Mezuzah
[16] (Halacha 431)
Introduction to the Mitzvah of Mezuzah
Question: Is the writing of the mezuzah part of the mitzvah of affixing the mezuzah?
Answer: It is stated in the Torah1 "וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך" ("And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates"), and Targum Onkelos wrote (and Targum Yonasan wrote similarly): 'And you shall write them on mezuzos and affix them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates'.
From the plain sense of the matter it appears that the writing is part of the mitzvah, and so it would seemingly be implied from the words of the Tur2 and the Mechaber, who wrote3: 'It is a positive mitzvah to write the parsha of Shema and Vehaya im shamoa and to affix them on the doorpost of the doorway, as it is written "וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך"'.
And indeed, in Sefer STa"M of HaGaon Rabbi Shlomo Kluger he wrote4: 'The writing too is an obligation .. we require that he write it, except that when he pays the sofer to write it for him it is considered as if he wrote it .. And even if he buys a complete mezuzah, in this case, since in any event he performs the completion of the mitzvah — as with a Sefer Torah, where if he corrected one letter he has fulfilled the mitzvah even though he did not write it, since he completed and assisted in the mitzvah — so too here, affixing the mezuzah is as if he corrected in a Sefer Torah .. for the writing is also part of the very essence of the mitzvah; the writing is half of the mitzvah and the affixing is half of the mitzvah .. With mezuzah, where it is written "וכתבתם על מזוזות" ("And you shall write them upon the doorposts"), the affixing is certainly not included in the term "writing"; certainly the writing is part of the very essence of the mitzvah, reading the verse as it is written, and we require writing by him or by his agent, and this is very clear in my opinion'.
However, it appears from the words of many of the Rishonim that the writing of the mezuzah is not part of the mitzvah, as the Rambam wrote5: 'And before he affixes it on the doorpost of the doorway he first recites the bracha: Blessed are You, Hashem our G-d, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His mitzvos and commanded us to affix a mezuzah, and he does not recite a bracha at the time of its writing, for its affixing is the mitzvah'.
[However, note what the Kesef Mishneh wrote on the Rambam there, in keeping with his view that the writing is part of the mitzvah (and the Shulchan Aruch omitted the Rambam's reason): 'And what he wrote, "and he does not recite a bracha at the time of its writing etc." — this is from what we say in Perek HaTecheiles (ibid. 42): any mitzvah whose performance is not the completion of its mitzvah, one recites the bracha only at the time of the completion of its mitzvah'].
And so it appears from the Smag6, who did not mention its writing but only its affixing, and this is his wording: 'To affix the parsha of Shema and the parsha of Vehaya im shamoa on the doorpost of our houses, as it is written in both parshiyos "וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך"'.
And Rabbi Y.F. Perla wrote7: 'But the matter is seemingly very puzzling, for besides the fact that the essence of the matter is puzzling in itself — for how is it different from a Sefer Torah, where the essence of its mitzvah is only the writing, as it is written "ועתה כתבו לכם וגו'"8 ("Now therefore write for yourselves etc."), and here too it is written "וכתבתם וגו׳", and no other mitzvah is explicitly written regarding it in the verse — how is it possible to say that its writing is not included in the mitzvah?'.
And he explains there, based on the words of the Gemara that a mezuzah requires complete writing: 'And since complete writing cannot be done on the doorposts of the house, it is consequently clear that one must necessarily first write it on the parchment with complete writing, and afterwards place it on the doorposts of the doorway of the house, for this placing is its writing on the doorposts, as if he writes it there. For through affixing it to the doorpost it becomes part of the doorpost itself, and it is found to be written on the doorposts of the house, and we may properly apply to it "וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך" literally .. And so too it is implied from the wording of the She'iltos9, who wrote, and this is his wording: that the house of Yisrael are obligated to affix a mezuzah on their doorways, as it says "וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך" — end quote. And so is the wording of the Rambam, of blessed memory, in his short enumeration of the mitzvos, who wrote, and this is his wording: to affix a mezuzah, as it says "וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך" — end quote. And so is the wording of the Chinuch, and this is his wording: to affix a mezuzah on the doorpost of our houses, as it says "וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך" etc. — end quote, see there. And since they added no explanation to this, it is certainly implied that they hold that "וכתבתם" of the verse means the affixing, that its writing on the parchment in ink is not included in the positive commandment and is not written in the verse; rather the verse commanded regarding its affixing on the doorpost of the doorway — its affixing is its writing'.
And based on this he expresses astonishment at the Tur and the Mechaber: 'The words of the Tur, who wrote that the writing of the mezuzah on the parchment is also included in the positive commandment of mezuzah — and the Shulchan Aruch there followed him as well — are very puzzling to me. For besides the fact that his words are against all the other Rishonim, of blessed memory, and the Rambam too, of blessed memory, who initially held so, retracted from this as has been explained, even without this, in the essence of the matter, the words of the Geonim, of blessed memory, and those who support them among the other great Rishonim, of blessed memory, are compelling, as we have explained; and I am astonished at all the Acharonim, of blessed memory, who did not notice this'.
And note also what the Rebbe wrote10: 'The Torah says regarding the mitzvah of mezuzah, 'וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך' ("And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates"), even though the definition of the mitzvah is (not the writing of the mezuzah, but only) 'to affix a mezuzah'. And in note 38: 'And note the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah, beginning of siman 285, "It is a positive mitzvah to write etc.". And see Panim Yafos, Va'eschanan there. And at length, the commentary of Rabbi Y.F. Perla (on the Sefer HaMitzvos of Rav Saadia Gaon), vol. 3, Milu'im, siman 4'. And see the words of the Acharonim who elaborated on this11.
However, we find in Daas Kedoshim12 that he wrote: 'Regarding the writing of a mezuzah, singular language is written .. Nevertheless, the halacha is simple that one may buy a mezuzah that was not written through agency .. But nevertheless it can be said that it is a pious practice to instruct that a mezuzah be written as his agent..'.
But his student, in Mikdash Me'at, wrote about him13: 'But in the Levush, Orach Chaim siman 32 se'if 2014, it is implied that there is no pious practice in this at all'.
If so, we have learned that the definition of the mitzvah of mezuzah is the affixing of the mezuzah on the doorpost of the doorway, but there are those who wrote that the writing is also part of the mitzvah15.
--------------
Notes:
1 Eikev 11:20 ↩
2 See Nesivos HaKodesh, Menachos 34a ↩
3 Yoreh De'ah, siman 285, se'if 1 ↩
4 Vol. 2, siman 74 ↩
5 Hilchos Mezuzah, perek 5, halacha 7 ↩
6 Asin, siman 23 ↩
7 In his commentary on the Sefer HaMitzvos of Rav Saadia Gaon, Asin (Milu'im), siman 3-4, where he expresses astonishment ↩
8 Devarim 31:19 ↩
9 Beginning of Parshas Eikev ↩
10 Likkutei Sichos, vol. 23, p. 21 ↩
11 And see Gedolei HaKodesh, siman 288, os 2, cited below in note 13. And note that in Shu"t Divrei Yatziv, Orach Chaim, siman 217, he wrote: 'And likewise regarding mezuzah, not a single one of the poskim departed from this to say that there is a mitzvah in its writing'. On the other hand, in Shu"t Mishneh Halachos, vol. 19, siman 82, he wrote: 'What they wrote, "a positive mitzvah to write and to affix", seemingly implies that the writing too is a mitzvah, and this is in accordance with the view of most of the poskim that the writing too is a mitzvah' ↩
12 Siman 288, se'if katan 3 ↩
13 In siman 285, se'if katan 2; and likewise in his sefer Gedolei HaKodesh, siman 288, os 2, he wrote: 'So too it can be said that the writing of a Sefer Torah and a mezuzah does not require agency, for the verse speaks without qualification, also of one whose hands are amputated, who is obligated in the positive mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah and a mezuzah. And see above, siman 270, that according to most of the poskim one fulfills the essence of the mitzvah of "כתבו לכם" also when he buys the Sefer Torah, and agency is not required .. And likewise with mezuzah, in Menachos 42, that it may be acquired from any person, and it is forced to explain "from any person" as meaning that he instructs him to write it on his behalf. And in Bava Metzia 102 and the Shulchan Aruch below, siman 291, that one must leave his mezuzah for the one who moves in to live there after him, even though it was not written as the agent of the one who moves in after him .. which is not so with mezuzah: according to all views the writing itself is not the positive mitzvah; only the affixing on the doorposts of the doorway is the positive mitzvah' ↩
14 However, note that the Levush was speaking about tefillin ↩
15 Therefore there are those who wrote that it is a measure of piety to instruct the sofer to write as his agent. But see above in the words of HaGaon Rabbi Shlomo Kluger, that even though his view is that the writing is part of the mitzvah, nevertheless he wrote that by affixing the mezuzah — when he completes and concludes the mitzvah — it is considered that he wrote it. (And note the words of the Ben Ish Chai in Rav Brochos, ma'areches pei, who wrote: 'The essence of fulfilling the positive commandment is that he should write a mezuzah for himself and affix it') ↩
[17] (Halacha 432)
Purchasing a Mezuzah (1) - The Sofer
We learned in the previous halacha that the mitzvah of 'וכתבתם על מזוזות' ("And you shall write them upon the doorposts"), according to all views, does not require that the person himself write, or that he need to appoint the sofer as his agent to write the mezuzah for him.
Question: According to the letter of the law, who is permitted to write the mezuzah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Gittin1 says: 'For Rav Hamnuna the son of Rava of Pashronia taught: A Sefer Torah, tefillin and mezuzos that were written by a heretic or an informer, an idolater or a slave, a woman or a minor, a Kusi or a Jewish apostate — are invalid, as it says: "וקשרתם .. וכתבתם" ("And you shall bind them .. and you shall write them") — whoever is included in binding is included in writing, and whoever is not included in binding is not included in writing'.
And so ruled the Mechaber and the Alter Rebbe2: 'Tefillin that were written by a slave, or a woman, or a minor — even if he has reached the age of chinuch — or a Kusi, or an apostate to idolatry, or one who informs to oppressors, are invalid, because it is written "וקשרתם וכתבתם" — whoever is not included in binding, or does not believe in it, is not included in writing'.
And the Mishnah Berurah wrote3: 'Tefillin — and the same applies to a Sefer Torah and a mezuzah'.
If so, only a man above the age of mitzvos [who has produced two hairs], who is obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin, is permitted to write a mezuzah.
Yiras Shamayim
Now, even though according to the letter of the law any man from the age of mitzvos is permitted to write tefillin and mezuzos, we find in the poskim that they were very stringent to take mezuzos only from G-d-fearing sofrim, and this is founded4 on the Gemara in Maseches Eruvin5, which says: 'But Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Meir: When I was studying under Rabbi Akiva, I would put kankantum into the ink, and he said nothing to me. And when I came to Rabbi Yishmael, he said to me: My son, what is your occupation? I said to him: I am a scribe. He said to me: My son, be careful in your work, for your work is the work of Heaven; perhaps you will omit one letter or add one letter — you will be found to be destroying the entire world'.
And so the Rosh wrote6: 'And he must be meticulous regarding missing and extra letters, for if he omits or adds one letter they are invalid; it follows that the one who puts them on recites a bracha in vain every day and also remains without the mitzvah of tefillin, so the punishment of the sofer is great. Therefore the one who engages in the writing of tefillin and their preparation must be very G-d-fearing, fearing and trembling at the word of Hashem'. And the Tur and the Mechaber7, and the Alter Rebbe8, cited him.
And so the Rebbe writes9: 'In it he writes about his intention to learn the craft of STa"M; and it is certainly superfluous to point out to him that a sofer STa"M must greatly increase his yiras Shamayim; however, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deal tyrannically with His creatures, and He gives in advance the ability and the strengths for this, and the matter depends only on the person; and on the contrary, he is given additional assistance, as our Sages of blessed memory said, "one who comes to purify himself is assisted", and see Likkutei Torah, Devarim 89d'.
The Levush wrote10: 'Therefore it is certainly fitting for one who has the power in his hand to appoint proper writers of tefillin — men of truth who hate unjust gain, masters of Torah, who fear G-d and tremble at His word — in every city and in every district, just as shochtim and bodkim are appointed11, and not to trust all the sofrim, whose intent is only to earn money through beautiful writing and finishing in the making of the tefillin — and even though this too would be a good intention, to beautify the mitzvah with its adornment, if they also had an intention of holiness, in which they are not careful; and this suffices'.
And in Shu"t Shoel uMeishiv12 he wrote: 'But from now on this sofer must study under an expert and bring a written certification, for in truth we have seen a great scandal among sofrim who have no certification, and youths devoid of mitzvos and light-minded, who stretch out their hand to touch the holy; and it is fitting, in my humble opinion, that every sofer be obligated to have a certification that he knows the laws of STa"M; and so wrote the author of Sefer Meleches Shamayim, klal 1, see there, where he elaborated on this'. And see also Kol Yaakov13, who wrote: 'Therefore one should not buy Sifrei Torah, tefillin and mezuzos except from an expert who has received certification from a sage, who is skilled with his hand, and in whose writing there is no doubt of altered letters, and who is also well-versed in the halachos needed for processing [the parchment], for writing, for proofreading, and for checking for joined and separated letters, the insertion of the parshiyos into the batim, the squaring of the batim, the stitching, and making them lishmah, and who has a written attestation from a sage expert in this .. And if he has no certification and written attestation that he is skilled and well-versed in the halachos, with fear of Heaven upon his face, they should not buy from him, for the stumbling is great ..'.
The Chida, of blessed memory, wrote14: 'It is fitting for a sofer to immerse constantly'. And he further wrote15: 'And he should sanctify his mouth from every oath and curse, and his tongue should be clean, and before he begins to write he should confess for what has passed'.
And note also what the Rebbe wrote16: But it is understood and simple that the fact that in his speech he sometimes expresses matters that are the opposite of bracha — this is one of the causes of damage to the health of the soul, and consequently also of damage to the health of the body; and an explicit verse speaks of this regarding every single Jew, "ואברכה מברכיך וגו׳" ("And I will bless those who bless you etc."). And the matter is even more objectionable according to what he writes, that he is engaged in holy work as a sofer STa"M; and it is known in the writings of the Arizal about the frightening disgrace of the trait of anger, that a person in his anger exchanges his soul, Heaven forfend; and there is no need to elaborate on a matter that is understood and also simple'.
If so, we have seen that the poskim wrote that one must be careful that the sofer be G-d-fearing, and likewise be careful that the sofer have a certification from a sage that he is skilled and knows his craft.
--------------
Notes:
1 45b, and so it is in Menachos 42a ↩
2 Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, siman 39, se'if 1 ↩
3 Ibid., se'if katan 1 ↩
4 See Keses HaSofer at its beginning, 1:1 ↩
5 13a ↩
6 Halachos Ketanos, Kitzur Hilchos Tefillin ↩
7 Orach Chaim, siman 32, se'if 20 ↩
8 Siman 32, se'if 33 ↩
9 Igros Kodesh, vol. 18, p. 13 ↩
10 Orach Chaim, siman 32, se'if 20 ↩
11 Furthermore, the Pri Megadim wrote in Orach Chaim, Eishel Avraham, siman 32, se'if katan 69: 'Know that the Tur wrote that the sofer must be very fearful and trembling at the word of Hashem, may He be blessed. *And in my opinion, more than a shochet, for there it is the prohibition of neveilah, while here all of Yisrael neglect a positive commandment every day, and recite a bracha in vain*. And even if we say that a negative commandment is more severe than a positive commandment (see Yevamos, perek 1, 7a), nevertheless regarding a bracha, "לא תשא" — some say that it is a Torah law; see [siman] 215, Magen Avraham, [se'if katan] 6; and in combination with a positive commandment it is certainly more severe than a shochet'. And see what the Tzemach Tzedek wrote in Shu"t Yoreh De'ah, siman 250 (and siman 251) ↩
12 Mahadura Kamma, vol. 3, siman 133. And see also Chesed La'alafim, siman 32, os 33, and Shu"t Mahari Asad, siman 298; and see the words of Rabbi Chaim Palagi in his sefer Tenufah Chaim, p. 247: 'If my strength were firm I would enact .. and without semichah his hands are forbidden from writing even one letter of the Torah' ↩
13 Os 115 ↩
14 In his sefer Toras HaShelamim (printed at the end of his sefer LeDavid Emes), perek 18, os 18 ↩
15 Os 20 ↩
16 Igros Kodesh, vol. 15, pp. 237-238 ↩
[18] (Halacha 433)
Purchasing a Mezuzah (2) - The Script of the Mezuzah
Question: Is there a hiddur in the script of the mezuzah being beautiful?
