Anonymous

Mezuzah: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
5,401 bytes added ,  19 November 2021
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:


===Only One Doorpost===
===Only One Doorpost===
[[Image:one-doorpost.png|200px|right]]
<center><gallery>
one-doorpost.png|Picture #1:End of wall on right side functions as right doorpost
Small into big with no right side.png|Picture #2: End of wall on left side without a right doorpost
</gallery></center>


#If a doorway only has one doorpost, such as if the lintel is connected to a wall, then if the standing doorpost is on the right, one should put up a mezuzah without a bracha or recite a bracha when putting up a mezuzah in a doorway that is obligated and then put up this mezuzah. If the standing doorpost is on the left, that doorway isn't obligated in a mezuzah.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 287:1 writes that a doorway is only obligated in a mezuzah if it has two doorposts and a lintel. Shach 287:1 quotes the Rosh and Rabbenu Yerucham who are strict if there's one doorpost on the right side and concludes that one should put up a mezuzah in such a case without a bracha. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:11, Yalkut Yosef Sovah Semachot p. 546 no. 19, and HaMezuzah VeHilchoteha 10:4 agree.</ref>
#If a doorway only has one doorpost, such as if the lintel is connected to a wall, then if the standing doorpost is on the right (picture #1), one should put up a mezuzah without a bracha or recite a bracha when putting up a mezuzah in a doorway that is obligated and then put up this mezuzah. If the standing doorpost is on the left (picture #2), that doorway isn't obligated in a mezuzah.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 287:1 writes that a doorway is only obligated in a mezuzah if it has two doorposts and a lintel. Shach 287:1 quotes the Rosh and Rabbenu Yerucham who are strict if there's one doorpost on the right side and concludes that one should put up a mezuzah in such a case without a bracha. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:11, Yalkut Yosef Sovah Semachot p. 546 no. 19, and HaMezuzah VeHilchoteha 10:4 agree.</ref>
<center><gallery>
Left corner right end of wall.png|Picture #3: Room with right doorpost as end of wall
Right corner left end of wall.png|Picture #4: Room with left doorpost as end of wall
</gallery></center>
#If the left doorpost is the end of a wall that extends to the left and the right doorpost is the end of a wall (picture #3) that is considered as though there is a right doorpost without a left one and one should put up a mezuzah without a bracha.<ref>Chovat Hadar 7:7 in fnt.</ref> Others hold that this case is exempt altogether.<ref>Avnei Yishpa 3:95:1 based on Mikdash Me'at 287:3-4</ref>
#If the right doorpost is the end of a wall that extends to the right and the left doorpost is the end of a wall (picture #4) that is considered as though there is a left doorpost without a right one and the entrance is completely exempt from a mezuzah.<ref>Chovat Hadar 7:7 in fnt.</ref>


===No Lintel===
===No Lintel===
[[Image:has-mashkof.png|200px|left]]
<center><gallery>
[[Image:no-mashkof.png|200px|right]]
has-mashkof.png|Picture #1: Door with two posts and lintel
no-mashkof.png|Picture #2: Door with two posts and no lintel
</gallery></center>


#A regular doorway has two doorposts and a lintel (see the picture to the left). If the doorway has two doorposts and there is no lintel but the area has a roof (see the picture to the right), if the roof comes to an edge at the point of the door some say that one should put up a mezuzah, while others hold that doesn't require a mezuzah. Therefore, a mezuzah should be put up without a bracha.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 287:1 writes that a door isn't obligated in a mezuzah unless the doorway has a lintel. Shulchan Aruch implies that a roof isn't a lintel. Accordingly, the Chazon Ish YD 172:3 s.v. mah writes that if the lintel doesn't extend downward to block part of the opening it isn't considered a lintel but just part of the roof. Shevet Halevi 2:150 agrees and proves this from Rashi Menachot 33b s.v. achsadra. This is also the ruling of Rav Moshe Heinemann (Guide to Halachos v. 1 p. 100).
#A regular doorway has two doorposts and a lintel (picture #1). If the doorway has two doorposts and there is no lintel but the area has a roof (picture #2), if the roof comes to an edge at the point of the door some say that one should put up a mezuzah, while others hold that doesn't require a mezuzah. Therefore, a mezuzah should be put up without a bracha.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 287:1 writes that a door isn't obligated in a mezuzah unless the doorway has a lintel. Shulchan Aruch implies that a roof isn't a lintel. Accordingly, the Chazon Ish YD 172:3 s.v. mah writes that if the lintel doesn't extend downward to block part of the opening it isn't considered a lintel but just part of the roof. Shevet Halevi 2:150 agrees and proves this from Rashi Menachot 33b s.v. achsadra. This is also the ruling of Rav Moshe Heinemann (Guide to Halachos v. 1 p. 100).
*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 dispute between the 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 dispute between the 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===
===Small Room Opening into Big Room===
 
