since the balcony opens to the house which is obligated we can treat the balcony like a foyer (bet shaar) before the house which is obligated even if it is less than 4x4. However, the dispute is why the foyer is obligated. According to the Tosfot and Rosh it is only obligated rabbinically but it is obligated as a structure that is useful for its designated purpose. However, according to the Rambam, it is obligated Biblically because it opens to a house. According to the Rambam the mezuzah should be placed on the right side going in from the balcony since the balcony is only obligated as it serves the house. However, according to the Tosfot and Rosh the mezuzah should be placed on the right side going from the house to the balcony as it is obligated in it of itself. Yet, the minhag is just to put a mezuzah on the right side going from the house to the balcony like the Rosh since perhaps we follow the Rosh and even if we don't we follow the opinion of the Chikrei Lev who holds that the balcony door can't be considered an entrance for the house since you can only use it if you first exited through it. He quotes that this was also the opinion of the Rosh Yeshiva of Porat Yosef, Rav Ezra Attiyah. </ref> Ashkenazim hold that if the balcony is less than the equivalent of 16 square amot  the mezuzah should be put on the right side going from the balcony to the house.<ref>Hamezuzah Vehilchoteha ch. 3 fnt. 19 cites the Chiko Mamtakim p. 359 who quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach has holding that a balcony that is 4x4 amot square or the equivalent should have the mezuzah from the house to the balcony like the Maharil, but if the balcony is smaller than that it should have a mezuzah on the right side from the balcony to the house like the Bet Meir, Chazon Ish, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger.</ref>
#Even if the balcony is less than 4x4 amot and isn't roofed, according to Sephardim, the mezuzah should be placed on the right side going from the house to the balcony.<ref>Yabia Omer 4:23:6, Or Letzion 1:14, Hamezuzah Vehilchoteha 3:11. Or Letzion 1:14 writes that the minhag is to put a mezuzah on the right going from the house to the balcony. He explains that if the balcony is less than 4x4 amot it isn't considered obligated in a mezuzah in it of itself. Additionally, if it doesn't have a roof it isn't obligated in it of itself. However, since the balcony opens to the house which is obligated we can treat the balcony like a foyer (bet shaar) before the house which is obligated even if it is less than 4x4. However, the dispute is why the foyer is obligated. According to the Tosfot and Rosh it is only obligated rabbinically but it is obligated as a structure that is useful for its designated purpose. However, according to the Rambam, it is obligated biblically because it opens to a house. According to the Rambam the mezuzah should be placed on the right side going in from the balcony since the balcony is only obligated as it serves the house. However, according to the Tosfot and Rosh the mezuzah should be placed on the right side going from the house to the balcony as it is obligated in it of itself. Yet, the minhag is just to put a mezuzah on the right side going from the house to the balcony like the Rosh since perhaps we follow the Rosh and even if we don't we follow the opinion of the Chikrei Lev who holds that the balcony door can't be considered an entrance for the house since you can only use it if you first exited through it. He quotes that this was also the opinion of the Rosh Yeshiva of Porat Yosef, Rav Ezra Attiyah. </ref> Ashkenazim hold that if the balcony is less than the equivalent of 16 square amot  the mezuzah should be put on the right side going from the balcony to the house.<ref>Hamezuzah Vehilchoteha ch. 3 fnt. 19 cites the Chiko Mamtakim p. 359 who quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach has holding that a balcony that is 4x4 amot square or the equivalent should have the mezuzah from the house to the balcony like the Maharil, but if the balcony is smaller than that it should have a mezuzah on the right side from the balcony to the house like the Bet Meir, Chazon Ish, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger.</ref>


===Walk-in Closet===
===Walk-in Closet===
Line 117: Line 119:


*Mikdash Me’at 286:39 strongly disagrees with the Chamudei Doniel. Orchot Rabbenu v. 3 p. 165 quotes the Chazon Ish as holding that we do not hold like the Chamudei Doniel. [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/839765/rabbi-baruch-simon/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%95%D7%96%D7%94/ Rabbi Simon in an article on mezuzot] agrees.</ref>
*Mikdash Me’at 286:39 strongly disagrees with the Chamudei Doniel. Orchot Rabbenu v. 3 p. 165 quotes the Chazon Ish as holding that we do not hold like the Chamudei Doniel. [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/839765/rabbi-baruch-simon/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%95%D7%96%D7%94/ Rabbi Simon in an article on mezuzot] agrees.</ref>
##Most poskim hold that an area 2x8 amot is obligated in a mezuzah.<ref>The Rambam (Mezuzah 2:6) holds that an area that is 2x8 amot is obligated in a mezuzah as would any area that is larger than 16 square amot. The Rosh (Mezuzah no. 16) disagrees and holds that unless it is 4x4 amot square it isn’t obligated. Shulchan Aruch YD 286:13 holds like the Rambam. Levush 286:13 agrees. The Shach 286:23 holds that it is obligated but the mezuzah should be put up without a bracha. Chayei Adam 15:6, Aruch Hashulchan YD 286:21, and Yalkut Yosef 285:24 agree.