Answer: It is written in Maseches Sofrim1: A person is obligated to make beautiful tzitzis, and a beautiful mezuzah, and to write for himself a beautiful Sefer Torah, with beautiful ink, with a beautiful quill, by beautiful scribes, and on beautiful parchments'.
That is, a person should strive that all his mitzvah articles be beautiful. However, we find that the Rishonim disagreed as to what the obligation to make the holy articles beautiful applies to: whether only to the parts that are visible outwardly — to people — such as the Sefer Torah, which the public sees and reads from, and therefore it was said regarding it that there should be beautiful ink etc.; or whether even the things that are not visible to the public must also be beautiful, such as the parshiyos of the tefillin and the like, which are not visible. But from the words of all of them it appears clear that with a mezuzah one must enhance the mitzvah so that the script be beautiful, as follows:
The Ohr Zarua wrote2, and the Mordechai cited him3: 'It was taught in the Mechilta, and it is cited at the beginning of the first perek of Nazir: "זה אלי ואנוהו" ("This is my G-d and I will glorify Him") — beautify yourself before Him with mitzvos: beautiful tefillin, a beautiful mezuzah, a beautiful Sefer Torah, on beautiful parchments, with beautiful ink, with a beautiful quill, and by a beautiful scribe .. My teacher, Rabbi Yehudah HaChassid, of blessed and holy memory, wrote: "שכל טוב לכל עושיהם" ("good understanding to all who perform them"), and next to it, "במצותיו חפץ מאוד" ("he greatly delights in His mitzvos"). With beautiful finishing, because of "ואנוהו" — with the mitzvos outwardly, for the sight of the eye, and all the more so inwardly, for the Beis HaMikdash on the inside, as it says "ויצפהו מפנימה זהב טהור" ("And he overlaid it within with pure gold"). Therefore, if he writes a thin script it is not beautiful and is quickly erased; behold, it is for his own honor that they be small. It is better that he diminish his own honor and increase the honor of Heaven by writing a somewhat thick script'.
And so the Rema wrote4 as practical halacha: 'And likewise it is a mitzvah to beautify them outside and inside'. And so ruled the Alter Rebbe5: 'Initially he should write a somewhat thick script so that they not be quickly erased; and likewise it is a mitzvah to beautify them outside, for appearance, and all the more so inside, for the Beis HaMikdash was overlaid with gold on the inside'.
And Pesach HaDvir explained6 in the name of the Minchas Aharon7: 'That he wrote, regarding the exposition "beautify yourself before Him with mitzvos", and this is his wording: And our Rabbis were precise: "beautify yourself before Him" — for the essence of beauty in a mitzvah depends on what is beautiful before Him, may He be blessed, not to beautify oneself in the eyes of people; see there. Thus "ואנוהו" applies also to what is hidden and covered, to show the endearment of the mitzvos that a person has with the Holy One, blessed be He, as stated'.
However, there are Rishonim who disagreed and held that there is no need to enhance what is not visible8, as Tosafos wrote in Menachos9: 'And Rabbeinu Tam said that a Sefer Torah requires sirtut because of "זה אלי ואנוהו", but tefillin, which are covered with leather, do not require sirtut, for beauty does not apply to them'.
And seemingly, according to this view, the mezuzah too — where generally the inner part with the script is not visible — if so, there would be no need to enhance it so that the script be beautiful?
But nevertheless the Rishonim wrote that since the mezuzah is opened from time to time, or is not completely covered, or easily becomes damaged, it therefore requires a script of enhanced quality, as the Ran wrote10 on the law that a mezuzah requires sirtut: 'And it is possible that this is the reason, because the mezuzah is checked once in seven years, while tefillin, since they are guarded, are checked only once in a Yovel; and therefore they do not require such a straight script, and for this reason they do not require sirtut'.
And the Ribavan11 wrote: 'Tefillin do not require sirtut, since they are folded inside the batim, and the sirtut is so that the writing be beautiful, and they are not visible. But the mezuzah is sometimes visible; and furthermore, the Name Sha-dai is visible at the top, in the tube in which one places the mezuzah'.
And similarly we find that the Kesef Mishneh explained the Rambam, for the Rambam12 wrote: 'It is a halacha leMoshe miSinai that a Sefer Torah and a mezuzah are written only with sirtut, but tefillin do not require sirtut, because they are covered'. And the Kesef Mishneh wrote: 'And our master explained why tefillin do not require sirtut — because they are covered; but the mezuzah is not so covered, for one can easily remove it from its place'.
If so, in practice, the hiddur of "beautify yourself before Him with mitzvos" applies to all the details of the mezuzah, and it is fitting to buy a mezuzah with beautiful parchment and beautiful script
Question: Is there significance to the size of the mezuzah?
Answer: The Sdei Chemed wrote13: 'For it is in our days that sofrim outside Eretz Yisroel innovated (against the will of the Sages, who are unable to protest) to write very small mezuzos, less than a tefach in length, and they write in the finest of fine script, which is easily damaged; but in the time of the Rav (this is close to a hundred years ago) the mezuzos were certainly not so short'.
And in Shu"t Shevet HaLevi14 he wrote: 'And instead of changing, Heaven forfend, from the ancient, we must slowly educate the simple people toward kosher mezuzos, large or medium-sized, as has been transmitted to us from generation to generation (or in a pressing situation even small ones, if they were written by a sofer who is a Torah scholar, well-versed in the halachos and G-d-fearing more than many)'.
If so, we have seen that the size of the mezuzah has significance, as it affects the beauty of the mezuzah and the beauty of the script.
Notes:
1 Perek 3, halacha 17 ↩
2 Hilchos Tefillin, siman 555 ↩
3 Halachos Ketanos, Tefillin, remez 969 ↩
4 Orach Chaim, siman 32, se'if 4 ↩
5 Ibid., se'if 6 ↩
6 Orach Chaim, siman 32, os 3 ↩
7 Klal 7, siman 2 ↩
8 As the Gra noted, os 12, on the words of the Rema, that Tosafos and the Rambam disagree. And note also Adnei Paz, Orach Chaim, siman 32, se'if 4; Binyan Shlomo, vol. 1, siman 6; and Shu"t Yabia Omer, vol. 3, Yoreh De'ah, siman 18 ↩
9 32b, s.v. "Ha Moridin" ↩
10 Megillah 5b, s.v. "VeHilchesa" ↩
11 Megillah 18b ↩
12 Hilchos Tefillin uMezuzah veSefer Torah, perek 1, halacha 12 ↩
13 Ma'areches HaMem, klal 125 (vol. 3, p. 532) ↩
14 Vol. 4, siman 140 ↩
[19] (Halacha 434)
Purchasing a Mezuzah (3)
We learned that the sofer must be G-d-fearing, and to a special degree; we likewise learned that the script must be beautiful.
Question: When a person has a choice between buying from a sofer who has a presumption of reliability and yiras Shamayim but whose script is less beautiful, or a sofer who is not so well known for reliability but whose script is beautiful and enhanced — whom should he prefer?
Answer: The Kol Yaakov wrote1: 'If there is one sofer who writes the letters properly and according to their law, and is G-d-fearing more than many, even though his writing is not comparable to that of another who is not so well established in reliability, he is the one who should write2, and regarding such a case it is written "כי האדם יראה לעינים וה' יראה ללבב" ("for man sees what is before the eyes, but Hashem sees into the heart"). Imrei Shefer, klal 2, at the bottom of the page, os 1, and see there what else he wrote'.
Question: According to the basic law, is there a restriction as to whom one may buy a mezuzah from?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Menachos3 says: 'Our Rabbis taught: Tefillin can be checked, yet they are bought only from an expert; sefarim and mezuzos can be checked, and they are bought from any person'.
However, the Rif4 wrote: 'Our Rabbis taught: Techeiles cannot be checked and is bought only from an expert; tefillin [and mezuzos5] can be checked and are bought only from an expert; sefarim can be checked and are bought from any person'.
If so, we find that the law of mezuzos — whether it is permitted to buy them from any person — will depend on the different versions of the text of the Baraisa.
However, from the words of the Gemara in Eruvin6: 'Rav Chisda said in the name of Rav: One who buys tefillin from one who is not an expert checks two of the hand and one of the head, or two of the head and one of the hand', it appears that even with tefillin — although initially one should buy them only from an expert — nevertheless after the fact, if he bought them, he may rely on checking, as in the words of Tosafos7: 'It is stated as the initial requirement that they are bought only from an expert, so that he will not need to tear open the entire stitching and check them, which would be a disgrace to the tefillin; and there is also a concern lest he be too lazy to trouble himself to check them, and rely on putting them on without checking for the need of the hour; and here it speaks after the fact, where he already bought them, or for example where he does not find an expert to buy from'.
And so ruled the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch8. And this is the wording of the Alter Rebbe9: 'One does not buy tefillin except from an expert who is well-versed in missing and extra letters, but not from one who is not an expert, even if he wishes to check them, because there is a concern lest he be lax in checking them, since it is a trouble for him to remove the stitching and to stitch them again. If he bought from one who is not an expert, he checks for missing and extra letters, and there is no concern lest they processed them not lishmah, because everyone is well-versed in this; and he need not check all of them .. One who sells tefillin and says that they belonged to a great man is believed, for a single witness is believed regarding prohibitions, and then checking is no longer required, for there is a presumption regarding a chaver that he does not release from his hand something that is not in proper order.
If so, we find that in principle a mezuzah is more lenient than tefillin, for since with a mezuzah there is no need to remove the stitching in order to check it, there is room to say that one may initially buy from a non-expert and check. And even with tefillin, if he bought from one who is not an expert, he may check them, and if he finds that they are kosher he may put them on; and if there is the testimony of a single witness10 that the tefillin belonged to a great man, he is believed even without checking.
And the Daas Kedoshim wrote11: 'It is customary to buy tefillin and mezuzos from peddlers, even though the Magen Avraham wrote that he must have a presumption of reliability. Perhaps the reason for the leniency [of what is customary] is because they hold that since, for those who travel from city to city selling mezuzos, this is their trade and through it their livelihood, it is akin to the presumption that a craftsman does not spoil his craft, and he is afraid, since it is likely to be revealed even at a distance. But this applies only when the buyer asks whose they are, for through this he is afraid that it is likely to be revealed through so-and-so, who will say that it is not his, and he is believed as two against him, as in the Shulchan Aruch [siman 127]; which is not so when the buyer does not ask whose they are — in that case, according to all views, what the Magen Avraham wrote applies, that he must have a presumption of reliability12 .. '.
However, regarding practice, he wrote in Daas Kedoshim: 'And also with tefillin and mezuzos it is good to be stringent to buy only from a distinguished sofer himself, because many sofrim are not well-versed in the halachos, and perhaps there are youths who learn the craft from them, without being checked for hairs .. And nevertheless, [to rule] for others, it is impossible to rectify this now, and the public cannot refrain from buying from peddlers .. And perhaps even initially, if there is great need, and all the more so where this involves hardship for the many, .. through this there is justification for what is customary with tefillin and mezuzos. And for oneself it is proper to be stringent'.
If so, we have learned that in principle the poskim wrote that it would be possible to permit buying mezuzos from a peddler who sells them, but it is fitting to be stringent. Tomorrow we will learn whether this is correct also in our days.
--------------
Notes:
1 Siman 32, se'if katan 115 ↩
2 And note Shu"t Even Yekarah, siman 140 ↩
3 42b ↩
4 Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Tzitzis 13a ↩
5 In Gilyon HaShas the version is cited as it is before us, with the word "mezuzos" (and on the other hand he referred to the Ramban in Milchamos Hashem, Sukkah 4a, who had a different version of the Rif; and see also the Ran, Sanhedrin 48b). However, in Hagahos Derech Tamim on the Rif he emended that the word "mezuzah" should be deleted. And the Chasam Sofer wrote in Shu"t, vol. 1, Orach Chaim, siman 6: 'According to the version before us in the Rif, which reads mezuzah together with tefillin, that they are bought only from an expert — if so, necessarily it is not speaking about the trouble of taking them apart; however, in the margin of the Rif he deleted "mezuzah", and I do not know from where he derived this' ↩
6 97a ↩
7 Ibid. 97a, s.v. "HaLokeach Tefillin" ↩
8 Orach Chaim, siman 39, se'if 8 and se'if 9 ↩
9 Ibid., se'ifim 8 - 10 ↩
10 And see Magen Avraham, siman 39, se'if katan 13: 'Believed — for a single witness is believed regarding prohibitions, as written in Yoreh De'ah siman 127; and see there, siman 119, se'if 1, that in any event he must have a presumption of reliability'. However, note that the Alter Rebbe omitted the words of the Magen Avraham, and see what is written in Chakrei Halachos, vol. 5, p. 126. And see Shu"t Tzemach Tzedek, Yoreh De'ah, siman 250 ↩
11 Siman 288, se'if katan 4 ↩
12 However, see above, note 10, regarding the view of our Rebbeim, the Nesiim ↩
[20] (Halacha 436)
Purchasing a Mezuzah (4)
Question: Is it possible even today to initially buy a mezuzah from any person who sells mezuzos and check them, or to rely on the testimony of a single witness, in which case one need not check them?
Answer: There are those who wrote that since today writers of mezuzos who are not at all fit to write are commonly found, one should therefore not rely at all on purchasing mezuzos, even if he will check them afterwards, as follows:
The Mahari Ayash wrote in Mateh Yehudah1: 'And it appears that even nowadays, when there are fixed sofrim designated for this work, one should take only from those who have a presumption of reliability and fear of Hashem, and not from ordinary sofrim, for many times they checked after them and found defects in them, and their work was also found to be ruined, as we have seen with our own eyes; for I have seen people of stature, and they are few'.
And the Chasam Sofer2 wrote: 'And what he wrote, that with tefillin the sofrim of our times are well-versed — this never was and never came into being, for due to our many sins they ruin and cause many to stumble, and the Rabbonim do not supervise them, or are unable to supervise them as they do the shochtim, and the stumbling is under their hand; and there are several hundred kosher Jews who in all their days have not yet put kosher tefillin on their heads. May Hashem raise the head of His people, and may it be fulfilled "וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה׳ נקרא עליך ויראו ממך" ("And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the Name of Hashem is called upon you, and they shall be afraid of you"), amen'.
And likewise the Aruch HaShulchan3 wrote: And especially in this unrestrained generation, when due to our many sins faith has weakened, and the sofrim have multiplied like locusts — and in one city we know, to the anguish of our hearts, of hundreds of sofrim, most of whom are not G-d-fearing at all, and from there the plague has spread to all the cities of our country — they greatly undercut the price, and take on empty youths with no moisture of fear of Heaven in them to learn, and sell tefillin and mezuzos for small coins, because they write several each day; and it is clear that they do not sanctify the Names, and their deeds are profane and not holy; and we have no means by which to disqualify them (=for the invalidity is not discernible), for it is a matter entrusted to the heart. And whoever has been touched by the fear of Hashem in his heart should not buy tefillin and mezuzos except from a known sofer who is G-d-fearing, and likewise with the writing of a Sefer Torah׳.