<center><gallery>
#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>
Big into small.png|Picture #1: Normal way to walk is from the big room into the small room
Small into big.png|Picture #2: Normal way to walk is from the small room into the big room
</gallery></center>
#If the big room is an entrance into the small room (picture #1), if that entrance is created by the ends of walls and not doorposts, some poskim hold that the entrance is exempt from mezuzah.<ref>Chovat Hadar 7:7. Avnei Yishpa 3:95:1 quotes Rav Elyashiv as holding that it is exempt from a mezuzah. His reasoning is that the ends of the walls of the big room aren't doorposts for the small room since they are really one wall with a break. The end of a wall serving as a doorpost is only if there's no continuation of that wall on the opposite side continuing the wall.</ref> Some disagree.<ref>Chut Shani (Mezuzah p. 107) holds that it is obligated to put up a mezuzah with a bracha since from the inside of the big room it is recognizable as a doorway. Pitchei Mezuzot p. 154-5 holds that it requires a mezuzah according to the Rosh since it is the end of a wall and can be seen as a doorpost. According to him, it doesn't matter if it is from the small room to the big room or otherwise. Pitchei Shaarim 287:1:12 p. 215 agrees.</ref> To avoid the dispute one should put up a mezuzah without a bracha.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49139&pgnum=122 Keviyut Mezuzah Khilchata 9:11] writes that this case of a big room into a small room is a big dispute and unresolved one should put up a mezuzah there without a bracha. Madanei Asher (Mezuzah 30:3 p. 88) agrees.</ref>
#If the small room is an entrance into the big room (picture #2)<ref>Another picture of this case can be found [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49139&pgnum=430 in Keviyut Mezuzah Khilchata p. 430].</ref> that entrance is obligated even if the doorpost 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. Chut Shani (Mezuzah p. 107) agrees that it is obligated to put up a mezuzah according to the Rosh that ends of walls count as doorposts. Pitchei Shaarim 287:1:12 p. 215 agrees.</ref> Other argue that it is exempt from having a mezuzah.<ref>Avnei Yishpa 3:95:1 says that it is clearly exempt since there are no noticeable doorposts from inside the small room. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49139&pgnum=122 Keviyut Mezuzah Khilchata 9:11] writes that this case of a small room into a big room is an unresolved question and should have a mezuzah without a bracha. Madanei Asher (Mezuzah 30:3 p. 88) agrees. Madenei Asher cites Maaseh Nissim ch. 24 who says that in the Ben Ish Chai's house he didn't have a mezuzah on a room that was just three walls and the fourth was completely open  (e.g. [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9F#/media/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Liwan-He.png]), though he is puzzled about why he didn't put up a mezuzah in light of Ben Ish Chai (Ki Tavo n. 13).</ref>


===Porch===
===Porch===
Line 41: Line 56:
===Bathrooms and Bedrooms===
===Bathrooms and Bedrooms===