##Most poskim hold that an area 2x8 amot is obligated in a mezuzah.<ref>The Rambam (Mezuzah 6:2) holds that an area that is 2x8 amot is obligated in a mezuzah as would any area that is larger than 16 square amot. The Rosh (Mezuzah no. 16) disagrees and holds that unless it is 4x4 amot square it isn’t obligated. Shulchan Aruch YD 286:13 holds like the Rambam. Levush 286:13 agrees. The Shach 286:23 holds that it is obligated but the mezuzah should be put up without a bracha. Chayei Adam 15:6, Aruch Hashulchan YD 286:21, and Yalkut Yosef 285:24 agree.


*However, the Taz OC 634:1 argues that everyone holds it is exempt. Chazon Ish YD 169:4, Or Yitzchak 2:52, and [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/839765/rabbi-baruch-simon/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%95%D7%96%D7%94/ Rabbi Simon in an article on mezuzot] accept the Taz. Additionally, according to the Chamudei Doniel obviously an area that is 2x4 is obligated.</ref>
*However, the Taz OC 634:1 argues that everyone holds it is exempt. Chazon Ish YD 169:4, Or Yitzchak 2:52, and [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/839765/rabbi-baruch-simon/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%95%D7%96%D7%94/ Rabbi Simon in an article on mezuzot] accept the Taz. Additionally, according to the Chamudei Doniel obviously an area that is 2x4 is obligated.</ref>
Line 124: Line 126:
*Majority of achronim accept the Maharil. Taz 289:3, Maharam Shik 287, Maharsham 1:71 and 3:154, Chelkat Yakov YD 162, Yeshuot Malko (Mezuzah 6:1), Igrot Moshe YD 1:181, Or Letzion YD 1:14, and Yabia Omer YD 4:23:6 agree with Maharil in this case. Binyan Tzion (cited by Chelkat Yakov) and Chazon Ish YD 168:5 agree with Bet Meir.
*Majority of achronim accept the Maharil. Taz 289:3, Maharam Shik 287, Maharsham 1:71 and 3:154, Chelkat Yakov YD 162, Yeshuot Malko (Mezuzah 6:1), Igrot Moshe YD 1:181, Or Letzion YD 1:14, and Yabia Omer YD 4:23:6 agree with Maharil in this case. Binyan Tzion (cited by Chelkat Yakov) and Chazon Ish YD 168:5 agree with Bet Meir.