A startling testimony is written by the holy Gaon, the author of the Minchas Elazar of Munkatch, in his sefer Os Chaim veShalom4: 'There is a large city in Lita (Slonim) from which STa"M go out by the thousands and tens of thousands, and the breach from there is immeasurable and beyond compare. And at that time I was together in Vienna, in Karlsbad, with the mighty Gaon, the prince of Torah, our teacher Rabbi Yosef, of blessed memory, Av Beis Din of the holy community of Slonim (the author of the sefarim Poras Yosef and Merkeves Yosef), and I asked him about the STa"M from Slonim, and he answered me briefly, a clear answer, in his capacity as the Rav of his city, that all the sefarim, tefillin and mezuzos that go out from there across the countries may be thrown into the garbage, and they are invalid by Torah law etc., for they are written by men who shave their beards, by the wicked and by heretics etc., and they do it to provoke; and as for sanctifying the Names — who even mentions it'.
If so, we find that the poskim were concerned about sofrim who are not fit; and since, in addition to the form of the letters, there are many laws that even an expert proofreader cannot check, because they are laws that depend upon and are completed at the time of writing — such as the obligation to write the mezuzah in order, the intention in writing the mezuzah lishmah, the intention for the holy Names, the laws of chok tochos — therefore the poskim wrote that nowadays there is concern that the writers are not well-versed, and therefore one should buy only from an expert.
As was also written in Shevet HaLevi5: 'And I have also already written many times that nowadays the principle "most of those who are commonly involved with Sifrei Torah, tefillin and mezuzos are experts" does not apply, and therefore, granted that regarding disqualifying his writing even after the fact it is not in our power — for even one who is an apostate out of appetite is kosher after the fact, as explained in Orach Chaim siman 39, and this man is no worse than an apostate out of appetite, for his evil inclination caused him to transgress against the will of his Maker, not the desire to provoke, as appears according to the state of the matter; and therefore, if it is proven that the writing itself is according to halacha, what came out from under his hand is not to be disqualified — nevertheless, there is no doubt that regarding using his handiwork initially there is room to be stringent in this, for who knows whether he sanctified the Names according to halacha, and chok tochos, and more'.
And especially since we have learned6 that the sofer must be G-d-fearing more than many, and that nowadays one should not rely on a sofer without a certificate, and one should not rely on a person's word alone. Therefore, certainly even with checking one should not be lenient to buy and check.
And the Chasam Sofer wrote startling words7: 'And one of my teachers, the distinguished Rav, our teacher Rabbi Mendel Lilg, of blessed memory, a dayan and Rav in the beis midrash in Frankfurt am Main, would habitually say, by way of a witticism: The old and foolish king, known for his old age, sits on a throne of three legs: first, the chazzanim, who carry all the tefillos of Yisrael outside the camp like disqualified sacrifices, Heaven save us; second, the shochtim, who feed the entire community neveilos and treifos; third, the sofrei STa"M, through whom all the tefillin and mezuzos become invalid — and this suffices for the old king'.
And in the sefer Tenufah Chaim by HaGaon Rabbi Chaim Palagi8 he wrote: 'And my heart tells me that the length of the exile is because in these generations there is no one who inquires and no one who seeks regarding the mitzvah of putting on tefillin, for they put on tefillin that are invalid due to several kinds of errors. And the cause is that they buy tefillin from people who are not experts, "ולא ידעו ולא יבינו בחשיכה יתהלכו" ("and they do not know and do not understand, they walk about in darkness"). And even a distinguished sofer, well-versed in the laws, is liable to err — all the more so one who does not know the craft and has not learned the laws thoroughly; for these are called those who prolong the exile, and they act like the sin of Yeravam, who sinned and caused the many to sin'.
If so, we have learned that even a mezuzah that appears beautiful and enhanced should be bought only from someone who is certified and G-d-fearing
In the next halacha we will learn whether there is importance in being careful to buy a mezuzah that was written by a sofer who knows the view of the Alter Rebbe in the laws of STa"M.
--------------
Notes:
1 Siman 32, se'if katan 5 ↩
2 Shu"t, vol. 6, Likutim, siman 83 ↩
3 Yoreh De'ah, siman 281, se'if 9 ↩
4 Siman 39, se'if katan 1 ↩
5 Shu"t, vol. 7, siman 165 ↩
6 In halacha number 431 ↩
7 Shu"t, vol. 1, Orach Chaim, siman 205 ↩
8 Os 432 ↩
[21] (Halacha 437)
Pesuchos and Stumos (1)
In this halacha we will clarify the concepts of a 'parsha pesucha' and a 'parsha stuma', which are the division into passages as Moshe received it at Sinai. Afterwards, in the following halachos, we will see the implications of this for purchasing tefillin and mezuzos.
To clarify the concepts below, a picture is attached in which all the cases can be seen.
The Maharshal wrote1: 'We must investigate and consider what difference there is between a parsha pesucha and a parsha stuma, for our early Rabbis of blessed memory gave a reason only for the sections themselves — what purpose the sections served, namely to give Moshe a pause to reflect between one section and the next, etc. — but regarding the purpose of the pesucha and the stuma they made no mention. Unless you will say that this requires no investigation, for it is self-understood and it is as their names indicate: a pesucha has no connection with what is above it, and it is a separate matter unto itself, as if it began here; and a stuma is connected and closed to the words preceding it, and it is divided only to give a pause between the sections .. In short, a pesucha is a matter open unto itself, and a closed matter is its opposite'.
In the Talmud Yerushalmi2 rules are brought regarding the difference between the space that must be left before the beginning of a parsha pesucha and the space that must be left before a parsha stuma:
A) The Yerushalmi writes that when a line is not written until its end, but rather an empty space is left at the end of the line in which nothing is written, and the following line begins immediately at the start of the line, this is considered the beginning of a parsha pesucha. In the words of the Yerushalmi: 'open at its end — pesucha'.
B) However, the Rishonim disagree regarding the text of the Yerushalmi in the case where it is open at its beginning. The Rambam's text reads: 'open at its beginning — stuma'3. Whereas Tosafos4, the Sefer HaTerumah5, and the Rosh6 read: 'open at its beginning — pesucha'.
Based on this disagreement over the text, the Rambam, Tosafos and the Rosh disagree in halacha in the case where there is no space at the end of the previous line, and a space is left only at the beginning of the next line: according to the Rambam this is considered a stuma, and according to the Rosh it is considered a pesucha.
C) Following from this, the aforementioned Rishonim disagree in another case, where there is a space both at the end of the previous line and at the beginning of the second line. According to Tosafos, who hold that even a space at the beginning of the line makes it a pesucha, then certainly in a case where there is a space both at the end of the line and at the beginning, it will certainly be considered a pesucha, for this is all the more so — 'how could this be? Is it any less than open at its beginning alone or open at its end alone?'. But according to the Rambam, who holds that a space at the beginning of a line is considered a stuma, then even when there is a space both at the end of the previous line and at the beginning of the new line, it is considered a stuma7.
D) When the space between the sections is in the middle of the line — that is, the line begins with a word from the end of the previous section, then there is a space, and then in the same line the second section begins — this space is considered by all opinions to be a stuma8.
E) When the line ends at its end, and there is an empty line, and then writing begins again at the start of a line — according to the Rambam this is considered the space of a parsha pesucha, and according to the Rosh this is considered the space of a parsha stuma.
The Rambam summarizes his view thus9: 'It follows that a parsha pesucha always begins at the beginning of the line, and a parsha stuma always begins from the middle of the line'.
And the Rosh summarized: 'The stuma is where the space between the sections is closed on this side and on that side. And wherever the space is open on one side, above or below, it is called a pesucha. And if one finished a parsha stuma at the end of a line, he should leave a blank line and begin on the third line, and it is a parsha stuma — since it is open neither at the end of a line nor at the beginning of a line, and a blank line is like a space in the middle of the line'.
Regarding a Sefer Torah, the Mechaber wrote10: 'Regarding the form of a pesucha and the form of a stuma there is a disagreement between the Rambam and the Rosh, and one who is G-d-fearing will fulfill all of them, and will do it in such a way that for a parsha pesucha he finishes the preceding section in the middle of a line, and leaves a blank space at its end the size of nine letters, and begins writing at the start of the line below it (see example A). And for a parsha stuma, he should always finish the preceding section at the beginning of a line, and leave a blank space the size of nine letters, and begin writing at the end of that same line (see example D), and he should not vary to make any other form, neither for a pesucha nor for a stuma, and in this way it is kosher both according to the Rambam and according to the Rosh'.
We have thus learned that the Rishonim disagree about the form of the space between the sections, and that in a Sefer Torah one should do it in a way that conforms to both views. In the next halacha we will learn about tefillin, where it is not possible to do it in a way that conforms to both views, and in the halacha after that, about mezuzos.
--------------
Notes:
1 Shu"t, siman 37 ↩
2 Megillah, perek 1, halacha 9 ↩
3 As the Alter Rebbe wrote in Shu"t, siman 1. He added that Acharonim attested that this is indeed the text of the Yerushalmi before us; see Mareh HaPanim on the Yerushalmi there ↩
4 Menachos 32a, s.v. "VeHaIdna" ↩
5 Siman 200 ↩
6 Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Sefer Torah, siman 13 ↩
7 According to the Rambam's view, this is the meaning of the continuation of the Yerushalmi's words: 'open on this side and on that side — stuma'. And the Sefer HaTerumah too, who regarding 'open at its beginning' (example B) held like Tosafos, in this case (example C) held like the Rambam ↩
8 And this is how Tosafos explain the words of the Yerushalmi: 'open on this side and on that side — stuma', meaning that when there is a space in the middle (=open) and on both sides there is writing (=closed), it is considered closed ↩
9 Hilchos STa"M, perek 8, halacha 2 ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah, siman 275, se'if 2 ↩
[22] (Halacha 438)
Pesuchos and Stumos (2)
In the previous halacha we learned that the Rambam and the Rosh disagree about how to make the space between sections for parshiyos pesuchos and stumos, and that in a Sefer Torah one should do it in a way that conforms to all opinions.
Question: How is the space made in tefillin1?
Answer: In tefillin there are four sections: A) Parshas Kadesh. B) Vehaya Ki Yeviacha. C) Shema. D) Vehaya Im Shamoa.
The three sections Kadesh Li, Vehaya Ki Yeviacha, and Shema are parshiyos pesuchos in a Sefer Torah, and in tefillin too it is possible to write them in a way that conforms to all opinions, as follows:
Parshas Kadesh Li is written in tefillin at the beginning of the parchment, and therefore it is considered a pesucha according to all opinions, as the Alter Rebbe wrote2: 'But Parshas Kadesh — pesucha and stuma are not applicable to it, since nothing is written before it in tefillin. Therefore one begins it at the start of the first line and leaves nothing before it, even though in the Torah it is a pesucha, for since nothing is written before it, there is no greater pesucha than this, as there is no other writing closing it'.
And at the end of Parshas Kadesh: 'One must leave a blank space the size of nine letters at the end of the last line of Parshas Kadesh, so that Parshas Vehaya Ki Yeviacha, which begins at the start of the first line of the second column, will be a parsha pesucha as it is in the Torah'. Similarly, 'at the end of the last line of Parshas Vehaya Ki Yeviacha one must leave a blank space the size of nine letters, so that Parshas Shema, which begins at the start of the first line of the third column, will be a pesucha as it is in the Torah'.
Vehaya Im Shamoa — however, regarding 'Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa, which is a stuma in the Torah, it must also be a stuma in tefillin'. And this is problematic, as the Alter Rebbe wrote3: 'Now, in tefillin it is impossible to make Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa a stuma according to all opinions, since nothing is written before it on the same line on which it begins, for Parshas Shema ends in a column of its own, and it is in a column of its own. If he begins it at the start of the line at the top of the column and leaves a space the size of nine letters at the end of Parshas Shema, it will be a pesucha according to all opinions, whereas in the Torah it is a stuma. And if he does not leave a space the size of nine letters, all the more so it is not as it is in the Torah, for it is not called a separate section at all when there is not a space the size of nine letters before it.
Rather, there is no remedy for it [other than] either to make it a stuma according to the Rosh and not according to the Rambam — for example, by leaving one line empty and beginning it on the second line — or to make it a stuma according to the Rambam and not according to the Rosh — for example, by not beginning it at the start of the line but leaving before it a space the size of nine letters at the start of the line, in which case it is a stuma according to the Rambam'.
Since there is a disagreement here between the Rambam and the Rosh, opinions differ as to what to do:
Maran the Mechaber wrote4 to follow the view of the Rambam, in these words: '...And at the end of Shema one does not leave a space, and if one does leave one, it is less than enough to write nine letters. And Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa is begun in the middle of the top line, leaving before it a blank space enough to write nine letters. It follows that three sections are pesuchos according to both the Rambam and the Rosh, and the last section is a stuma according to the Rambam'.
However, the Rema wrote there in his gloss: 'And some consider it kosher5 with all of them pesuchos, and in these countries the practice is to begin even Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa at the start of the line, like the other sections'6.
The Taz7, however, introduced a new approach: 'One who wishes to act in the most correct manner should do it this way.. that he should also begin the third section at the top of the column and end it with less than the required measure, that is, less than nine letters8, and for the fourth section he should also leave a small space at the beginning of the column, at any rate less than the required measure. It follows that the fourth section is a stuma according to all opinions'9.
In practice, Sefardim follow the words of the Mechaber. The early minhag that was practiced among Ashkenazim, brought in the Rema and in the Alter Rebbe, is no longer practiced. Rather, some Ashkenazim follow the view of the Rambam10, and some follow the words of the Taz11.
However, our Rebbe the Alter Rebbe, in his Shu"t, has a different view on this halacha, and we will learn about it in the next halacha, with Hashem's help.
--------------
Notes:
1 The main discussion concerns the tefillin shel yad, in which all the sections are written on one long parchment, as explained in the words of the Alter Rebbe, siman 32, beginning of se'if 50. This is not so for the tefillin shel rosh, where it is only a minhag, as the Alter Rebbe wrote there, se'if 54: 'But in the tefillin shel rosh, where the sections are written on four parchments, one need not be particular about pesuchos and stumos; however, the custom is to be particular' ↩
2 Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, siman 32, se'if 50 ↩
3 Ibid., se'if 52 ↩
4 Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, siman 32, se'if 36 ↩
5 Maharam Padua, siman 77, in the name of the Orchos Chaim; and the Beis Yosef in the name of the Baal HaIttur, Hilchos Tefillin, part 2, 56c. See also Lechem Chamudos, Halachos Ketanos, Tikkun Tefillin, os 135 ↩
6 However, many of the Acharonim (see Levush, se'if 36; Ateres Zekeinim on the Rema there; Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham, se'if katan 48; Biur HaGra, os 82) commented on this minhag of making the section a pesucha according to the views of both the Rambam and the Rosh (relying on those who consider it kosher to make Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa a pesucha as well): why not leave a space of the required measure before the section, so that in this way, at least according to the Rambam's view, it is a stuma — and according to the Rosh, even though it is a pesucha, one would fulfill one's obligation in any case ↩
7 Se'if katan 26 ↩
8 There is a disagreement regarding the view of the Taz, whether he means small letters (Pri Megadim; Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 164) or large ones (Beis Shlomo, second edition, Yoreh De'ah, siman 149) ↩
9 According to the Taz, the space at the end of the section and the space at the beginning of the section are combined. However, the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch there, se'if 52, is concerned for the views that they do not combine, and according to those views this is invalid according to all opinions. Accordingly, one who puts on tefillin written according to the Taz's novel approach is putting on tefillin that are possibly invalid. The Alter Rebbe elaborated on this in Shu"t, siman 1. See also what the Meiri wrote in Kiryas Sefer, second discourse, part 2 ↩
10 See the Levush there; Ateres Zekeinim there; Olas Tamid, siman 32, se'if katan 44. See also Chasam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah 261; and the words of the Rema in his gloss, Yoreh De'ah, siman 275, se'if 2; Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 160. See also Teshuvos VeHanhagos, vol. 1, siman 39 ↩
11 See Aruch HaShulchan there, se'if 63; and Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 164 ↩
[23] (Halacha 439)
Pesuchos and Stumos (3)
In the previous halacha we learned the views of the Rambam, the Rema and the Taz regarding the manner of leaving the space before Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa in tefillin. The Alter Rebbe, however, has a unique view on the subject, as follows:
The Alter Rebbe wrote in his Shulchan Aruch1: 'Since it is impossible to make it a stuma according to all opinions, the practice in many countries is to make it a stuma according to the Rambam, since that is the primary view even for a Sefer Torah when it is impossible to satisfy all opinions, as is written in Yoreh De'ah, siman 275. But in these countries the practice is to make it a pesucha like the sections before it, since there is one who permits making it a pesucha even initially, because in the Torah it is not adjacent to Parshas Shema. And although his words are not the primary view, nevertheless, since the primary view is that after the fact it is kosher in any manner, and it is impossible to make it a stuma according to all opinions, the Acharonim relied on his words so as not to abolish the minhag, in order not to cast aspersions on the earlier generations'.
