Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz

Additional Essays and Notes
By Rabbi Moshe Gantz and Rabbi Yishai Sarig

Copyright © 2025, 2026 by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz, WOAP Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests or picture licensing deals, write to the publisher, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator,” at the email address below.

First printing edition 2025

Revised edition 2026

ISBN 979-8-89342-003-6
support@withoutap.com

WOAPPRESS.COM

KOSHERKLAF.COM

Table of Contents

1. Introduction. 1
2. The Value of a Mezuzah. 4
3. Which Rooms Require a Mezuzah — Based on Usage of the Room 18
4. Elevators. 33
5. Which Rooms Require a Mezuzah — Ownership. 43
6. Which Rooms Require a Mezuzah — Structure. 56
7. Affixing the Mezuzah. 67
8. The Mezuzah Cover. 71
9. Mezuzah on a Master Bedroom.. 78
10. Taking Down a Mezuzah to Replace with a Nicer One. 80
11. Checking Mezuzot 86
12. Leaving the Mezuzot After Moving Out 90
13. Giving a Mezuzah to a Non-Jew.. 92
14. Basic Guide to Purchasing STaM… 94
15. Who Should Install a Mezuzah?. 97
16. What Is Mehudar for STaM?. 103
17. In-Depth Study of the Letter Aleph. 117
18. Mezuzah Installation Instructions with Berachah. 123

Introduction

osherKlaf.com was founded with a mission: to raise the standards of STaM (Sifrei Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot) and provide unprecedented transparency in the industry. Our team consists of experienced sofrim (scribes) and STaM experts who have collectively examined hundreds of thousands of mezuzot, tefillin and sifrei torah over the years. Unfortunately, many of these were found to be pasul (invalid), and even among those that were technically kosher, too many were very low quality.

The marketplace for STaM is filled with a wide range of products, some sold by well-meaning individuals who may not fully understand the complexities of halachic requirements while others are outright fraudulent. Our goal is to change that by providing education, guidance, and transparency in the STaM industry.

We’ve built KosherKlaf.com around transparency. That means:

1. The widest range of STaM options available online — across all minhagim, price points, and stringency levels.
2. Pictures of every item — so you can see exactly what you’re getting for each quality level we carry.
3. Clear descriptions of writing styles (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Chassidic), halachic standards, and quality levels.
4. Detailed comparison charts that explain the differences in klaf, ksav, batim, and retzuot, so you can make an informed decision based on your needs and budget.
5. Educational resources that explain what makes a STaM kosher or Mehudar and what to look out for.
6. The Grading Blog at kosherklaf.com/qualityblog, breaks down the various levels and quality standards of STaM in clear, practical language.
7. The STaM Blog at kosherklaf.com/stamblog, where we explore important issues facing the STaM world today including halachic debates, communal standards, and behind-the-scenes insights from the field.

In this book, we are privileged to present a collection of articles by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz, shlita, who graciously allowed us to compile his shiurim and writings on the proper care and halachot of mezuzah.

The goal of this book is to provide a thorough guide to most of the classic discussions regarding what a mezuzah owner needs to know. There are many topics people do not even realize are relevant, and this book will be the perfect guide to becoming better acquainted with the mitzvah.

KosherKlaf.com is led by Rabbi Moshe Gantz, a renowned expert in the field with over thirty years of experience as the “Mezuzah Doctor.” With more than 250,000 mezuzot inspected, he has provided invaluable insights and commentary, notes for this work.

KosherKlaf is also run by Joseph Miller, who also operates Shaimos LI. His work in shaimos exposed him to the widespread issue of pasul mezuzot and tefillin, inspiring a mission to raise awareness and improve standards in STaM. He is also the editor-in-chief of WOAP Press, which has published numerous seforim from prominent rabbanim. Together with Moshe Gantz, he co-authored the article “Who Should Install a Mezuzah,” which is included in this collection.

We are also honored to have Rabbi Yishai Sarig on our team, a world-renowned expert on STaM and one of the leading authorities in STaM halachic inquiries in Israel. He is the author of Shirat Shiloh, a work on the laws of STaM.

Additionally, we are privileged to present a kuntres by Rabbi Sarig, which explains what defines a mehudar (high-quality) STaM item, the various levels of hiddur, and how these distinctions affect pricing. These terms relating to STaM are not defined in early seforim and are used very loosely today. Rabbi Sarig pins down what expectations to have when something is sold under those terms. We also included an in-depth guide to writing the letter aleph (א) to demonstrate the complexity of just one letter.

Rabbi Lebowitz’s final article in this book serves as a practical guide to help buyers navigate the process of purchasing mezuzot, tefillin, and other STaM items with confidence. Rabbi Sarig’s kuntres further deepens this understanding by exploring the different levels of hiddur and their significance.

This book is intended to be a guide for individuals looking to enhance their awareness of STaM. We hope it provides clarity and empowers readers to make informed decisions when purchasing and maintaining mezuzot, tefillin, megillot and sifrei torah.

Finally, we would like to extend our sincere gratitude to WOAP Press for their efforts in putting this book together. Their dedication to publishing high-quality Torah works has been invaluable in bringing this project to life. Any mistakes in the text should be attributed to the editors and not Rabbi Lebowitz.

For anyone who has any mezuzah placement questions feel free to reach out to us on Whatapp. We can be reached at 516-737-5436.

The Value of a Mezuzah

Introduction

he mitzvah of mezuzah is one of the most universally observed mitzvot in all Jewish circles. However, there are many details and requirements that the vast majority of Jews are not familiar with. This series of essays will outline and analyze the opinions of the leading poskim on all issues pertaining to a mezuzah, from the benefits of the mitzvah to which rooms require a mezuzah to how frequently a mezuzah should be checked.

The Mitzvah of Mezuzah

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 285:1) records the basic obligation to write the parshiyot of Shema and V’hayah Im Shamo’a on parchment and “place it on the doorpost.” The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 423) adds that each moment that one remains in the home generates a new obligation to place a mezuzah. Thus, one would be mistaken to think that after delaying for some time to place a mezuzah on their doorposts, they lose nothing by delaying a bit more.

While most mitzvot present themselves as a single obligation, one who fails to put up a mezuzah violates a positive commandment each and every moment that the doorway remains bare. By way of analogy, the Ran (Yoma 4b in the Rif, s.v. “Garsinan”) confronts a case in which a person is sick on Shabbat and needs to eat meat. The available options are for a person to properly slaughter an animal, transgressing one of the melachot but yielding kosher meat, or to give the sick person meat from an animal that died without shechitah (a neveilah). The Ran writes that the prohibition of eating neveilah may be more severe in some respects than the prohibition of performing melachah (creative labor) on Shabbat. While an isur sekilah is certainly more severe than an isur lav, eating a substantial amount of neveilah involves a new prohibition with each k’zayit consumed, while violating Shabbat would entail transgressing a single prohibition. This unique constancy to the mitzvah of mezuzah may have various halachic ramifications.

For example, the Minchat Chinuch (ibid., end) suggests that while normally, the Talmudic dictum that one need not spend more than 20 percent of his net worth on a given positive commandment is accepted, it is possible that the mitzvah of mezuzah would require one to spend even more. The Minchat Chinuch suggests further that one may require a more intense level of teshuvah in order to repent for neglecting to place a mezuzah than he would for neglecting other positive commandments.

The “Benefits” of Having a Mezuzah

Based on the Gemara, the major poskim outline three distinct benefits to observing the mitzvah of mezuzah:

Reminder of God’s Presence

The Rambam (Hilchot Mezuzah 6:13) writes that the mitzvah of mezuzah is unique in that it serves as a constant reminder, each time one enters or leaves a room, of God’s presence. If one were to temporarily lose perspective, the mezuzah, along with tzitzit and tefillin, can serve as a reminder of the value of keeping God at the center of our lives, protecting us from sin. One may suggest that while the Rambam mentions the mitzvot of tzitzit and tefillin along with mezuzah as mitzvot that achieve this goal, the mitzvah of mezuzah has the greatest value in this area. Whereas the other mitzvot mentioned only apply during certain times (tefillin only during the day and only on weekdays, tzitzit only during the day), mezuzah remains with us day and night, both on Shabbat and weekdays.

Long Life

The Tur (citing Shabbat 32a) writes that one who is careful about the mitzvah of mezuzah will merit long life both for himself and for his children. Conversely, the Tur suggests, we may deduce that one who neglects this mitzvah will have his days and the days of his children shortened.

Although the reward of long life is well documented in the Gemara based on pesukim, the Tur’s assertion that the opposite is true (i.e., one who neglects mezuzah will have his life shortened) is highly questionable. The Beit Hillel (commenting on the Shulchan Aruch) points out that according to the Gemara (Kiddushin 61a) we may only deduce the negative from the positive when it is stated explicitly in the pasuk. Absent an explicit verse, we may only deduce that if one is not careful with the mitzvah, he will receive neither the blessing nor any particular curse.

The Beit Hillel does note that Rashi on Chumash makes a similar assertion to the Tur’s in commenting on the pasuk “Kabed et avicha v’et imecha l’maan yaarichun yamecha.” Rashi states that one who observes kibud av v’eim will benefit from long life, and we may therefore deduce that one who does not observe the mitzvah will have his days shortened. Again, this methodology of exegesis seems to contradict the limitations set forth by the Gemara.

To address this question, the Birkei Yosef suggests that we may distinguish between a deal made between two parties (either between men or between man and God) and a statement of reward or punishment by the Torah for a given mitzvah. Certainly, when the Torah expresses itself using the language of an agreement (“Im bechukotai teileichu…,” “Im teitiv se’eit…”), the connotation is that the normal criteria of tenai must be met. When, however, the Torah informs us of the reward for a mitzvah (U’ketavtam al mezuzot beitecha u’visharecha l’maan yirbu yemeichem vimei veneichem — Devarim 11:21), we may make deductions just as we would throughout the Torah. The Torah was written in such a way that we learn many important laws from slight nuances of language, and the case of mezuzah is no different.

Protection

Finally, the Tur suggests that the greater benefit of the mitzvah is that a mezuzah protects the home from harm. The Gemara (Menachot 32b with Rashi; see Tosafot) strongly implies that there is a specific danger to leaving a home without a mezuzah. The Darkei Moshe (286:4) seems to imply further that in order to enjoy this protection, one must have a mezuzah on each doorpost in the house, not only on the front door.

The Tur, based on the Gemara, points out that we place the mezuzah on the outer tefach of a thick doorpost so that the entire thickness of the house may be protected by the mezuzah. It should be noted that the Gemara (Menachot 33b, Avodah Zarah 11a) suggests that we also place the mezuzah on the outer part of the door so that we should encounter the mezuzah immediately upon entering the house. Both reasons are cited by the Shach (289:2).

In describing the benefit of protection, the wording of the Tur is most curious. He writes that this is a “greater reason” than the previous one. The Beit Yosef questions why protection from physical harm should be considered a more valuable benefit than the previously mentioned benefit of a long life for a person and his family. A number of answers have been suggested to explain what the Tur intended to convey by stating that the last benefit is greater than the previous one:

The Beit Yosef suggests that while one certainly values their life over the protection of their home, the protection of the home is the greater miracle. Since it is common for a person to live a long life, this reward is not considered to be an open miracle. When a neighborhood, though, is under attack and all of the homes are affected except for those that have a mezuzah, it is a far greater and more evident miracle. After all, who else can absolutely guarantee financial protection if not for God? This is similar to the comment of the Gemara (Pesachim 8b) that when one went to be oleh l’Regel during the time of the Beit Hamikdash, there was a guarantee that none of his possessions would be damaged or stolen while he was gone. It is precisely this evident a miracle that the Tur refers to when he says that the protection of the home is the “greater reason” for placing a mezuzah on one’s home.

The Beit Yosef suggests a second explanation, as well: The Tur does not mean to suggest that protection of our homes is of greater value to us than our very lives. Rather, he is suggesting that God’s willingness to protect our homes with the mezuzah on the outer doorpost is a greater statement of the nature of God, and ultimately a greater kiddush Hashem, than the long lives that we may merit. A human king requires the protection of his servants, who stand guard outside of his palace. Yet, God stands guard outside each of our homes to protect us. Indeed, this is a reflection of God’s love and care for His people, to the extent that according to the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 11a), it was precisely this point that Onkelos Ha’ger emphasized in converting non-believers to the Jewish religion.

The Bach suggests that the protection afforded by the mezuzah is not a reward for the mitzvah. The reward for the mitzvah is long life, as the pesukim themselves indicate. The fact that one’s home is protected is simply a natural outgrowth of the mitzvah. It is similar to one who very much enjoys the taste of matzah. When he eats matzah, the enjoyment he gets from the food is not the reward for the mitzvah. It is simply part of the experience of performing that mitzvah. In this sense, the protection that one receives is “gedolah mi’zu,” as it is a bonus in addition to whatever the normal reward is for mitzvot.

Finally, the Taz (285:1) suggests that the greatness of the protection afforded by the mezuzah lies in the fact that, unlike the blessing of long life, one need not do anything to receive this benefit. In order to experience the long life promised to those who place a mezuzah on the doorpost, one must use the mezuzah as an impetus to remember God’s presence. If one never pays any attention to the mezuzah, he will not merit the long life. When it comes to the protection afforded by the mezuzah, one may remain fast asleep, completely unaware of the presence of the mezuzah, and still enjoy the protection that it offers.

The Best Intention to Have When Installing a Mezuzah

In what appears to be a statement of the obvious, the Tur writes that despite all of the benefits that one can receive by having a mezuzah, one should do the mitzvah with the sole intention of fulfilling the word of God. The Gilyon Maharasha (on Shulchan Aruch) adds that when one places a mezuzah for the sake of the mitzvah, it is permissible to also think of the benefits that he will accrue as a result of this mitzvah. However, the mezuzah can pose a danger to one who places a mezuzah solely for the purpose of protection or long life (see also Kesef Mishneh, Hilchot Mezuzah 5:4).

Putting Mezuzot in Inappropriate Places

Considering the reputation the mezuzah enjoys as a mitzvah that affords us protection, many people have used the mezuzah as a sort of charm even when the mitzvah does not apply. It is not that uncommon to see a mezuzah hanging from a rearview mirror in a taxi, as the driver hopes it will provide him with good luck. Based on the above sources, it should seem obvious that absent the actual mitzvah of mezuzah, the mezuzah is unable to provide any protection, and may even prove to be dangerous. However, the Shevut Yaakov (3:89), in response to a complicated question relating to whether a home jointly owned by a Jew and non-Jew requires a mezuzah, writes that although from a strictly halachic perspective, there is no need for a mezuzah, it is advisable to put one up anyway to protect the house from danger. The implication of the Shevut Yaakov is that the protective element of the mezuzah is in place even when the mitzvah is not being fulfilled. However, it seems that even the Shevut Yaakov would agree that hanging a mezuzah on a rearview mirror or as a charm around one’s neck is of no value whatsoever. The context of the Shevut Yaakov’s comment was a case where the majority view of poskim maintained that a mezuzah was unnecessary, while a minority view required a mezuzah. From a strictly halachic perspective, we may follow the majority view. However, considering the general principle that we must be very careful in matters involving danger (chamira sakanta mei’isura), it is advisable to satisfy the minority view, who maintains that the mezuzah is required and it would therefore be dangerous to leave the home without a mezuzah. Certainly, in a case where all agree that a mezuzah is not required, it is inadvisable and perhaps prohibited to place a mezuzah.

Mezuzah or Tefillin — Which Takes Priority?

The Talmud Yerushalmi (end of Megillah 4) relates a machloket about a case of one who cannot afford to purchase both tefillin and a mezuzah. Which of these mitzvot takes precedence over the other? In the view of Shmuel, mezuzah should be purchased because it is used even on Shabbat and Yom Tov, whereas tefillin are only used on weekdays. In the view of Rav Huna, tefillin should be purchased because a traveler wears tefillin, while a mezuzah is only used when one is home. The Yerushalmi cites proof to Shmuel’s view from a Beraisa that indicates that mezuzah has a higher level of sanctity than tefillin (if tefillin wear out, one may make a mezuzah out of them because it is considered an enhancement of the original sanctity, but if a mezuzah wears out, one may not make tefillin out of it because it is a downgrade in the sanctity). The Rema (285:1) rules in accordance with Rav Huna that the tefillin should be purchased. However, instead of repeating Rav Huna’s own reasoning as expressed in the Yerushalmi, the Rema (citing the Rosh) states that the tefillin should take precedence because they are a chovat ha’guf (an obligation on the person’s body) while the mezuzah is not.

By ruling in accordance with Rav Huna but for a completely different reason than Rav Huna himself had explained, the Biur HaGra (s.k. 4) writes that the Rema was breaking from standard halachic protocol. However, the Gra writes that the Rema is correct in ruling in accordance with Rav Huna for a different reason: The Beraisa cited by the Yerushalmi to establish that mezuzah has greater sanctity than tefillin is actually cited by the Bavli (Shabbat 79b) with the opposite conclusion. As such, we would rule in accordance with the Bavli and accept Rav Huna’s ruling that tefillin should take precedence.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger suggests in his commentary to Shulchan Aruch that the Rema was not offering a different reason for Rav Huna than Rav Huna himself had suggested in the Yerushalmi. The Rema had said that tefillin take precedence over mezuzah by virtue of their status as a chovat ha’guf. That term, though, is somewhat vague, and the precise definition of the term will determine the true intention of the Rema, along with some halachic ramifications:

The Beit Hillel (commentary to Shulchan Aruch) explains that a chovat ha’guf is a mitzvah that is fulfilled by physically wearing the mitzvah on one’s body. Thus, tefillin would also take precedence over such mitzvot as lulav and sukkah, which are not worn on the body. While tzitzit are also worn on the body, tefillin would take precedence over tzitzit due to its elevated level of sanctity (tashmishei kedushah) relative to tzitzit (which are considered tashmishei mitzvah).

Rabbi Akiva Eiger, however, suggests that the term chovat ha’guf implies a mitzvah that one has no choice but to perform regardless of circumstance. For instance, maakeh is not a chovat ha’guf because one is only obligated in the mitzvah if he owns a roof. Tefillin are a chovat ha’guf because one must go out of his way to purchase or borrow tefillin to wear. This is exactly what the Yerushalmi had said in explaining Rav Huna’s view that tefillin take precedence over mezuzah: because “even one who is traveling far from home is obligated in the mitzvah.” The Rema did not suggest his own reason for this halachah; he merely echoed the reason given in the Yerushalmi, albeit in different words. Thus, while tefillin take precedence over mezuzah because of its status as a chovat ha’guf, there is no indication that tefillin would take precedence over lulav and sukkah, which according to this definition are also chovot ha’guf. Interestingly, though, Rabbi Akiva Eiger suggests that tefillin would take precedence over other chovot ha’guf that are fulfilled less frequently. Tefillin would also take precedence over tzitzit because with this definition, tzitzit are not at all a chovat ha’guf, as one is only obligated to put tzitzit on if he happens to own a garment with four corners.

Finally, Rabbi Akiva Eiger suggests that even Rav Huna may have agreed that a mitzvah performed with greater frequency (tadir) takes precedence over a mitzvah performed with less frequency. The machloket in the Yerushalmi may mirror a machloket in the Bavli (Zevachim 91a) relating to how to define tadir. Sometimes a mitzvah happens to be performed frequently (e.g., a person washes and bentches three times a day), but there is no imperative to perform this mitzvah with such frequency (one need not eat bread, nor bentch, at all besides for Shabbat and Yom Tov). The fact that mezuzah is a constant may not put it in the category of tadir. After all, one does have the option of traveling a lot and going weeks or months without a mezuzah, while even a traveler must wear tefillin each day.

[Any discussion of tadir in this context is most perplexing. The context for a discussion of tadir is when one has two obligations in front of him, and he must decide which to do first. The more commonly occurring obligation takes precedence and is followed by the less common obligation. When, however, one is only able to do one of the two obligations, the concept of frequent occurrence is irrelevant — see Shu”t Shevet Halevi 2:156.]

The Pit’chei Teshuvah (s.k. 2) notes that although the mitzvah of tefillin takes precedence over mezuzah, if one can feasibly borrow tefillin every day and is unable to borrow mezuzot, he should purchase mezuzot instead of tefillin and perform both mitzvot.

In a situation where a person is uncertain whether or not he will be able to borrow tefillin, but is certain that he cannot borrow mezuzot, the Pit’chei Teshuvah cites a debate among the poskim. On the one hand, the argument can be made that the chovat ha’guf of tefillin is such a strong obligation that one must be sure to secure the mitzvah before allocating resources in securing lesser mitzvot. On the other hand, one may argue that by purchasing the mezuzot, one stands a chance to fulfill both mitzvot, while if he were to purchase the tefillin, he would have no chance of fulfilling the mitzvah of mezuzah.

If one were equally able to borrow both items, it would seem that he may purchase whichever he would like because both mitzvot may be performed with borrowed items (it is in fact fairly common for one to borrow mezuzot from a local sofer immediately after moving into a house before he has a chance to purchase his own mezuzot). However, Rabbi Avi Lebowitz has suggested that given this situation, it is better to purchase mezuzot and borrow tefillin. The logic for this ruling is that when one borrows an item, he must be prepared for the eventuality that the person he borrowed from will ask for it back (even if just for a short while). If one would have to return the tefillin, he can still borrow tefillin again the next day and never miss out on the mitzvah because the halachah does not require us to wear tefillin constantly. If, however, the owner asks for his mezuzot back, as soon as the mezuzah is removed from the wall one is in violation of neglecting the mitzvah of mezuzah (see the comment of the Sefer Hachinuch at the beginning of this essay). This argument, of course, assumes that the mitzvah of tefillin is performed by wearing the tefillin for a brief period of time each day, and that they need not be worn all day long as they were in the times of Chazal (see Biur Halachah 37, s.v. “Mitzvatan,” who discusses whether one fulfills the Biblical obligation of tefillin by wearing them for only a short while).

Placing One’s Hand and Kissing a Mezuzah

The Rema (285:2) records the practice to place a hand on the mezuzah when a person leaves or enters his home. When leaving, he should also recite the verse “Hashem yishmor tzeiti u’voi.” Interestingly, the sefer Pit’chei She’arim (p. 113) reports a story that occurred when the Chatam Sofer was testing a student for Rabbinic ordination. When the Chatam Sofer noticed that the student did not touch the mezuzah on the way out of the test room, he decided not to ordain the student for fear that he was a maskil and would not uphold Rabbinic traditions.

The Birkei Yosef (285:4) cites the custom of the Arizal to specifically place the middle finger over the letters on the outside of the parchment and to kiss it. This is reminiscent of the custom of the Arizal cited by the Mishnah Berurah (24:4) to kiss the tzitzit when reciting the parashat tzitzit in k’riat Shema. It has been reported, however, that the Chazon Ish would not kiss the mezuzah on his way in and out of his house (Teshuvot U’kesavim Chazon Ish 24:13). He did frequently look at the mezuzah intently on his way in and out, perhaps focusing on God’s presence and protection in the home (as per the Rambam, Hilchot Mezuzah 6:13). Perhaps the Chazon Ish did not feel that kissing the mezuzah is appropriate, just as Rav Henkin (Edut L’Yisrael 63) did not feel it appropriate to kiss a Sefer Torah directly, as it shows too much comfort and familiarity with such a sacred item.