*Or Letzion YD 1:14 write that the opinion of the Maharil depends on the dispute between the Rambam and Rosh. According to the Rambam that a bet shaar is obligated because of the house that it is attached to the mezuzah should be on the left side and according to the Rosh the rabbinic obligation is for the bet shaar itself and accordingly the mezuzah should be on the right. Or Letzion concludes to place the mezuzah on the right because either we follow the Rosh or the Chikrei Lev. Yeshuot Malko (Mezuzah 6:1) advances the same argument. However, both Or Letzion and Yeshuot Malko conclude that we accept the Maharil. Igrot Moshe YD 1:181 rejects the entire question and explains that the Rambam would hold that the bet shaar is obligated in it of itself once it is attached to a place that is used for living. He accepts the Maharil. Our summary is that most accept the Maharil in this case and would hold to put up the mezuzah on the right side.</ref>
*Or Letzion YD 1:14 write that the opinion of the Maharil depends on the dispute between the Rambam and Rosh. According to the Rambam that a bet shaar is obligated because of the house that it is attached to the mezuzah should be on the left side and according to the Rosh the rabbinic obligation is for the bet shaar itself and accordingly the mezuzah should be on the right. Or Letzion concludes to place the mezuzah on the right because either we follow the Rosh or the Chikrei Lev. Yeshuot Malko (Mezuzah 6:1) advances the same argument. However, both Or Letzion and Yeshuot Malko conclude that we accept the Maharil. Igrot Moshe YD 1:181 rejects the entire question and explains that the Rambam would hold that the bet shaar is obligated in it of itself once it is attached to a place that is used for living. He accepts the Maharil. Our summary is that most accept the Maharil in this case and would hold to put up the mezuzah on the right side.</ref>
##If a closet is exempt from mezuzah should it have a mezuzah going from the exempt area into the room since it is like an entrance to the room? Most Ashkenazim hold that a mezuzah is placed on the left side going into an area that is exempt, while Sephardim hold that the mezuzah is placed on the right side. <ref>Rabbi Akiva Eiger 286:13 writes that since the area is exempt from a mezuzah it can still be considered an entrance into the room. The Chazon Ish YD 168:5 agrees and adds that accordingly the mezuzah should be placed on the left side going from the exempt area into the room. Rav Shlomo Zalman (cited by Hamezuzah Vehilchoteha ch. 3 fnt. 19), [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/788640/rabbi-hershel-schachter/the-laws-of-mezuzah/ Rav Hershel Schachter in “The Laws of Mezuzah” (min 34-42)], Binyan Tzion 99, and Rav Heinemann (Star-K Kashrut Kurrents Winter 5779 p. 2) agree.  
##If a closet is exempt from mezuzah should it have a mezuzah going from the exempt area into the room since it is like an entrance to the room? Most Ashkenazim hold that a mezuzah is placed on the left side going into an area that is exempt, while Sephardim hold that the mezuzah is placed on the right side. <ref>Rabbi Akiva Eiger 286:13 writes that since the area is exempt from a mezuzah it can still be considered an entrance into the room. The Chazon Ish YD 168:5 agrees and adds that accordingly the mezuzah should be placed on the left side going from the exempt area into the room. Rav Shlomo Zalman (cited by Hamezuzah Vehilchoteha ch. 3 fnt. 19), [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/788640/rabbi-hershel-schachter/the-laws-of-mezuzah/ Rav Hershel Schachter in “The Laws of Mezuzah” (min 34-42)], Rav Aharon Lichtenstein (cited by [https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/do-walk-in-closets-and-porches-require-a-mezuzah-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter Rabbi Jachter]), Binyan Tzion 99, and Rav Heinemann (Star-K Kashrut Kurrents Winter 5779 p. 2) agree.  