Similarly, he wrote2 that according to the view of the Rambam and the Mechaber, no space should be left at the end of Parshas Shema: 'One should be careful not to leave a space the size of nine letters at the end of Parshas Shema'.
However, in the margin there is printed a Kuntres Acharon3 that is not from the Alter Rebbe4, but it is an addition that testifies to his holy view. In these words: 'The writer says: It is known and famous among all the distinguished sofrim of our country that the Rav instituted leaving a space specifically at the end of Parshas Shema of the measure of nine letters, and also before the beginning of Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa leaving a space of the measure of nine letters (and I saw, splendidly written by him on this, a deep and sharp analysis at great length — a pity for what has been lost), both in tefillin and in mezuzos. Except that in tefillin, the space at the end of Parshas Shema and likewise before the beginning of Vehaya Im Shamoa is the measure of nine large letters, that is, the measure of three times 'asher', while in a mezuzah the space need only be the measure of three yuds at the end of Parshas Shema and the measure of three yuds before the beginning of Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa. And at the time he wrote his Shulchan Aruch he followed the view of the Beis Yosef in his Shulchan Aruch, and afterwards he retracted'.
As for what the writer wrote, that he saw a deep and sharp analysis at length — it is possible that this is what was later printed in the Shu"t of the Alter Rebbe5, where he wrote: 'Even if he left the required measure after Parshas Shema, nevertheless, if he began Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa in the middle of a line, even though he leaves a space of the required measure at the beginning of the line, it is a stuma according to the view of the Rambam .. However, in the Sefer HaTerumah there, it is implied that the reasoning of Rabbeinu Tam is not so compelling, for on the contrary, open at its end and at its beginning is weaker than if it were open in one place, at its end or at its beginning..'.
It appears that our Rebbe, the Alter Rebbe, intends to explain, based on the Sefer HaTerumah, that there is room to say that even according to the text of the Rosh and Tosafos in the Yerushalmi, nevertheless open on this side and on that side is a stuma. Accordingly, when a space is made both at the end of Shema and at the beginning of Vehaya Im Shamoa, it is considered a stuma not only according to the Rambam, but also according to the Sefer HaTerumah6.
The Rebbe wrote7: 'As for what is written in the Kuntres Acharon there, "It is known and famous among all the distinguished sofrim of our country that he instituted, etc." — and it did not write "to his sons and his students" or the like — it can be said that the intent is to teach the halacha with the emphasis that "they told him: this is the halacha in practice" (see Bava Basra 130b). And also that he "instituted" it and put it into practice among the sofrim'.
It follows that the Alter Rebbe introduced a method that is not brought in his Shulchan Aruch, and ruled to leave a space of the required measure both at the end of Parshas Shema and before Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa, [see the example in the attached picture].
We find several poskim who attest that the sofrim in Russia followed the enactment of the Alter Rebbe, as the Aruch HaShulchan wrote8: 'And the sofrim of Russia followed the Gra"z in leaving the measure of nine letters at the end of Shema and the measure of nine letters at the beginning of Vehaya Im Shamoa'. And in Shu"t Olas Yitzchak Tziyoni9 he wrote: 'And I have seen many parshiyos, where the practice of the sofrim of Russia is that at the end of Shema they leave enough for nine letters and more, and they also begin Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa in the middle of a line and leave before it a blank space enough for nine letters and more .. '.
In practice, many poskim wrote that this method, which the Alter Rebbe adopted in the Kuntres Acharon and in the Shu"t, is good also according to the view of the Rambam and the ruling of the Mechaber10, and accordingly these tefillin are also suitable for Sefardim who follow the view of Maran the Mechaber.
Accordingly, according to our minhag, one should follow the enactment of the Alter Rebbe and leave a space of the required measure both at the end of Parshas Shema and at the beginning of Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa, and this method satisfies all opinions.
This is very important for those ordering tefillin to note, to make sure that they were indeed written according to the view of the Alter Rebbe. In particular, one should pay attention regarding tefillin written according to the method of the Taz, for the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch wrote regarding the view of the Taz: 'One should not put oneself into a doubt of invalid tefillin, for according to the first reasoning, that there is no section here at all, they are invalid according to all opinions, even after the fact'. And in his responsum the Alter Rebbe elaborated at length to prove that the primary view is certainly not like the Taz.
--------------
Notes:
1 Siman 32, se'if 53 ↩
2 Se'if 52 ↩
3 Os 12 ↩
4 HaGaon Rav Chaim Na'eh, in the introduction to Kuntres HaShulchan, p. 13, note 74, wrote: 'It is impossible to know who the writer was, but since it was printed within the Shulchan Aruch by the sons of our Rebbe of blessed memory, one should have no doubt at all about the writer's words, and this is the practice'. And in the publisher's notes in the new edition of the Shulchan Aruch it is written that this is apparently from the Maharil, the brother of our Rebbe ↩
5 Siman 1 ↩
6 This is in addition to the fact that even according to Tosafos and the Rosh, who consider it a pesucha, nevertheless some say that in tefillin even a stuma that was made as a pesucha is kosher, as the Rema says (also brought in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, se'if 53). However, in the responsum it appears that (in this he agrees with the Taz, and) he adopted as primary that a stuma made as a pesucha is invalid ↩
7 Shulchan Menachem, vol. 1, p. 66. This is a reply to HaGaon Rav Moshe Feinstein, who questioned the reliability of the aforementioned Kuntres Acharon, as explained in Shu"t Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim, vol. 4, siman 9 ↩
8 Orach Chaim, siman 32, se'if 63 ↩
9 Vol. 2, siman 2 ↩
10 See Ma'amar Mordechai, siman 32, 34; and Mishnah Berurah, end of se'if katan 164, and Biur Halacha, s.v. "VeIm". So too wrote many Sefardi poskim, as HaGaon Rav Meir Mazuz ruled, that even according to the Mechaber there is no flaw in leaving a space at the end of Shema; and so wrote Shu"t Or LeTzion, vol. 2, perek 3, siman 7; and Yerios Shlomo, perek 15, note 15 and note 41, who wrote *that Sefardim fulfill their obligation with writing done according to the enactment of the Alter Rebbe* ↩
[24] (Halacha 440)
Pesuchos and Stumos (4)
In the previous halachos we learned the disagreement of the poskim, and the enactment of the Alter Rebbe, regarding the space required between the sections in tefillin.
Question: What is the law for a mezuzah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Menachos1 says regarding a mezuzah: 'Rav has a minhag, and nowadays the general practice is to make them stumos .. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: it is a mitzvah to make them stumos, but if one made them pesuchos, it is fine'.
However, in the Yerushalmi, Megillah2 it is written: 'Shmuel bar Shilas in the name of Rav: the halacha follows the one who says pesucha, for this is not its place; open at its beginning — pesucha, open at its end — pesucha, on this side and on that side — stuma'.
Seemingly there is a contradiction here in the words of Rav between the Talmud Bavli and the Yerushalmi: whether Rav's view in halacha follows the minhag practiced for a mezuzah to make it a stuma, or follows the one who says that in a mezuzah it is made a pesucha.
Tosafos3 explained that the Yerushalmi's intent by "pesucha" is not necessarily4 the usual meaning of pesucha; rather, its intent is that even where the blank portion is in the middle, which is usually considered a parsha stuma, nevertheless regarding a mezuzah we consider it a pesucha. That is to say, in a mezuzah, whether an ordinary pesucha or a stuma — wherever there is a blank area, it is kosher.
However, Tosafos raised a difficulty: 'we are accustomed to leave a little blank space at the beginning of the line and then begin Vehaya Im Shamoa', and according to Tosafos this is a pesucha. If so, how does this fit with the words of our Gemara in Menachos, that the custom is to make a stuma?
The Rishonim gave several answers:
A. Tosafos wrote that we rely on the Yerushalmi, that the halacha follows pesucha.
B. The Ri wrote (brought in the Beis Yosef from the Rosh — in the Rosh before us, Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah, siman 5, it is written "and Rashi explained", but the Bach there emended it to read "and the Ri explained") that Rav ruled the halacha according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, that a pesucha is also kosher, and this is the practice.
C. According to the Sefer HaTerumah (the practice is also to leave a blank space after "uvisharecha", and in his view) this manner (blank at the end of the line and at its beginning) is considered a stuma.
The Rosh5 wrote: 'It is good not to leave three letters at the end of the line, and likewise at the beginning of the line, in order to fulfill what was said: "and nowadays the general practice is to make them stumos"'. So too wrote the Smag6, explaining: 'Divide the measure of the pesucha on this side and on that side7: less than three letters after "uvisharecha" at the end of the line, and less than three letters at the beginning of the line where Vehaya Im Shamoa begins, merely as a sign, since they are not adjacent in the Torah. And this is a complete stuma, since there is no measure of opening either at the beginning or at the end'.
The Alter Rebbe wrote8 that the words of the Smag 'clearly imply that he means to say that it is a complete stuma, like Parshas Vayechi, where there is no section break at all; and so too here, it is not called a section at all, since there is no measure of a section either at the end of the first line or at the beginning of the line after it9'.
We have thus seen that according to the Bavli, the primary mitzvah is to make a stuma, and some say that a pesucha is also kosher. The words of the Yerushalmi depend on the various explanations of them. In the time of the Rishonim the practice was to leave a small space; some wrote that this space is a pesucha (Tosafos), some wrote that the practice was to leave it also at the end of the line and in their view this space is a stuma (Sefer HaTerumah), and some wrote to make it a complete stuma.
In practice, the Mechaber10 ruled: 'The space between Parshas Shema and Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa — it is a mitzvah to make it a parsha stuma, and if one made it a pesucha it is kosher, since it is not adjacent to it in the Torah'.
The Shach wrote11: 'Stuma, etc. .. Nevertheless, here in a mezuzah one cannot make a stuma that is kosher according to all opinions, as the Mechaber wrote there — that is, to finish the preceding section at the beginning of a line, leave a blank space the size of nine letters, and begin writing at the end of that same line, etc. — since one must begin Vehaya Im Shamoa on the seventh line, etc., as written nearby in the name of the poskim. Rather, he should make a stuma that is kosher according to the view of the Rambam, as the Rav wrote there, that if one cannot achieve this, one should not deviate from the words of the Rambam'.
Thus, just as we saw regarding tefillin that it is impossible to do it in a way that satisfies all opinions, and therefore they wrote to make a stuma according to the view of the Rambam, similarly regarding a mezuzah: according to the Mechaber, one should leave the required measure before Vehaya Im Shamoa, and then it will be a stuma according to the Rambam.
The Pri Megadim wrote12 that according to the view of the Taz — who wrote regarding tefillin that one should leave the measure of separation by dividing it in two, leaving part at the end of the line after "uvisharecha" and part before the beginning of Vehaya Im Shamoa, and they combine together to make the measure of separation — this is what must be done in a mezuzah.
But we have already seen that the Alter Rebbe disagreed with the Taz and wrote that they do not combine, and therefore: 'The Rav instituted leaving a space specifically at the end of Parshas Shema of the measure of nine letters, and also before the beginning of Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa leaving a space of the measure of nine letters .. both in tefillin and in mezuzos. . Except that in tefillin, the space at the end of Parshas Shema and likewise before the beginning of Vehaya Im Shamoa is the measure of nine large letters, that is, the measure of three times 'asher', while in a mezuzah the space need only be the measure of three13 yuds at the end of Parshas Shema and the measure of three yuds before the beginning of Parshas Vehaya Im Shamoa'.
Accordingly, according to the view of the Alter Rebbe, in a mezuzah one should leave a space of the required measure both after "uvisharecha" and before "Vehaya". Therefore, when coming to buy a mezuzah, one should make sure that the space was left according to his words, especially in a case where they were written according to the method of the Taz, since the Alter Rebbe is concerned that this is not considered as having a proper space14.
--------------
Notes:
1 32a ↩
2 Perek 1, halacha 11 ↩
3 S.v. "VeHaIdna" ↩
4 However, according to the Sefer HaTerumah, siman 200, the Yerushalmi's intent by "pesucha" is not the meaning of pesucha always, *but specifically where the custom is a stuma*. As is explained in the Shu"t of the Alter Rebbe, end of siman 1 ↩
5 Hilchos Mezuzah, end of siman 5 ↩
6 Asin, 23 ↩
7 So too in the Smak, siman 154, and in the Maharam of Padua, siman 77. This is the source of the Taz's view, who applied this to tefillin as well. However, the Alter Rebbe in his Shu"t there elaborated at length to explain why one cannot learn from here to tefillin, especially according to what we hold, that in tefillin a stuma made as a pesucha is invalid ↩
8 Shu"t, siman 1 ↩
9 See also the words of the Rid in Shiltei HaGiborim, Hilchos Mezuzah; Eshkol, Hilchos Mezuzah (vol. 2, siman 24); Shu"t Maharshal, siman 37, in the words of the Ri Shontza; Prishah, Yoreh De'ah 288, os 14 ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch, siman 288, se'if 13 ↩
11 Ibid., se'if katan 10 ↩
12 Orach Chaim, siman 32, Mishbetzos Zahav, se'if katan 26 ↩
13 In the publisher's notes they remarked that 'apparently it should read: nine yuds ... nine yuds, since at the beginning he writes "nine letters, etc., both in mezuzos", and accordingly here too the text should read "nine yuds"; and so is the custom, to leave in a mezuzah a space of nine yuds here and here' ↩
14 Nevertheless, it is certainly not as severe as in tefillin, since, as mentioned above, the Alter Rebbe brought that some say that in a mezuzah no measure of space is needed at all, and a complete stuma suffices. See also Shu"t Ish Matzliach, vol. 1, Yoreh De'ah, siman 44, and his son, the Ne'eman (their words are brought in Yerios Shlomo, vol. 1, p. 273), who ruled it kosher after the fact even according to the view of the Mechaber ↩
[25] (Halacha 441)
The Script Attributed to the Alter Rebbe — [Introduction] (1)
Question: What is the script attributed to the Alter Rebbe, why did the Alter Rebbe institute it, and what is unique about it?
Answer: In general, in the time of the Alter Rebbe, in addition to the script used by the Sefardim (called Velish), two types of script were found in Europe. The more widespread script follows the formation of the letters in the sefer Baruch She'amar, and it is called Ksav Beis Yosef, since it is based on the form of the script as explained in the Beis Yosef, siman 36. In addition, there spread, mainly among the Chassidim, a script called Ksav HaArizal — that is, essentially it is the Beis Yosef script, but it contains several changes in a number of letters according to the Kabbalah of the Arizal. (These scripts too were not truly uniform throughout the Ashkenazi region; rather, there were variations between places, and in the region of Russia there was a style of script that today is called Ksav Rusi.)
The difference between these two scripts aroused in the Maggid of Mezritch a desire to create a script that would unite the differing methods, and the revealed with the hidden, and he placed the task upon his beloved student, the Alter Rebbe.