If the mezuzah does not have a protective case, the Pit’chei Teshuvah (s.k. 4) points out that one should not place his hand on the mezuzah without washing his hands first, just as one may not touch a Sefer Torah or any other kitvei kodesh without first washing his hands or using a cloth to touch it (Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 147:1).

The Kitzur Shelah cites an additional custom to show extra respect to a mezuzah. When sweeping a home, the dirt should be swept in a motion away from the mezuzah rather than toward it. In fact, the sefer Pit’chei She’arim writes that in Spain during the times of the Inquisition, they would test a Jew’s loyalty to Torah by observing how he would sweep a room. If he would sweep away from the mezuzah, they would execute him. (This story is most perplexing. After all, if the Jew had a visible mezuzah, that would seem to be sufficient proof that he is loyal to a Torah lifestyle and would be grounds for execution regardless of the direction that he would sweep the dirt on the floor.)

Mezuzah that Falls on Shabbat

The Pit’chei Teshuvah (285:1) cites the Pri Megadim as having ruled that if one notices that his mezuzah fell down on Shabbat and he has another house (or another room) to stay in, he must leave the house (or room) that does not have a mezuzah. The same would hold true if it didn’t fall to the ground but “flipped over” when the nail attaching it to the wall on top came lose. If, however, he has no alternative residence, the person may stay in his home even though it does not have a mezuzah. This may be deduced from the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 13:3) that if one’s tzitzit become untied in a semi-public location on Shabbat, he may leave the garment on in order to preserve human dignity (kavod ha’beriyot).

As mentioned, this ruling of the Pri Megadim is based on a comparison between the mitzvah of tzitzit and the mitzvah of mezuzah. One may, however, take issue with this comparison. The Avnei Nezer (Y.D. 381) notes that the Pri Megadim was not in possession of the sefer Tosafos HaRosh. The Tosafos HaRosh (Yevamos 90b) writes that the reason we allow a person to keep the beged on his body after the strings have unraveled is that the obligation to put tzitzit on a garment only begins when a person is already wrapped in the garment. The mitzvah of mezuzah, on the other hand, may begin (according to some Rishonim) as soon as the house is built, even before the homeowner moves in. Had the mitzvah of tzitzit began prior to the wearing of the tzitzit, it would be possible to suggest that the placement of the tzitzit permits the wearing of the garment, much like the placement of the mezuzah permits one to live in the home. However, considering that the mitzvah of tzitzit does not begin until one is already wearing the tzitzit, we must conclude that the tzitzit are not matir the wearing of the garment. Rather, it is simply a mitzvah to place tzitzit on the garment. When it is Shabbat, though, there can’t be a mitzvah to tie the tzitzit on the garment, because it is prohibited to do so. If a mezuzah fell on Shabbat, the house lacks the matir to live in it, and one would be required to leave. This explains why the timing of the berachot on the two mitzvot is so different. One recites a berachah when putting up a mezuzah even if he has not yet moved into the house. On the other hand, one only recites a berachah on tzitzit while he is wrapping himself in them.

One can take issue with the Avnei Nezer’s analysis on at least two points:

First, although the Avnei Nezer assumes that one is obligated to place a mezuzah even before moving into a home, this is hardly the majority opinion of the Rishonim. The Sefer HaEshkol does maintain that one must affix a mezuzah as soon as the house is built, but Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 21a, s.v. “Ha”) clearly disagree. Tosafot write that the obligation of having a mezuzah only applies once a person lives in the home. It should be noted that even in the view of the Sefer HaEshkol, Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvot V’hanhagot 2:544) points out that one would only be obligated to place a mezuzah on his home when the home is suitable to live in (i.e., there is ample furniture to live comfortably). This is why there is no problem of requiring a new berachah when a person leaves his house vacant for months at a time (e.g., a summer home). On the surface, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Responsa, Mahadura Kama, 9) points out that the house should be exempt from mezuzah as long as nobody is living there. If that is the case, then upon the person’s return to the home, he should require a new berachah. However, according to this analysis of the Eshkol, we can well understand that even when nobody is living in the house, so long as the house remains ready for living, the obligation of mezuzah remains, and one need not make a new berachah upon returning.

Additionally, Rabbi Avi Lebowitz (285:12) also questions that analysis of the Avnei Nezer for the following reason. It is difficult to distinguish between somebody who was already wearing tzitzit when the strings unraveled on Shabbat and one who was already living in a home when the mezuzah fell down on Shabbat. While it may be true that the time the obligation begins is different for the two mitzvot, all would agree that once one is wearing the garment or living in the house, the mitzvah has already begun. If we permit a person to keep his tzitzit on in this situation because there is no active violation of a prohibition (it is shev v’al taaseh), we should also permit somebody to remain in his house in this situation; it, too, is shev v’al taaseh.

Rabbi Lebowitz’s question on the Avnei Nezer may be addressed as follows:

The Avnei Nezer did not distinguish between passive and active violation of a mitzvah. The distinction was between mitzvot that serve to permit something and mitzvot that do not permit anything. He had suggested that a mezuzah permits a home for living, while tzitzit do not permit a garment for wearing. With this in mind, we can understand why somebody wearing tzitzit (or even not yet wearing the garment) may wear the garment absent the tzitzit on Shabbat. There is no prohibition to wear the garment, only a mitzvah to place tzitzit on it, which is inoperable because tying is prohibited on Shabbat. Regarding mezuzah, on the other hand, there is a prohibition to live in a house without a mezuzah — whether it be Shabbat or any other day of the week.

Which Rooms Require a Mezuzah — Based on Usage of the Room

n order for a room to require a mezuzah, three basic criteria must be met: First, the room must be used in a way that can be labeled “living” in the room. Second, the requirement to place a mezuzah can only take hold when a Jew is a proper owner of the room. Finally, the basic structure of the room and doorway must meet the structural requirements for a mezuzah. This essay will discuss the first of these three criteria, determining which rooms, based on their usage, should require a mezuzah.

Rules of Doubt Relating to Mezuzah

Before discussing specific cases where a mezuzah is required, it is important to realize that many cases will leave us with some level of doubt about what the halachah requires of us. As such, it is imperative that we develop a protocol to follow in situations of doubt.

The Contradiction

The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 67:1) writes that if one is uncertain as to whether he already recited k’riat Shema, he must recite k’riat Shema along with the attendant berachot. (Only if one is certain that he read k’riat Shema but is uncertain if he did so with the berachot is he exempt from reciting the berachot.)

When it comes to other cases of doubt, though, the Shulchan Aruch seems to contradict this ruling. If a person is of ambiguous gender (tumtum), there is a doubt whether he is obligated in the mitzvah of tzitzit. The Shulchan Aruch (17:2) rules that he should not recite a blessing on the mitzvah, as the berachah is only Rabbinic and may be omitted in cases of doubt. (It should be noted that according to Ashkenazic practice, a berachah may certainly be recited, as even women, who are exempt from time-bound mitzvot, have the custom to recite berachot on their performance of them.)

Resolving the Contradiction

The Mishnah Berurah (67:1) cites earlier poskim who distinguish between cases where the doubt revolves around whether the person is obligated at all and cases where the person is certainly obligated, but is unsure whether or not they had fulfilled that obligation. In the former case, one would not have to recite a berachah when performing the mitzvah. In the latter, such as the case of one who does not recall whether or not he had recited k’riat Shema, one must recite a berachah.

The Mishnah Berurah points out that a number of Rishonim reject this distinction. In their view, one would never recite a berachah in a case of doubt about the mitzvah. Perhaps k’riat Shema is a lone exception to this rule because the berachot are part of the actual mitzvah and are not considered to be a separate entity.

Regardless of which approach we accept, it should be clear that the cases of doubt involving mezuzah should require one to place a mezuzah without a berachah. If we accept the second suggested approach, all cases of doubt involving mitzvot do not warrant a berachah (with the lone exception of k’riat Shema). According to the first approach, all cases of doubt whether an obligation exists, such as the doubts that arise with mezuzah, are exempt from a berachah.

Dwelling Places

The Gemara (Bava Metzia 101b) discusses the responsibilities of each party in a lease arrangement. The owner must take care of basic structural necessities, while the renter must add safety features (maakeh) and protect the home from weather damage (laasos lo marzev u’l’hatiach et gago). Regarding the responsibility to place a mezuzah, though, the Gemara states explicitly that he who lives in the house bears the responsibility of placing a mezuzah on its doorpost (mezuzah chovat ha’dar hee). A simple reading of this Gemara would indicate that one who does not actually live in a house need not put a mezuzah on its doorpost. Thus, if one has a summer home that he visits only sporadically, but lives somewhere else, he would not need a mezuzah on the doorpost of the summer home. Indeed, the Ritva, cited by the Shitah Mekubetzet (ibid.) states that the Torah only requires a mezuzah in a house that one both owns and lives in. If he only lives in the house but does not own it, the requirement of a mezuzah is only Rabbinic in nature. The Ritva makes no mention of any requirement (even only Rabbinic) for a mezuzah in a home that one owns but does not live in, clearly implying that such a home does not require a mezuzah (see our previous essay for a discussion of the opinion of the Eshkol on this matter).

Does One Need to Live In the Home?

Support that the obligation is only when one lives in the home

The Magen Avraham (19:1) seems to accept the notion that one only places a mezuzah on a home once he actually lives in the home. In discussing the timing of the mitzvah, the Magen Avraham states that the only reason a blessing is recited upon placing the mezuzah is that one usually places the mezuzah when he begins living in the house. If, however, a person had put up the mezuzot prior to moving in, he would have to recite a blessing (Asher kid’shanu b’mitzvotav v’tzivanu la’dur b’bayit she’yesh bo mezuzah) as soon as he moves in.

Furthermore, Rabbi Akiva Eiger also seems to assume that when a home is left vacant, it has no need for a mezuzah. In fact, he writes (cited in Pit’chei Teshuvah 291:4) that when one leaves his house for an extended period of time, he must recite a new berachah on the mezuzah upon his return because while he was away, there was no need for the house to have a mezuzah. This would be so even if family members remained in the home while the homeowner was away. The family members have no obligation to have a mezuzah on the house because they are similar to tenants who are only Rabbinically obligated after thirty days.

The author of the Pit’chei Teshuvah, in his sefer Nachalat Tzvi, disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Akiva Eiger. The Nachalat Tzvi points out that when family members remain in the house, the house certainly requires a mezuzah. After all, even a tenant must put up a mezuzah after thirty days. Surely, then, family members who had been living in a house for well over thirty days would also have an obligation to keep the mezuzah on the house. The fact that while the rest of the family (who are considered as tenants) remains in the home, the obligation is only Rabbinic, whereas when the homeowner returns, the obligation is Biblical, is irrelevant. A new berachah on mezuzah is not required when a house goes from a Rabbinic obligation in mezuzah to a Biblical one. We do not require a new berachah when a tenant purchases the home in which he had been living. Nor do we require a child who placed a mezuzah to make a new berachah when he becomes a bar mitzvah. Irrespective of the particular dispute between Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Nachalat Tzvi, it would seem that both would agree that if nobody were left in the home while the homeowner were away, there would be no obligation to leave a mezuzah on the home during that time.

Sources against the obligation being only when one lives in the home

The Shitah Mekubetzet (Bava Metzia, ibid.) cites Rabbeinu Yehonatan, who rules that if one owns ten homes and does not live in any of them consistently (but visits each of them annually), all of them still require a mezuzah. One may understand this comment in multiple ways, each of which would place Rabbeinu Yehonatan at odds with Rabbi Akiva Eiger:

The implication is that, unlike the Ritva and Magen Avraham, Rabbeinu Yehonatan holds that one need not actually live in a home in order to be responsible for putting a mezuzah on its doors. Indeed, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Shu”t Ein Yitzchak, vol. 1, Y.D. 31) equates the view of Rabbeinu Yehonatan with the view of the Nimukei Yosef that the owner of a vacant rental property must keep a mezuzah on its door because, although he does not live there, he does visit occasionally. In Rav Spector’s view, even the Ritva and the Rosh, who do not require a mezuzah in this case, would not accept the ruling of Rabbi Akiva Eiger. They only exempt homes from a mezuzah when none of the homes are the owner’s primary residence. When, however, a person only possesses one home, there is no doubt that his only home is obligated in a mezuzah both while he is living in it and while he is traveling.

One may, however, suggest that Rabbeinu Yehonatan would not require a mezuzah on a home in which he does not live at all. The case where he required a mezuzah was one where the person owned and lived in multiple homes. The fact that one cannot be counted on to stay in any one of his homes for more than a couple of months at a time does not remove its status as a home in which he lives. When an owner does not live in a home at all, but hopes to rent it to somebody else, Rabbeinu Yehonatan could acknowledge that there is no requirement to put up a mezuzah.

Storage Facilities

The Shulchan Aruch (286:1) rules that cattle stables, chicken coops, and rooms used to store wine and oil require a mezuzah. The type of “storage facility” that would require a mezuzah needs to be defined in a precise fashion. We will discuss some of the issues that relate to the definition of a storage facility and briefly outline some of the parameters of this obligation.

On the surface, it seems that if one moves all of his possessions into a new home but has not yet begun living in the home, the home should still require a mezuzah due to its usage as a facility that stores all of the person’s belongings. However, upon further analysis, it seems that one would not have to put up mezuzot in such a situation. A storage facility only requires a mezuzah when its primary purpose is to be used for storage. When, however, the house is primarily used for living, but is simply not ready yet for its primary purpose, it would not require a mezuzah.

This suggestion may be proven from the following sources:

1. The Shulchan Aruch (286:3) rules that a shul that does not have a living quarter attached to it does not require a mezuzah. One may have argued that although nobody lives in the shul, it is still used for the storage of all of the siddurim, chumashim, and chairs that are kept there. Why doesn’t the shul require a mezuzah like any other storage facility? We must conclude that the fact that items are stored in a particular place does not automatically label the place as a storage facility. Since the primary purpose of the shul is to use it as a makom tefillah, it cannot be called a “storage facility” even if it is used to store certain items.
2. The Rosh (Halachot Ketanot, Menachot, Hilchot Mezuzah 11) writes that although a house without a roof does not require a mezuzah, a gateway to a courtyard requires a mezuzah even when there is no roof. The reason for this distinction, he explains, is that a courtyard does not typically have a roof, whereas a house certainly does normally have a roof. Apparently, when Chazal determined that a courtyard would require a mezuzah, they did not demand that it meet the standards required for a house. The fact that it is generally used in a different manner alters its criteria for the requirement of a mezuzah. Similarly, the fact that a house is generally used as a place to live, and not a place to store items, allows the house to be judged by the criteria set forth for a houseand not a storage facility.

Based on this approach, we may answer the following questions that were posed by the poskim:

1. As we have mentioned previously, Rabbi Akiva Eiger had suggested that while one is away from his home (on a vacation or the like), the home is exempt from having a mezuzah. As such, upon returning from the trip, the homeowner should be required to recite a new berachah on the mezuzot in his house, as a new obligation has begun upon his return. The author of the Pit’chei Teshuvah, in his sefer Nachalat Tzvi, questioned the novel ruling of Rabbi Akiva Eiger by suggesting that even when one is not home, his house should still require a mezuzah by virtue of the fact that it is being used to store all of the person’s belongings. Based on what we have suggested, though, the storage function of a place that is used primarily as a residence should not suffice to make the house require a mezuzah.
2. As we will discuss in a future essay, the Shulchan Aruch (286:10) rules that stores do not require mezuzot. The Pit’chei Teshuvah (s.k. 10) cites the sefer Yad Haketanah, who wonders why stores should not require a mezuzah by virtue of the fact that the items one sells remain “in storage” at the store. After all, isn’t the store considered a “storage facility” in certain respects? Based on the approach suggested above, we can easily answer this question. The defining criteria for a store or a dirah are vastly different than for a storage facility. Because the store is not used primarily for storage, the fact that it does in fact store certain items does not alter its very identity as a store, and not a storage facility.

Storehouses

The Gemara (Yoma 11a) records a dispute whether rooms used to store grain, cattle, or wood require a mezuzah or not. Rav Yehudah maintains that only if women use such rooms to adorn themselves in perfumes and jewelry, the rooms are obligated to have a mezuzah, while Rav Kahana rules that regardless of whether women use these rooms to adorn themselves, they require a mezuzah. The Rishonim debate how to rule in this machloket:

1. The Rosh (siman 15) and the Rif rule in accordance with Rav Kahana that these rooms require a mezuzah regardless of whether women use them to adorn themselves.
2. The Rambam (6:7) rules in accordance with Rav Yehudah that only if the room is used by a woman to adorn herself (or any similar “living type” of usage) does it require a mezuzah.

The Kesef Mishneh explains the root of the dispute between the Rambam and the Rosh revolves around how to understand the introductory phrase in the Gemara: “Rav Kahana taught in front of Rav Yehudah.” In the Rambam’s view, this phrase indicates that Rav Kahana was a student of Rav Yehudah, which would lead to the conclusion that we follow the opinion of Rav Yehudah because “we do not rule like a student over his own rebbi” (see the Margaliyot Ha’yam to Sanhedrin 6b, who explains that although we have a seemingly competing concept of hilchesa k’basrai, we always rule in accordance with the later authority, when the student expressed his opinion to the rebbi and the rebbi still did not accept it, we rule in accordance with the more authoritative opinion of the rebbi rather than the later opinion of the student). In the view of the Rosh and Rif, apparently Rav Kahana was not a student of Rav Yehudah. In fact, he was a student of Rav, as is well documented in the Gemara (Bava Kama 27b). In the instance recorded in this Gemara, Rav Kahana happened to have been speaking in front of Rav Yehudah, but that is no indication that Rav Yehudah was his rebbi.

Practical Halachah

The Shulchan Aruch (286:2) clearly rules in accordance with the Rosh (and Rav Kahana) that such rooms require a mezuzah even if not used by women for adornment. The Biur HaGra (s.k. 1) explains that in fact, Rav Yehudah’s view seems to be rejected at the conclusion of the Gemara, thus leading the Shulchan Aruch to the obvious ruling that Rav Kahana’s view is accepted. In fact, it is somewhat troubling that the Rambam ruled like Rav Yehudah in light of the fact that his view was rejected. The Aruch Hashulchan, though, points out that according to our text of the Rif, he in fact agrees with the Rambam. This should not be surprising, because the Rambam generally follows the rulings of the Rif. It is reasonable to assume that the Rambam had the same text in the Rif as we have, and not the text that the Beit Yosef quotes, which sides with the Rosh. In light of this revelation, the Aruch Hashulchan (286:9) points out that the Shulchan Aruch probably would have ruled like the Rambam had he been aware of the proper text of the Rif. As such, while we cannot ignore the actual ruling of the Shulchan Aruch and must affix a mezuzah to a storage room, we should avoid reciting a berachah when doing so in deference to the opinion of the Rambam and probable opinion of the Rif. Nevertheless, the Aruch Hashulchan points out that the common custom is to put up a mezuzah on such a room with a berachah.

Although on the surface, the opinion of the Rambam seems to be a leniency, there is one case where ruling in accordance with the Rambam may turn out to be a stringency. The Ohr Sameach (Hilchot Mezuzah 6:7( was asked about an apartment building that is owned by a Jew and a majority of the residents are Jews. The hallway of the building is also used to store certain items for the benefit of the residents of the building. Generally speaking, rooms that are jointly owned by Jews and non-Jews are exempt from mezuzah. A gateway into a home, while not obligated in mezuzah as a room that one lives in (beit dirah), requires a mezuzah on account of the home that it leads into. Thus, in the view of the Shulchan Aruch that a storage facility where women do not adorn themselves is generally considered a room that is obligated in mezuzah, this hallway would be exempt because it is jointly owned by Jews and non-Jews alike. In the view of the Rambam, however, this area would not have the status of a “room” that requires a mezuzah and would instead be viewed as a gateway to a home. As such, the fact that it also serves as a gateway to the homes of non-Jews is irrelevant, so long as its primary usage is as a gateway to Jewish homes. In this unique case, the Rambam would require a mezuzah while the Shulchan Aruch would not require a mezuzah.

The issue of whether an area is considered a residence or not has ramifications beyond Hilchot Mezuzah. The halachah demands that anybody who has a roof of an area that is used as a residence must place a fence (maakeh) around the roof so that people do not fall and injure themselves. Interestingly, in the context of the laws of maakeh, the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 427:1) rules that a roof of a place used for storage purposes does not require a mezuzah. It is somewhat puzzling that the Shulchan Aruch rules a storage facility to be enough of a living quarter to require a mezuzah, but not enough of a living quarter to require a maakeh. The Sema (ibid., s.k. 2) suggests that the distinction is as follows: Since it is unusual for one to use the roof of a storage facility, the Shulchan Aruch was not concerned with the danger inherent in the occasional visit to the roof of the facility. A mezuzah, on the other hand, is not there for physical protection, but to remind a person of God’s presence, and is therefore appropriate in spite of the infrequency of its usage.

Practical Applications

It would seem that the difference between otzrot yayin v’shemen (storehouse for wine and oil) and beit ha’etzim v’ha’teven (storehouse for wood and straw) is in how frequently one enters the respective facilities.

In the case of storage of wine and oil, it seems that it would be fairly common for one to go fetch extra wine or oil from storage in middle of a meal. It is the modern-day equivalent of a walk-in pantry or attached garage that is used for storage of everyday items. Thus, such pantries and garages certainly require a mezuzah, and a berachah should be recited upon affixing the mezuzah. It should be noted that an attached garage through which a person enters his home may require a mezuzah for a different reason entirely — because it is a beit shaar, a gateway into the home (see Shu”t Teshuvot V’hanhagot 1:647). Similarly, a walk-in closet that is used for storage may fall in this category and require a mezuzah (provided that it is four by four amot — see, however, Chamudei Daniel, according to whom it would require a mezuzah even if less than four by four. We will discuss this in greater detail in an upcoming essay).

On the other hand, beit ha’etzim v’ha’teven seems to refer to places that one does not enter as a matter of course. It would seem to be the equivalent of a detached garage or a storage shed that has a door. Such facilities’ obligation in a mezuzah is subject to a machloket between the Rambam and the Rosh, and we are generally stringent in requiring a mezuzah in such places. Whether or not a berachah is to be recited upon affixing the mezuzah is a matter of dispute, as the Aruch Hashulchan points out, with the prevalent custom being to recite a berachah. (See Shu”t Be’er Moshe 2:85, end, who requires a mezuzah on a garage that is on the same property as one’s home, provided that it is used for storage of items other than just a car.) Rabbi Mordechai Willig has confirmed that the same would be true of a long-term storage facility, where one rents a storage room for an extended period of time. It should be noted, though, that before putting up a mezuzah, one must be certain that the custodians of the facility would not remove the mezuzah, as this would lead to a desecration of the sanctity of the mezuzah that cannot be tolerated.