 
*However, the Chikrei Lev YD 129 argues that since the area is exempt in it of itself it is never considered an entrance just because you can enter it and then while exiting it enter into another room. That is considered an exit and not entering. Or letzion YD 1:14 isn’t certain if the Chikrei Lev is correct but he certainly considers his opinion significant. Yabia Omer 4:23:6 is also uncertain of Rabbi Akiva Eiger and cites Tzur Yakov and Tarshish Shoham quoting Lechem Hapanim who disagree with Rabbi Akiva Eiger. Igrot Moshe YD 1:181, Agur Bohalecha p. 739-740, Chesed Lavraham YD 91, and R’ Simon all agree with Chikrei Lev and reject Rabbi Akiva Eiger.</ref>
*However, the Chikrei Lev YD 129 argues that since the area is exempt in it of itself it is never considered an entrance just because you can enter it and then while exiting it enter into another room. That is considered an exit and not entering. Or letzion YD 1:14 isn’t certain if the Chikrei Lev is correct but he certainly considers his opinion significant. Yabia Omer 4:23:6 is also uncertain of Rabbi Akiva Eiger and cites Tzur Yakov and Tarshish Shoham quoting Lechem Hapanim who disagree with Rabbi Akiva Eiger. Igrot Moshe YD 1:181, Agur Bohalecha p. 739-740, Chesed Lavraham YD 91, and R’ Simon all agree with Chikrei Lev and reject Rabbi Akiva Eiger.</ref>
#Therefore, a closet that is 4x4 amot or larger clearly needs a mezuzah and the mezuzah is placed on the right side going into the closet.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 286:2</ref>
#Therefore, a closet that is 4x4 amot or larger clearly needs a mezuzah and the mezuzah is placed on the right side going into the closet.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 286:2</ref>
Line 146: Line 147:
[[Image:Short Doorposts.png|right|200px]]
[[Image:Short Doorposts.png|right|200px]]
# If there are doorposts which are ten tefachim but they don't reach the ceiling and there is a wall which reaches the ceiling the mezuzah should be placed on the doorposts and not the wall (spot ב in the picture).<ref>Derech Hachaim 240:8, Pitchei Teshuva 286:10, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:12, Chovat Hadar 8:2:2.  
# If there are doorposts which are ten tefachim but they don't reach the ceiling and there is a wall which reaches the ceiling the mezuzah should be placed on the doorposts and not the wall (spot ב in the picture).<ref>Derech Hachaim 240:8, Pitchei Teshuva 286:10, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:12, Chovat Hadar 8:2:2.  
*Derech Hachayim 240:8 writes that if a doorpost doesn't reach the ceiling the mezuzah should be placed on that doorpost as long as it is ten tefachim tall. The Mikdash Me'at 286:36 establishes the case of the Derech Hachaim to only when the door reaches within a third of the entire doorway. However, the Keviyut Mezuzah Khilchata p. 389 points out that this Mikdash Me'at is a very difficult explanation of the Derech Hachaim. He agrees with the Derech Hachaim. Also, Chovat Hadar 8:2:2 p. 73 writes that if there are doorposts which are ten tefachim they are considered the right place for the mezuzah even if there is a wall which does reach the ceiling. Sechel Tov 289:73 quotes others who agree with the Chovat Hadar. However, [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/839765/rabbi-baruch-simon/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%95%D7%96%D7%94/] discusses this case at length and comes to the conclusion that it should be placed on the wall if the doorposts aren't shoulder height (spot א in the picture).
*Derech Hachayim 240:8 writes that if a doorpost doesn't reach the ceiling the mezuzah should be placed on that doorpost as long as it is ten tefachim tall. The Mikdash Me'at 286:36 establishes the case of the Derech Hachaim to only when the door reaches within a third of the entire doorway. However, the Keviyut Mezuzah Khilchata p. 389 points out that this Mikdash Me'at is a very difficult explanation of the Derech Hachaim. He agrees with the Derech Hachaim. Also, Chovat Hadar 8:2:2 p. 73 writes that if there are doorposts which are ten tefachim they are considered the right place for the mezuzah even though they do not reach the ceiling and there is a wall which does reach the ceiling. Sechel Tov 289:73 quotes others who agree with the Chovat Hadar. However, [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/839765/rabbi-baruch-simon/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%95%D7%96%D7%94/] discusses this case at length and comes to the conclusion that it should be placed on the wall if the doorposts aren't shoulder height (spot א in the picture).