Thus it is related in the sefer Emunas Tzaddikim1: 'Once the holy Gaon Rabbi Schneur Zalman, the Rebbe of Liadi, of blessed memory, stayed with his holy teacher the Maggid, of blessed memory, in Mezritch for a long time after the festival of Sukkos, for his way was to wait until his teacher would call him to send him home in peace. Once, a long time passed after Yom Tov and his teacher did not call him to bless him with the farewell bracha, and he had to wait such a long time, until his teacher, of blessed memory, called him and said to him: Since there is a great accusation in the upper worlds — why is the writing of the form of the holy letters not equally in accordance with the view of the poskim and the view of the mekubalim? Therefore you must take time to study well the words of the poskim and the mekubalim, to straighten out the form of the letters so that they will be equally suitable for both groups, so that the accusation will be nullified. The Rav, of blessed memory, took upon himself this work, this holy work, until some days passed and he brought to fruition all the forms of the letters, and they turned out to conform equally to both views. He brought them to his holy teacher and showed him the form of all the letters, which had been made equal for both groups, and the Maggid, of blessed memory, thanked him for this, and told him that at that very moment it was proclaimed in the Heavenly Court that this must be the form of the letters, and the accusation was nullified. The next day the Maggid, of blessed memory, blessed his student the Rav of Liadi with the farewell bracha, and the Rav set out on his way.
He traveled by way of the town of Anipoli, and the Rav arrived in Anipoli at night .. The Rav saw from afar that in one house a candle was burning, and he went to that house to lodge there. That house belonged to Rabbi Dovid Sofer, of blessed memory. When the Rav came to the house, he found Rabbi Dovid, of blessed memory, sitting and writing a Sefer Torah. The Rav did not want to disturb him, and walked quietly through the house until he reached the place where he was writing, and the Rav, of blessed memory, saw that he was writing the holy letters all exactly as he himself had brought to fruition the previous day with great toil and effort! The Rav was very startled by this, for Rabbi Dovid, of blessed memory, had not been in Mezritch at the time he delivered the form of the letters to his holy teacher. The Rav, of blessed memory, waited until Rabbi Dovid finished his writing .. and afterwards the Rav asked him from where he had taken the new way of writing. Rabbi Dovid, of blessed memory, answered him: I do not know anything, but yesterday the holy Rabbi Zusya called me and told me that a proclamation had been made in the Heavenly Court to write the form of the letters in a way that would be equally in accordance with the view of the poskim and the mekubalim together, and Rabbi Zusya drew for me each letter in detail, how to write it, and so I write as Rabbi Zusya drew for me .. And from then on this writing spread throughout the world, which is equally suitable for both views together'.
Question: Is this the script explained in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, siman 36?
Answer: The script known as the Alter Rebbe's script, which we use today contains changes from the script of the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch, as the Rebbe writes2: 'Regarding the form of the letters in STa"M according to Chabad practice — there are several changes from what our Rebbe the Alter Rebbe wrote in his Shulchan Aruch3, as discussed in several places regarding the reason for the difference between the rulings of our Rebbe in his pure Shulchan and his rulings in his Siddur and in what he instituted in practice. See also Sha'ar HaKollel at its beginning, Kuntres Piskei HaSiddur by Rav Na'eh, and elsewhere. And regarding tefillin specifically, well known is what is written in Beis Rebbe, chapter 10, that our Rebbe the Alter Rebbe arranged the tefillin according to the tradition of the Rishonim and the tradition of the Arizal in their writing, their preparation and their wearing — see there. These are matters learned orally, from sofer to sofer, and it is difficult to explain them as fully as needed in writing, and writing serves only as an aid to what is said orally. Therefore, in a question such as the above and the like, one should speak with a sofer STa"M who follows the Chabad minhag, and he will explain the details'.
Notes:
1 Warsaw 5660, os 38 (later printed under the name 'Kahal Chassidim HaChadash'). And in different versions in the sefer 'Butzina Kadisha' (Piotrkow 5674, os 17), and in the collection 'Yeda Am' (vol. 5, Tishrei 5719, pp. 70–71). See also Igros Kodesh of the Rebbe Rayatz, vol. 9, p. 53 ↩
2 Igros Kodesh, vol. 11, p. 364 ↩
3 It should be noted that in the new edition of the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, letters resembling the script of the Alter Rebbe were printed alongside the halachos, but as mentioned, this is not a correct example of the letters of the script explained in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe. See at length in the sefer Osiyos HaRav (by Rav M. Weiner) ↩
[26] (Halacha 443)
The Script Attributed to the Alter Rebbe (2)
Question: Was the tradition of the script that the Alter Rebbe instituted passed on to later generations?
Answer: Our Rebbe the Alter Rebbe taught the form of the script to the famous chassid, the renowned sofer Reb Reuven of Yanovitch, who also taught it onward, as the Rebbe Rayatz writes1: 'His esteemed father, Reb Moshe [=Reb Moshe Axelrod], may his soul rest in Eden, a sofer, was among those bound to his holiness my grandfather, the Rebbe Maharash, and was very dear to him. He said that he is the third recipient, in matters of writing, from his holiness the Alter Rebbe, for he learned writing from the famous sofer, the chassid Reb Zundel, a distinguished student of the sofer praised and lauded by all of his holiness our fathers, our holy Rebbes — the famous chassid Reb Reuven of Yanovitch, may his soul rest in Eden — whom his holiness the Alter Rebbe taught the writing of the form of the letters, and to whom he revealed the secret of making the ink'.
[In the journal Yagdil Torah2, photographs were printed of the parshiyos regarding which the Rebbe Rayatz was uncertain whether they were written by Reb Reuven the sofer or by his student Reb Zundel.]
From then on, Anash, the Chabad chassidim, began to use this script, as mentioned in the words of the Tzemach Tzedek3. The Rebbe Maharash himself also wrote, in his own holy handwriting, several megillos for his children in this script, as related in the biography of the Rebbe Maharash edited by the Rebbe4. He also commissioned a Sefer Torah and chose Rav Moshe Axelrod to write it, who, as explained, was a student of Reb Zundel, the student of Reb Reuven the sofer. Likewise, the other sons of the Tzemach Tzedek commissioned from Reb Zundel. As the Rebbe Rayatz writes5 regarding tefillin that were shown to him and attributed to the Alter Rebbe: '..From what I saw of the parshiyos, it is difficult to attribute them to the sofer Reb Reuven, may his soul rest in Eden — who was the special sofer of our great Rebbe the Alter Rebbe — and perhaps this is connected to his holiness my uncle, the tzaddik and holy Rabbi Chaim Schneur Zalman of Liadi, for this is more consistent, by recognition of the letters of the script, with the sofer Reb Zundel, may his soul rest in Eden, who lived in the days of his holiness my great-grandfather, the holy Rebbe the Tzemach Tzedek, from whom the sons of our Rebbe took parshiyos, and in his time they were regarded like the parshiyos of Reb Reuven, may his soul rest in Eden, in the time of the Alter Rebbe. However, if there is a tradition, handed down from person to person, regarding these tefillin, that they belonged to the Alter Rebbe, then nothing stands in the way of a tradition'.
Also regarding the tefillin that the Rebbe Rashab wore, there is a photograph of parshiyos that he wore for a period of time, and they are in the script of the Alter Rebbe, written by the sofer Reb Moshe Lviv6.
The Rebbe Rayatz also wore tefillin in the script of the Alter Rebbe, and a photograph of the parshiyos was printed in the sefer Ksav Chabad7. In addition, we find that he wrote8: 'In reply to his letter — it is a pity that he did not become accustomed to beautiful writing in the form of the script of Reb Reuven the sofer, may his soul rest in Eden, which is an exceedingly beautiful script, for in this country sofrim are needed'. Likewise, the Rebbe Rayatz sent to Kfar Chabad a Sefer Torah written in the script of the Alter Rebbe.
The tefillin that the Rebbe Rayatz bought for his sons-in-law were also bought from a sofer who wrote the script of the Alter Rebbe, as printed in HaTamim9: 'A Great Announcement' from 'Sofer STa"M Zalman Weinstein of Brisk, currently in Warsaw': With Hashem's help, a great announcement — I hereby announce that I write Sifrei Torah, parshiyos, mezuzos and megillos, all in beautiful and mehudar script. I studied in Lubavitch from 5672 until 5681, and studied sofrus there by the instruction of the Rebbe שליט"א, as is clear from the letter of the Rebbe שליט"א copied here. And the Rebbe שליט"א also had parshiyos written by me for his sons-in-law and his grandson שיחי׳.
This sofer learned in Lubavitch to write in the script of the Alter Rebbe, as the secretary of the Rebbe Rayatz, Rav Yechezkel Feigin, wrote in a letter about the aforementioned sofer: 'With Hashem's help, 18 Iyar, Lag BaOmer 5695, Warsaw. I hereby confirm the parshiyos of our esteemed friend Reb Schneur Zalman Weinstein, sofer STa"M. I sent his parshiyos, which he wrote himself, to our esteemed and most exalted friend, the chassid, G-d-fearing man, Rabbi Yeshaya Gittelis, sofer STa"M of Kivel [Kovel?], so that he would examine them and inform me of his opinion on this. I received a reply from him, and he writes: The script of the parshiyos you sent is the script accepted among Anash from the Alter Rebbe, and it is also a mehudar script without any doubt. To this I affix my signature, Yechezkel Feigin'.
The Rebbe also noted10 that this is the script practiced in Chabad: 'Regarding the form of the letters in STa"M according to Chabad practice — there are several changes from what our Rebbe the Alter Rebbe wrote in his Shulchan Aruch, as discussed in several places regarding the reason for the difference between the rulings of our Rebbe in his pure Shulchan and his rulings in his Siddur and in what he instituted in practice..'.
The Rebbe likewise instructed several people to learn and write in the script of the Alter Rebbe11, and he also asked Rav M. M. Aharonov of Canada to write for HaMal"ch according to the Alter Rebbe12, and the aforementioned sofer wrote the script of the Alter Rebbe. He also asked Rav Zirkind to write mezuzos in Ksav Chabad for the house13. He also commissioned from him tefillin in Ksav Chabad for Reb Dovid Chase14.
We have thus seen that the form of the letters was established by the Alter Rebbe according to the instruction of his teacher the Maggid, and he taught it to Rav Reb Reuven the sofer, who taught it onward to his students; and so, throughout the generations, our Rebbes, our Nesi'im, and the community of chassidim practiced writing in this script. However, the Rebbe asked to find details in the tradition of the letters, and we will see about this tomorrow, with Hashem's help.
--------------
Notes:
1 Igros Kodesh, vol. 13, p. 325 ↩
2 New York, issue 26, p. 39 ↩
3 See the words of the questioner in Shu"t Tzemach Tzedek, Orach Chaim, siman 14, and siman 18, os 6 ↩
4 Pages 20 - 21 ↩
5 Igros Kodesh, vol. 2, p. 346 ↩
6 See the journal Derech Tamim, Yeshivas Chabad Or Yehuda, p. 35. 7, p. 10 ↩
7 Igros Kodesh, vol. 6, p. 95 ↩
8 At the end of the seventh booklet (Warsaw, Tammuz 5697). These announcements were not printed in the photo-offset edition of Sefer HaTamim, but were published by R.Y.M. in his article in Kfar Chabad magazine, issue 971, pp. 20–24 ↩
9 Igros Kodesh, vol. 11, p. 364 ↩
10 To the famous sofer Rav Eliezer Tzvi Zirkind, and likewise to Rav Ch. A. Marinovsky, and others, collected in the sefer Ksav Chabad, p. 14 and onward. See also the aforementioned issue of Derech Tamim ↩
11 Igros Kodesh, vol. 5, p. 29 ↩
12 See the sefer Ksav Chabad there ↩
13 On the other hand, however, when a rumor was spread that the Rebbe had *instructed* someone to write specifically the attributed script, the Rebbe wrote 'that it is well known that I am not at all responsible for rumors in my name, and all the more so for what is "implied from a rumor"' (letter of 23 Adar 5726, published in Kfar Chabad magazine, issue 1009) ↩
[27] (Halacha 444)
The Script Attributed to the Alter Rebbe (3)
In the previous halacha we learned about Ksav Chabad, which the Alter Rebbe instituted, about the tradition of the script and how it passed from generation to generation, and about the existence of photographs of parshiyos by Chabad sofrim from earlier generations.
Question: If so, why do we find letters in Igros Kodesh in which the Rebbe inquired and searched whether there are sofrim who learned from person to person?
Answer: The reason for this is explained in the poskim1: 'Regarding the form of the letters and the tagin explained there, it is proper for G-d-fearing sofrim to learn them from person to person — that is, that he should choose for himself an expert and knowledgeable sofer who will teach him by word of mouth and also show him with his finger, "like this, see and sanctify"'.
Nevertheless, it is obvious among the poskim that one can learn the form of the letters from a sefer or from authoritative parshiyos even if one did not learn them from the mouth of a sofer, as the great poskim wrote, who learned from books2.
The difficulty in learning from the writing without a teacher, from person to person, is that it is common for letters not to be exactly identical, and it is difficult to determine precisely what is essential and what derives from the style of the sofer's handwriting and his habits. Likewise, in the existing parshiyos attributed to the script of the Alter Rebbe, not all the letters are precisely identical, and also among the various sofrim who wrote this script there is no absolute precision in all the letters, and there is no clear tradition as to which details the Alter Rebbe established and instituted, and which details are not essential. Therefore the Rebbe inquired and sought to clarify the precise tradition, as the Rebbe wrote3 to Rav Yaakov Zilberman: 'I acknowledge receipt of his letter, whose content is the change in the form of the letters in the script according to our Rebbe the Alter Rebbe, compared with what is practiced by others. It appears from his letter that this is not, for his honor, a tradition from person to person, but rather that he has inferred and infers it precisely from parshiyos which, by tradition, were written by Chabad sofrim. In this, there is doubt as to what is precise and essential and what is incidental and not essential. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for his honor שי', as an expert in this, to investigate — perhaps he will find someone who received from person to person the drawing of the letters as above, and many thanks in advance…'.
We have thus seen that even though it is possible to learn the form of the letters from photographs of parshiyos written by the attributed Chabad sofrim, there is still no complete clarity as to which of the details there are essential, which of them are only for hiddur, and which are of no precision at all but merely the style of writing that was common there (as mentioned, the style of script that today is called Ksav Rusi) or the style of the sofer. Therefore the Rebbe inquired whether there is a tradition.
Since no clear tradition was found, Chabad sofrim have been accustomed to write precisely according to the script in the parshiyos attributed to Reb Reuven the sofer or his student Reb Zundel, and several sofrim even labored and printed books in which they examined precisely and explained the proper form of Ksav Chabad4.
However, it is very important to emphasize that Ksav Rusi is more difficult to write, and likewise it contains several letters that are difficult to write properly, and if they are not written correctly they can be a problem. Therefore it is important to buy only from someone who is highly qualified and skilled in his craft in this script, and also, when sending tefillin and mezuzos for checking, one must make sure that the sofer is an expert and understands the script of the Alter Rebbe
[It should be noted that in the past there was not a truly uniform script among all sofrim; as mentioned, in Russia there was a common style of script that differs significantly from the script common today. Thus there were different styles of writing in different regions (and in those scripts the sofrim would make the appropriate changes according to the writings of the Arizal). Only a few generations ago was a uniform script established for Ashkenazim.