Porches, Decks, and Patios

The Shulchan Aruch (286:1) writes that the gateways to courtyards and cities require a mezuzah. Clearly, a courtyard need not have a roof in order to require a mezuzah, as the normal usage of a courtyard is without a roof. The exact reason that a courtyard requires a mezuzah is the subject of a dispute among the Rishonim. As we will see, this dispute has practical ramifications.

1. The opinion of the Maharil (cited by the Taz, 289:4): A courtyard is part of a person’s residence and is therefore considered to be a room within the home. Unlike other rooms that are used for normal living and therefore require a roof to be considered a room, a courtyard is used for fresh air and other outdoor enjoyments, and is therefore considered a legitimate room requiring a mezuzah even when it does not have a roof. The Maharil concludes that if the courtyard is completely enclosed and its only outlet is into the house, one should put the mezuzah on the right side going from the house to the courtyard (regardless of which way the door swings open). If the courtyard has an outlet to other areas (i.e., the street) which side of the doorpost would require a mezuzah depends totally on the direction in which the door swings open (the room that it swings open into is considered the “inside”).
2. The opinion of the Rambam (6:8): Courtyards only require a mezuzah because houses that require a mezuzah open up into these courtyards. Thus, in the Rambam’s view, courtyards are not considered rooms in their own right. They only require a mezuzah on account of their usage for the home to which they are attached. It would seem obvious that according to the Rambam, the mezuzah between a house and a courtyard should always be placed on the right side entering into the home, as the courtyard is considered a mere entranceway into the home and not a room in its own right.

The Avnei Nezer (Responsa, Y.D. 382) points out that the Rambam assumes that a courtyard cannot be considered a “dwelling place” in its own right, just as the Rambam maintains that a storage house of grains and wood is not considered a “dwelling place” and is exempt from mezuzah. The Maharil, on the other hand, probably assumes, like the opinion cited in Shulchan Aruch, that storage places also require a mezuzah even though one does not technically “live” in them. Apparently, according to the Maharil, the definition of a “beit dirah” is expanded beyond places where a person actually lives.

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, Y.D. 1:181) suggests an explanation of the Rambam that would not put him at odds with the Maharil. Rav Feinstein suggests that even the Rambam would agree that a doorway between a house and a completely enclosed courtyard would require a mezuzah on the right side going into the courtyard. The Rambam views the courtyard as a room of the house, just as the Maharil does. That which the Rambam writes that the courtyard is only obligated in a mezuzah on account of the house only means to say that if the courtyard were not attached to a house, its usage would not be considered the usage of a “dwelling place.” Only because it is attached to the house is it used in a way that it may be considered a room like any other in which one lives.

Practical Halachah

There are major halachic ramifications to how one understands the Rambam’s view and whether we accept the opinion of the Maharil. If a person has a completely enclosed porch, deck, or patio that only opens to the house (as is common in apartments), according to the Maharil and Rav Feinstein’s understanding of the Rambam, the mezuzah should go on the right side going out to the patio. According to the Avnei Nezer’s understanding of the Rambam, though, it would go on the right side going into the house. The poskim debate how to rule in this case:

1. The Chazon Ish (Teshuvot U’ketavim 24:8) writes that even if the porch is four by four amot, the mezuzah should be placed on the right side entering the house. This is true of a completely enclosed porch and would certainly be true of a porch that opens into a street. Apparently, the Chazon Ish assumes the Avnei Nezer’s analysis of the Rambam to be correct and rules in accordance with the Rambam against the Maharil.
2. Based on Rav Moshe Feinstein’s approach to understanding the Rambam, there is no debate between the Rambam and the Maharil. Thus, all would agree to place the mezuzah on the right side going out to the enclosed porch. If the porch has an outlet to the street, the house and the porch would be considered like any other two rooms that open to each other, in which case we follow a standard set of criteria (to be discussed in future essays – rov hiluch, ikar tashmish, heiker tzir) to determine on which side the mezuzah goes.

Staircases

The Shulchan Aruch (286:7) rules that a porch that leads to a staircase that goes to a second floor requires a mezuzah if a house opens up into the porch. If no house opens up into the porch, the Shulchan Aruch cites two opinions as to whether it requires a mezuzah. The Shach (s.k. 17) writes that the opinion that requires a mezuzah in this case only does so on a Rabbinic level. Certainly, the porch is Biblically exempt from having a mezuzah. This discussion has practical ramifications when it comes to staircases:

If a door leads to a staircase, the Maharsham (Daat Torah) rules that staircases can frequently be considered a wall rather than a room. If the incline of the stairs is such that one goes ten tefachim high in a span of four amot of length, the staircase is considered a wall and does not need a mezuzah. In most cases, staircases are not nearly this steep and would therefore require a mezuzah if they lead to a room. If a door leads to a staircase that has another door on top (with no platform of four by four amot) and the door at the top of the staircase leads to another room, one should not recite a berachah on the mezuzah placed on the bottom door unless he also plans on putting a mezuzah on the top door at the same time. If there is only one door at the top of the staircase and the stairs lead directly into a room at the bottom, one should place a mezuzah on the doorway at top of the staircase.

Elevators

Is a mezuzah needed for an elevator? This may seem like a strange question, as common practice seems to indicate that the answer is no. However, this may simply because most apartment buildings outside of Israel have non-Jewish residents along with the Jewish residents, in which case a mezuzah would not be required (see Rema, 286:1, citing the Mordechai) for two reasons:

1. According to the Taz (286:2), the Torah never required a mezuzah on a building unless all its residents are obligated in the mitzvah.
2. The Shach (286:6) adds that there is a concern the non-Jewish residents will suspect the Jews are cursing them, which could lead to violence.

While the Aruch Hashulchan cites a minority opinion that a mezuzah is required on a building that houses both Jewish and non-Jewish residents, the accepted practice is not to do so.

In Israel, though, where it is fairly common to have entire apartment buildings with only Jewish residents, the question of affixing mezuzos for the elevators is relevant. Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvot V’hanhagot 2:547) acknowledges tha the minhag seems to be not to place them, but wonders why this would be correct. [Editor’s Note: It is important to note that Chovat Ha’dar (pg. 45) requires a Mezuzah by Elevators.]

Elevator as a Room

There are a few reasons to argue that an elevator would not need mezuzah as a room:

First, most elevators are less than four by four amot. According to the Gemara in Sukkah 3a, any room smaller than this size is exempt from the mitzvah of mezuzah. However, this may relate to a machloket regarding walk-in closets, which are less than four by four amot but perfectly functional for their intended purpose. The status regarding walk-in closets, and perhaps an elevator by extension, is subject to a three-way machloket. The Pit’chei Teshuvah (286:11) cites the Chamudei Daniel that such a room is obligated in mezuzah. The Daat Kedoshim rules that it is exempt due to its size. Rabbi Akiva Eiger rules that a mezuzah should be placed on the right side when exiting the closet, as it still serves as an entranceway to the attached room.

Second, an elevator is mobile, not stationary. According to the Mikdash Me’at, that is enough to disqualify such a room from the mitzvah of mezuzah. However, one can dispute this conclusion. First, the Minchat Yitzchak points out that while the elevator may be mobile, it is part of a stationary building, so it may not qualify for an exemption due to its mobility. More fundamentally, Rav Avraham David of Butchach rules that a moving residence requires a mezuzah. Thus, a person who lives in a mobile home or RV must place a mezuzah on the door, even if he’s constantly moving from place to place. An elevator would have the same status (Daat Kedoshim 286:1).

Elevator as a Beit Shaar

One may instead argue that an elevator should require a mezuzah as a beit shaar, an entranceway. The Torah writes that one should place a mezuzah “al mezuzot beitecha u’visharecha,” which according to the Gemara (Yoma 11a) includes gateways that lead into one’s home. This is why narrow hallways that lead into one’s home require a mezuzah (assuming the doorway is framed by a tzurat ha’petach). The Gemara (Menachot 34) also writes that a mezuzah is needed for a stairwell between two floors, which seems to parallel the elevator even more closely.

However, the fact that an elevator is mobile may remove it from the category of a beit shaar, as well. The Shu”t B’tzel Hachochmah (3:80) notes a Gemara (Sukkah ) that describes a case of two sukkot ha’yotzrim, craftsman’s huts, one built in front of the other. The Gemara wonders why the outer hut would not need a mezuzah as a beit shaar for the inner hut, and answers that the hut is lo k’via, not firmly established. The Kesef Mishneh interprets the Rambam’s understanding of this case as teaching that a mobile or temporary structure does not require a mezuzah. If so, an elevator would be exempt as well. This understanding is questionable, though, as Rashi explains lo k’via to mean the structure is weak; that certainly does not apply to an elevator, which is made of metal.

Which Side?

If a mezuzah should be placed on an elevator, on which side should it be placed — the right for a person entering the elevator, or exiting the elevator?

Regarding a stairwell, the Chovat Ha’dar (pg. 45) rules that it depends on the floor. On the ground floor, the mezuzah should be placed on the right side entering the stairwell, as it is primarily used by those using it as a beit shaar to their homes on higher floors. For the same reason, on those higher floors, the mezuzah should be placed on the right side exiting the stairwell. The same would apply to an elevator.

In Yeshivat Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan, the mezuzot for the staircases are placed on the right side leaving the stairwell, including on the ground floor.

Which Tzurat Ha’petach?

An additional question must be clarified regarding the placement of a mezuzah for an elevator: Should the mezuzah be placed on the doorframe of the actual elevator, or on the doorway of the floor leading into the elevator? There are three approaches suggested for this question.

Shu”t Minchat Yitzchak (4:93) writes that based on the above opinion of the Chamudei Daniel, the elevator itself needs a mezuzah, as it functions according to its intended purpose. The entrances to each floor, though, do not need mezuzot, as they are unusable when the elevator is not at that floor. Even when it is, the elevator door covers the doorway, rendering it inaccessible.

The Chovat Ha’dar rules that the elevator itself does not require a mezuzah because it is not kavua. The entrances to each floor, though, do need mezuzot, just as the entrances to a stairwell require mezuzot. By the same logic, the placement of the mezuzot should be like the above, differentiating between the ground floor and all other floors. This ruling is also recorded in the Kovetz Mi’beit Levi 2 (p. 129) and Shu”t Chayei Halevi, Y.D. 67:5. However, the Kovetz Mi’beit Levi writes that Rav Wosner himself held that even the mezuzah on the ground floor should be placed on the right side exiting the elevator.

The Minchas Shlomo (2:97:23) rules that the elevator itself does not need a mezuzah. It should be treated differently than a stairwell, as the elevator has no possible residential use, only transportation. The entrances onto the floors also do not technically require a mezuzah, as they cannot be used independently of the elevator and also become useless anytime the elevator moves away from the floor. Therefore, they are not considered residential structures. Still, he rules that it would be proper to be machmir and affix a mezuzah without a berachah to the right side of the entrance into the elevator, as that is the primary entrance and exit to and from the building. The Shu”t B’tzel Hachochmah also exempts both the elevator and the floor entrances from needing a mezuzah. He compares an elevator to a box placed on the back of a horse that knows to come when it is called. Of course, the box does not need a mezuzah, and if one would walk through a tzurat ha’pesach to enter the box, a mezuzah would not be required on the tzurat ha’pesach, either.

There are no mezuzot on the elevators in Yeshivat Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan. However, Rav Schachter, shlita, thought there should be mezuzot at each floor on the right when exiting the elevator.

Disrespectful Places (Bathrooms and More)

Is a mezuzah needed in places where people are frequently unclothed? It is generally considered disrespectful to have a mezuzah on a room in which people are frequently undressed. Thus, we do not place a mezuzah on a bathroom or shower room regardless of their size. The Bach had suggested that since women are frequently undressed (and even bathe) in bedrooms, one should refrain from placing a mezuzah on the bedroom. In fact, the Bach writes that the (formerly) prevalent custom to only place one mezuzah on the front door of the house and to leave the other rooms without a mezuzah is based on this concern. The Shulchan Aruch, however, rejects this view. The special exemption of rooms where people stand undressed only applies if the primary usage of the room is to bathe. A normal bedroom, which is normally used for sleeping while clothed, would still require a mezuzah, although people may sometimes be undressed in the room (either changing or having tashmish ha’mitah, marital intimacy). Ideally, the Rema writes, the mezuzah should be placed in such a way that it remains on the other side of the door when it is closed.

Covering a Mezuzah During Tashmish Ha’mitah

On the surface, it seems obvious that if even standing undressed in a room is considered disrespectful to the mezuzah, having tashmish ha’mitah in the room is even more disrespectful. The poskim debate how to go about having tashmish ha’mitah in a normal bedroom with a mezuzah.

The Shach (s.k. 9) concludes that our bedroom mezuzot should be covered so that the tashmish ha’mitah should not be considered a disrespectful activity to do in the room. The Aruch Hashulchan (286:14) cites the ruling of the Magen Avraham that in order to have tashmish ha’mitah in a room that has a mezuzah, one must cover the mezuzah with a double covering (keli b’toch keli), and one of the coverings must be something with which the mezuzah is not normally covered. Unlike a bathroom, which is exempt from a mezuzah because people stand there undressed, the bedroom is not exempt because it is not an objectively unclean place. One only does disrespectful and unclean activities there on occasion (Shach, s.k. 11, as well as Aruch Hashulchan, s.k. 5).

The Aruch Hashulchan himself, however, disagrees with this ruling. After all, the Gemara tells us explicitly of a requirement to put a double covering over tefillin and sefarim (which may only sometimes be in the same room as people having tashmish), but doesn’t mention a word about such a requirement for a mezuzah (which is always on the doorpost of the room). To conclude from this that bedrooms do not require a mezuzah would also be erroneous, because of all of the places that the Gemara discusses are exempt from mezuzah, it never says that a room where a man and his wife sleep is exempt. We must conclude that the same Torah that requires us to have a mezuzah also requires us to fulfill the mitzvah of p’ru u’revu. Since it is required to have a mezuzah on a bedroom, and it is normal to have tashmish in the bedroom, the Torah must allow tashmish in the same room as the mezuzah. Tefillin, on the other hand, can just as easily be removed from the room and are not typically left in one’s bedroom, so there is no basis to conclude that the Torah allows tashmish ha’mitah in front of tefillin.

Jails

The poskim debate whether a jail cell requires a mezuzah. The Beit Hillel, a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, suggests that jails should not require a mezuzah because they are not a respectable living quarter (dirat kavod). To support this ruling, he points to a comment of the Gemara (Yoma 10b) where the Gemara discusses why the chamber where the Kohen Gadol would live for one week prior to Yom Kippur required a mezuzah. The Gemara notes that even if technically exempt from a mezuzah (because he is forced to live there), the rabbis decreed that a mezuzah should be placed there because we don’t want it to appear “as if he is in jail.” The implication of the Gemara is that if he indeed were in jail, a mezuzah would not be required.

The Birkei Yosef (286:3) argues that one can only label something as not being a respectable living place (dirat kavod) if the room smells or one behaves there in a manner not fitting the sanctity of a mezuzah (bathing, etc.). A jail cell, on the other hand, can be treated with dignity and is therefore not subject to the exemption of dirat kavod. The comment of the Gemara that if the Kohen Gadol did not have a mezuzah, people would assume he is in a jail, assumes the opinion that a forced living quarter is not halachically considered to be a living quarter. We, however, rule in accordance with the dissenting view of the Rabbanan in that Gemara, who maintain that even a forced living quarter (dirah baal korchah) is considered to be a living quarter and is therefore obligated in mezuzah.

The Birkei Yosef adds, though, that there may be another reason to exempt jail cells from having a mezuzah. The halachah is that any place not meant for permanent living is not obligated in a mezuzah, even if one stays there for more than thirty days. For instance, if one stays on a boat for two months, he still does not require a mezuzah because people typically do not plan on living on a boat. It could be argued that the same applies to a jail cell, where people are only going to be there for a limited amount of time. It is possible that when the Birkei Yosef wrote this, he assumed that there were no life sentences in the prison system. Perhaps now that inmates are often incarcerated for life, a jail cell could have the status of a more permanent dwelling. However, the logic of this approach may apply to a hospital or a dormitory in a school where it is not made to house people on a permanent basis, only to provide room and board as long as their services are needed. It seems difficult, though, to rely on this point of view to determine the halachah.

Maid’s Rooms

The Aruch Hashulchan (286:4) rules that if one has a room in their house set aside for a non-Jewish maid, since it is still a part of the person’s home, the room requires a mezuzah. One could argue that the room is provided in exchange for the work that the person is doing for you. If so, it is similar to a typical rental agreement where the non-Jew pays to live in the apartment and the landlord does not have to put a mezuzah on the door. However, Rabbi Avi Lebowitz suggests that there is room to distinguish between situations where room and board are provided and a typical rental. The maid is not working to pay for the room and board. Once she is in the house working for her salary, it becomes the homeowner’s responsibility to provide room and board. In this way, the maid’s room may be more similar to a guest room than to a rental agreement. As such, it may require a mezuzah. If this logic is correct, the same can be argued about a Jewish-owned hospital where non-Jews are staying. The rooms are not “rented” to the non-Jews. They are being cared for in the hospital, and so long as they are there, the hospital must provide them with room and board. This may also apply to yeshiva dormitories, where the students aren’t paying for room and board, but for their education, and the yeshiva is obligated to provide room and board. As such, it would be the administration’s responsibility, and not the student’s, to put mezuzot on each dorm room. If it were a secular college dorm room, there would be no obligation upon either party to place a mezuzah on the doorpost.

Hospitals

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, Y.D. 1:184) states that in places like hospitals or similar institutions, where residents or patients do not have control over their rooms and can be moved at any time by the administration (which is often the case in certain states or institutions), the obligation of mezuzah might not apply in a Biblical or even Rabbinic sense, due to the lack of keviut (permanency).

Rav Feinstein writes that hospital rooms are exempt from mezuzah even if the patient stays for an extended period. The key reason: the patient has no control over the room and can be moved at any time by hospital staff. Since the dwelling is not kavuah (permanent or under the person’s authority), there is no obligation, not even Rabbinic.

Nursing Homes

In contrast to hospitals, nursing homes may be more permanent dwellings, depending on the situation. For example: If residents typically stay long-term and have some degree of stability or control over their rooms (e.g., they cannot easily be relocated), then there may be a Rabbinic obligation to affix mezuzot. In some cases, this might even rise to a Biblical obligation. The deciding factors include how easy it is for the administration to move residents and the legal and practical state regulations that affect this control. Rav Feinstein emphasizes that local policy and legal norms play a role. In states or facilities where a resident can be moved at will, the room is like a hospital and exempt. Where residents have long-term stability, the obligation may exist, and mezuzot should be put up — possibly with a berachah, if the permanence is strong enough.

Practically, each facility should be evaluated individually. Consult with a halachic authority to assess whether mezuzot are required based on that facility’s policies. When in doubt, a mezuzah should be put up without a berachah unless a competent posek rules otherwise.

Temporary Residences

The Shulchan Aruch (286:11) rules that sukkot, houseboats, and stores in the marketplace are all exempt from having a mezuzah. Each of the three categories mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch has their own unique reasons and details that require individual explanation.

Many people have rooms in their homes that have a retractable roof that they remove for Sukkot and replace with sechach. The Pit’chei Teshuvah (286:13) cites an authority who maintains that if such a room has a mezuzah, the mezuzah must be removed and reaffixed after Sukkot ends because it was exempt throughout the duration of Sukkot which is an issue of taaseh v’lo min ha’asui (which means fulfilling a positive commandment, the object used for the mitzvah should be specifically prepared for that purpose and not simply found or already existing in that state). The Pit’chei Teshuvah, however, cites the Arbaah Turei Even, who argues that such a room would not require a new placement of the mezuzah for a variety of reasons:

This room is one in which the homeowner lives throughout the year and is thus not subject to the exemption of dirat arai. (It should be noted that the Mishnah Berurah 626:21 cites the Pri Megadim, who disagrees with this analysis and maintains that any structure used for the mitzvah of sukkah is automatically labeled a dirat arai and is exempt from having a mezuzah. See, however, the Aruch Hashulchan 286:27, who holds that such a sukkah requires a mezuzah.)

Furthermore, the Pit’chei Teshuvah suggests that the problem of taaseh v’lo min ha’asui is only an issue if the mezuzah was originally placed at a time that the room was exempt. If, however, the mezuzah was placed at a time that the room was obligated and subsequently became exempt while the mezuzah was up, there is no concern for taaseh v’lo min ha’asui when the obligation returns.

Finally, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, O.C. 5:40:1) points out that even if the room is exempt throughout the holiday of Sukkot, there is no problem for the mezuzah to remain there, just as a renter keeps the mezuzot up in the home after he moves out (so the next person may use them) although there is some time between one renter moving out and the other moving back in during which the home does not require a mezuzah.

Key Practical Cases:

1. Pre-affixed scroll on a beam installed in a doorframe: A mezuzah affixed to a beam before the beam was installed as part of a doorframe is invalid because the mezuzah was not affixed to a completed doorframe.

2. Enlarging an opening below ten tefachim: If a mezuzah was placed on a doorpost when the doorway was less than ten tefachim (thirty-two inches) in height and the doorway was later enlarged, the mezuzah remains invalid since it was not affixed to a doorway that required a mezuzah at the time.
3. Adding a roof or lintel after installing the mezuzah: If a mezuzah was affixed to an opening without a roof or lintel (mashkof), and one was added afterward, the mezuzah is invalid since the opening was initially exempt from the obligation.
4. Lowering the lintel to adjust mezuzah placement: A mezuzah placed below the top third of an opening becomes invalid if the lintel is lowered afterward to make its position halachically correct. The mezuzah must be removed and reaffixed.
5. Adjusting doorpost depth: A mezuzah placed too deep inside a doorpost (more than one tefach) and later corrected by shaving the doorpost is invalid. The mezuzah must be reaffixed after the correction.
6. Constructing steps after installation: If a mezuzah was affixed to an elevated opening (e.g., higher than ten tefachim from the ground) before steps were constructed to make the doorway usable, the mezuzah remains invalid because the doorway was not functional at the time of installation.
7. Moving a caravan after mezuzah installation: If mezuzot were affixed to a caravan that was later lifted by a crane and relocated, the mezuzot are invalid because the act of affixing was not performed in the caravan’s current, permanent location.

Houseboats

Simply put, the Shulchan Aruch seems to exempt all houseboats from having a mezuzah. However, the Aruch Hashulchan (286:27) writes that if the boat is used as a person’s permanent residence, it would indeed require a mezuzah.

Stores

The Shulchan Aruch exempts stores from having a mezuzah. The reason for the exemption is the subject of a machloket:

1. The Shach (s.k. 21) states that stores are exempt from a mezuzah because they are only considered temporary dwelling places. Indeed, the fact that the Shulchan Aruch quotes this exemption along with the exemptions of the houseboat and sukkah implies that the reason for the exemption is the same.
2. The Rambam (6:9) writes that while the sukkah and houseboat are exempt on account of their lack of permanence, stores are exempt because they are not living quarters at all. The Taz (s.k. 10) adds that even though one spends most of their day in the store, since he does not sleep there at night, it cannot be called his dwelling place.