* In theory, Keviyut Mezuzah Khilchata 9:4 writes that there's two reasons why such a doorway would require a mezuzah. 1) The ten tefach posts are viewed as though they are extended up to the ceiling based on '''gud asik''' (Meiri Eruvin 11b, Sh"t Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi 2:26). 2) The posts don't need to touch the roof (Chesed Lavraham 16, Chazon Ish 170:3). Seemingly according to the first approach the mezuzah would be placed a third of the way to the ceiling, whereas the second approach would say to put it a third of the way up the post itself. He points out that another factor to consider is whether the mezuzah needs to be within a third of the height of the post or the doorway.</ref>
* In theory, Keviyut Mezuzah Khilchata 9:4 writes that there's two reasons why such a doorway would require a mezuzah. 1) The ten tefach posts are viewed as though they are extended up to the ceiling based on '''gud asik''' (Meiri Eruvin 11b, Sh"t Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi 2:26). 2) The posts don't need to touch the roof (Chesed Lavraham 16, Chazon Ish 170:3). Seemingly according to the first approach the mezuzah would be placed a third of the way to the ceiling, whereas the second approach would say to put it a third of the way up the post itself. He points out that another factor to consider is whether the mezuzah needs to be within a third of the height of the post or the doorway.</ref>


Line 167: Line 168:
Yashfei 1:207:1, Doleh Umashke (p. 275, footnote 69) quoting Rav Elyashiv and Rav Nissim Karelitz. </ref>
Yashfei 1:207:1, Doleh Umashke (p. 275, footnote 69) quoting Rav Elyashiv and Rav Nissim Karelitz. </ref>
# If a mezuzah was taken down for plastering or repainting the door for a few days it should be put up again with a bracha.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14709&pgnum=422 Beer Moshe 2:92] writes that it is obvious that when putting up a mezuzah after it was taken down for two or three days that a new bracha is necessary. He says that it is obvious that a person had a hesech hadaat. He compares it to Shulchan Aruch 8:14 by tzitzit that was removed and put back on. Mezuzah Vehilchoteha p. 110 concludes like the Divrei Shalom 4:167 that one can recite a bracha when putting it back up but it is better to have them checked and make a bracha when putting them up.</ref>
# If a mezuzah was taken down for plastering or repainting the door for a few days it should be put up again with a bracha.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14709&pgnum=422 Beer Moshe 2:92] writes that it is obvious that when putting up a mezuzah after it was taken down for two or three days that a new bracha is necessary. He says that it is obvious that a person had a hesech hadaat. He compares it to Shulchan Aruch 8:14 by tzitzit that was removed and put back on. Mezuzah Vehilchoteha p. 110 concludes like the Divrei Shalom 4:167 that one can recite a bracha when putting it back up but it is better to have them checked and make a bracha when putting them up.</ref>
===Ten Conditions in Order to Recite Bracha===
# In order to be certainly obligated in order to put up the mezuzah with a bracha the doorway would need to meet all ten conditions: The doorway has (1) two side posts, that are (2) at least ten [[tefachim]] tall, (3) has a lintel on top, and (4) has a door in it. The room has (5) at least 4x4 amot square space, (6) a roof, (7) is for a private or commercial use and not a shul or bet midrash, (8) is suitable for human dwelling, (9) the room is used for honorable activities and not for a bathroom or bathhouse, and (10) it is a permanent structure.<ref>Rambam Mezuzah 6:1</ref>
# If the doorway doesn't have a door a mezuzah is put up without a bracha. If there is a sliding door or another door without hinges there is a question whether a bracha is recited. However, if it is a folding door or even if it has hinges on the top of the door it would still require a mezuzah with a bracha.<ref>Chovat Hadar ch. 7 fnt. 41 has a doubt about the case and leaves it unresolved. Mezuzah Vhilchoteha ch. 10 fnt. 22 cites this Chovat Hadar and adds regarding a curtain the sefer Mezuzat Beytecha says it requires a bracha, but the sefer Pitchei Mezuzot argues that a curtain isn't a door.</ref>


==Rentals==
==Rentals==
Line 211: Line 215:
==Sources==
==Sources==
<references />
<references />
[[Category:Ritual Practices]]
[[Category:Safrut]]
Anonymous user