See at length in the sefer Mesoras HaOsiyos5: 'After inquiry among those knowledgeable in the matter, it emerges clearly that the writing of the recent generations is founded on the writing of the great and famous sofer, the tzaddik Rabbi Nesanel Tefilinski, of blessed memory, with some further additions and changes from the sofrim of Yerushalayim after him and the sofrim of our generation .. And how did it come about that this writing spread throughout the whole world, whereas in past generations there were differences from place to place and between generations? We have already written above that after the great war in Europe, in which almost everything was destroyed, Yerushalayim remained as a remnant by the kindness of Hashem, and it was the great and almost sole center for all matters of Judaism, and almost all of the STa"M reached the whole land and the whole world from there, as did the Torah of STa"M; and all this through the ease of communication that Heaven has developed in these generations of ours. Therefore it is no wonder that all STa"M today is almost completely uniform, like the writing of Rabbi Nesanel, of blessed memory. And Rabbi Nesanel himself wrote that his source is: "according to the form of the letters explained in the Baruch She'amar, the Beis Yosef, the Levush, the Pri Megadim, the Mleches Shamayim, the Mishnah Berurah and the sefer Ksivah Tamah, with the approval of the great Gaonim of the land, and similar to the form and structure of the letters found in an old parsha from the sofer who wrote for the Gra, of blessed memory"'.
We have thus seen that the script called today Ksav HaArizal is also based on various scripts that were common (which, although essentially the same, were certainly not completely identical), and in recent generations it was established according to various poskim and an old parsha that was found from the sofer who wrote for the Gra.]
--------------
Notes:
1 See Sha'arei Teshuvah, Orach Chaim, siman 32, se'if katan 1 ↩
2 As we find regarding the script called today 'Ksav Mor UKetziah', which the Yaavetz wrote according to a Sefer Torah he saw. See what the Chida wrote about this in his sefer LeDovid Emes, siman 13, os 3, that sofrim must check other authoritative Sifrei Torah. See also the words of the Tzemach Tzedek, who writes in Orach Chaim, siman 18: 'In our STa"M I saw the nun bent..' ↩
3 Igros Kodesh, vol. 8, p. 141 ↩
4 See Yagdil Torah, New York, issue 26; the sefer Osiyos HaRav (by Rav Moshe Weiner); the sefer Ksav Chabad (by Rav Avi Levi); and the sefer Tikkun Korim, Chazak edition. These letters were also printed in the new edition of the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, siman 36 ↩
5 By Rabbis Cohen - Hess (Bnei Brak 5761), p. 30. See also Yerios Shlomo, vol. 2, p. 17 ↩
[28] (Halacha 445)
The Approach to Different Types of Script (1)
Question: As we have learned that there are several types of script, is the Sefardi script (which today is called Velish) kosher for Ashkenazim, and likewise, is the Ashkenazi script kosher for Sefardim?
Answer: The Rambam wrote1: 'You thus learn that there are twenty things, each one of which invalidates a Sefer Torah, and if one of them was done to it, it is like one of the Chumashim from which children are taught, and it does not have the sanctity of a Sefer Torah, and it is not read from publicly; and these are they: .. (15) that the form of one letter was ruined until it cannot be read at all, or it resembles another letter'.
And the Meiri wrote2: 'For a letter is not disqualified in and of itself, but rather either when its form has been entirely ruined so that it does not resemble any letter, or when its form has been ruined until it resembles another, such as a beis like a kaf, or a hei like a ches, and the like among those mentioned in the Baraisa; but whatever is not so is kosher, even though it deviates slightly from the form mentioned for them; for indeed the form of the letters constantly changes from region to region, such as from France to Spain and the like, and their changes do not invalidate from one to the other'.
And so the Rosh wrote3: 'And the form of the letters is not the same in all countries; the script of our land is very different from the script of this land4, and there is no invalidity in this change, only that he should not make the heis like cheis, or the kafs like beis, as is explained in the Gemara (Shabbos 103b)'.
And so ruled the Rema5: 'And initially he should write in a perfect script, as explained in the Tur and in the other poskim, and it is known among the sofrim. However, if he changed the form of the script, it is not invalid'.
However, Rabbi Moshe ibn Chaviv6 wrote: 'It is a simple matter that tefillin and mezuzos are written only in Ashuri script .. However, in the form of Ashuri script there is a difference between the Ashkenazim and the Sefardim, for example, between a nun and a gimmel — for their nun is considered by us a gimmel7 — and likewise with the other letters; and it appears that in such a case, which for us is considered as having changed the form of the letter, they are invalid .. that letters which change from country to country, such as the writing of the Ashkenazim for the Sefardim, are invalid .. An Ashuri script that is not square and beautiful, and the letters change, between nun and gimmel and similarly with the other letters — it is a simple matter that they are invalid; so it appears in my humble opinion׳.
And his words were cited in the Birkei Yosef8: 'Tefillin in Ashkenazi script: since there is a change in the form of the letters in Ashuri script between the people of Ashkenaz and the people of Sefarad, tefillin in Ashkenazi script are invalid for Sefardim9. The Rav, Maharam ibn Chaviv, mentioned above, in his responsa in manuscript, siman 4. And so wrote the pious Rav, Moreinu HaRav Rabbi Yaakov Molcho, in his responsa in manuscript, siman 110'.
And so he wrote in his own responsa10: 'However, if the Sefer Torah was written in Ashkenazi script — the great Rabbonim, the Maharam ibn Chaviv and the Mahari Molcho, of blessed memory, already wrote in their responsa that with Ashkenazi script, in which there is a change in the form of the letters, tefillin are invalid for Sefardim; and I cited their words in my small sefer Birkei Yosef, Orach Chaim, siman 34. And accordingly, for us Sefardim one should not read from the aforementioned Sefer Torah.
However, in his sefer LeDavid Emes11 he wrote: 'The differences that exist in the letters between the Sefardim and the Ashkenazim all have a basis in the secrets of the Torah, from Maharchu in the name of the Arizal'.
If so, we have seen that the Rishonim noted that even though there are differences between the scripts from country to country [from Ashkenaz to Sefarad], nevertheless all of them are kosher; on the other hand, there are those who wrote, based on the script of their time, that in their view there is an invalidity in the writing of the Ashkenazim, and they are invalid for Sefardim12.
In the next halacha we will see, with Hashem's help, the words of the other poskim who wrote that, in general, the difference between the scripts does not invalidate.
Notes:
1 Hilchos Tefillin uMezuzah veSefer Torah, perek 10, halacha 1 ↩
2 Kiryas Sefer, part 1, ma'amar 2, part 1. And see also Beis HaBechirah on Maseches Shabbos 104a ↩
3 Shu"t, klal 3, siman 11. Cited in the Tur, Yoreh De'ah, siman 274 ↩
4 He wrote in Daas Kedoshim, siman 36, se'if katan 3: 'What the Rosh wrote, *"the script of our land" — meaning the land of Ashkenaz*, which conceived and bore our master the Rosh [and there he served his great teacher, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, of blessed and righteous memory], and the land of Sefarad raised her delight, for he fled from his land to Sefarad, and the seat of his glory was in Toledo, and about it he said *"this land"*. And it is clear from his words that both scripts are kosher, for the root of their Ashuri form has not changed' ↩
5 Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, siman 36, se'if 1, in the Hagah ↩
6 Shu"t Kol Gadol, siman 78 ↩
7 However, it is important to note that in the script commonly found today, the difference between the writing of the Ashkenazim and the Sefardim in the letter nun is not so great that the Sefardim would consider the Ashkenazi nun to be the letter gimmel. And see Shu"t Yabia Omer, Yoreh De'ah, siman 20, that it is possible that in the time of the Maharam ibn Chaviv there were some Ashkenazi sofrim who were not precise in this ↩
8 Orach Chaim, siman 36, se'if katan 2 ↩
9 However, see what Rabbi Avraham Baruch Piperno, the proofreader of the sefer Pachad Yitzchak (Ma'areches Mezuzah 70a), wrote: that his teacher, HaRav Yaakov Nunes Vais, asked the Chida for what reason the aforementioned Rabbonim invalidated Ashkenazi script for Sefardim, and he answered him that he had seen their holy words while he was hurrying on his way from city to city, and had not delved deeply into them ↩
10 Yosef Ometz, siman 11 ↩
11 End of siman 13 ↩
12 There are those who wrote regarding the words of the Birkei Yosef that since for the Sefardim this is kosher, the Ashkenazim too may rely on this, and they compared this to birds that are eaten based on tradition, as written in the Pischei Teshuvah (Isserlin, Vilna 5635), Orach Chaim, siman 36: 'For since this matter depends on tradition, one may rely everywhere on a place that deems it kosher, just as in the laws of a kosher bird, where a place that has no tradition may rely on a place that has a tradition'. However, the comparison seemingly requires further study, between a letter that is not in its proper form according to the view of the Sefardim, and a bird about which there is no tradition to deem it kosher but also none to deem it non-kosher. However, as it appears, the main reason of those who disagree with the Birkei Yosef is because the change is not great, and according to all views its form has not changed ↩
[29] (Halacha 446)
The Approach to Different Types of Script (2)
In the previous halacha we saw what the Rishonim wrote regarding the different scripts, and some of the words of the Acharonim regarding Ashkenazi script for Sefardim or the reverse, some of whom wrote that Ashkenazi script is not kosher for a Sefardi.
But in practice most of the poskim maintained that Ashkenazi script is certainly kosher for Sefardim, and likewise the reverse, as the Noda BiYehudah wrote1: 'In truth, it appears in my humble opinion that all the forms of the letters that the Beis Yosef brought in siman 36 are not indispensable, for whatever was not explained in the Gemara is not indispensable; and how many differences in the letters there are between the script called Velish and the script called Tamah, for most of the forms of the letters in Velish script are not as they are in the Beis Yosef — and would it enter one's mind to invalidate the Sifrei Torah written in Velish script? And I have already explained this in my work, Noda BiYehudah, Yoreh De'ah, siman 80, see there'.
The Rebbe the Tzemach Tzedek2 cited the words of the Noda BiYehudah, and it appears that he agrees with him, but he wrote that this is only after the fact3, and this is his holy wording: 'In the aforementioned Sefer Torah, the beises are rounded at the top like a reish .. by law it is not invalid. And know that the beises in Velish script are rounded at the top like a reish4. And indeed, in Shu"t Noda BiYehudah, Yoreh De'ah, siman 80, he brought proof from Velish script to validate [variations] in the forms of the letters. Thus it is obvious to him that Velish script is kosher after the fact — that is, that this is how they write in Sefarad, see there'.
HaGaon Rabbi Shlomo Kluger5 wrote: 'I heard, and my innards trembled, my lips quivered at the sound, that there should be found a man who has no fear of Hashem upon his face, and no faintness in his heart — and who is he, and which one is he, whose heart has filled him to do so — to issue a crooked (gavnuni) proclamation of disqualification upon holy Sifrei Torah that have existed from time immemorial, to say that since they are written in Velish script they are invalid. And I see no invalidity whatsoever in Velish script, in the forms of the letters as against the forms of the letters explained in the Shas. And in our holy community, great men of the world sat here in former times, and how many Sifrei Torah there are in Velish script, and they read from them, and they are among the most precious of the Sifrei Torah; and in the great Kloiz here there is a sefer in Velish script from the Rav, the Gaon, Av Beis Din here, the author of the sefarim Gur Aryeh Yehudah and Sefer Ya'alas Chein, and in my presence they read from it thousands upon thousands of times. Did all the Sages of Yisrael not know of their invalidity, until this one came and taught them? And if he had some difficulties regarding Velish script, he should have written his difficulties to the Sages of the generation, and they would have resolved them for him — but not to proclaim invalidity upon these Sifrei Torah. Therefore, hush, let no mention of invalidity be made regarding them, for they are kosher, of the very finest; and the one who put forth this foolishness should be stretched out at the pillar, if he does not repent publicly, admitting that the one who spreads slander is a fool. If he does so, they should have mercy on him; and if he does not do so, it is fitting to push him away and pursue him by whatever means possible. And the sefarim are completely kosher, and may their merit stand for us and for you ..'.
And so wrote the Maharsham6: 'And what his honor wrote in the name of She'ilas Shalom, Mahadura Tinyana, siman 204, regarding a Sefer Torah in which some tzadis were written with an inverted yud and some with a straight yud — see the responsa Heishiv Moshe, Yoreh De'ah, siman 51, who was asked about this and cited in the name of Matzas Shimurim, in the name of the Arizal and Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, that the differences that exist in the form of the letters between the Sefardim and the Ashkenazim all have a basis and supernal secrets and supernal foundations, and if so, these and these are the words of the living G-d; and he cited the Mishnas Chassidim on this, and concluded that there are no two contradictory things here, and all of them are true; and this is included in what the Rema wrote at the beginning of siman 36, that if he changed the form of the script it is kosher; and he validated the Sefer Torah, see there at length. And one will find support for all his words that Velish script is kosher and proper. And from this it is clear that it is not as the Birkei Yosef wrote in the name of the Maharam ibn Chaviv and the Mahari Molin, that tefillin in Ashkenazi script are invalid for a Sefardi. And his honor also wrote well that Sefardi script for an Ashkenazi — he too agrees that it is kosher, for the Sefardim are the earlier recipients of the tradition. And I subsequently saw at the end of his letter that he also cited the words of the Pri Etz Chaim, Sha'ar HaTefillin, perek 14, and Nagid uMetzaveh, who wrote like the words of the Matzas Shimurim cited by the aforementioned Heishiv Moshe. The conclusion of the matter is that my hand too is with him, to permit writing the Sefer Torah with all manner of enhancement in Velish script; and also here in our holy community there are several Sifrei Torah in Velish script, and they read from them initially'.
And so the Tzitz Eliezer summarized7 this topic: 'The conclusion of the matter — this is the ruled halacha that emerges from all that has been explained: that both Ashkenazi script for Sefardim and Sefardi script for Ashkenazim are kosher according to the basic law, in mezuzos, tefillin, Sifrei Torah and gittin, and one may recite a bracha on the STa"M even initially'.
If so, we have seen that the poskim wrote that Sefardi script is kosher for an Ashkenazi8, and likewise Ashkenazi script is kosher for a Sefardi9; and so it is done every day, that the Jewish people go up [to the Torah] and recite brochos over Sifrei Torah in all types of script, both Ashkenazim and Sefardim10. But see in the notes11. And tomorrow we will see what is fitting initially.