The poskim dispute exactly what type of store is included in this exemption from a mezuzah:

1. The Taz (ibid.) states that any store in which one does not sleep at night is exempt from having a mezuzah. Even the Taz acknowledges, though, that if the store is located in a person’s house, it would require a mezuzah.
2. The Pit’chei Teshuvah (s.k. 10) cites the sefer Yad Haketanah, who maintains that the exemption for stores only applies to temporary structures that are actually dismantled at the end of the workday. The Yad Haketanah argues that a regular store where one spends his entire day should be no worse than a storage facility that requires a mezuzah. Even if one would remove all of the items he sells every night, it should be no different than a beit midrash, which requires a mezuzah. The Taz argues, in his own defense, that the analogy to a storage facility is faulty. After all, the storage facility is used for its primary function twenty-four hours a day. The store, on the other hand, is primarily for people to go shopping. It is only used for this purpose during the daytime, and at night is relegated to a secondary usage as a storage place for the wares that the storekeeper sells. Furthermore, we may suggest, the question from the beit midrash may be deflected because the beit midrash is not only used during the daytime, but at night as well. After all, the Torah tells us that we have an obligation to learn Torah both day and night.

Practical Halachah

Although a compelling logical argument can be made for the Taz, the Aruch Hashulchan suggests that the entire exemption of stores from having a mezuzah is only within the view of the Rambam that storage facilities are also exempt from mezuzah. As such, it seems that the machloket remains unresolved, and it would be best to put a mezuzah up in a store without reciting a berachah. It would also seem that the same would apply to an office that closes each night.

Which Rooms Require a Mezuzah — Ownership

revious essays have discussed which rooms require a mezuzah on account of the way that they are used. In this essay, we will shift our attention to the requirements of ownership that must be in place in order for a room to require a mezuzah.

Jointly Owned Properties — Time Shares

When Two Jews Are Partners

The Gemara (Yoma 11b) states that homes owned by women or by partners require a mezuzah. The Gemara explains that while one may have derived from the masculine singular formulation of the mitzvah — “beitecha” — that a woman and partners would be exempt, the fact that the Torah follows up the mitzvah of mezuzah with a promise of long life for those who fulfill the mitzvah properly (l’maan yirbu yemeichem) indicates that anybody who would be interested in a long life is obligated in this mitzvah.

Although the Gemara’s halachic conclusion is clear, the exact exposition of the pasuk is not as clear. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Gilyon HaShas, ad loc.) points out that the idea that anybody who would be interested in the blessing associated with mezuzah is obligated in the mitzvah would explain why women are obligated to put up a mezuzah on their homes, but it would not explain why partners are obligated to place a mezuzah on their jointly owned properties. After all, there was never a thought that each partner as an individual is exempt from the mitzvah, only that those properties that they own together should not require a mezuzah. The logic that anybody who would like a long life is obligated in the mitzvah only serves to teach which people are obligated in the mitzvah, not which properties require a mezuzah. After all, people who live in rented apartments for less than thirty days at a time also want long life but need not put a mezuzah on the apartment because the property is exempt from the mitzvah, not because the people are exempt from the mitzvah. In addressing this problem, the Rashash (ad loc.) explains that the logic to require properties owned by partners in the mitzvah of mezuzah has nothing to do with who is interested in the promise of long life. Rather, the fact that the promise was written in the plural (“yirbu yemeichem”) indicates that it applies to jointly owned properties as well.

When a Jew and Non-Jew Are Partners

The above conclusion in the Gemara relates specifically to a home owned jointly by two Jews. When the home is owned by a Jew and a gentile, though, the halachah is not as clear.

The lenient view: The Darchei Moshe (286:1) cites the view of the Mordechai, who maintains that homes owned jointly by Jews and non-Jews are exempt from a mezuzah. The Darchei Moshe, however, does not explain the logic for arriving at this conclusion.

The Mordechai (Avodah Zarah 1:810) records a conversation between Rabbeinu Avigdor and his father-in-law, Rabbeinu Chaim, relating to this issue. Rabbeinu Avigdor questioned whether the house should be exempt because we never find the Gemara explicitly excluding such partnerships from the obligation to place a mezuzah (to the contrary, the Gemara states that partners are obligated in mezuzah without ever qualifying that both partners must be Jewish). Alternatively, since the idea that partners are required to place a mezuzah is derived from the pasuk “l’maan yirbu yemeichem” (see above), we may conclude that only those whose lives the Torah is interested in lengthening would require a mezuzah, as opposed to a gentile, whose life the Torah would have no interest in extending. Rabbeinu Chaim responded by stating that the home would be exempt from having a mezuzah, implying that he accepted the idea that the Torah would not have included properties jointly owned by a Jew and non-Jew in the mitzvah because the Torah has no interest in extending the non-Jew’s life.

The Levush (Ateret Zahav) states that gates of courtyards and cities where both Jews and non-Jews reside are exempt from mezuzah because the obligation of mezuzah only takes effect for those who are interested in life, which excludes any homes with non-Jewish ownership. The Shach (286:6) vehemently disagrees with this explanation and suggests that these gates are exempt because it is dangerous in many societies for Jews to flaunt their religious articles in so public a fashion. The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 423), though, wonders why the Shach took exception to the explanation of the Levush. After all, this was the exact sevara that the Mordechai had suggested to exempt homes owned jointly by Jews and non-Jews from a mezuzah.

It seems, though, that even if the Shach were to accept the ruling and logic of the Mordechai, he is well justified in rejecting the explanation of the Levush for exempting city gates for a number of reasons. First, the Mordechai only used this logic to exempt homes owned jointly by Jews and non-Jews from requiring a mezuzah. City gates, even when non-Jews live in the city, are technically required to have a mezuzah (as the Shulchan Aruch rules explicitly in 286:1). While the Levush’s explanation accounts for why there should not be an obligation to place a mezuzah in these locations, it does not account for why the Shulchan Aruch requires the mezuzah, and we routinely ignore this halachah. Furthermore, it should be noted, though, that the sevara rejected by the Shach was not identical to the sevara of the Mordechai. While the Mordechai explained that non-Jews are exempt because the Torah is not interested in their living longer, the Levush had said that non-Jews are exempt because they are not interested in life, as is evidenced by the fact that they do not observe the Torah.

One may argue that the explanation of the Mordechai is questionable for a variety of reasons. First, to suggest that the Torah is not interested in the lives of non-Jews is a startling assertion that would seem to require a Talmudic source to support it. Second, even if the logic is correct, the fact that the Torah is not concerned with the arichut yamim of non-Jews would only explain why the non-Jew is not obligated in the mitzvah, but would fail to explain why his Jewish partner is exempt by virtue of their partnership.

The Mordechai (Chullin 8:741) offers an entirely different explanation for the exemption of homes owned jointly by Jews and non-Jews from the mitzvah of mezuzah. The Mordechai points to the law that a home owned jointly by a Jew and non-Jew is not subject to tzaraat because regarding the tumah of tzaraat, the house is only half a house (the half that belongs to the non-Jew) is not subject to tzaraat. Tzaraat can only afflict a complete house, not half a house. Similarly, a room has a certain size requirement to warrant a mezuzah. If the room is smaller than four amot in width and four amot in length, the room is exempt from mezuzah. Therefore, if each inch of a room is owned partially by somebody who is not obligated in the mitzvah of mezuzah, the room (or home) cannot be accurately labeled a complete home vis-a-vis the mitzvah of mezuzah.

Interestingly, Rabbi Binyamin Zev Martah (Respona Binyamin Ze’ev 167) fuses the two explanations of the Mordechai into one, as follows: Since the pasuk of l’maan yirbu yemeichem cannot apply to a non-Jew, his portion of any house is exempt from mezuzah. As such, a house that he owns jointly with a Jew is completely exempt from mezuzah because there cannot be an obligation to have a mezuzah on “half of a house.”

The stringent view: The Beit Yosef (286) cites the opinion of the Rashba, who rejects the halachic conclusion of the Mordechai. In the Rashba’s view, even if the non-Jewish partner in the home is exempt from putting up a mezuzah, the Jewish partner is still obligated to put up a mezuzah for his own protection.

The poskim debate how to understand the conceptual basis of this machloket between the Rashba and the Mordechai:

Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Responsa, Mahadura Kama, 67) explains that this machloket may relate to two opinions cited by Tosafot (Menachot 44a, s.v. “Tallit”) relating to the nature of the obligation of a renter to have a mezuzah. According to one view in Tosafot, the renter requires a mezuzah after thirty days because it is labeled his living quarters (even though it does not belong to him) after thirty days. According to the other view, the tenant is only Rabbinically obligated to place a mezuzah after thirty days, but on a Biblical level, he remains exempt because the home does not belong to him. Apparently, the two opinions in Tosafot debate whether a home must belong to you in order for the Biblical requirement of a mezuzah to be incumbent upon you. It therefore stands to reason that the Mordechai, who exempts a home owned jointly by a Jew and non-Jew, does so because he maintains that you must own the home for any obligation to be binding. The Rashba, however, maintains that full ownership is not a prerequisite for the obligation of mezuzah to be binding, and therefore concludes that a Jew who owns a property together with a non-Jew must nevertheless affix a mezuzah to the doorpost of the property.

The Seridei Eish (2:80) points out that Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s analysis is highly questionable because the Rashba himself, in his chiddushim to Masechet Shabbat (131b), explicitly states that a rented house is only Rabbinically obligated in a mezuzah, apparently maintaining that the home cannot be Biblically obligated unless it is completely yours.

The unclear view: Rashi (Yoma 11a, s.v. “Avulei D’Machuza”) states that the gates of the town of Mechuza require a mezuzah because the majority of the residents in the town are Jewish. Unlike the opinions of the Mordechai and Rashba, who came to an all-inclusive ruling on the matter of properties owned jointly by Jews and non-Jews, Rashi seems to conclude that the matter depends on the percentage of ownership, a factor ignored by the other two Rishonim. The Acharonim, though, assume that the Mordechai and Rashba do factor in the percentage of Jewish ownership. There is a dispute, however, to determine exactly how the Rishonim account for different percentages of ownership:

Rabbi Akiva Eiger (ibid.) understands that even the Mordechai, who normally exempts properties owned by partnerships with non-Jews from having a mezuzah, would require a mezuzah when the Jew is a majority owner.

The Gevurat Ari (Yoma, ibid.), however, understands that the Mordechai will exempt the property from a mezuzah regardless of how small a percentage is owned by a non-Jew. The Rashba, though, who normally requires a mezuzah on such properties, would exempt the property from a mezuzah if it is under a majority non-Jewish ownership.

The Seridei Eish (siman 80) cites the Ohr Sameach (quoted in our previous essay) who suggests that Rashi’s comment has no bearing on this dispute at all. Rashi spoke about the gates of cities whose residents were not all Jewish. In such a case, the requirement for a mezuzah is not a function of the ownership of the city, but a function of the city serving as a gateway to the homes. Thus, the gates of the city must be labeled as a gateway to Jewish homes or as a gateway to non-Jewish homes. A simple majority determines this categorization. In the case of a home owned jointly, though, the obligation cannot be determined by a majority, but by the obligation of the Jewish partner on the given home.

Practical Halachah

Opinion of the Shulchan Aruch: The Shulchan Aruch (286:1) rules that homes owned by partners require a mezuzah. The Shulchan Aruch makes no distinction between partnerships between Jews and partnerships between non-Jews and Jews, implying that in either case, a mezuzah would be required.

Opinion of the Rema: In his glosses to the Shulchan Aruch, the Rema (ibid.) writes that homes owned in partnership only require a mezuzah if both partners are Jewish. If a non-Jew owns even a small percentage of the home, no mezuzah is required. The Taz (s.k. 3) points out that the primary concern of the Rema is that the non-Jewish partner will be suspicious of the mezuzah, creating a potentially dangerous situation for the Jew who placed the mezuzah. The Aruch Hashulchan (286:2), however, points out that nowadays, we rarely have cause for concerns of danger, and the opinion of the Mordechai has been rejected by many great authorities (Rashba, Beit Yosef, Maharshal), so even Ashkenazic Jews should place a mezuzah on homes owned in partnership with a non-Jew, albeit without a berachah.

Practical Applications

This issue is frequently relevant in offices and businesses where Jews and non-Jews may share space. It would seem that Sephardic Jews certainly should put up a mezuzah, and Ashkenazic Jews should also put up a mezuzah in the view of the Aruch Hashulchan.

In the case of a timeshare where a Jew owns an apartment for a few months of the year and a non-Jew owns it for a few months, Rabbi Akiva Eiger is cited by the Pit’chei Teshuvah (s.k. 3) as having ruled that it requires a mezuzah because during the time that the Jew is in control, it is completely under his ownership. It would seem, though, that according to this logic, each time the non-Jew takes control of the home, it becomes completely exempt from mezuzah, and when the Jew moves back in, he would require a new berachah on the mezuzah as a new obligation has been generated.

It is important to note that the Shach (s.k. 7) points out that if there is ever a concern that a mezuzah, if left up, will be desecrated, one should not affix a mezuzah, even if the room is Biblically obligated in mezuzah. This can frequently be a legitimate concern in offices or public storage places where the custodial staff may notice something hanging on the doorway and, not knowing what it is, may remove it in order to keep a tidy appearance. The Taz (s.k. 4) suggests in this case to try to affix the mezuzah in a way that it will not be visible to other people, so that it may be saved from desecration and one will not have to neglect the mitzvah.

Shuls and Batei Midrash

Shul

The Gemara (Berachot 47a) records an episode when Ravin and Abaye were traveling together. When Abaye noticed that Ravin consistently went through narrow passages ahead of Abaye, he began to think that Ravin had become arrogant and was not interested in showing him any respect. Once, however, they arrived at the door of the shul, Ravin insisted that Abaye go ahead of him (showing respect for Abaye). When Abaye questioned why Ravin had not shown him respect until this point, Ravin cited the ruling of Rav Yochanan that it is only necessary to show honor by allowing somebody to go through a door with a mezuzah ahead of you. The Gemara questions this ruling, though, because a beit midrash and a shul do not require a mezuzah, yet Ravin honored Abaye by allowing him to walk through the door of the shul ahead of him. The Gemara explains that the doorway through which you honor somebody need not actually have a mezuzah. Rather, its structure must resemble that of a doorway that would require a mezuzah, even if in this particular case it does not warrant a mezuzah because of the usage of the room. The clear implication of the Gemara is that a shul does not require a mezuzah. Indeed, the Shulchan Aruch (286:3) rules that a shul would only require a mezuzah if there was a residence attached to it. The Rema adds that if the living quarters are located in the courtyard in front of the shul, the courtyard would require a mezuzah, but the shul itself would not.

Beit Midrash

Based on this Gemara, it seems obvious that a beit midrash should not require a mezuzah. Indeed, Tosafot (Yoma 11b, s.v. “She’ein bo beit dirah”) rule that a beit midrash does not require a mezuzah. Despite this, the Gemara (Menachot 33a) states explicitly that Rav Huna had a mezuzah on the doorway to his beit midrash. The Gemara explains that although Rebbi did not have a mezuzah for his doorway into the beit midash, his doorway was only exempt because it was not the main entrance into the beit midrash (Rashi explains that Rebbi had his own small doorway right near his seat that only he would use so as not to trouble the occupants of the beit midrash to stand in his honor when he entered). In order to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the two passages in the Gemara, Tosafot (Yoma, ibid.) suggest that the Gemara in Menachot (which implies that a beit midrash requires a mezuzah) is only speaking about the doorway between the beit midrash and a home. A normal entranceway to a beit midrash, though, would not require a mezuzah. However, the Rosh (Menachot, Hilchot Mezuzah 10) assumes that the two passages dispute each other, each reflecting a different Tannaitic opinion. The Rosh points out that the Yerushalmi (Megillah 4) seems to support the opinion that a mezuzah is required in a beit midrash. Furthermore, the Rosh reports that once when the Maharam MeiRottenburg was taking an afternoon nap in the beit midrash, an evil spirit confronted him and would not leave until he fixed the mezuzah on the beit midrash.

Practical Halachah

Considering the dispute with regards to a beit midrash, the Shulchan Aruch (286:10) cites both opinions and rules that a mezuzah should be affixed to a beit midrash without a berachah. The Shach (s.k. 20) points out that as with all cases of doubt, ideally one should put up another mezuzah at the same time that he is affixing the mezuzah to the beit midrash and recite a berachah with intention to exempt both mezuzot.

What is the reason for this exemption? The Gemara (Yoma 12a) states that only an urban shul is exempt from mezuzah, while a rural shul would require a mezuzah. Rashi explains that the logic for this distinction is that an urban shul cannot be said to “belong” to anybody. In order for a place to require a mezuzah, there must be clear ownership of the property. Thus, a rural shul would require a mezuzah, as it is typically only built for the local populace, so it can accurately be called “beitecha.”

The Rambam (6:6) writes that shuls and batei midrash are exempt from mezuzah on account of their sanctity. The Chatam Sofer (Responsa, Y.D. 281) questions what the source for the Rambam’s reasoning might be. To the contrary, it seems illogical to assume that the shul’s sanctity can exempt it from a mezuzah on a Biblical level, considering that the entire sanctity of the shul is only Rabbinic in nature. To address this problem, the Chatam Sofer suggests that an alternate explanation of the Gemara’s distinction between rural and urban shuls is necessary. Unlike Rashi, the Rif explains that urban shuls do not require a mezuzah because, generally speaking, nobody lives in them. Rural shuls do require a mezuzah because somebody usually lives in them. Thus, in the Rif’s view, and according to the Chatam Sofer, the Rambam as well, any place that is set aside for human residence will require a mezuzah, while places designated for God’s residence do not require a mezuzah. This is why a shul with a residence attached to it is indeed obligated in mezuzah. Even in the Beit Hamikdash itself, the living quarters for the Kohen Gadol (for the week before Yom Kippur) required a mezuzah. The Rambam’s intent in exempting a shul because of its extra sanctity was only to suggest that a Divine dwelling place is not obligated in mezuzah (see also Devar Avraham 1:37 and Seridei Eish 80:5).

Rentals

When one rents a home, the requirement to affix a mezuzah is fundamentally different than when one owns a home.

Outside of Eretz Yisrael

The Shulchan Aruch (286:22) rules that when one rents a home in the Diaspora, he is exempt from affixing a mezuzah for the first thirty days. The commonly held belief that there is a thirty-day “grace period” for everybody who moves into a new home is a misconception that is derived from a corruption of this halachah. The Gilyon Maharsha states clearly that this exemption applies only to a renter and not to somebody who owns a home. There are, though, a number of halachic issues that arise pertaining to this exemption:

In his commentary to the Shulchan Aruch, the Shach (s.k. 28) explains that the home is not called a true dirah for the first thirty days that a person resides there. It only becomes “home” for the person after thirty days. The Nachalat Tzvi explains that this idea is the basis for the ruling of Rabbeinu Yaakov MiLisa (author of the Netivot Hamishpat) that if the original rental agreement calls for a rental of longer than thirty days, the mezuzah must be affixed immediately. Since the exemption is based on the idea that it isn’t really a permanent home before thirty days, one who knows that he will have a sense of permanence in that home in advance would be obligated to affix the mezuzah immediately. From a slightly different angle, Rashi explains that the reason it is not considered to be his home within the first thirty days is that we are worried that the renter may change his mind and move out of the home. It would stand to reason, then, that if the renter signs a contract that forbids him from defaulting within thirty days, he would be required to affix a mezuzah immediately.

The Nachalat Tzvi points out that this explanation of the Shach is highly questionable based on the following factors. Tosafot (Menachot 44a, s.v. “Tallit she’ulah”) record a dispute as to whether a renter’s obligation to affix a mezuzah after thirty days is Biblical or Rabbinic in nature. If the obligation is a Biblical one, the Shach may be correct, as after thirty days the renter is considered to be a resident of the house from a Torah perspective. It therefore stands to reason that if the original lease was signed for more than thirty days, the renter becomes a full resident immediately. However, Tosafot record a second view that holds the renter to be completely exempt on a Biblical level from affixing a mezuzah. If we subscribe to this approach, one who rents a place for more than thirty days is only obligated on a Rabbinic level lest it appear that he owns the home and has not affixed a mezuzah (mechzi k’shelo). If this assessment is correct, it would be difficult to distinguish between a long-term and short-term lease agreement. Either way, the renter does not appear to be the owner of the home until thirty days have passed. Furthermore, it may be argued, if the rental is in a building that very obviously does not belong to the renter (e.g., a chain hotel) he may never have to affix a mezuzah. Similarly, the Avnei Nezer (Y.D. 380) points out that a patient who remains in a hospital for an extended stay is exempt from affixing a mezuzah because nobody will get confused and believe that the hospital belongs to the patient (see the Avnei Nezer there, who raises another possible explanation for the concern of mechzi k’shelo).

May the renter put up the mezuzah within thirty days? The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 423) raises this question. Considering that there is no obligation at that time, perhaps having the mezuzah up at the time that the obligation sets in will pose a problem of taaseh v’lo min ha’asui. The Minchat Chinuch notes that a full discussion of this issue can fill an entire book, but compares this case to one who makes tzitzit at night. As a practical matter, the custom is to allow one to put up the mezuzah prior to the end of the thirty-day grace period.

Reciting a Berachah

When one puts up the mezuzah within thirty days, the Eshel Avraham writes that he may recite a berachah even though the obligation had not yet set in. Just as a child who is not yet obligated in mitzvot may recite a berachah on those mitzvot that he does, a renter who is not yet obligated in affixing a mezuzah may recite a berachah if he chooses to put it up before thirty days have passed. The Pit’chei Teshuvah (s.k. 17) points out that this may be compared to one who borrows a garment that has four corners, where the obligation to place tzitzit only begins after thirty days, yet one who tied the tzitzit on earlier is permitted to recite a berachah on them according to the Magen Avraham. However, the author of the Pit’chei Teshuvah, in his sefer Nachalat Tzvi, suggests that the comparison to the borrowed tallit is a faulty one. When one borrows a tallit, reciting a berachah within thirty days does not preclude the possibility that a berachah will be recited after thirty days, as well. After all, a person makes a new berachah on his tallit each and every day. When one affixes a mezuzah, though, he only has one opportunity to recite the berachah. It would be inadvisable to waste this opportunity at a time that he is not even obligated to have the mezuzah.

Removing the Mezuzah and Reaffixing It After Thirty Days

The Nachalat Tzvi points out that it is not helpful to remove the mezuzah after thirty days in order to reaffix it with a berachah, because when one removes the mezuzah having in mind to reaffix it shortly, no berachah should be recited upon reaffixing the mezuzah and it is considered a berachah l’vatalah. Rav Moshe Feinstein, however, argues that reciting a berachah after the thirty days are over is permissible and recommended. The idea of not requiring a berachah when one removes the mezuzah in order to put it up again is only true when a berachah was recited when the mezuzah was originally put up. However, in this case, no berachah was recited initially, so it may certainly be delayed until such time that the obligation begins. This is similar to one who puts on his tefillin before the proper time, who may recite the berachah once the proper time arrives.

The Nachalat Tzvi raises a question regarding somebody who purchases a home that he had previously been renting. Should he recite a new berachah on the mezuzah, as his obligation has gone from a Rabbinic one to a Biblical one, or do we assume that he is still covered with his initial berachah? The Nachalat Tzvi leaves this question unanswered.

