16,374
edits
Mezuzah: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Balcony
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
===Balcony=== | ===Balcony=== | ||
# 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> | ||
===Walk-in Closet=== | |||
# A walk-in closet that is small and isn't the equivalent of 4x4 square amot should have a mezuzah on the right side going from the closet to the room.<ref>Rabbi Akiva Eiger 286:13, Binyan Tzion 99, Yabia Omer 6:23:6</ref> | |||
# A walk-in closet that is the equivalent of 4x4 square amot should have a mezuzah walking into the closet.<ref>This is the equivalent case of the room that is a dead end with no other entrance. See above by rule #2.</ref> | |||
===Straight or Diagonal=== | ===Straight or Diagonal=== | ||