#A mezuzah should not be put up by the doorway to a bathroom, mikveh room, or a room people wash in and stand there undressed.<ref>Yoma 11b, Shulchan Aruch YD 286:4, Aruch HaShulchan YD 286:5, Yalkut Yosef 285:43</ref>
#A mezuzah should not be put up by the doorway to a bathroom, mikveh room, or a room people wash in and stand there undressed.<ref>Yoma 11b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 286:4, Aruch HaShulchan YD 286:5, Yalkut Yosef 285:43</ref>
#A bedroom should have a mezuzah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 285:5, Aruch Hashulchan 286:13</ref>
#A bedroom should have a mezuzah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 285:5, Aruch Hashulchan 286:13</ref>
#When a couple is together if the mezuzah is on the inside of the door it should be covered with a single covering. If the mezuzah scroll is already covered with a single non-clear cover such as metal or non-clear plastic that is sufficient. However, if the scroll is in clear plastic and the case is clear it should be covered with something non-clear.<ref>Aruch Hashulchan 286:12-15 proves that the Bet Yosef's opinion that the bedroom needs a mezuzah and it is sufficient to have it covered with one covering. Yalkut Yosef YD 285:41 and Halichot Olam v. 8 p. 302 agree for additional reasons such as the Smag who holds that if the mezuzah is ten tefachim from the ground it is considered in another domain. Zivchei Tzedek OC 38 and Ben Ish Chai (Shana Sheniya, Ki Tavo, no. 16) are lenient and write that such is the minhag.</ref> Some poskim hold that the mezuzah should be covered with a double covering and so even if the case isn't clear the mezuzah needs another cover. According to these poskim, even if the scroll is rolled up and the case isn't clear that only counts as one cover since they are both meant and usually used for the mezuzah. Therefore, before the couple is together the mezuzah should be covered with an external covering such as a piece of clothing. Even if the case is clear it counts as a single cover. <ref>Magen Avraham 40:2 holds that a mezuzah that is facing the inside of the room needs to be covered with a double covering to permit having tashmish in the room. Divrei Chamudot (Mezuzah no. 46), Eliya Rabba 40:2, Mishna Brurah 40:7, Ginzei Hakodesh 4:14, and Ben Ish Chai (Shana Sheniya, Ki Tavo, no. 16) citing the Yad Ketana 13 agree. Mishna Brurah clarifies that it is sufficient if one of the covers is not designated for the mezuzah. (Avnei Nezer YD 383:1 explains that something inside a double covering is like it isn't in the house at all.)</ref>
#When a couple is together if the mezuzah is on the inside of the door it should be covered with a single covering. If the mezuzah scroll is already covered with a single non-clear cover such as metal or non-clear plastic that is sufficient. However, if the scroll is in clear plastic and the case is clear it should be covered with something non-clear.<ref>Aruch Hashulchan 286:12-15 proves that the Bet Yosef's opinion that the bedroom needs a mezuzah and it is sufficient to have it covered with one covering. Yalkut Yosef YD 285:41 and Halichot Olam v. 8 p. 302 agree for additional reasons such as the Smag who holds that if the mezuzah is ten tefachim from the ground it is considered in another domain. Zivchei Tzedek OC 38 and Ben Ish Chai (Shana Sheniya, Ki Tavo, no. 16) are lenient and write that such is the minhag. Kaf Hachayim on Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim 40:13 agrees but adds that initially one should be strict for the Magen Avraham.</ref> Some poskim hold that the mezuzah should be covered with a double covering and so even if the case isn't clear the mezuzah needs another cover.<ref>Magen Avraham 40:2 holds that a mezuzah that is facing the inside of the room needs to be covered with a double covering to permit having tashmish in the room. Divrei Chamudot (Mezuzah no. 46), Eliya Rabba 40:2, Mishna Brurah 40:7, Ginzei Hakodesh 4:14, and Ben Ish Chai (Shana Sheniya, Ki Tavo, no. 16) citing the Yad Ketana 13 agree.</ref>
#According to the poskim that you need a double cover, if the scroll is rolled up inside the case and the case isn't clear, if the covering was put intentionally to be a double covering as is the common custom it is considered a double covering.<ref>Chachmat Adam 128:10, Mishna Brurah 40:7, Kaf Hachayim 40:19. Ahava Achva Vshalom p. 121 quotes Rav Elyashiv as holding like Chachmat Adam. Maharsham in Daat Torah 40:2 cites the Chachmat Adam.</ref> Some poskim consider that one a single cover and would require an external cover when a couple is going to be together.<ref>Orchot Rabbenu v. 3 p. 175 n. 34 quotes the Chazon Ish and Steipler as disagreeing with the Chachmat Adam. If there's a double covering that is the usually there it is considered like a single covering even if it was put there intentionally to be a double cover. This can also be found in Igrot Vereshimot Kehilat Yakov v. 5 p. 266 of the Steipler. It also quotes this from Meorer Yeshenim. Rav Chaim Kanievsky in Daat Noteh v. 3 p. 461 agrees. Mechzeh Eliyahu 1:8:28 p. 74 is strict and quotes many who are strict including: Gidulei Hekdesh 4, Mateh Yehuda 40, Chesed Lalafim, Divrei Chamudot n. 46, Derech Hachayim, Yad Ketana, and Pri Megadim OC EA 240:17.</ref>
#Accordingly, if the mezuzah wasn't wrapped before it was put in the case or if you follow the stringent opinions above, before the couple is together the mezuzah should be covered with an external covering such as a piece of clothing. Even if the case is clear it counts as a single cover.<ref>See above notes. [https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/788640/rabbi-hershel-schachter/the-laws-of-mezuzah/ Rav Schachter (Laws of Mezuzah min 55-6)] cites both opinions but seems to be strict to cover the mezuzah with a cloth if it is on the inside and the couple is going to be together. Mishna Brurah 40:7 clarifies that it is sufficient if one of the covers is not designated for the mezuzah. (Avnei Nezer YD 383:1 explains that something inside a double covering is like it isn't in the house at all.)</ref>