Eretz Yisrael

The Shulchan Aruch rules that in Eretz Yisrael, even rentals require mezuzot immediately. The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 423) points out that if one generally assumes that a rented house is only obligated to have a mezuzah by Rabbinic law, the same would be true of a rented house in Eretz Yisrael, even as the obligation begins immediately without a thirty-day grace period.

Hotels

The Shulchan Aruch (286:22) rules that one staying in a hotel, whether in Eretz Yisrael or the Diaspora, is exempt from affixing a mezuzah for the first thirty days. This is true from the perspective of the hotel guest. If a Jew owns the hotel, he is responsible to affix a mezuzah to each guest room just as he would do for a guest room in his house.

Which Rooms Require a Mezuzah — Structure

revious essays have discussed which rooms require a mezuzah on account of the way in which they are used and what constitutes proper Jewish ownership to warrant a mezuzah. This essay will shift our attention to the structural requirements that a room must meet in order to require a mezuzah.

Rooms Smaller than Four by Four Amot

The Gemara (Sukkah 3a) and the Shulchan Aruch (286:13) rule explicitly that any room smaller than four amot wide by four amot long is exempt from having a mezuzah.

Rectangular Rooms

The Rambam (6:2) rules that even if the room is rectangular but “there is enough space to square it off into a four-by-four-amot room,” it would require a mezuzah. The connotation of the Rambam is that even if the width of the room is less than four amot, so long as the square footage of the room matches or exceeds sixteen square amot, it would require a mezuzah. The Taz (O.C. 634:2), however, reads this Rambam differently. In his view, the Rambam would not require a mezuzah on a room with either dimension being less than four amot, regardless of its square footage. The Taz proves his point from the fact that almost all poskim seem to agree that a sukkah that is only six tefachim wide (it is supposed to be seven by seven tefachim) is pasul, regardless of its length. It therefore stands to reason that the same should be true of the requirements for a mezuzah.

Rejecting the Proof of the Taz

The Chatam Sofer (Responsa, Y.D. 280) writes that the reason we are more willing to obligate a room in mezuzah than we are to certify a sukkah as being kosher is that the reason for the mitzvah of mezuzah is to remind us of God’s presence as we enter and leave any room. For this reason, we are more strict with the laws of mezuzah than we are with the laws of maakeh (as we have discussed in previous essays). This also explains why when it comes to qualifying an area as a reshut for Shabbat, it must actually be both four tefachim wide and long, but for mezuzah, we are interested in the square amot rather than the individual dimensions.

The Chazon Ish (169:4) strongly rejects the Chatam Sofer’s distinction. The Chazon Ish argues that the Gemara lists the requirement of mezuzah along with other halachot (sukkah, maakeh, etc.). Therefore, we cannot distinguish between the parameters of these obligations without conclusive Talmudic proof. The argument that mezuzah is there to remind us of God constantly and should therefore be required even with the rectangular dimensions is far from compelling, considering that the Torah limited this obligation in many other ways (only in homes, not in temporary structures, only if there is a tzurat ha’petach, etc.).

The Beit Yosef cites the opinion of the Rosh that rooms that do not have a width of at least four amot are exempt from having a mezuzah.

Practical Halachah

Although the Shulchan Aruch clearly rules that a room that is sixteen square amot requires a mezuzah even if its width is less than four amot, considering the debate on this topic, and especially considering that the Rambam himself may hold that a mezuzah is not required (as the Taz suggests), it seems reasonable to place a mezuzah without a berachah in such a room. Indeed, this is the ruling of the Shach (s.k. 23).

Part of a Larger House — Walk-In Closets

Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Chiddushim l’Shulchan Aruch) writes that even a room smaller than four by four amot would require a mezuzah in the doorway on the right side leading from that room into the larger house. After all, he argues, the doorway should be no different than a doorway from outdoors that leads into the larger room. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, Y.D. 1:181, end), however, disagrees. There is a significant difference between the entrance from the smaller room and an entrance from outdoors. Generally, one does not have to enter the house in order to get outdoors. However, there is no way to get into the small walk-in closet unless one has already walked through the house. Thus, Rav Feinstein argues that if the room is less than sixteen square amot, it should not require a mezuzah.

The Pit’chei Teshuvah (s.k. 11, citing the Chamudei Daniel) writes that the entire requirement of four by four amot is only in a house. Other rooms and structures that can be used for their primary purpose even when less than sixteen square amot need not meet the criteria of four by four amot. The Rashash (Sukkah 3b) marshals support for this novel approach of the Chamudei Daniel from a comment in the Gemara. The Gemara tells us that a house that measures less than four by four amot cannot serve to “connect” two cities for the purpose of techum Shabbat because “it is not usable for its primary function.” The implication is that if it were usable for its primary function, even if it were less than four by four amot, it would be considered a legitimate home. Similarly, the Chamudei Daniel argues, a closet that is perfectly functional for its designated purpose should require a mezuzah.

It should be noted that when measuring a room to see if it is indeed four by four amot, any built-in furniture that takes away from the size of the usable portion of the room is excluded from the measurements. This factor will frequently determine whether or not a closet is indeed sixteen square amot. (It is important to note that the sefer Chovat Ha’dar 4:8 disagrees, stating that all cabinets and shelves that are being used as part of the room should be included in the measurements of the room.)

Practical Halachah

The poskim have not come to any sort of consensus regarding how to treat a walk-in closet. A case can be made in most cases (where the closet is not four by four amot) for putting up a mezuzah on either side of the closet (the right side going in if you hold like the Chamudei Daniel, and the right side going out if you hold like Rabbi Akiva Eiger), or for not putting up a mezuzah at all (if one does not subscribe to either the chiddush of the Chamudei Daniel or the chiddush of Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

Structure of the Room

Ceiling

The Gemara (Yoma 11b) lists six doorways that are exempt from having a mezuzah. One of the doorways listed is the shaar she’eino mekorah, a doorway to a room that does not have a ceiling. The Beit Yosef (286) points out that the Gemara requires a mezuzah on a gateway into a city or a yard, although these are obviously locations that do not have a roof. The Rishonim differ in their explanations of this discrepancy. Rabbeinu Manoach (cited by the Beit Yosef) explains that the gateways to yards are not obligated in mezuzah because of the yard itself, but because roofed homes open up into the yards, so these gateways are therefore considered to be gateways into the homes. The Rosh (siman 11) explains that even if the gateways require a mezuzah on account of the yards into which they open, the reason the unroofed yard will require a mezuzah while an unroofed home would not require a mezuzah is simply that a yard’s primary usage is meant to function without a roof. A home, on the other hand, is only useful in a meaningful way when it has a roof. Similarly, the Pit’chei Teshuvah (s.k. 13) points out that this is one of the reasons that a home with a retractable roof for Sukkot requires a mezuzah even when the roof is removed, as that is the way in which this room was constructed for use.

Practical Halachah

The Shulchan Aruch (286:15) rules that a room with a partial roof requires a mezuzah, provided that the roof covers the side of the room closer to the door and that the roof covers an area of four amot by four amot.

Door

The Gemara (Menachot 33a) reports that after building his house, the reish galusa asked Rav Nachman to put a mezuzah on the house. Rav Nachman responded that he cannot put up the mezuzah until the “deshe” is attached. The Rishonim debate the precise definition of the term deshe in this context:

Rashi explains that the term deshe refers to the actual doorpost. Simply stated, it is impossible to fulfill the mitzvah of mezuzah before the obligation to have a mezuzah has been created. Only once the doorposts are hung is there an obligation to affix the mezuzah to the doorpost. Prematurely affixing the mezuzah may pose a problem of taaseh v’lo min ha’asui.

Tosafot disagree with Rashi’s understanding on the grounds that deshe is normally translated to mean “door,” not “doorpost.” The specific case discussed in the Gemara of the house of the reish galusa involves a doorway between two adjacent rooms. Thus, Rav Nachman was saying that he cannot place a mezuzah until he sees the door because one of the factors that determines which side of the door requires a mezuzah is which way the door opens up (the mezuzah is placed on the right side entering the room into which the door swings open).

The Rambam (6:1) lists ten requirements that a room must meet in order to become obligated to have a mezuzah. Amongst the requirements, the Rambam lists the obligation to have a door on the doorway which receives the mezuzah. Thus, the Rambam understands the word deshe to mean “door.” Unlike Tosafot, though, the Rambam does not understand the need for a door as determining on which side the mezuzah is placed, but as a basic structural requirement for a mezuzah. In fact, the Rambam explains in a response to the chachmei Lunil (cited by the Kesef Mishnah) that the obligation is to place a mezuzah scroll on the shaar (b’shaarecha), not merely on a “petach.” By definition, a shaar means a doorway with a door. Even the reish galusa who asked Rav Nachman to put up the mezuzah was aware of the fact that the doorway should not receive a mezuzah unless it also has a door. His mistake was only in thinking that the door can be hung after the mezuzah. In reality, though, affixing a mezuzah before hanging a door presents a problem of taaseh v’lo min ha’asui. (It should be noted, though, that even according to the Rambam, if one affixed a mezuzah after the door was hanging and the door was subsequently removed and reattached, there is no problem of taaseh v’lo min ha’asui — Pit’chei Teshuvah 286:14.)

Practical Halachah

The Shulchan Aruch (286:15) cites both the opinions of the Rambam and the other Rishonim, but clearly rules in accordance with Rashi and Tosafot that a room requires a mezuzah even if it does not have a door. In deference to the opinion of the Rambam, the Shach (s.k. 25) writes that one should not recite a berachah when putting a mezuzah on a doorpost that does not have a door.

The sefer Mikdash Me’at (s.k. 46) writes that the Rambam only requires a door because a house is not fully functional without a door. However, this is only true of a doorway between the outside and the home. When, however, the room in question is an inner room of the house that has no outlet to the outside, it is considered fully functional even without a door, and even the Rambam would agree that it would receive a mezuzah even if it does not have a door. Following this logic, Rav Avi Lebowitz points out that according to the Mikdash Me’at’s understanding of the Rambam, a bedroom should only require a mezuzah if it has a door, because a bedroom is typically useful only if it has a door.

Multiple Doors

The Gemara (Menachot 34a) states that a room with multiple entrances requires a mezuzah on each entrance. The Gemara stresses that this is true even if one of the doorways is used more frequently than the other. Rashi explains that although the Gemara on the previous page had said that a private entrance to a beit midrash does not require a mezuzah, that is only when the doorway was used by only a single person. A doorway that is used by multiple people, even if only used infrequently, does require a mezuzah.

What takes away the status of a door? If a room has multiple doorways and one wants to remove one of the doorways in order to exempt that particular doorway from a mezuzah, the poskim debate what must be done to remove the obligation entirely:

The Aruch Hashulchan (286:38) writes that permanently sealing a door closed is not sufficient to remove the obligation of the mezuzah. In order to exempt the doorpost, the entire post must be removed.

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, Y.D. 1:177) writes that the requirement to completely remove the entire doorpost is only necessary when the door in question is the only entrance into the room. When, however, the room has another door that one can use, permanently sealing a door would suffice to exempt the doorway from having a mezuzah. This would also apply if heavy furniture is placed in front of the door.

Emergency Exits

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo 2:97:22) writes that an emergency exit that remains closed except for the unfortunate event of an emergency evacuation does not require a mezuzah because it is not used for entering and exiting the house.

Split Doors

The Shulchan Aruch (286:21) rules that a split doorpost that has a single door to close it off requires only a single mezuzah. If there are two separate doors for the two sides of the doorpost, the Shulchan Aruch rules that two mezuzot are necessary. However, the Aruch Hashulchan (286:45) points out that a second mezuzah is only necessary if the post that splits the doorway is at least one tefach wide.

Structure of the Doorpost

The Shulchan Aruch (287:1) writes that a room does not require a mezuzah unless its doorway has two doorposts and a lintel.

Can the Ceiling Count as the Lintel?

A simple reading of the Shulchan Aruch implies that a legitimate lintel is necessary for the doorpost to require a mezuzah. If the ceiling starts above the doorposts but there is no recognizable lintel, the doorway should not require a mezuzah. In fact, the Chazon Ish (Hilchot Mezuzah 172:3) cites the Magen Avraham (650:2), who rules that a ceiling cannot serve as a lintel in a halachically valid tzurat ha’petach. However, the Minchat Yitzchak (10:91) disagrees with this ruling of the Chazon Ish and suggests that the ceiling can complete the tzurat ha’petach in the absence of a lintel. The Minchat Yitzchak proves this point from the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (286:6) that a gazebo (that has three walls and a ceiling) does not require a mezuzah even if the open side has two posts, because the posts are not meant to be used as doorposts, but as beams to hold up the ceiling. If it in fact were true that the ceiling cannot serve as a lintel, then the gazebo should not require a mezuzah even if the posts were meant to serve as doorposts, because the gazebo entrance has no lintel. We must therefore conclude, argues the Minchat Yitzchak, that a ceiling can serve in place of a lintel.

What If There Is Only One Doorpost?

The Gemara (Menachot 34a) records a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim when the entrance to a room has only a single doorpost. The Gemara points out that even Rabbi Meir, who requires a mezuzah in this case, would only require a mezuzah if the lone doorpost were on the right side going into the room.

Practical Halachah

The Shulchan Aruch (287:1) clearly rules in accordance with the Chachamim, who require two doorposts, but the Shach (s.k. 1) cites many authorities who rule in accordance with Rabbi Meir that even a single doorpost can warrant a mezuzah, provided that the doorpost is on the right side. As such, the Shach suggests that we follow the general guidelines in cases of doubt and affix a mezuzah without reciting a berachah.

Wall Endings Serving as Doorposts

The Gemara (Menachot 34a) rules that a corner entrance to a room requires a mezuzah. Rav Ashi seeks to clarify why this should be so, considering that the room does not have legitimate doorposts. The Gemara cryptically concludes with the phrase “Adi patzimi — Here are the sideposts.” The Rishonim debate how to explain this Gemara:

Rashi writes that the thickness of the wall endings can serve as doorposts for the purposes of mezuzah even though there is no separate doorpost protruding from the wall. The Chazon Ish (Y.D. 172:2) explains that a doorway in the middle of the wall would certainly require a mezuzah even if there were no separate doorposts framing the entrance, because the thickness of the wall on either side constitutes a doorpost. The chiddush of the Gemara is simply that even when the door is located in the corner and the walls do not point toward each other, the wall endings are still considered legitimate mezuzot.

The Aruch Hashulchan (287:7) points out that the Rambam understood that there were actual doorposts in the case of the Gemara. The chiddush of the Gemara is that even though these doorposts are unique in that they don’t directly face each other, they still require a mezuzah. It follows, according to the Rambam, that if there are no doorposts at all, the wall endings cannot constitute doorposts for the purpose of mezuzah.

Arched Doorways

The Gemara (Yoma 11b) records a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim relating to arched doorways. Rabbi Meir requires the placement of a mezuzah on arched doorways, while the Chachamim exempt such doorways from having a mezuzah. Both Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim agree, though, that if “yesh b’raglehah asarah — there are ten at its legs,” there is a requirement to affix a mezuzah to the arched doorway. The precise definition of the term “yesh b’raglehah asarah” is unclear and subject to a dispute among the Rishonim that significantly impacts the halachah.

Rashi in his commentary to Yoma explains that even if the entire doorway is on an arch, if the width of the doorway is at least four tefachim wide at ten tefachim of height off the ground, the doorway will require a mezuzah according to both Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim. In other words, so long as a doorway of ten tefachim in height and four tefachim in width were able to fit into the arch, a mezuzah must be affixed.

The Rambam (6:4) disputes Rashi’s understanding of the Gemara. In the Rambam’s view, a doorway that is completely arched is exempt from having a mezuzah because it lacks a proper lintel. Only if there are two sideposts that stand erect can the arched overhead be considered a proper lintel. Thus, the Rambam rules that if the two sides of the doorway are at least ten tefachim in height before curving into an arch, the doorway requires a mezuzah. If the doorway is arched starting from a point lower than ten tefachim, there is no need to affix a mezuzah.

Practical Halachah

When Is a Mezuzah Required?

The Shulchan Aruch (287:2) rules explicitly in accordance with the view of the Rambam. Thus, any doorway that does not have two erect sideposts that stand at least ten tefachim high does not require a mezuzah. The Shach (s.k. 2), however, cites the view of Rashi, perhaps implying that we should be concerned with this view and put a mezuzah up without reciting a berachah.

Where Should the Mezuzah Be Placed?

If one were to rule in accordance with the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch, it would seem that the proper placement of a mezuzah on an arched doorway is in the top third of the straight part of the doorpost. The arched section should not be taken into account when measuring the top third of the doorway because the entire arch has the status of a lintel, not a doorpost. If one were to rule in accordance with Rashi, though, the mezuzah should be hung in the top third of the doorway, measuring the height from the floor to the point that the sides come to within four tefachim of each other. It would be possible, according to Rashi, to have the mezuzah placed on the arch itself. There seems to be no way to satisfy both opinions in many cases. If the mezuzah is placed on the arch itself, the Rambam would view it as the equivalent of hanging a mezuzah on a lintel rather than a doorpost. If the mezuzah is hung on the lowest part of the upper third of the straight part of the doorpost, Rashi would view it as if it were in the lower two-thirds of the doorpost and therefore invalid. The Taz (287:2), however, suggests that even the Rambam would allow placing a mezuzah on the arched section of the doorway. He claims that although the arched section is considered the lintel, once there exist two doorposts that are ten tefachim high, the arched section is also included in the area requiring a mezuzah. The Taz’s chiddush is difficult to understand, as it would seem that the Rambam considers the entire arched section to be a lintel. It is therefore advisable to simply follow the ruling of the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch by affixing the mezuzah to the straight doorposts, and not to affix it to the curved archway. (It is important to note that even within the Rambam’s opinion in 6:1, if there is no door, the opening will be exempt from a mezuzah.)

Affixing the Mezuzah

he Torah tells us only that we must “place” mezuzot on our doorposts, but it does not explicitly state any regulations as to how it should be placed on the doorpost. The poskim discuss various issues that pertain to placing a mezuzah on a doorpost.

What Materials May Be Used

When affixing a mezuzah, we are faced with options ranging from attaching it with nails to a small piece of Scotch tape. The Rambam (5:6) writes that after rolling the mezuzah and placing it in the case, one should attach it to the doorpost with nails or dig a crevice into the doorpost where he can place the mezuzah. Although the implication seems to be that one must use nails to attach the mezuzah, the Aruch Hashulchan (289:15) writes that any sort of strong attachment (including strong tape) would suffice (see also Minchat Yitzchak 7:72).

Hanging

The Gemara (Menachot 42b) states that if a mezuzah is placed in a rod and then leaned or hung on the doorpost, it would be invalid. The Gemara explains that the mezuzah must be placed “b’shaarecha — in your gates,” which implies that it must be inserted into or attached to the actual doorpost, and not merely leaned on the doorpost from the outside. The Rambam (5:8) suggests that the mezuzah is pasul if affixed in this manner because it is not considered a permanent attachment. Since “hanging” a mezuzah (rather than affixing a mezuzah) is ineffective, the Chayei Adam (15:19) writes that one must be careful to attach the mezuzah both on top and on bottom. Thus, a single nail attaching the top of the mezuzah to the doorpost does not suffice. This chiddush of the Chayei Adam may not fit with the language employed by the Rambam in describing how to affix a mezuzah. The Rambam very clearly states that the mezuzah is to be attached with a “masmer,” a single nail. He makes no mention of a requirement for a second nail. Perhaps the Rambam would assume that even a single nail is a more permanent form of attachment than hanging the mezuzah in a tube.

Inside the Wall

The other option mentioned by the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch is to place the mezuzah in a crevice dug into the doorpost. The Pit’chei Teshuvah (289:5) writes that considering the role that the mezuzah plays as a way to remind us of the presence of God, one must be careful that it be visible from the outside of the doorpost. If the mezuzah is dug too deeply into the doorpost to the point that it cannot be easily spotted, the mezuzah may be invalid. Even so, the Taz (286:4) writes that when there is a concern that people will disrespect the mezuzah, one may place it in such a way that it is not visible to passersby from the outside. It is feasible to suggest that even the Taz only recommends placing it in a way that it is not visible “from the outside.” Placing it in a way that it is not visible at all, however, may be completely invalid.

The Positioning of the Mezuzah

The Gemara (Menachot 33a) states somewhat cryptically that the mezuzah should not be hung “like a carpenter.” The proper understanding of this statement in the Gemara will impact how we hang a mezuzah on our doorpost. This is subject to a machloket Rishonim.

Rashi explains that hanging a mezuzah “like a carpenter” means that it is placed in the doorpost horizontally, the way that carpenters would attach nails to a wall. Thus, in Rashi’s view, the mezuzah should be hung vertically on the doorpost, and it is invalid if hung horizontally.

Tosafot cite the opinion of the Rabbeinu Tam, who maintains that “like a carpenter” means that it is hung vertically. Thus, in Rabbeinu Tam’s view, the mezuzah should be hung horizontally and is invalid if hung vertically.

Practical Halachah

The Shulchan Aruch (289:6) rules in accordance with Rashi that the mezuzah should be upright in the doorpost. The Rema, however, cites the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam and records the practice to fulfill both opinions by hanging it on an angle. The later authorities discuss many issues relating to this suggestion of the Rema:

Many poskim were troubled by Rema’s suggested “compromise.” After all, if Rashi insisted that the mezuzah stand straight and Rabbeinu Tam insisted that it lie flat, putting it on an angle seems to satisfy neither opinion, rather than achieving the goal of satisfying both opinions. Perhaps the explanation of the “compromise” lies in the formulation of the Talmudic statement upon which this halachah is based. The Gemara never stated that the mezuzah must be positioned a certain way. It only insisted that it not be positioned “like a carpenter.” Rashi, who understood the phrase “like a carpenter” to mean a horizontal positioning, would only disqualify positioning the mezuzah horizontally, but may not insist on a vertical positioning. Rabbeinu Tam, who understood the phrase to mean a vertical positioning, would only insist that the mezuzah not be placed vertically, but never insisted that the mezuzah specifically be positioned horizontally. Thus, hanging the mezuzah at an angle would not be problematic according to either view.

The Rema never clarified on how much of an angle the mezuzah should be placed. This ambiguity led to a discussion of the issue amongst contemporary poskim:

The Mikdash Me’at (s.k. 30) suggests that the angle should be very slight, just enough to recognize that the mezuzah is not standing upright. In fact, the sefer Teshuvot U’ketavim HaChazon Ish (24:11) reports that the mezuzot in the home of the Chazon Ish were practically upright, at only a slight angle.

The Minchat Elazar (Shu”t Minchat Elazar 2:36) suggests that the mezuzah should be placed at a forty-five-degree angle. His logic seems to be that in order to truly compromise between the opinions of Rabbeinu Tam and Rashi, the mezuzah should be placed at the exact midpoint between the two extreme possibilities. Obviously, many doorways do not have enough space on the doorpost to place a mezuzah at such an angle, in which case even the Minchat Elazar would endorse a more subtle angle.