--------------
Notes:
1 Mahadura Tinyana, Yoreh De'ah, siman 171 ↩
2 Yoreh De'ah, siman 205 ↩
3 Note that the meaning of "after the fact" has different levels. And here, seemingly, the intent is not that only after he has already put on the tefillin is he considered to have fulfilled his obligation and the like; rather, in principle one may also initially be called up to the Torah and recite the bracha over Sefardi script. And note also what is related, that the Rebbe was called up to the Torah with a Sefer Torah that came from Tunis (and only asked to check regarding the manner of writing the word "dakka", and the form of the base of the letter shin). And see also below, that all agree that initially it is fitting for Ashkenazim and Sefardim each to use their own script ↩
4 Note that today most writers of Velish script write the beis square at the top, but we find that there were those who wrote it rounded. And see at length in Yerios Shlomo, vol. 3, p. 41 and onward, who also cites and discusses these words of the Tzemach Tzedek ↩
5 In Kinas Sofrim 32b, siman 121; cited in Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak, vol. 4, siman 47 ↩
6 Shu"t, vol. 2, siman 120 ↩
7 Vol. 14, siman 3 ↩
8 See what is cited in Shu"t Tzitz Eliezer there, and in Yerios Shlomo, vol. 2, p. 4 and onward. However, see what is written in the sefer Mitzvas HaYom (p. 17 and p. 53), who noted that there are Velish script writings in which the yud has no lower left point, and we hold that it is invalid; and see there what he wrote to distinguish between a Sefer Torah and tefillin and mezuzos, that in a Sefer Torah: 'If all of it is in their script, it is effective also for us without the kotzo shel yud, for it is like a different script, which is effective in a Sefer Torah', but regarding tefillin he wrote that 'for us, without the kotzo shel yud, it is [a case of] a head that has not put on tefillin'. And see also regarding the kotzo shel yud in Mishnas HaSofer, p. 63, and what he cited in the name of Rabbi Akiva Eiger ↩
9 However, see what is written in Shu"t Yechaveh Daas, vol. 4, siman 3, that because of the dispute regarding the space between the parshiyos (explained in halacha number 438): 'And now the matter is clear that tefillin that were written by Ashkenazi sofrim who are accustomed to act according to the view of the Taz are invalid for Sefardim, and one who puts them on — besides the fact that his bracha on the tefillin is a bracha in vain — he is also in the category of a head that has not put on tefillin, according to the view of Maran the Shulchan Aruch' ↩
10 And see at length in Shu"t Yabia Omer, vol. 2, Yoreh De'ah, siman 20, who validated also where he changed the yud of the tzadi according to the different views, and likewise where some of the letters are in Sefardi script and some in Ashkenazi script. And see Shu"t Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 13, siman 85 ↩
11 And note the letter of HaGaon Rabbi Moshe Feinstein to the Rebbe, in which he wrote that it is good for all the STa"M to be in the same script, as cited in Shu"t Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim, vol. 4, siman 9: 'And now, when they informed me in the name of His Holiness, his eminence the Gaon, שליט״א, that he has a distinguished sofer with him whom he is prepared to send to me and instruct to write for me the parshiyos of Rabbeinu Tam tefillin according to my wish — this is a very great thing, besides the fact that I will be able to fulfill also the mitzvah of putting on Rabbeinu Tam tefillin as I have been accustomed .. And certainly the sofer will also write in the script of the Beis Yosef; for even though I have explained that in essence all the scripts — for there are many who write STa"M, as we have three scripts among us — all of them are from Sinai, and it is only that one cannot write the parshiyos of tefillin and mezuzah except in one script, because it would be invalid under the law of "menumar", nevertheless we are accustomed that everything be in the script of the Beis Yosef, both mezuzos and tefillin and the Sefer Torah in the beis haknesses where I regularly daven, and his script should be beautiful'. And see also Shu"t Avnei Kodesh (by Rabbi Nachum Levi of Shadik), siman 31 ↩
[30] (Halacha 447)
The Approach to Different Types of Script (3) / אל תטוש תורת אמך ("Do Not Forsake the Torah of Your Mother") (1)
In the previous halacha we learned that in principle Sefardi STa"M script (Velish) is kosher for Ashkenazim, and likewise Ashkenazi STa"M script is kosher for Sefardim.
Question: Does this law apply also initially, so that each person may from the outset buy the script of the other community?
Answer: It is explained in the poskim that even though from the pasuk1 'אל תטוש תורת אמך' ("Do not forsake the Torah of your mother") we learned that a son must follow the minhogim of his fathers, nevertheless the Maharashdam wrote2: 'It appears that even though there are matters in which it is proper and seems good for a person to hold fast to the minhag of his fathers, and it is likely that this is included in the warning "ובל תטוש תורת אמך", nevertheless .. we have not found and have not seen that one may not change the minhag of our fathers except in a matter in which there is a trace of prohibition, like all those that we learned in Perek Makom Shenahagu, see there, for in all of them there is [an element of] distancing from prohibition .. In a case such as this, where there is no aspect of prohibition at all, nor distancing from transgression, it is obvious that "אל תטוש תורת אמך" does not apply to it. And so one can infer from the wording of the Ran, of blessed memory, who wrote in Perek Makom Shenahagu, on the Halachos, and this is his wording: And we find ourselves learning, regarding the law of minhogim, that every minhag of prohibition that is from one city .. And since he says "every minhag of prohibition etc." and does not say "every minhag" without qualification, it is implied that we say so only regarding a matter of prohibition that they were accustomed to in their place, that one may not change it; but in a matter where there is no aspect of prohibition at all, it is obvious that there is no objection at all'.
And in Shu"t Beis Yitzchak3 he wrote to distinguish in a different way: 'And as for what there is to be uncertain about — whether one is permitted to change from the minhag of his fathers, who were accustomed to put on tefillin, whether there is no issue of "אל תטוש תורת אמך" — behold, regarding whether it is permitted to change the nusach of tefillah from Ashkenaz to Sefard, the responsa She'eiri BeChesed LeAvraham, siman 9, in the Orach Chaim section, already elaborated, and the root of his words is based on the words of the Maharshal in his responsa, siman 10: that where it is permitted after the fact, and it is a mitzvah as a measure of piety, it is permitted to change; and the same applies to the nusach of tefillah, since after the fact he has fulfilled his obligation even if he changes from the nusach of the bracha, as the Kesef Mishneh wrote in perek 1 of Krias Shema, halacha 7, if the conclusion was according to law; and this does not apply to putting on tefillin on Chol HaMoed. But in my humble opinion, we say that a son is obligated to conduct himself according to the minhag of his father because of "אל תטוש" only in a matter that has no reason from the standpoint of law, but only because of stringency and caution, like the case of the people of Beishan who would not go on Erev Shabbos, and likewise other minhogim; but in a case like tefillin on Chol HaMoed, which is a dispute among the Rishonim and has a source in halacha — if his father conducted himself according to the minhag of Ashkenaz and the son conducts himself according to the minhag of Sefard, there is nothing wrong with this. And what is explained in siman 214, that the acceptance of the many takes effect upon them and upon their descendants, is also regarding stringencies that they accepted upon themselves .. but not in matters of dispute that depend on law, and the dispute of Tannaim and Amoraim. And there is in it no issue of a vow or of acceptance; and this matter requires deliberation'.
If so, seemingly (despite the distinctions between them), according to both of them there is no concern of "אל תטוש" in changing the STa"M script. Nevertheless, regarding the nusach of tefillah, many of the poskim wrote that a son should not change the minhag of his fathers, as the Magen Avraham wrote4: 'However, the minhogim that were practiced in the roots of tefillah — one should not change from the minhag of one's place, for there are twelve gates in Heaven corresponding to the twelve tribes, and each tribe has its own gate and minhag, except for what is mentioned in the Gemara, which is the same for all (the kavanos). And this is the wording of the Gemara Yerushalmi: Even though we have sent you the order of the tefillos, do not change from the minhag of your fathers — end quote'5.
And there are those who wrote that so it is also regarding STa"M script, as HaGaon Rabbi Ovadia Yosef wrote6: 'And a case has already come before me, where several people asked about their tefillin, which were found to be in Ashkenazi script, and I ruled to validate them based on the words of the aforementioned poskim. However, "since it is good, do not call it bad", and if he can afford it, it is proper and fitting to exchange them for Sefardi writing, since there is also a mystical reason for the Sefardi writing. And just as we hold fast to the versions of tefillah — the Ashkenazim to their versions and the Sefardim to their versions — so too, and for the same reason, in this matter we [follow] ours and they [follow] theirs. [And likewise it appears that in a beis haknesses of Sefardim it is fitting for them to obtain a Sefer Torah in Sefardi script, as written in Shu"t Mishpetei Uziel (there). And the same applies in reverse: in a beis haknesses of Ashkenazim it is fitting for them to obtain a Sefer Torah in Ashkenazi script]. But when he cannot afford to exchange them, they should be validated'.
HaGaon Rabbi Shmuel Wosner7 also wrote: 'As for what he wrote regarding a Sefer Torah written in the script of the Sefardim (Velish script), and there are those who have doubts about it .. if it came from a G-d-fearing sofer, there is no room for doubt about it. However, for us this is only after the fact; for initially, certainly we, the people of Ashkenaz, should strive completely for writing according to our tradition and not be drawn after others, for our fathers and our Rabbis taught us the manner of writing according to their holy tradition'.
And similarly it was also written in Shu"t Tzitz Eliezer8: 'However, only this appears: that initially every member of a community should strive to buy tefillin, mezuzos and Sifrei Torah written in the script accepted by the members of his community [and likewise in the writing of gittin], and there is in this also [the element of] "אל תטוש תורת אמך"; and a sofer who finds in his checking that the script is like that of a member of another community — even though this is already in the category of after the fact — nevertheless it is fitting that he inform the one who gave them to him to check; but together with this he must add and tell him that according to the basic law they are kosher, and he may even initially continue to put them on and recite the bracha over them'.
If so, we have seen that even though, from the standpoint of law, there are cases in which an Ashkenazi who affixed a mezuzah or put on tefillin in Sefardi script, or the reverse, fulfills his obligation according to law, nevertheless it is fitting initially for each person to continue to conduct himself according to the minhogim of his fathers9.
In this halacha the discussion was about changing a specific minhag; but in the next halacha we will discuss a person who decided to move over and belong completely to a new community and to accept upon himself all their minhogim [and thereby he will also change the STa"M script].
Notes:
1 Mishlei 1:8 ↩
2 Shu"t Orach Chaim, siman 35 ↩
3 Yoreh De'ah, vol. 2, siman 88, os 3; cited in the Sdei Chemed, Ma'areches HaMem, klal 37 ↩
4 Orach Chaim, siman 68, in the introduction ↩
5 These words do not apply regarding switching to the nusach of the Arizal (as we elaborated in halacha no. 152) ↩
6 Yabia Omer, Shu"t, vol. 2, Yoreh De'ah, siman 20 ↩
7 Shevet HaLevi, Shu"t, vol. 2, siman 211, os 2 ↩
8 Vol. 14, siman 3 ↩
9 However, regarding changing from the script of the Beis Yosef to the script of the Arizal, it is seemingly like the words of the Maggid of Mezritch regarding the nusach of tefillah (referenced in note 5), and that this is something that even our forefathers changed after the spread of the acceptance of the Kabbalah of the Arizal. And see also Shu"t Minchas Elazar, vol. 1, siman 11: 'The reason written in the Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim, siman 31, and in the Kesef Mishneh, that initially the people of Sefarad were also accustomed to put on tefillin on Chol HaMoed, and after the Zohar of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was revealed they refrained from putting them on. And seemingly this is difficult, for this would be [prohibited] because of "אל תטוש תורת אמך". Rather, certainly, since the matter changed in that the Zohar of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai came to light, it is therefore permitted to change their earlier minhag' ↩
[31] (Halacha 449)
The Approach to Different Types of Script (4) / אל תטוש תורת אמך ("Do Not Forsake the Torah of Your Mother") (2)
We learned1 that there are cases in which, because of 'אל תטוש תורת אמך' ("Do not forsake the Torah of your mother"), a person must continue the traditions that his fathers practiced.
Question: When a person moves from the city in which his fathers lived to another city in which the minhogim are different, may he change his minhag, for example, change from the script his fathers used?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Pesachim2 says: 'One who goes from a place where they do to a place where they do not do, or from a place where they do not do to a place where they do — we impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he left, and the stringencies of the place to which he went'. And in explaining the words of the Mishnah we find two contradictory Gemaras, as follows:
The Gemara in Pesachim3 says: 'When Rabbah bar bar Chanah came [from Eretz Yisroel to Bavel], he ate the fat of the "yaterta" [Rashi explains: the fat on the curve of the stomach, for the stomach is curved and shaped like a bow, and that fat which is in the permitted area the people of Eretz Yisroel eat, while the people of Bavel treat it as forbidden] .. And does Rabbah bar bar Chanah not hold of that which we learned: we impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went? .. Rav Ashi said: You may even say [that it applies] from Eretz Yisroel to Bavel. This applies only where he does not intend to return, and Rabbah bar bar Chanah intended to return'.
From the plain sense of the words of Rav Ashi in Pesachim (that the reason Rabbah bar bar Chanah ate, even though in the place where he ate it was customary not to eat, is because he intended to return), it is implied that he explains that the words of the Mishnah refer to a case where he does not intend to return to his previous place, in which case we impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he left as well as those of the place he came to.
On the other hand, we find that the Gemara in Chullin4 says: 'When Rabbi Zeira went up [from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel], he ate [meat slaughtered with] a "mugremes" of Rav and Shmuel [that is, he ate in the Land from an animal that was slaughtered at the neck in a location where, according to the view of Rav and Shmuel, the Rabbis of Bavel, the shechitah is not kosher] .. And does Rabbi Zeira not hold that we impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went? .. Rav Ashi said: You may even say [that it applies] from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel. This applies only where he intends to return, and Rabbi Zeira did not intend to return'.
And from the words of Rav Ashi in this Gemara it is implied that when a person does not intend to return, he need not be concerned for the minhogim of the place from which he came, and this contradicts his words in Pesachim.
And the Rishonim disagreed in reconciling the sugyos, and which sugya is primary for halacha. The Rambam wrote5: 'One who goes from a place where they do to a place where they do not do, should not do it in a settled area because of dispute, but he may do it in the wilderness; and one who goes from a place where they do not do to a place where they do, should not do it — we impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went; and nevertheless he should not make it appear before them that he is idle because of a prohibition. A person should never deviate, because of dispute. And likewise one who intends to return to his place conducts himself like the people of his place, whether to be lenient or to be stringent, provided that he does not make it appear before the people of the place where he is, because of dispute'.
From the plain sense of the words of the Rambam it is implied that even when he does not intend to return, he is obligated to continue to observe the stringencies of the place from which he came6. And so is the view of Tosafos in Chullin7 in the second answer.
But the view of Tosafos in Pesachim8, the Rosh9, the Ran10 and the Tur11 is that when he does not intend to return, he is not obligated in the stringencies of the place from which he left12. And so wrote the Rivash13: 'But if he established his residence in the place of the permissive [practice], he conducts himself like the place where he established his residence, for this Mishnah is established in the first perek of Chullin as referring to where he intends to return ..'.
And as halacha, the Mechaber in Orach Chaim14 copied the words of the Rambam15, but in Yoreh De'ah16 he wrote: 'The acceptance of the many takes effect upon them and upon their descendants; and even in matters that the people of the city did not accept upon themselves by agreement, but rather they conduct themselves so on their own, to make a fence and safeguard for the Torah. And likewise those who come from outside the city to live there are like the people of the city and are obligated to act according to their enactment; and even in matters that were forbidden to them in their city because of their minhag, and the minhag of the city to which they came to live is not to forbid — they are permitted in them if they do not intend to return'.
And in conclusion, the poskim decided in accordance with the words of the Mechaber in Yoreh De'ah, as the Shach wrote17: 'And regarding the law, it appears [to follow] the reasoning of the Rosh and those who support him, that he must always act according to the minhag of the place where he intends to settle, whether leniently or stringently (only where there is concern for dispute should he not deviate from [the minhag of] the place where he is, even to be lenient); and so ruled Rabbeinu Yerucham, nesiv 2, part 5; and likewise the Levush, in Orach Chaim siman 468, did not write the words of the Mechaber, only the words of the Tur'.
And so ruled the Magen Avraham18, in keeping with his view, for he explained that the Rambam too holds like the view of the Rosh and the Ran: '"From which he left" — when he intends to return; but [if] he does not intend to return, he conducts himself even according to the leniencies of the place to which he went, as stated in the first perek of Chullin; and so wrote the Ran; and so it is at the end of siman 214 in Yoreh De'ah; and the words of the Shach there require further study׳.
And so ruled the Alter Rebbe19: 'One who goes from a place where they are accustomed to prohibition and comes to a place where they are accustomed to permission, and intends to settle there permanently — since he has arrived within the techum of that city in which he intends to settle, the stringencies of the place from which he left are removed from him, and he is permitted to do work even publicly'.
If so, we have seen that the poskim maintained as halacha that a person who moved permanently to a new place may conduct himself completely according to the minhag of the new place20, even leniently21.
In the next halacha we will learn, with Hashem's help, whether the meaning of "place" is from city to city in its plain sense, or also a move between congregations, or to another community even in the same city.