===Shul and Bet Midrash===
===Shul and Bet Midrash===
Line 70: Line 87:


#The doorway to a courtyard or city is obligated in having a mezuzah on the right side as one enters. <ref>Yoma 12a, Shulchan Aruch YD 286:1, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:2-3</ref> In a city that has some non-Jews the city gate does not need a mezuzah.<ref>Yoma 11a. Rama YD 286:1 quoting the Aguda that even if some non-Jews live in the city they are exempt from mezuzah on the city gate. The Taz 286:3 explains that the exemption is based on a danger.</ref>
#The doorway to a courtyard or city is obligated in having a mezuzah on the right side as one enters. <ref>Yoma 12a, Shulchan Aruch YD 286:1, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:2-3</ref> In a city that has some non-Jews the city gate does not need a mezuzah.<ref>Yoma 11a. Rama YD 286:1 quoting the Aguda that even if some non-Jews live in the city they are exempt from mezuzah on the city gate. The Taz 286:3 explains that the exemption is based on a danger.</ref>
#The electrical posts used for an eruv do not need a mezuzah even though they function as a doorway.<ref>Chazon Ish YD 172:3 writes that even though the electrical posts with the wires on top can serve as doorways to enclose an eruv for Shabbat (under certain conditions) they do not need a mezuzah since the mezuzah won't be guarded and also some non-Jews might live in the city. [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/788640/rabbi-hershel-schachter/the-laws-of-mezuzah/ Rav Hershel Schachter in “The Laws of Mezuzah” (min 48-53)] explained that the factors why we don’t put up a mezuzah for a communal eruv are both because it might get ruined by weather or stolen. Additionally, it is because the Derech Hachaim Siddur writes that since the poles don’t devide the way the area is used (tashmisho echad) and it is more open than it is closed (omed murebeh al haparutz) for mezuzah purposes the poles don’t create a doorway. Therefore, an eruv doesn't require a mezuzah even in a Jewish community.</ref>
#The electrical posts used for an eruv do not need a mezuzah even though they function as a doorway.<ref>Chazon Ish YD 172:3 writes that even though the electrical posts with the wires on top can serve as doorways to enclose an eruv for Shabbat (under certain conditions) they do not need a mezuzah since the mezuzah won't be guarded and also some non-Jews might live in the city. [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/788640/rabbi-hershel-schachter/the-laws-of-mezuzah/ Rav Hershel Schachter in “The Laws of Mezuzah” (min 48-53)] explained that the factors why we don’t put up a mezuzah for a communal eruv are both because it might get ruined by weather or stolen. Additionally, it is because the Derech Hachaim Siddur writes that since the poles don’t divide the way the area is used (tashmisho echad) and it is more open than it is closed (omed murebeh al haparutz) for mezuzah purposes the poles don’t create a doorway. Therefore, an eruv doesn't require a mezuzah even in a Jewish community.</ref>


==Doorway in a Room==
==Doorway in a Room==
Line 127: Line 144:
*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. Rav Heinemann in Guide to Halachos p. 105 writes that a walk-in closet that has 50ft sq area should have a mezuzah on the right post going in.</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. Rav Heinemann in Guide to Halachos p. 105 writes that a walk-in closet that has 50ft sq area should have a mezuzah on the right post going in.</ref>
##There is a dispute if a closet less than than 16 square amot is obligated in a mezuzah since it is useful in its current form. The minhag is to put up a mezuzah.<ref>Chamudei Doniel (Pitchei Teshuva 286:11) writes that an area that is meant to be used the way it is even if it is less than 4x4 amot is obligated in a mezuzah. Rashash Sukkah 3b s.v. may agrees. Or Letzion 1:14 assumes like the Chamudei Doniel.
##There is a dispute if a closet less than than 16 square amot is obligated in a mezuzah since it is useful in its current form. The minhag is to put up a mezuzah.<ref>Chamudei Doniel (Pitchei Teshuva 286:11) writes that an area that is meant to be used the way it is even if it is less than 4x4 amot is obligated in a mezuzah. Rashash Sukkah 3b s.v. may agrees. Or Letzion 1:14 assumes like the Chamudei Doniel.
*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>
Anonymous user