What If There Is Not Sufficient Space on the Doorpost to Angle the Mezuzah?

The Pit’chei Teshuvah (s.k. 9) cites the Yad Haketanah that if the doorpost is too narrow to accommodate an angled mezuzah, the mezuzah should be placed upright. He explains that even the Rema, who suggested the compromise, would acknowledge that in reality, the halachah follows Rashi that the mezuzah should be upright. The suggested compromise only applies in a situation where it can easily be accommodated. In the very next paragraph, the Pit’chei Teshuvah cites the sefer Chomot Yerushalayim, who strongly implies that when there is no room to angle the mezuzah on the doorpost itself, it should be placed just outside the doorpost. As a matter of practical halachah, the opinion of the Yad Haketanah seems to be more authoritative. To place the mezuzah outside of the doorpost seems to be a far greater halachic compromise than standing the mezuzah upright.

The Mezuzah Cover

he primary component of the mitzvah of mezuzah is clearly the mezuzah scroll itself. However, in recent years, many artists have attempted to beautify the mitzvah by creating mezuzah covers that draw attention to the mezuzah; these can sometimes be quite costly. On the surface, this seems like another method of fulfilling a mitzvah in a beautified fashion (hiddur mitzvah). Yet, it is important to note that on many occasions, the halachah places demands on the type of cover that may be used. This essay will outline the issues of which to be aware when choosing, and ultimately discarding, a mezuzah cover.

The Need for a Mezuzah Cover

The Gemara (Bava Metzia 102a) states that a mezuzah should be placed in a tube. The Rishonim debate why this tube is necessary. Tosafot note that in the view of Rashi, who maintains that the mezuzah should be placed vertically on the doorpost, the tube is necessary to keep the mezuzah standing. According to Rabbeinu Tam, who maintains that the mezuzah is placed horizontally on the doorway, the purpose of the tube must be to protect the scroll from the moisture of the wall or the surrounding elements. The Taz (286:5) notes that when we consider our practice to touch the mezuzah on the way in and out of rooms, it becomes more important to have a mezuzah cover, lest the letters on the outside of the scroll (ש – ד – י) slowly become erased over time.

Types of Covers

Glass/Clear Plastic

The Shulchan Aruch (286:5) rules that one should not leave the mezuzah visible in a room that is used for an undignified purpose (e.g., a room where babies’ diapers are changed). However, the mezuzah in rooms that are used for dignified purposes should be visible. The implication is that there should be no cover on these mezuzot so that one can see the scroll itself. The Taz explains, though, that we do require a cover for the reasons stated above, but the mezuzah should remain visible through the cover. In order to accomplish this, the Taz suggests that we use glass or clear plastic mezuzah covers.

Practically speaking, clear cases should not be used outdoors, either, because it will receive sun damage in many instances.

Non-Transparent Covers

The Taz (s.k. 5) points out that generally speaking, a mezuzah should not be left uncovered in a room that has dirty diapers or in a room where a man and woman cohabit. There is, however, a critical distinction between these two cases. When the concern is that of the cleanliness of a baby, the mezuzah must be covered but may still remain visible. The glass covering suffices because the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 76) permits the recitation of k’riat Shema in a room that has excrement covered by a glass. It logically follows, then, that if a glass covers the sanctified item, it may remain in a room with the unclean environment of human excrement. When it comes to cohabitation of a man and his wife, though, one may not recite k’riat Shema in the room even if a glass covers the ervah. Thus, the mezuzah on a bedroom/walk-in closet where a man and his wife sleep should be covered with a non-transparent cover.

It would seem that having a non-transparent cover on a bedroom mezuzah is only necessary if the mezuzah is hung in a way that when one closes the bedroom door, the mezuzah remains inside the room. If the mezuzah were to be on the other side of the closed door, there does not seem to be a problem of having a transparent cover, so long as one is careful to close the door every time they change their clothes in the room. Furthermore, in the view of the Shach (286:9), when a couple is going to engage in tashmish ha’mitah, they must cover the mezuzah in the room with an additional covering with which it is not usually covered. Thus, so long as the second cover is not transparent, the primary cover may be transparent.

Metal Covers

The Daat Kedoshim (289:1) cites those who suggest refraining from using iron mezuzah covers. He compares this to the halachah that one should not use iron on the Mizbeiach because it is inappropriate to use an item that shortens people’s lives in connection with an item that lengthens people’s lives. Similarly, a mezuzah is said to lengthen a person’s life (“l’maan yirbu yemeichem”) and should not have any iron used in association with it. The Daat Kedoshim does limit this stringency to the use of iron, allowing the use of other metals in making a mezuzah cover.

In highlighting the idea that one may use other metals for a mezuzah cover, the Daat Kedoshim mentions that the only reason we generally don’t use silver is out of concern that the mezuzot would get stolen. The implication is that when there is no concern that the mezuzah will be stolen (e.g., in a low crime area or for doors inside the house), it is appropriate to have silver mezuzah covers. Obviously, while it may be nice to purchase beautiful mezuzah covers, the primary hiddur mitzvah of mezuzah relates to purchasing the nicest possible scroll for the mezuzah.

Disposing of the Cover

Halachah requires that sanctified items be treated with dignity not only when they are in use for a mitzvah, but even when they are no longer being used. There is a distinction, though, between two levels of sanctified items. Those items that are used in the performance of a mitzvah but are not related in any way to the writing of Torah have the status of tashmishei mitzvah and may be discarded in a respectful manner. Those items that are used not only for a mitzvah but in connection with actual writing of Torah have the status of tashmishei kedushah and must therefore be buried rather than discarded. The mezuzah cover serves actual writing of Torah (the mezuzah scroll) and therefore has the status of tashmishei kedushah. Thus, the mezuzah cover, and even the plastic wrap around the scroll, must be buried after use. The nails used to attach the mezuzah to the wall need not be buried after use, because they are considered to be more weakly connected to the scroll. Therefore, they only have a status of a tashmish d’tashmish, which may be discarded.

The Pit’chei Teshuvah (289:2) cites the opinion of the Vilna Gaon, who said that even when covering the mezuzah klaf, the back of the mezuzah should remain exposed in order to ensure that the back of the mezuzah is in direct contact with the doorpost. Leading poskim have varied in their reaction to this ruling.

The Aruch Hashulchan (289:19) strongly disagrees with this ruling for many reasons. First, none of the earlier poskim ever alluded to such a stringency. Second, the Rishonim all speak of using nails to attach a mezuzah, which would be impossible if not for the cover on the mezuzah (driving nails through the parchment would certainly not be condoned). Finally, the notion that the wrapping around the mezuzah creates a problematic chatzitzah is difficult to understand. Why should the item wrapping the mezuzah be any different than the doorpost itself or the paint on the doorpost, which obviously does not create a chatzitzah? For these reasons, the Aruch Hashulchan concludes that the Vilna Gaon must have been misunderstood by one of his students, and this erroneous ruling should be rejected completely. Furthermore, the Chazon Ish (Teshuvot U’ketavim shel haChazon Ish 24:6) notes that the Shulchan Aruch requires the mezuzah to be placed in a “tube,” which clearly implies that it is covered on all sides. The Chazon Ish also concluded that the citation of the Vilna Gaon is erroneous, as the Vilna Gaon would never have issued such a ruling.

The Maharam Shick (Responsa, Y.D. 288) states that all of his teachers followed the common practice of having the mezuzah cover completely enclose the mezuzah on all sides. He points out that the Torah requires that the mezuzot be placed on (“al“) the doorpost. The Gemara (Menachot 98a) translates the word “al” to mean “nearby.” Thus, there is no requirement that the mezuzah be placed directly on the doorpost without any interposition. Furthermore, any item used to beautify or protect the mitzvah takes on the status of the mitzvah item itself. Since the cover is there to protect the mezuzah, it is considered to be part of the mezuzah and poses no problem of a chatzitzah with the doorway (see also Yabia Omer 8, Y.D., Siman 29).

The Daat Kedoshim (Mikdash Me’at 289:1) understands the Vilna Gaon in a way that deflects many of the questions on him. He assumes that the Vilna Gaon would acknowledge that the mezuzah be placed in a tube that covers it on all sides. That tube would not pose a problem of chatzitzah because it becomes part of the mezuzah. The Vilna Gaon only meant that the wrapping around the parchment should not cover the parchment on all sides since it does not serve to aid in attaching the mezuzah to the wall. As such, it would pose a problem of chatzitzah. The Daat Kedoshim notes that people are not generally careful to follow the view of the Vilna Gaon, but perhaps we should be more careful in light of his stature in the halachic community. (See Shu”t Afrekasta d’Anya 99:3, who disagrees with the analysis of the Daat Kedoshim.)

Mezuzah on a Master Bedroom

e are obligated to treat objects of kedushah with respect. This includes mezuzot, as they contain two parshiyot from the Torah. Therefore, it is forbidden to be undressed or engage in tashmish ha’mitah (marital relations) in the presence of a mezuzah. If so, what should be done about placing a mezuzah for a master bedroom?

In many cases, the doorway is built in such a way that the mezuzah is affixed outside the room. When the door is closed, as it would be when someone is getting dressed or during tashmish, the mezuzah is considered covered, avoiding the issue of disrespecting kedushah. However, it is possible to have a mezuzah that is located inside the room, making it necessary to address this issue. Additionally, there are times when a walk-in closet within the room will require a mezuzah to be placed in such a way that it is exposed to the room even when the closet door is closed, again presenting the problem of avoiding disrespect to an object of kedushah.

Two separate halachos are relevant here.

Use of the Room

First, certain types of room are exempt from mezuzah based on their use. The Gemara (Yoma 11a) states that places where women bathe are exempt from mezuzah because the room is used for a purpose that would not afford respect to the mezuzah (tashmish shel g’nai). Extending this principle, the Beit Yosef cites from the Mordechai that a room in which a woman sleeps is exempt from mezuzah, as well. The Tashbetz says this is also true about a room in which a husband and wife sleep.

However, the Beit Yosef himself disagrees. The Gemara’s exemption of a room in which a woman bathes was talking about a beit ha’teven or a beit ha’bakar — rooms used for storage or for other purposes that were also used for a purpose that would have shown disrespect to a mezuzah. A room that is primarily intended for dirah, living space, such as a bedroom, remains obligated in mezuzah, even if it will sometimes be used in a way that would be disrespectful to the mezuzah. The Rema adds that if the mezuzah can be affixed outside the door, then everyone would agree that the room is obligated in mezuzah. Presumably, this is because such a position would mean that the room was not made in such a way that by definition entailed disrespect to the mezuzah.

Disrespecting the Mezuzah

Second, a person must conduct themselves respectfully in the presence of objects of kedushah. The Gemara (Berachos 25) states: “One may not engage in marital relations in a room containing a sefer Torah or tefillin until they are removed from the room or placed in a container inside another container (kli b’toch kli) that was not originally designated for their use.” The same should apply to the presence of the mezuzah in the room, making it forbidden to engage in marital relations or undress in the room unless the mezuzah was covered with a special cover.

This halachah is recorded in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 40) in the context of tefillin. One may not perform marital relations in a room containing tefillin until they are removed or placed inside two containers, the second of which being one that was not designated for their use. The Mishnah Berurah (ad loc., s.k. 7) adds in the name of the Magen Avraham that the same is true for a mezuzah located inside of a room; it would need to be covered by something that is not designated for its use. Additionally, one of the covers must not be transparent. The Kaf Hachayim disagrees and allows for both covers to be transparent.

Reasons for Leniency

There are a number of possible reasons for leniency, even if the mezuzah is inside the room.

The Mishnah Berurah writes that a covering placed specifically for the purpose of shielding the mezuzah from disrespectful use is considered a second cover, even if it is placed there permanently. According to the Ginzei Hakodesh (4), the Chazon Ish disagreed with this leniency.

The Ben Ish Chai suggests that anything more than tefachim off the ground is considered to be in its own domain. Therefore, it is seen as removed from whatever takes place in the room.

The Aruch Hashulchan rejects the question itself. He says that Hashem commanded us in both the mitzvah of peru u’revu and the mitzvah of mezuzah. Therefore, it must be permitted to place a mezuzah in a master bedroom without concern for potential disrespect. The Pischei Mezuzah (Biurim, 286, s.v. “U’meshamshim”) asks that according to this logic, even a single cover may be unnecessary! He answers that it may be that while two covers, which would give the mezuzah the status of being in a different room, is unnecessary, a single cover is still needed to protect the dignity of the object of kedushah.

While this addresses the issue of marital relations, another source highlights the problematic nature of being undressed in a room in the presence of a mezuzah. The Shulchan Aruch (286:2) rules that it is not in keeping with kevod Shamayim to place a mezuzah for a room designated for bathing, in which people are undressed. Wouldn’t the same apply to one’s bedroom?

The Rema (ad loc.) records a machloket about this matter, but seems to assume that such a room is still obligated in mezuzah, notwithstanding more lenient opinions. Of course, as above, if the door to the room closes with the mezuzah on the outside, everyone would agree that the room is obligated in mezuzah.

The Bottom Line

The Minchat Yitzchak (3:27) rules that a mezuzah should be placed on a bedroom, but without a berachah due to the rule of safek berachot l’hakel. However, according to the Rema, if the mezuzah is located outside the room with the door closed, then a berachah should be recited. The best practice is to rely on a berachah made when putting up another mezuzah that is definitely obligated.

The Ginzei Hakodesh recommends having a second cover to place over the mezuzah each time the couple wants to engage in marital relations. Moreinu Rav Schachter, shlita, mentions the Aruch Hashulchan’s argument, but still recommends placing a cover over the mezuzah. The Pit’chei Mezuzah marshals the Aruch Hashulchan together with the Ben Ish Chai and seems rule that even mei’ikar ha’din, one would not have to cover a mezuzah before engaging in marital relations.

Taking Down a Mezuzah to Replace with a Nicer One

av Yisrael Reisman once shared a teaching he heard from Rav Avraham Pam, who quoted the Chazon Ish: “Mir reis nisht mezuzot — We don’t tear down mezuzot.”

This principle suggests that if a person already has a completely kosher mezuzah affixed to their doorpost, they should not remove it merely to replace it with a more mehudar (enhanced) one. The reasoning is that once a mezuzah is in use and fulfilling the mitzvah according to halachic standards, it should not be displaced unnecessarily.

However, this raises important questions:

1. What are the limitations of this rule? Don’t we replace kosher hadasim and aravot on Sukkot to obtain better ones?
2. Is this principle even universally true regarding mezuzot? Are there cases where one should upgrade a mezuzah even if it is technically kosher?

Of course, when initially purchasing mezuzot, one should always seek out the most mehudar option within their means. However, once a mezuzah has been acquired and put to use, there is no obligation — nor is it proper — to discard it in favor of a more beautiful or finely written one.

There are exceptions to this rule. If a mezuzah is found to have a halachic uncertainty (safek) regarding its kashrut, or if it does not align with a person’s minhag (customary practice), then replacing it may be warranted. However, upgrading for the sake of hiddur alone — when the existing mezuzah is completely kosher — “Mir reis nisht mezuzot — We don’t tear down mezuzot.”

Halachic Parallels in Other Mitzvot

Sefer Torah — Igrot Moshe’s Ruling

A nearly identical concept appears in Igrot Moshe (O.C. 2:37), where Rav Moshe Feinstein discusses replacing a kosher yeriah (parchment section) of a Sefer Torah with a more mehudar one. He addresses the ruling of the Chacham Tzvi, who cites the Sefer Chassidim stating that if a Sefer Torah was written with inferior script and one later finds a more skilled sofer to write a replacement, it is still forbidden to remove the old yeriah simply for the sake of upgrading.

Rav Moshe explains that replacing a perfectly kosher yeriah constitutes a lowering of its sanctity, which is halachically prohibited. The only time a section of a Sefer Torah can be removed is if there is a question of invalidity (pesul), not merely for aesthetic or hiddur purposes.

The Menorah — Hilchot Chanukah

Another strong precedent for this concept is found in Hilchot Chanukah. The Shevut Yaakov and the Chacham Tzvi discuss a case where someone had already prepared their menorah with wax candles, and then oil became available.

The Shevut Yaakov rules that one should not remove the wax candles in favor of oil. The wax candles are completely kosher, and one does not replace a kosher item simply to achieve a greater hiddur. The Chacham Tzvi, who disagrees, does so only because the person had not yet begun lighting. However, even he agrees that once the menorah is already lit with wax candles, one should not replace them with oil — even though oil is the preferred method of fulfilling the mitzvah.

These rulings reinforce the idea that once a mitzvah is being actively fulfilled in a kosher manner, one does not remove or replace the existing items simply for the sake of enhancement.

Malchus: The Rightful Heir over the Most Qualified

We see a similar idea in the laws of kingship. When a king passes away and leaves multiple sons, halachah dictates that the oldest son inherits the throne, as long as he is not unfit for the role. Even if a younger son is more qualified, the monarchy follows a principle of continuity rather than seeking the best possible candidate.

Perhaps this halachah reflects the same underlying principle: Once something is established as kosher and valid, we do not disregard it in pursuit of an upgrade.

Tzitzit: A Similar Approach

A similar discussion appears in Hilchot Tzitzit. The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 12) rules that if one of the tzitzit strings snaps at the knot, the tzitzit remain kosher according to all opinions. However, it is well known that having the full thirty-two strings carries Kabbalistic significance, with sources stating that they serve as a protection against promiscuity.

Given this, one might assume that it is ideal to immediately replace the tzitzit in order to maintain the most mehudar and spiritually optimal fulfillment of the mitzvah. However, the Shulchan Hatahor (14:1) instructs that if one wishes to be stringent and retie the tzitzit, he should use the same strings, adjusting them so that the short string is lengthened, rather than replacing the snapped string.

Similarly, Rav Yaakov Emden in Mor U’ketzia (14) states that one may only remove tzitzit strings if they will be placed on another tallit, implying that removing them without reusing them is improper. Furthermore, in the sefer Keter Rosh, it is quoted that Rav Chaim Volozhiner was meticulous not to untie tzitzit that had a status of shortened strings if they were still halachically valid.

These examples illustrate the principle of “Mir reis nisht mezuzot — We don’t tear down mezuzot” in action. Even though a more mehudar fulfillment is available, if the current state is kosher, we do not reject it lightly.

While one might think that it is a middat chassidut to replace a tzitzit string as soon as it is torn, the Eishel Avraham Mi’Butchatch cites Rav Menachem Mendel of Rimanov, who clarifies that this applies only if the string is entirely torn off. However, if at least the minimal remaining length required for it to still be considered attached is left, then even though the tzitzit may not appear aesthetically perfect, there is no middat chassidut to replace them.

The Prohibition Against Replacing a Kosher Mezuzah

Several poskim rule that one should not replace a kosher mezuzah simply to upgrade to a better one.

The Shu”t Yad Yitzchak (3:277, 339) states that switching a kosher mezuzah for a more mehudar one is prohibited. The Shu”t B’tzel Hachochmah (3:68) and Shu”t Shemoneh Sachir (Siman 24) hold the same position.

The Shu”t Torah Lishmah (244) discusses a case where a mezuzah was removed for checking and found to be kosher. Even in such a case, he rules that one still may not replace it with a better mezuzah unless the first mezuzah has already been moved to a different room. The Shu”t Mili D’Avot (Vol. 5, O.C., Siman 6) rules differently, stating that one may only replace a mezuzah if it was removed for checking first.

These sources reinforce the Chazon Ish’s ruling that once a mezuzah is in place and fulfilling the mitzvah, it should not be replaced simply for aesthetic or hiddur reasons.

Opinions That Permit Replacing a Mezuzah

Other poskim take a more lenient approach, arguing that replacing a mezuzah with a more mehudar one does not constitute lowering its sanctity.

The Apekei Meginim (O.C. 15:2) states that it is permitted to switch a mezuzah for a better one. The Shu”t Daat Sofer (Y.D. 101) also permits it. Interestingly, Shu”t B’tzel Hachochmah (3:68) offers a proof for this lenient approach from the Shu”t Chacham Tzvi (Siman 45) cited above regarding Chanukah candles. The Chacham Tzvi allows one to replace wax candles that were already set up with oil candles, since oil is the ideal way to fulfill the mitzvah. By extension, some argue that the same logic should apply to mezuzot.

However, Rav Ovadiah Yosef (Shu”t Yabia Omer 3, Y.D., Siman 18) dismisses the need for upgrading mezuzot since they are hidden and not publicly visible. He notes that beautification of a mitzvah is primarily relevant when it is seen, and in the case of mezuzot, no one sees them once they are inside the case.

Similarly, the Shu”t Binyan Shlomo (Siman 80) emphasizes that the main hiddur of a mezuzah is not the actual writing, but rather that the visible klaf from the outside should look nice.

The sefer Shaarei Hamezuzah (14:21) argues that replacing a mezuzah with a better one does not violate the concept of lowering its sanctity. He cites an unnamed chacham who explains that since the mezuzah itself retains its holiness, there is no prohibition in replacing it. The act of switching it out does not inherently diminish its kedushah, so it should not be considered problematic.

However, another factor is introduced by the Shu”t Chelek Levi (Y.D. 114): If one immediately replaces a mezuzah, it could lead to a berachah she’einah tzerichah (an unnecessary blessing). This may depend on the machloket Acharonim in Siman 672 about whether one may recite a berachah on hiddur mitzvah. If replacing a mezuzah leads to an extra berachah, it could be halachically problematic.

The Shu”t Davar Sofrim (Siman 134) adds that there is also an issue of kavod (respect) for the original mezuzah. In a case where a mezuzah was placed on a doubtful doorway (for which there exists a safek if it requires a mezuzah), and the doorway later became definitely obligated (for example, by adding a door), he rules that it is not appropriate to replace the mezuzah because doing so implies that the original mezuzah was only good for “uncertain” situations. This would be considered a disrespect to the sanctity of the first mezuzah.

Final Thought: Buy Mezuzot from Experts, Not Judaica Stores

Given that many non-mehudar mezuzot also raise questions about kashrut, it is crucial to buy mezuzot from qualified experts who specialize in STaM (Sifrei Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot). Many mezuzot sold in local Judaica stores are of questionable halachic quality.

It is fine to buy siddurim, Seder plates, menorahs, and other Judaica items at a Judaica store — but when it comes to mezuzot, one should turn to a reliable sofer who is experienced in ensuring both hiddur and kashrut.

Checking Mezuzot

nce the mezuzah has been purchased and placed in the correct location, the mitzvah has been fulfilled. Yet, one must still maintain the mezuzot properly and accord them proper respect. This essay will discuss the obligation to check the kashrut of the mezuzot, as well as the requirement to leave the mezuzot after moving out of a house

When to Check?

The Shulchan Aurch (291:1) clearly rules that mezuzot owned by individuals should be checked twice every seven years (every 3.5 years). Mezuzot owned by the community need only be checked twice every fifty years (every twenty-five years). The Shach (291:1) explains that community-owned mezuzot are checked so infrequently because whenever we are dealing with a rabim, we are lenient so that people will not come to pass the responsibility to the next person. If public mezuzot required frequent checking, people may view it as a hassle and try to avoid checking the mezuzot with the justification that somebody else should bear the responsibility to get the mezuzot checked.

Exceptions to the Rule

The Aruch Hashulchan (128:3) writes that the requirement to check mezuzot twice every seven years assumes that the mezuzah is not exposed to harsh weather or other conditions that can cause the mezuzah to deteriorate more quickly. If it is exposed to such elements, it should be checked every year. The Aruch Hashulchan adds that even if one checked three or more mezuzot in his home without encountering a problem, the remaining mezuzot must still be checked because the conditions of each doorway are different. Conversely, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is cited as having ruled that if a mezuzah remains enclosed in plastic and is completely protected from the wall and from the elements, one can check it much less frequently (Halichot Shlomo al Tefillah 4:52). Rav Auerbach is cited as having ruled that tefillin do not require any checking, either, because they are made in a way that they are completely protected from the outside elements.

If the mezuzot have been painted over and it is difficult to get them out of the wall, Rav Moshe Feinstein ruled that they still must be removed for checking. It is not sufficient to just add another mezuzah on the doorpost and forget about the original mezuzot, because having two kosher mezuzot on a single doorpost poses a serious problem of bal tosif. In fact, Rav Moshe points out, when the mezuzah has been painted over, it should be checked immediately rather than delayed until the next scheduled check, because it is likely to have become pasul in the course of being painted. Rav Moshe recommends that prior to painting, all mezuzot should be removed and replaced after the paint has dried (Igrot Moshe, Y.D. 1:183).

The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (128:3) writes that an adam chashuv should check his mezuzot each and every year. The Mateh Efrayim records the practice of checking the mezuzot of one’s home during the month of Elul.

It is also customary to check mezuzot when there is a particular hardship that has affected the family living in the house. The belief is that a slight pesul in the mezuzot that protect the home may have allowed the hardship to affect the family (see Teshuvot Maharil 94).

Why Do We Check?

Rashi (Yoma 11a) offers two reasons for checking the mezuzah. First, there is a concern that the scroll has become worn out and pasul. Second, we must ascertain that the scroll has not been stolen from inside the case. If the concern is that the scroll and the ink have become worn out, it is clear that checking would involve reading through the entire scroll to make sure that all of the words are there. If, however, the concern is only that it may have been stolen, the one checking the mezuzah may not have to actually read it. Furthermore, if the mezuzah were kept in a secure location that thieves cannot easily access, only the first reason for checking will apply. Poskim seem to assume that we check the mezuzot for both reasons and must verify both the presence of the mezuzah as well as its kosher status.

Who Is Qualified to Check?

While it is common to have a sofer check the mezuzot, especially since most people are completely ignorant of the laws of safrut, the halachah may not require a sofer for this job. The Pit’chei Teshuvah (Y.D. 291:3) cites the ruling of the Chatam Sofer that anybody who can read Hebrew can check a mezuzah. All the person has to do is verify that there are no missing letters in the scroll. Obviously, if a layman checks the mezuzah and there is some problem (e.g., a smudge, faded letters, letters touching), a sofer must be consulted to deal with the problem. Furthermore, it should be noted that having a layman check is only sufficient once the mezuzot have been certified to be kosher once before. If a person buys mezuzot from an unknown source or moves into a home that already has mezuzot, it is important that a sofer check the validity of such mezuzot at least once before the layman can take the responsibility upon himself. Even if the mezuzot were purchased from a known righteous scribe, they should be checked once by a sofer to verify that they were written in accordance with the custom of the homeowner (Ashkenazic versus Sefardic writing — see Igrot Moshe, O.C. 5:2). One must also be aware of the many printed (as opposed to handwritten) mezuzot that are commonly sold and may require the discerning eye of a scribe to identify. Once the mezuzot have been approved by a scribe, each subsequent check can be done by a layman. In fact, it is preferable that a person check his own mezuzot to having the rooms of one’s home remain without a mezuzah for a day or more while a qualified sofer checks them. Even when the scribe does the initial check, the homeowner should encourage him to do it as quickly as possible (one mezuzah at a time) so that the rooms do not remain for an extended period of time without a mezuzah.

Practically speaking it should be noted that a lot of expertise is required for properly checking a mezuzah. For example, identifying something like roshem (dark color on the parchment where the ink used to be, but evaporated and left the parchment dark) is not simple. An untrained layman may consider it as ink and render the mezuzah kosher, while in reality, such a mezuzah is pasul.

Leaving the Mezuzot After Moving Out

he Shulchan Aruch (291:2) rules that when moving out of a house, a person must leave the mezuzot for the next person who will move in. It should be noted that the restriction is limited to the mezuzah scrolls and does not apply to the cases, which may be removed and replaced with cheaper cases according to all authorities.

Reason for the Prohibition

The Shi’iltot D’Rav Achai Gaon (Parashat Shelach 126) suggests that removal of the mezuzah constitutes a bizui mitzvah (denigration of the mitzvah) because it removes that mitzvah from a place that previously had the mitzvah affiliated with it. The Shi’iltot even cites a Talmudic story of one who took his mezuzot with him upon moving, only to lose his wife and children shortly thereafter. Tosafot (Bava Metzia 101b) state that the reason one cannot remove the mezuzot when leaving a house is that the house then becomes susceptible to destructive forces. Taking the mezuzot is therefore the equivalent of hurting the next residents of the house.

Who Bears the Cost of the Mezuzah?

Although one is obligated to leave the mezuzot on the doorposts for the next person who will live in the house, the Rema states that the seller can certainly charge the buyer for the cost of the mezuzot. However, while he may request payment, the Aruch Hashulchan rules that the seller may not take the mezuzot even if the buyer refuses to pay for them. Nevertheless, if the exiting party owes some money to the landlord or home buyer, Rav Yitzchak Weiss has ruled that he may withhold payments amounting to the value of the mezuzot that he left behind (Shu”t Minchat Yitzchak 9:106).

The Pit’chei Teshuvah (s.k. 7) writes that even if the buyer is interested in putting up his own mezuzot immediately upon moving in to the house, the seller may not remove the mezuzot. Instead, he should have the buyer send them to him as soon as he has put up his own mezuzot (Shu”t Be’er Moshe 3:181). Only when one is moving to a location where he will not be able to secure mezuzot for himself may he take his old mezuzot with him, provided that he affixes them immediately in his new home. (See Shu”t Minchat Yitzchak 5:110, who seems to disagree and allows the removal of the mezuzot when the new homeowner will put new mezuzot up immediately).

What to Do in Situations of Renting?

When one is leaving a rented apartment and another Jew is going to move in, Rav Moshe Feinstein ruled that one can rely on the opinion of Rav Henkin that since the common practice is for the landlord to repaint the apartment for the new tenant, the existing tenant may take the mezuzot down in advance of the painting and keep them (Igrot Moshe, Y.D., 4:44, at the end).

The Chazon Ish was asked if it is permissible to switch the mezuzot for lesser-quality ones prior to leaving a house. He responded that the mezuzot should not be removed at all (Teshuvot U’ketavim shel haChazon Ish 24:12). However, many poskim disagree with this approach. Mikdash Me’at (s.k. 4) writes that you may switch them, but remains unsure whether or not a berachah is recited upon putting the new ones back up, considering that the seller no longer plans on living in the house. Shu”t Be’er Moshe (3:181) agrees with this approach and advises against reciting a berachah when making this switch (see Shu”t Minchat Yitzchak 5:110, who agrees).

Renting from a Non-Jew

If the home was rented from a non-Jew or a non-Jew will be moving into the home, the Shulchan Aruch rules that the Jew should take the mezuzot down before leaving the house.

Giving a Mezuzah to a Non-Jew

he Rema (291:2) writes that absent any concern for safety or ill will, one should refrain from providing a non-Jew with a mezuzah. This ruling seems to be supported by a passage in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 1:1), where Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi sent a mezuzah to a non-Jew, presumably to maintain a positive relationship with him. (See Shu”t Be’er Sheva 36 for other suggestions as to why Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi would send a mezuzah to a non-Jew, including the possibility that he was trying to convince the man to convert.)

Reasons for the Prohibition

The Shu”t Be’er Sheva (ibid.) suggests that the prohibition is based on the ruling of the Rosh that although a mezuzah provides the house with protection, one’s intention in having the mezuzah should not be for the security benefit, but for the fulfillment of the word of God. The non-Jew, who is not obligated in this mitzvah, could only be using it as a “charm” for protection, thereby misusing a sacred object.

Furthermore, the Be’er Heitev (286:5) writes that a non-Jew cannot be trusted to respect the sanctity of the mezuzah.

Additionally the, Shaarei Teshuvah (Siman 157) suggests that the problem with giving a mezuzah to a non-Jew to place on his doorway is that people will mistakenly assume he is Jewish. If this is the concern, it is possible that one should not even give him a mezuzah cover, because one sees a mezuzah cover on the door, most people assume the resident of the home is Jewish without investigating whether or not the scroll is inside.

Giving a Pasul Mezuzah

Interestingly, Rav Moshe Feinstein opposed the idea of providing a non-Jew who asks for a mezuzah with a pasul mezuzah. Rav Moshe explains that the prohibition of geneivat daat that applies even to a non-Jew. Clearly, when he asks for a mezuzah, the non-Jew is asking for a mezuzah similar to the ones that his Jewish neighbors put on their homes. To provide him with anything else is considered to be a violation of geneivat daat (Igrot Moshe, Y.D. 1:184).

[Editor’s Note: This essay is based on the notes from Rabbi Lebowitz on a shiur from Rabbi Reisman.]

ometimes, very frum and otherwise learned people, including many rabbonim, don’t know the first thing about safrus. It is therefore hard to know when you are getting a good mezuzah or a bad one. There are certain basic things that even a layman can tell by eyeballing a mezuzah if he just knows what to look for. We will discuss some of those things.

There are two other points to always keep in mind:

1. It is helpful to know an expert sofer Sta”M who can help you figure things out, not just your local rabbi (who often chooses mezuzot not very differently than you do).
2. Be mindful of where you buy your mezuzot. Judaica stores are a notoriously bad place to buy mezuzot. They usually don’t know what they are selling. If you buy from a sofer, he takes pride in his work.

Types of Ketav

There are basically three types of ketav: Sephardic (“Velish”), Beit Yosef, and Arizal. All are kosher, but you should follow your minhag. A regular Ashkenazi person should use ketav Beit Yosef. Also, Beit Yosef is the only ketav that is kosher l’chol ha’deiot.

It is easy to tell the difference between Beit Yosef and Arizal. There are seven letters of difference:

1. In the letters שעטנ”ז ג”ץ, the Beit Yosef has a zayin on the left side while the Arizal has a vav on the left.
2. A Beit Yosef aleph has a yud on the bottom left, but in Arizal, it is more similar to a dalet.
3. A Beit Yosef vav doesn’t have a tag on top, but it does in Arizal. The letters שעטנ”ז ג”ץ have three ziyunin, and חי”ה בד”ק has a tag. The remaining letters, מלאכ”ת סופ”ר, don’t have a tag.
4. In Arizal, the right side of a tzadik is a backwards yud, but in Beit Yosef, it is a normal yud. Poskim discuss whether the Arizal really recommends a backward tzadik. The Steipler says that you need to have a normal yud, and if you do a backwards yud you are a “safek karkafta d’lo manach tefillin — potentially one who has never worn tefillin.” Any rumors that the Chazon Ish held otherwise are not true.

Who is right? The Gemara in Shabbat talks about the melachah of kotev and asks: “If the top of the chet (ח) was removed and made into two zayins (ז), what is the halachah?” The Gemara clearly fits with the Beit Yosef’s approach (see 1 above). The Arizal would have to say that this may be true based on Torat Hanigleh, but Torat Hanistar is different. The easiest way to see whether a mezuzah is written using Beit Yosef or Arizal script is by looking at a shin, ayin, or chet and seeing whether the left side is a zayin or a vav. If you remember the Gemara about “the top of the chet was removed and made into zayins,” you will know how to tell the script by looking at a chet.

If a parashah has some Arizal and some Beit Yosef, most poskim hold it is kosher, but Rav Moshe Feinstein held it is pasul because it is menumar. More importantly, such a parashah is a good sign that the sofer did not know what he was doing.

Look at the Size

People will often buy mezuzot to match the size of the nice silver mezuzah case they got. There is no halachah that demands that the mezuzah be a certain size (though the Magen Avraham 672:3 assumes that larger candles are more mehudar for ner Chanukah, so one might say the same about a larger mezuzah).

The reality, however, is that six cm. (approx. 2.5 in.) mezuzot are usually pasul or extremely b’dieved. In fact, the Shevet Halevi (4:140) writes: “It is known from experience that it is difficult to find a small mezuzah that is kasher l’chatchilah. They are usually written by unlearned scribes and are always potentially pasul.”

Smaller mezuzot means that there is smaller lettering, which means that it takes much more skill to form the letters properly. The average 15 cm. (approx. 6 in.) mezuzah is much nicer than the average 10 cm. (approx 4 in.) mezuzah. Some details in the letters to look at. There are a number of common problems that come up in the letters. You can easily look to see if it is written properly.

1. The head of a bet is 2.5 kulmusim. The head of a lamed is also 2.5 kulmusim.
2. The top of a lamed should be a vav on top of a chaf. If the top of the lamed is a yud, it is pasul. A bad sofer will be enticed to do this because he doesn’t want his lamed to touch the line above it.
3. A lamed has to have a flat bottom that is a malei kulmos (not as wide as the top).
4. The letter gimel is supposed to have its right leg slightly lower than the left one.
5. The top right of a bet should be a corner and have a little protrusion sticking out to accent the fact that it isn’t rounded. The Mishnas Sofrim Siman 36 seems to assume that would be a pesul.
6. The samech should be curved on both sides, but a mem sofit should be squared on the bottom right. Even a regular mem should have the bottom right squared. The Keset Hasofer says that a mem should be written in a way that if you would close the opening, it would be a mem sofit, so clearly the bottom right must be squared.
7. The Gemara talks about the kotzo shel yud. We pasken that the bottom left of the yud should have something sticking down. If the kotzo shel yud is as long as the leg on the right, it would make it pasul because it would become a chet. The Chatam Sofer holds that if the bottom left is squared, it counts as a kotzo shel yud, but this is not the l’chatchilah

Conclusion

If you want a decent mezuzah, expect to spend some money. Keep in mind that it takes some time to write a mezuzah carefully, and it then needs to go through a hagahah, which has to cost something as well. Expect to pay around $200 for a high-quality mezuzah these days. (Editor’s note: price was relevant at the time of publishing and may change over time.)

Who Should Install a Mezuzah?

By Moshe Gantz

he mitzvah of mezuzah is not just about parchment and the scroll. It is also about who affixes it. While the act of installing a mezuzah may seem purely technical, halachic sources offer nuanced guidance about who ideally should, and who may, perform the kevi’at mezuzah.

The Ideal Person to Affix a Mezuzah

Ideally, a mezuzah should be affixed by the baal ha’bayit, the homeowner himself. This follows the principle of mitzvah bo yoter mi’b’shlucho, it is preferable for one to perform a mitzvah personally rather than through a messenger (Kiddushin 41a). If the homeowner is unable to do it, he should appoint another Jew to do it on his behalf. This is the majority opinion (see Tevuot Shor 28:14, Be’er Moshe 2:100, and others). This is the standard recommendation for hanging up mezuzot, as noted in Agur B’Ohalecha (1:15, 8:15) as well as most piskei seforim on Hilchot Mezuzah.

Some poskim, such as the Daat Kedoshim (289:12) and Nachalat Tzvi (291 in the name of Rabbi Akiva Eiger) explain that this preference is not merely technical, but elevates the spiritual value of the act. While a shaliach (agent) may certainly fulfill the obligation on someone else’s behalf, the personal involvement of the homeowner is considered ideal.

The Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham to Orach Chaim 565:5) rules in a case involving shofar that it is better to wait and do a mitzvah yourself than to have someone else do it earlier, highlighting the great value of fulfilling mitzvot personally. The S’dei Chemed (Maarechet Mem, Klal 58) seems to rule this way, as well.

Why Are Rabbis Sometimes Asked to Affix a Mezuzah?

There is a widespread practice of honoring a local rabbi or respected individual by asking them to affix one’s mezuzot. This raises an important tension between two halachic values: the value of doing the mitzvah yourself, as found in Kiddushin 41a, and the concept of hiddur mitzvah, which promotes performing a mitzvah in the most beautiful or precise manner. If one follows the majority of poskim, who hold that it is better to perform the mitzvah oneself, it is not so simple that it is even permitted to pass it to someone else. The Tevuot Shor (28:14) and the Daat Kedoshim (289:2) understand that having a rabbi install a mezuzot is still considered within the bounds of mitzvah bo yoter mi’b’shlucho if it is not done in a manner of avoiding responsibility.

There is a well known minority opinion on the subject, in Dovev Mesharim (1:47), the Tchebiner Rav argues that hiddur mitzvah can at times override the ideal of personal fulfillment. He cites a Yerushalmi (Yoma 6:1) about the Korban Omer, where the Sages rejected already-harvested barley in favor of freshly cut stalks, opting for quality over personal involvement. He supports his view by citing the Maharam Shik (Yoreh Deah 255) and the Devar Yehoshua (4:19), who both seem to imply hiddur mitzvah is the greater value.

Halachic Accuracy May Override Personal Involvement

According to Moshe Gantz, founder of KosherKlaf.com and known as the “Mezuzah Doctor,” more than 95 percent of homes he inspects have mezuzot placed incorrectly. In such cases, failing to follow the halachic requirements invalidates the mitzvah entirely. A beautifully written kosher scroll does not fulfill the mitzvah if placed improperly. Therefore, personal involvement is secondary when halachic correctness is at stake. Either one must be properly trained to place the mezuzah correctly, or one should work under the guidance of someone with expertise.

Appointing an Agent to Affix a Mezuzah

There is a halachic debate about whether affixing a mezuzah is the mitzvah itself or merely a hechsher mitzvah, a preparatory act. This affects whether one may appoint a shaliach to do it and who may be appointed. The S’dei Chemed (Mem, 131) and Shevet Halevi (2:158) consider the affixing to be the mitzvah itself, thus requiring a proper shaliach. The Ketzot Hachoshen (382:2), however, compares affixing a mezuzah to building a sukkah, which is a hechsher mitzvah that may be performed even by a non-Jew or child, since the mitzvah is only fulfilled when one dwells in the sukkah.

Children Who Affix Mezuzot

Therefore, ideally children should not be allowed to place a mezuzah, but if a child already did so, one does not have to remove and re-affix the mezuzah.

Non-Jews Who Affix Mezuzot

Chovat Ha’dar (Hilchot Mezuzah 11, n. 66) maintains that a mezuzah should not be affixed by someone who is not obligated in the mitzvah, such as a child or non-Jew. Even when an adult Jew stands next to the person and supervises, this is not sufficient for l’chatchilah fulfillment. Drawing on Orach Chaim 14 and 561, the Chovas Ha’dar writes that affixing a mezuzah constitutes the final stage of the mitzvah and must therefore be performed by someone who is fully obligated in the mitzvah. He suggests that unlike preparatory acts like tying tzitzit, the kevi’at mezuzah is the moment of fulfillment, similar to lighting Chanukah candles. If someone exempt from the mitzvah, such as a non-Jew or child, performs the act, the fulfillment is invalid.

Nonetheless, the Chovas Ha’dar does not categorically invalidate such an act. He concedes that b’dieved (post facto), some authorities, such as the S’dei Chemed, accept the validity of a mezuzah placed by a minor, especially when an adult Jew supervised. Furthermore, in children’s bedrooms, the halachic status may be more lenient. A child may affix the mezuzah for the sake of chinuch, and there may be no need to re-affix it later when the child becomes of age. This view is supported by the Biur Halachah (Orach Chaim 14) and Nachalat Tzvi (end of Yoreh Deah 291).

In contrast, the Agur B’ohalecha presents a more permissive view. He begins by noting that one might conclude from the positions of the S’dei Chemed and the Shevet Halevi that a non-Jew is automatically invalid, because only someone obligated in the mitzvah can be a shaliach. However, the Agur B’ohalecha argues that this logic may not apply to mezuzah.

He references the Yerei’im (section 400), who writes that the blessing is recited upon affixing, not writing, the mezuzah, and includes the phrase “even though it is valid by a non-Jew.” This implies that the Yerei’im believes a non-Jew may affix a mezuzah. The Pri Megadim (Orach Chaim 681:1) also supports this view, stating that blessings are said on the completion of the mitzvah, even when the act could have been performed by someone exempt from the obligation.

The Agur B’ohalecha (8, fn. 50) explains that if the only concern was the principle of completing the mitzvah, one could have cited tefillin, where it is explicitly stated in the Gemara that the blessing is on the placement, not the writing. Instead, the Yerei’im chose mezuzah specifically to show that even if the affixing is done by a non-Jew, the mitzvah is valid and a Jew makes the blessing when overseeing the act. A similar implication is drawn from the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe’ah 1:1) and the story of Artaban, a non-Jew whose mezuzah protected him even though he himself affixed it. The Machaneh Ephraim and the Shu”t Maharshal (1:57) cite this as proof that a non-Jew may affix a mezuzah.

The Agur B’ohalecha (8, fn. 51) also addresses the three reasons later authorities propose for disqualifying a non-Jew. The Keren Orah (Menachot 42a) suggests that according to Rashi, who applies the concept of “ta’aseh v’lo min ha’asui” to tzitzit, one might similarly disqualify a non-Jew for affixing a mezuzah. But the Agur B’ohalecha notes that the Yerei’im rejects this derivation, and even Rashi appears to limit the requirement to the act itself rather than the performer. Rashi in Sukkah 33a writes that the rule applies to actions, not identity, and if we applied the principle to people, we would also invalidate sukkot built by thieves, which we do not.

Moreover, in Gittin 45b, the disqualification of a mezuzah written by a non-Jew is based on a gezeirah shavah between “u’k’tavtam” and “u’k’shartam,” not a comparison to tzitzit. That verbal analogy is specific to writing and does not apply to placement. If it did, women would also be invalid to affix mezuzot, which they are not. Therefore, the exclusion of non-Jews regarding mezuzah is limited to writing, not affixing.

Nonetheless, according to the Keren Orah, a shoteh or a minor would still be valid for affixing a mezuzah, because even regarding tzitzit, the problem stems only from the lack of intent, not from their identity.

Thus, the Chovas Ha’dar and the Agur B’ohalecha present two fundamentally different approaches. The Chovas Ha’dar holds that only one who is halachically obligated may affix a mezuzah. Although a mezuzah affixed by someone not obligated may be valid b’dieved, one should ideally redo it. The Agur B’ohalecha maintains that a mezuzah affixed by a non-Jew is valid even l’chatchilah, and this is why we bless only at the act of affixing. According to him, the halachic system recognizes validity in action over identity in this context, grounding his view in both Rishonim and the Jerusalem Talmud.

Women Who Affix Mezuzot

Women are fully obligated in the mitzvah of mezuzah, as it is not time-bound (see Berachot 20a; Yoma 11b; Kiddushin 34a; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 186:1). Most poskim hold that women may affix mezuzot. The Shulchan Aruch Harav (14:2 and 39:1) writes that women are excluded from preparing tefillin and tzitzit because they are exempt from those mitzvot. But since women are obligated in mezuzah, they are also qualified to perform its preparation and installation.

The Chatam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 271) also writes that while women are excluded from writing mezuzot, they are included in the mitzvah of affixing them. This is affirmed in K’vius Mezuzah K’hilchasa, which quotes contemporary poskim who state that women may place mezuzot without reservation.

The Yeshuot Malko (Hilchot Tefillin u’Mezuzah 4:10) suggests a mezuzah is invalid if placed by a woman, based on the association between writing and binding tefillin. However, mainstream halachic opinion rejects this view. The Shevet Halevi (2:158:3) writes clearly: “I saw the opinion of the Yeshuot Malko, and in my opinion, one cannot say this… And there is no doubt in my mind that it is valid.” The Be’er Moshe (2:100) similarly rules that if a woman affixed a mezuzah, it is kosher and does not need to be replaced.

Conclusion

Halachic sources strongly favor the baal ha’bayit personally affixing the mezuzah, based on the principle of mitzvah bo yoter mi’b’shlucho. From a case study of thousands of homes, Moshe Gantz of KosherKlaf.com reports that over 95 percent of homes he inspects have mezuzot placed incorrectly. In such cases, the mitzvah is not fulfilled in its entirety. If the baal ha’bayit is unfamiliar with the laws, they should have someone versed in the halachot advise or oversee the installation. You can always send pictures via whatsapp to 516-737-5436 with any placement questions.

What Is Mehudar for STaM?

By Rabbi Yishai Sarig

[Editors note: The following is an English translation of the original article, which can be found on:  https://www.kosherklaf.com/]

What is “Ktav Mehudar”?

any customers seek to purchase STaM Mehudar (סת”ם מהודר) — “mehudar” meaning “enhanced” or “beautified.” However, the definitions of what qualifies as mehudar writing for STaM are not explicitly outlined in the Gemara or by the poskim. These definitions were passed down orally from rabbi to student and from sofer to apprentice — sometimes in great detail, and sometimes more vaguely.

Our goal here is to present the primary differences between writing that is defined as mehudar and writing that is not.

In principle, the definitions fall into two categories:

1. Halachic (Jewish legal) criteria
2. Aesthetic and stylistic criteria

However, these two aspects often overlap. For example, from a halachic perspective, there must not be unnecessary space between sections (parshiyot) of text. As a general rule, a space of nine letters is considered significant. If there is a space between two words equivalent to the width of nine letters in a place where no section break is needed, the tefillin or mezuzah is pasul.

Ideally, the space between words should be less than the width of three letters, because according to some Rishonim, the spacing between parshiyot should be three letters wide, and we strive to account for their opinion. Thus, halachically, when the space between words is approximately the width of two letters, the writing can be considered mehudar. However, this only covers the legal aspect; aesthetically, if the spacing between words is inconsistent (e.g., one space is like one letter and the next like three letters), it diminishes the beauty of the script.

Parameters of a Mehudar Script

Because these standards were not formally codified, there are many disagreements regarding them. Therefore, for some of the parameters, differing opinions will be cited.

1. Spacing Between Parshiyot

There is significant disagreement among halachic authorities regarding how to space the sections between Shema Yisrael and V’hayah Im Shamoa.

According to the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch, the Shema Yisrael section should end at the end of a line or close to it, and the beginning of the V’hayah Im Shamoa section should have a space equal to nine letters.

This is the custom among all Sephardic Jews and some Ashkenazic Jews, who leave a space at the beginning of V’hayah Im Shamoa. In a mezuzah, the space is nine small letters wide; in tefillin, it is nine large letters wide.

Most Ashkenazim follow the Taz as understood by the Mishnah Berurah and leave a space of less than nine small letters at the end of Shema Yisrael and similarly at the start of V’hayah Im Shamoa.

Some follow the interpretation of the Igrot Moshe, who suggests leaving a larger space at the beginning of V’hayah Im Shamoa.

Unfortunately, many scribes do not follow these spacing guidelines properly. In a mehudar script, this detail must be adhered to.

2. Proper Spacing Between Letters

From a halachic standpoint, there must be a noticeable space between letters when first glancing at the text. However, the space should not exceed a quarter of a kulmus (quill-width), and it should be obvious that the letters belong to the same word without touching.

3. Proper Spacing Between Words

The Semag, Rosh, and Rabbeinu Tam wrote that the space between parshiyot should be about three letters wide. We follow this stringency l’chatchilah. Therefore, the space between words should not exceed the width of two yuds (the smallest Hebrew letter). This spacing is a standard maintained in scripts classified as mehudar.

4. Elongation of Letters

The Shulchan Aruch rules that letters should not be extended or compressed in a way that harms the aesthetic of the writing. While there is a practice of elongating some letters, in a mehudar script, one must ensure that even these letters are not more than twice their normal size.

5. Tagin (Crowns) on the Letters Shaatnez Gatz (שעטנ”ז ג”ץ)

According to the Shulchan Aruch and the Gemara, one must add tagin (decorative crowns) to the letters shin, ayin, tet, nun, zayin, gimel, and tzadik (abbreviated as שעטנ”ז ג”ץ). If they are not crowned, it does not invalidate the writing, but the Mishnah Berurah, citing the Bach, suggests that missing tagin may be a cause for concern of a pasul.

In Mehudar Aleph writing, all of these letters must be carefully crowned, with a rounded tip on top of the tag. In kosher l’chatchilah writing, the tag is still required, even without a rounded tip (this is called tag mezuyan, a “crowned” but not fully ornate tag). In standard kosher writing, these letters may even appear without any tagin.

6. Tagin on the Letters of “BDK Chayah” (בד”ק חי”ה)

Ashkenazi scribes traditionally add tagin (crowns) to the letters bet, dalet, kuf, and heh (בדק”ה), while Sephardic scribes crown bet, dalet, kuf, chet, yud, and heh (בד”ק חי”ה). Although there is no authority who invalidates the writing due to the absence of these crowns, and their legal status is not the same as that of the crowns on the שעטנ”ז ג”ץ letters, nevertheless, their absence does lower the level of hiddur, as mentioned in the previous section.

7. Strokes on Letters (Kotzei Ha’otiyot)

In a mehudar script, one must carefully include all the required small strokes or extensions (kotzim) as mentioned by the halachic authorities. This includes the four kotzim of the aleph (א) and the stroke at the heel of the bet (ב), similar in other letters.

8. Common Mistakes to Watch For

1. The dalet (ד) in the word echad (אחד) should be written larger than the rest of the script but still maintain proper halachic proportions. Its vertical leg should be about twice the thickness of its top horizontal bar, or close to that.
2. The neck of the lamed (ל) should be as tall as a vav (ו) and not as short as a yud (י). If the neck is shorter than a kulmus and a half quill-length; (without including the vav’s top thickness), the script is not considered mehudar.

9. Aesthetic Beauty of the Script (Noy Ha’ketav)

A mehudar script must be straight, orderly, and free of visible erasures or smudges.

10. Line Alignment in Tefillin and Mezuzot

Sephardic scribes try to maintain alignment at the beginning of lines in the parshiyot of the tefillin, following the teachings of the Arizal. Ashkenazi scribes generally do not follow this practice.

In tefillin of Rabbeinu Tam, one should decide in advance whether to follow the Arizal’s position, since his alignment method can lead to excessive letter stretching in this format.

11. Type of Klaf

There are many parchment (klaf) producers — some using machines (avodat mechonah) and others using manual labor (avodat yad). Ashkenazim tend to be more concerned with the use of manually prepared parchment. For a mehudar script, the writing should specifically be done on avodat yad klaf.

12. Writing Instrument (Kli Ha’ketivah)

A mehudar script must not be written with a metal quill (kulmus shel barzel). While Sephardim were traditionally less stringent about this, due to the numerous halachic disagreements, we adopt the stricter opinion for mehudar writing.

Ordering parshiyot or other STaM items written specifically with a feather quill (notzah) or reed pen (kaneh) is considered a hiddur (enhancement) according to some halachic authorities. This should be specified beforehand. We view this as a special enhancement, but its absence does not invalidate the writing.

13. Due to many disputes in STaM writing, we list five noteworthy hiddurim (enhancements)

1. The Chatam Sofer’s Practice

The Chatam Sofer arranged with his scribe that he would never use a knife at all during writing. This is a unique hiddur, and its absence does not invalidate or downgrade the hiddur of the writing.

1. The Rashba’s Stringency

The Rashba was concerned about invalid writing. Therefore, if a bonding (dibuk) occurs during writing (e.g., two letters touching), he required erasing everything written in the invalid state before fixing. Ashkenazim are more strict about this than Sephardim, based on the Mishnah Berurah, who endorsed the Rashba’s view. There are nuances in his opinion, but l’chatchilah, mehudar writing should follow this stringency.

1. The Radach’s View on Chok Tochos

The Radach (Rabbi David Cohen) ruled to be strict with the halachah of chok tochot (when a letter’s shape is formed by erasing rather than writing), even with a half-formed letter. If a letter must be erased due to shape problems, he requires erasing the whole letter. Although the Beit Yosef and Darkei Moshe disagreed, since the Mishnah Berurah acknowledged this view, we follow it for mehudar writing.

1. The Avnei Nezer’s Standard of Form

According to the Avnei Nezer, a letter must maintain its correct form both when viewed on its own and in context with surrounding text. This is a standard we uphold in mehudar writing.

1. The Avnei Nezer’s View on K’sidran

The Avnei Nezer also ruled to be stringent with the halachah of k’sidran (writing in order) in tefillin and mezuzot, even for partial letters. Although his view conflicts with the Mishnah Berurah, many scribes follow him, and we define a script as mehudar only when this rule is followed.

14. Certification of the Sofer

A script is not considered kosher at all if the sofer lacks certification (semichah) from a recognized authority attesting to his competency. Likewise, the magihah (proofreader) must also hold a valid certificate.

15. Writing in Purity (Ketivah B’taharah)

It is praiseworthy for a sofer to immerse in a mikveh regularly. While the lack of immersion does not invalidate the STaM itself, l’chatchilah, this should be verified in mehudar writing. At the very least, the scribe should observe the custom of Tevilat Ezra (a rabbinic enactment that a man immerses after a seminal emission before engaging in holy activities).

Summary: What Must Be Present in a Mehudar Script

For a script to be considered mehudar, it must not lack the following:

1. Tagin on all letters of שעטנ״ז ג״ץ.
2. Tagin on the letters of בדק”ה in Ashkenazi writing and בד”ק חי”ה in Sephardi writing.
3. A kotz on the yud — not just a diagonal stroke, but a clearly defined upward tip.
4. The gimel must have its right leg longer than the left.
5. The lamed should have a neck as tall as a vav, not short like a yud. (A lamed whose neck is not a full vav of three kulmusim, but only 2.5 kulmusim, is still acceptable as mehudar.)
6. Two tagin on top of the lamed.
7. The dalet of אחד should have its leg double the height of its roof. It may be considered mehudar even if only 1.5 times the height or slightly more — but not less.
8. The aleph should have four visible kotzim. Even if the left kotz of the top is not prominent, it is acceptable in Sephardi writing. Many Sephardi scribes are not strict about four kotzim, and their custom is still considered mehudar. However, in a script labeled as mehudar aleph, we are stringent.
9. The space between words should not exceed the width of three yuds.
10. The middle leg of the shin must connect to the left leg, not to the middle of the base.
11. The writing must be aesthetically pleasing, with no visible erasures, and with consistent spacing (more or less) between letters and between words.
12. Crowned tagin must be present. In most cases, the middle tag should be taller than the side tags.
13. The dalet should have its leg slant diagonally toward the previous letter in Ashkenazi script.
14. Tagin must each emerge from the roof of the letter individually, not from the same point (as seen in the letters ayin and shin). This stringency follows the opinion of the Rema MiPano (Rabbi Menachem Azariah of Fano) and should be considered even in kosher, not just mehudar, writing.
15. The final kaf must have a leg twice as long as its roof. This is particularly important when the roof is extended to more than 2.5 kulmusim, in line with the ruling of the Mikdash Me’at.

To Reach the Level of Mehudar Aleph

Beyond the regular criteria of mehudar, the following additional details must be present to consider the writing at the highest standard of mehudar aleph:

1. Four clearly defined strokes on the aleph, especially emphasized in Ashkenazi script.
2. The lamed should have a neck as tall as a full vav.
3. The tagin of the lamed: The right tag should be taller than the left, and ideally there should be a kotz in the vav-shaped neck of the lamed, similar to the kotz of the yud. (This is relevant only in Ashkenazi writing.)
4. The ayin should be formed from a zayin embedded within a nun, and the leg of the zayin should connect to the base of the nun just slightly above the halfway point.
5. Crowned tagin should be present consistently, and in every case, the middle tag should be taller than the ones on either side.

Criteria for the Writing Process and the Sofer

In all types of script, the sofer must possess a valid certification from a recognized authority such as Mishmeret STaM, Yad Rafael, Lishkat Hakodesh (the Scribes’ Bureau), or any other ordaining body endorsed by a qualified rabbi, such as a city rabbi (Rav Ir) or a dayan (rabbinic judge).

It is also appropriate that the sofer be ordained by an organized institution, such as the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, holding at least the title of neighborhood rabbi (Rav Shechunah) or higher.

Questions to Clarify with the Sofer:

1. Immersion in a Mikveh
   This is an additional hiddur, as poskim wrote that it is ideal for a scribe to immerse regularly. If that is not feasible, the scribe should at least follow the practice of Tevilat Ezra.
2. Chok Tochot (Forming Letters by Erasure)
   The Radach (Rabbi David Cohen) wrote that chok tochot applies even to a half-formed letter. Therefore, l’chatchilah (ideally), one should be stringent in accordance with his view, as also clarified in the Mishnah Berurah.
3. K’sidran (Sequential Writing of Letters)
   The Avnei Nezer wrote that the rule of k’sidran — that letters must be written in the correct order — applies even to part of a letter. While the Mishnah Berurah considers it acceptable otherwise, many scribes follow the Avnei Nezer, especially in writing tefillin and mezuzot. This is considered the standard for mehudar writing.
4. Letter Shape in Context
   The Avnei Nezer also ruled that a letter must appear as its correct shape both when viewed in isolation and in relation to neighboring letters. For example, if someone writes the word pen (פן) and the final nun is as tall as the preceding peh, the writing cannot be considered mehudar even if the nun is kosher when viewed on its own.
5. Writing Instrument — Material of the Kulmus (Quill)
   According to the Rema and Shevet Halevi, writing should ideally be done with a notzah (feather quill). Today, many scribes write with plastic quills, or with other instruments like shamir (synthetic stylus) or stainless steel. In my view, writing with a feather is a higher hiddur, but plastic or shamir may still be classified as mehudar. However, metal kulmusim (quills) are not acceptable for mehudar writing, since some authorities invalidate their use altogether. This is a fundamental disagreement — Sephardim tend to be lenient based on the opinion of Yeriot Shlomo, and may use metal quills even for mehudar-level writing.
6. Tagin (Crowns) Added During Writing
   It is considered an additional letter for tagin to be added during the actual writing of the letter (not afterward). This can be requested for high levels of mehudar writing, as stated by the Magen Avraham in the name of Rabbeinu Tam and the Bach, and as taught in the beit horaah (halachic ruling center) of Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Stern.
7. Rashba’s View on Bonding During Writing
   At the highest level of hiddur, one should be stringent in accordance with the Rashba, as cited in the Biur Halachah: If bonding (dibuk) occurs during the writing — that is, the letters unintentionally touch — the writing should not continue in its invalid state. This applies only when the bonding occurs with the main body of the letter, not when caused by a spur (kotz) that connects letters, as discussed in the book Mishnat Mordechai.
8. Type of Parchment (Klaf)
   One should inquire whether the klaf (parchment) is avodat yad (hand-made). This adds a level of hiddur, and in my opinion, this should be considered a requirement for the highest level of mehudar (mehudar aleph). For standard mehudar, it is not strictly necessary. According to Mishnat Mordechai, it is significant even at the second level (mehudar bet), though it seems this is not the commonly accepted ruling.

Criteria for Kosher and L’chatchilah Script Across Three Levels

In my humble opinion, even when a script is not classified as mehudar (enhanced), it may still be considered kosher (halachically valid). However, there are criteria where we follow lenient opinions, and others where we are unwilling to compromise, even for non-mehudar writing. Therefore, we have established a list of parameters that must be met — and any writing that fails to meet them will not, with God’s help, be sold by us.

1. Tagin on שעטנ״ז ג״ץ

Even though the Shulchan Aruch rules that writing is still kosher without these tagin, we will not sell such writing.

2. Tagin on בד״ק חי”ה

In kosher l’chatchilah bet and kosher l’chatchilah aleph (two upper kosher levels), these tagin will be enforced. At the lowest level, defined as simply kosher, they may not be present.

3. Spacing

A space of three yuds between words is considered invalid (pasul) according to some Rishonim, such as the Rosh, Semag, and Rabbeinu Tam. Some rule it acceptable l’chatchilah, others only b’dieved. Writing with such spacing will only be sold at the kosher level.

4. Kotzim (Spurs)

Scripts lacking the required spurs atop letters (as mentioned by early halachic authorities), such as the kotz atop bet, dalet, and heh, can still be classified as kosher l’chatchilah aleph.

5. Aleph (א)

Even without visible spurs, if the body structure of the letter is correct, it is kosher. However, even at this level, we require the top and bottom yuds of the aleph not to extend beyond the body of the letter.

6. Bet (ב)

If the small spur at the bottom right of the bet is missing, the writing is still considered kosher l’chatchilah.

7. Gimel (ג)

If the right leg is not longer than the left, the writing is still kosher but not mehudar.

8. Dalet (ד)

In Ashkenazi scripts (Beit Yosef or Arizal), if the leg does not slant diagonally, it is only kosher b’dieved. If the leg is rounded backward (as some scribes do), many rule it l’chatchilah, such as in Mishnat Mordechai, and we follow that for kosher l’chatchilah level.

9. Tet (ט)

The right-side kotz must descend into the body of the letter, even in kosher writing. If it descends unusually deep but still leaves a gap of at least half a kulmus between the kotz and the base of the letter, the writing is kosher l’chatchilah.

10. Yud (י)

In Ashkenazi scripts (Beit Yosef/Arizal), there must be a visible kotz. In kosher l’chatchilah writing, this may appear as a diagonal stroke rather than a distinct spur. In Sephardi writing, the yud is kosher even without the kotz of Rabbeinu Tam, since this form is not part of all Sephardi traditions. Even if only some yuds include the kotz, the writing can still be kosher l’chatchilah.

11. Lamed (ל)

If the neck of the lamed is as short as a yud in most lamed letters (e.g., in mezuzah or parshiyot), although it is commonly accepted b’dieved, we will only sell it as kosher — not as kosher l’chatchilah.

12. Nun (נ)

If the base of the nun is the width of a kulmus, the letter is kosher. However, for kosher l’chatchilah, the base must be wider than the roof. In Sephardi script, this is even more critical, since shape deviations are more likely to occur in nun, where the leg extends from the end of the roof rather than its center.

13. Shin (ש)

If the middle yud of the shin does not connect at the end of the base but rather at the middle, the writing is still kosher l’chatchila

Summary of Levels:

1. The highest level is Mehudar Aleph
2. Followed by Mehudar
3. Then Mehudar Bet

For kosher levels:

1. The highest is Kosher L’chatchilah Aleph
2. Then Kosher L’chatchilah Bet
3. The basic level is simply Kosher

Note:

These definitions reflect my opinion after consultation with expert scribes. However, they are not intended as final rulings for the general public. Opinions vary among talmidei chachamim, with some placing more emphasis on certain criteria over others. Some may not agree that a particular flaw downgrades writing from Mehudar Aleph to regular Mehudar, etc.

Nonetheless, I am presenting here what seems correct to me, in my humble opinion.

In-Depth Study of the Letter Aleph

By Rabbi Yishai Sarig

[Editors note: The following is an English translation of the original article, which can be found on:  https://www.kosherklaf.com/]

n order for the letter aleph (א) to be kosher, it must consist of five components: the main body, an upper yud with its leg, and a lower yud with a tag connecting it to the body.In the Arizal script, the right yud is not shaped like a standard yud, but rather like an inverted dalet. In the Velish script, the tag of the right yud does not face downward, but rather towards the left.

For writing to be classified as Mehudar Aleph in Beit Yosef and Arizal scripts, the aleph must include four kotzim, marked in green above. However, in Sephardic script, some scribes are not strict about the kotzim on the body of the aleph and are concerned only with the kotzim on the yudin.

Some scribes, in Ashkenazi scripts (Beit Yosef and Arizal), create a slight bend at the bottom of the body of the aleph, while others create a slight bend at the top. As long as the kotzim are present, even if the bend is missing, the writing may still be considered Mehudar Aleph.

Some scribes add a small upward stroke resembling a yud’s tag on the upper yud of the aleph, as mentioned by the Pri Megadim. Others do this only in large script, as brought by the Mikdash Me’at. However, the absence of this feature is not a flaw, and most scribes do not include it.

Additionally, in Ashkenazi script, it is proper for the leg of the right yud to be connected to the body at its midpoint. In Velish script, the practice is to connect it slightly below the midpoint. If the connection is near the middle, there is no issue. But if the yud is connected at the edge of the body, the letter cannot be considered Mehudar Aleph or even standard Mehudar.

If one of the legs of the aleph is connected directly to the edge of the roof, the letter is still kosher at various levels, but not mehudar.

The book Kesivah Temimah writes that one should align the upper tag of the upper yud diagonally with the lower tag of the lower yud, so that they are straight opposite each other. Many scribes are not strict on this point, and its absence does not detract from the level of hiddur.

Practical Summary:

Mehudar Aleph:

1. The letter must have four kotzim in addition to the five main components.
2. The right yud should be connected to the body at or near its center, certainly not near the edge.

Mehudar / Mehudar Bet:

1. Most of the aleph‘s kotzim should be present. It is acceptable even if the left kotz on the body is not clearly visible.

Kosher L’chatchilah Aleph:

1. There is no requirement for kotzim on the aleph.
2. The yudin must not be connected to the body at its edge, though close to the edge is acceptable.

Kosher L’chatchilah Bet:

1. Sometimes, parts of the aleph’s yudin are connected at the edge, provided that both yudin are not connected at the edge, which would invalidate the letter.

Pasul                                             Kosher

Invalid (Pasul) or Borderline Kosher:

1. The central line of the letter is not always straight, but not like a letter reish.
2. The upper yud may sometimes be too high, like a vav, or too long, like a reish.

Yud Like Vav            Yud Like Reish

1. The right yud of the aleph is reversed, or its leg does not extend from the right edge of the roof.

Kosher:

The letter is classified as kosher according to halachic authorities, even though it may contain elements that are only acceptable b’dieved (after the fact) — such as a body of the aleph that resembles a reish or yudin that are significantly larger than usual.

If both yudin of the aleph are connected to the body at the same exact point, the aleph is not considered kosher unless explicitly ruled so by a posek.