--------------
Notes:
1 In halacha number 447 ↩
2 Beginning of perek 4 ↩
3 51a ↩
4 18b ↩
5 Hilchos Yom Tov, perek 8, halacha 20 ↩
6 And see the Pri Chadash, Orach Chaim there: 'Perhaps the Rav, of blessed memory, holds that these two sugyos are interchanged, and he relied on [the sugya] in Pesachim because a sugya in its own place is preferable; and Rabbi Zeira holds that our Mishnah speaks specifically where he intends to return, and Rav Ashi spoke according to the words of Rabbi Zeira, but he himself does not hold so, and the halacha does not follow Rabbi Zeira; and this is not clear, and requires further study'. However, see the Machatzis HaShekel, siman 468, se'if katan 7, and the gloss of the Chasam Sofer on the Pri Chadash, who explain the words of the Rambam in another way, and that the Rambam too holds that when he does not intend to return he need not be stringent. And see the Chok Yaakov there, who disagreed with them ↩
7 Ibid., s.v. "Hanei Milei" ↩
8 S.v. "Rabbah", and the first answer in Chullin there ↩
9 Pesachim, perek 4, siman 4 ↩
10 Pesachim there, s.v. "HaHolech" ↩
11 Orach Chaim, siman 468 ↩
12 In explaining the words of the Gemara in Pesachim, see Tosafos in Pesachim and Chullin there, that it teaches [two separate] cases. And see an explanation in another way in the Shach, Yoreh De'ah, siman 214, se'if katan 8, at its end ↩
13 Siman 44 ↩
14 Siman 468, se'if 4 ↩
15 See above the opinions regarding the view of the Rambam, and see also the Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 22, and the Biur Halacha. However, the Chok Yaakov wrote that the Rambam disagrees, and he holds that according to the Rambam and the Mechaber in siman 468, one should be stringent ↩
16 Siman 214, se'if 2 ↩
17 Yoreh De'ah there, se'if katan 8 ↩
18 Orach Chaim, siman 468, se'if katan 9 ↩
19 Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, siman 468, se'if 12 ↩
20 Also regarding the nusach of tefillah, despite the wording "do not change from the minhag of your fathers", the poskim maintained that the main thing depends on the place, as the Magen Avraham wrote in the introduction to siman 68: '.. one should not change from the minhag of *his place* ..' ↩
21 Note that this does not refer to matters that were forbidden by a cherem; see Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah, siman 228, se'if 29, and Birkei Yosef, siman 468, se'if katan 4 ↩
[32] (Halacha 450)
The Approach to Different Types of Script (5) / אל תטוש תורת אמך ("Do Not Forsake the Torah of Your Mother") (3)
We learned in a previous halacha that a person who moves from city to city in order to settle there need no longer conduct himself according to the minhogim of the city he left, but rather according to the minhag of the new city.
Question: What is the law in a case where a person did not move from city to city, but moved from one community to another — for example, a person whose fathers were not counted among the congregation of Chassidim, but conducted themselves according to the minhogim of Ashkenaz or Sefard, yet he wishes to belong to the Chabad community and wishes to conduct himself according to the minhogim of Chabad, and also to use tefillin and mezuzos in Chabad script?
Answer: We find in the words of the great Acharonim that they related to different communities within the same city according to the law of two cities, as written in Shu"t HaRadach1: 'For the members of one congregation are not subordinate to the members of another congregation, even though the members of the other congregations are more numerous than they, for each and every congregation, in this matter, is like a city unto itself; for the people of one city are not subordinate to the people of another city, and the members of one congregation are not subordinate to the members of the other congregation. For since each congregation conducts itself according to its original minhag, they are like two batei din in one city, and we hold like Rava that where there are two batei din in one city, these are accustomed to forbid and those are accustomed to permit, and there is no issue here of "לא תתגודדו" ("You shall not form separate factions"), as stated in the first perek of Yevamos'.
And based on this, Maran the Beis Yosef also wrote2: 'And even if in that city the congregations that conduct themselves according to the Rosh and others are the majority, they cannot compel the minority of congregations that conduct themselves according to the Rambam, of blessed memory, to conduct themselves as they do. And there is no issue of "לא תתגודדו", for since each congregation conducts itself according to its original minhag, it is like two batei din in one city, and we hold like Rava that where there are two dayanim in one city, these are accustomed to forbid and those are accustomed to permit, there is no issue here of "לא תתגודדו", as stated in the first perek of Yevamos. And each and every congregation is like a city unto itself, for the members of one congregation do not compel the members of another congregation. And so wrote Moreinu HaRav Rabbi David Kohen, of blessed memory, in his responsa. And the above I wrote, the young one, Yosef Karo'.
And see also what Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi wrote3: 'However, since all the congregations of the city of Constantinople are divided into separate groups, and each one is treated on its own, whether in its minhogim, in its enactments, in [matters of] a meis mitzvah and the like, it is therefore considered, for all those who daven there, as a city unto itself'.
If so, we find that the poskim related to different communities as different cities; and seemingly, if so, the law will be that one who moves to another community will have the law of one who moves to another city, upon whom there is no longer the obligation to conduct himself and be stringent according to the practices and stringencies of the 'city' from which he left.
And indeed we find that there are poskim who wrote so, as written in Teshuvos VeHanhagos4: 'A son should not abandon the minhogim of his father's house, and it is also fitting to daven according to their nusach; but if he came to a yeshivah and left all the minhogim of his father's house — if since then he has accepted the minhogim of the yeshivah and his Rabbis in place of the practices of his father's house — then also regarding nusach he conducts himself as they do; but if he is still somewhat attached to the minhogim of his father and does not conduct himself completely like the Ashkenazim, he should not change from the nusach of his fathers'. And see also Shu"t Shraga HaMeir5: 'Since you are traveling to an Ashkenazi yeshivah, and you wish to settle among the Ashkenazim and grow among them in every good thing, and you have a reason for this — since it is better for you with regard to the study of the holy Torah and conduct in Torah and mitzvos and fear of Hashem, you are permitted to change; and this is not called changing your minhag, but rather you are traveling from place to place to settle, [and] the minhag of the place you came to applies to you — all the stringencies, and also all the leniencies of the place you came to..'6.
If so, we have seen that when a person joins another community, he takes on the practices of the community he has come to, whether leniently or stringently; and therefore a person who wishes to belong to Chassidus Chabad in all its details may conduct himself so initially.
--------------
Notes:
1 Bayis 11, Cheder 1 ↩
2 Shu"t Avkas Rochel, siman 32 ↩
3 Shu"t HaRe'em, siman 13 ↩
4 Vol. 1, siman 68 ↩
5 Vol. 8, siman 7 ↩
6 And the poskim wrote that this law applies especially when he returned to the fold of Judaism thanks to his Rav who is from the other community and the like, as written in Teshuvos VeHanhagos, vol. 1, siman 354: 'And it appears that those who brought him back in teshuvah are, in this regard, like his fathers; and since he is in their company and feels a closeness to them like to a father, he is obligated to conduct himself specifically as they do; and as written in the Gilyon Maharsha in the name of the Chavos Yair, siman 126, that the matter does not depend on his father, but rather the matter depends on the place and the community; and since the son is strengthened there, that is his place and his community. And even according to the view of the stringent ones, that even if he never conducted himself [so], he must conduct himself according to the minhag of his fathers — it appears that this is specifically when he has no fixed minhag; then he is forbidden to change from the minhag of his fathers; but when he has changed his way and found his place with his Rabbis, who have a different minhag, it is fitting to conduct himself as they do in every matter, whether leniently or stringently, and he need not change [back] when his father does not walk in the way of the Torah' ↩
[33] (Halacha 451)
Question: Which doorway requires a mezuzah?
Answer: Regarding the Pesach offering in Egypt, the Torah states1: 'ולקחו מן הדם ונתנו על שתי המזוזת ועל המשקוף .. וראה את הדם על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזת..' ('They shall take of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel .. and He will see the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts..').
The Gemara in Maseches Yoma2 states: 'Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah taught before Rava: Six gateways are exempt from a mezuzah .. and a gateway that is not roofed, and a gateway that is not ten high.' And Rashi explains: 'Not roofed — it is entirely open above, without any covering.'
We further find in the Gemara in Maseches Menachos3: 'And Rava said: These pischei shima'ei (= damaged doorways) are exempt from a mezuzah. What are pischei shima'ei? Rav Rechumi and Abba Yosi disagree about this; one says: those that have no tikrah, and one says: those that have no shakofei.'
And Rashi explains: 'Tikrah — the upper lintel4. Shakofei — doorposts. Another explanation: tikrah — that the house is not roofed; shakofei — the upper lintel.'
If so, we find in the words of the Amoraim two explanations of what that damaged doorway exempt from a mezuzah is. According to Rashi's first explanation, one said it is a doorway that has no upper lintel, and one said it lacks the doorposts of the doorway. According to Rashi's second explanation, one said the house has no roof, and one said it has no upper lintel.
The Rishonim disagree whether these two Amoraim also disagree in practice, or whether all agree that when either the 'tikrah' or the 'shakofei' is missing the doorway is exempt from a mezuzah, and they disagree only about the meaning of the term 'pischei shima'ei'.
The Rambam5 writes: 'There are ten conditions in a house, and only then is one who lives in it obligated to make a mezuzah for it; if one of these conditions is lacking, it is exempt from a mezuzah. They are: .. that it have two doorposts, and that it have a lintel, and that it have a roof.'
The Beis Yosef6 writes that the source of the Rambam's ruling exempting a house without a roof is that the Rambam learned like Rashi's second explanation, and the Rambam ruled the halacha in accordance with both explanations. Therefore it is obligated in a mezuzah only when it has both doorposts and a lintel, and also a roof. As the Maaseh Rokeach7 writes: 'It must be said that our master understood that these Amoraim disagree only about the explanation of what pischei shima'ei are, but as to the halacha, all agree that if one of the two is lacking — either the tikrah or the shakofei — they are exempt from a mezuzah. And in Yoma 11 it is stated explicitly that a gateway that is not roofed is exempt from a mezuzah, and so wrote Maran z"l; see the Beis Yosef there.' (The dispute regarding the obligation of a mezuzah in a house without a roof will be discussed, with Hashem's help, in a separate halacha.)
However, the Sefer Yere'im8 writes: 'These pischei shima'ei are exempt from a mezuzah. What are pischei shima'ei? Rav Rechumi and Rav disagree about this; one says those that have no tikrah, and one says those that have no shakofei — meaning a place cut out in the wood or the stone on which the door rests. And we act stringently9, and whichever it is, it is obligated in a mezuzah.'
As the halacha, the Mechaber writes10: 'A doorway is obligated in a mezuzah only if it has two doorposts and a lintel.'
And the Levush writes11: 'Since it is written regarding the placing of the blood [Shemos 12:7] "על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות" ("on the lintel and on the two doorposts"), we learn from this that wherever doorposts are mentioned, they are not without the lintel above them.'
If so, we have seen that in principle a doorway is obligated in a mezuzah only when it has doorposts and an upper lintel. With Hashem's help, in the coming halachos we will discuss what is considered a doorpost of a doorway (whether two are strictly required, and whether the end of a wall can be considered a doorpost of a doorway).
Notes:
1 Shemos 12:7 and 23 ↩
2 11b ↩
3 33b, and so too in Eruvin 11b ↩
4 Rashi in Eruvin writes: 'That there is no structure at all above the doorway; rather, the entire wall is split like its opening up to its top. And the tzuras hapesach that they mentioned is a pole on one side, a pole on the other side, and a pole on top of them.' ↩
5 Hilchos Tefillin uMezuzah veSefer Torah 6:1 ↩
6 siman 287 ↩
7 Hilchos Tefillin uMezuzah veSefer Torah 6:5 ↩
8 siman 400 ↩
9 See Chiddushei HaRim, Yoreh De'ah vol. 3, siman 286, se'if 14, that if they hold that the Amoraim disagree as to the halacha and we follow the stringency, one is compelled to explain that they hold like Rashi's second explanation, or another explanation such as the Yere'im's words 'a place cut out'. For one cannot say that they explain tikrah as the lintel and shakofei as the doorposts and are stringent that whichever it is, it is obligated — for without any doorpost at all it is obviously exempt ↩
10 Beginning of siman 287, and so too in the Tur ↩
11 siman 287, se'if 1 ↩
[34] (Halacha 452)
We learned in the previous halacha that the doorway obligated in a mezuzah is only a doorway that has doorposts.
Question: Can the end of a wall be considered a doorpost of the doorway?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Menachos1 states: 'Ameimar said: A doorway in a corner is obligated in a mezuzah. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But it has no doorposts! He said to him: These are its doorposts.'
However, the Rishonim disagree about the explanation of this Gemara. Rashi explains: 'In a corner — in the corner of the house. But it has no doorposts — only the ends of the walls. These — that is to say, these ends of the walls are themselves the doorposts.' [See Diagram A].
The Rosh2, however, explains that it is not specifically in a corner, but rather: 'For example, where the doorway fills the entire eastern side and reaches from north to south. But it has no doorposts — only the northern and southern walls of the house. These are truly doorposts — even though they do not look like doorposts but are the walls of the house that extend up to there, nevertheless they are doorposts.' [See Diagram B].
The Rif cites this statement as halacha. The Rambam, however, omits this halacha, and the Beis Yosef3 writes to explain: 'He omitted that of the doorway in a corner, and perhaps the reason is that it is self-evident that the ends of the walls are considered doorposts.'4. From the words of the Beis Yosef it appears that he inclines to say that the Rambam holds that the ends of walls are considered doorposts.
Maran the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch does not cite this statement. Some have inferred5 from the omission of the halacha that the Mechaber holds that the ends of walls are not considered doorposts of the doorway.
However, many Acharonim cite this law as halacha, as is explained in the Taz6, the Chayei Adam7, and the Ben Ish Chai8.
Therefore, the poskim of our time write9 that in practice one should take the words of the Rosh and the Tur into account and affix a mezuzah, but without a bracha, in order to take into account the opinions that exempt it from a mezuzah.
However, it is important to note several important points:
A. As we have learned, the obligation of a doorway applies only when there is an upper lintel; therefore in our case too, the side that obligates applies only when there is an upper lintel. But according to those opinions that consider the ends of the walls as doorposts of the doorway, they likewise consider the end of the ceiling as an upper lintel. However, if there is no upper lintel or end of a ceiling adjacent to these doorposts, it is exempt.
B. The Prishah10 writes on the words of the Tur: 'And it is speaking where it has a door standing in place of the fourth partition ..' He means to say that even the opinions that obligate a mezuzah even when there is no door in the doorway [to be explained in a separate halacha] nevertheless hold that in our case a door is required.
C. The Mikdash Me'at11 writes that even according to the Rosh and the Tur, who obligate with the ends of walls, this is specifically when speaking of the ends of the walls of this room itself. But when it is the corner of another house: 'According to all opinions, the corner of the walls of the houses is not considered as doorposts, and it is exempt.' [See Diagram C].
D. When there is no end of a wall at the doorway, but rather the wall continues far to both sides, the poskim disagree whether, even though the wall is long, it is still considered according to the Rosh as the ends of the walls, which are considered doorposts of the doorway12. [See Diagram D].
If so, we have seen that sometimes the ends of a wall are considered doorposts of the doorway, but in such a case one should affix without a bracha
Notes:
1 34a ↩
2 Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah siman 14 ↩
3 Yoreh De'ah siman 287 ↩
4 However, the Aruch HaShulchan, Yoreh De'ah siman 287, se'if 6, asks: 'And it is very puzzling — how is it self-evident? For in the Gemara there Rav Ashi said "But it has no doorposts," and Ameimar said to him "These are its doorposts" — that the ends of the walls are the doorposts. Thus Ameimar introduced a novel ruling here ..' ↩
5 As the Aruch HaShulchan writes, ibid. 7: 'And my heart tells me that the Beis Yosef in the Shulchan Aruch retracted his words, and therefore did not cite this in the Shulchan Aruch; but according to the Rosh and the Tur one should be concerned; and see Shach s.k. 1' ↩
6 S.k. 1 ↩
7 Part 1, Klal 15:7 ↩
8 Year 2, Parshas Ki Savo siman 13 ↩
9 Chovas HaDar ch. 7, s.k. 6. Sha'arei HaMezuzah 11:16, Pischei Mezuzos 287, s.k. 2 ↩
10 S.k. 3, and see Sha'arei HaMezuzah ch. 11, note 38 ↩
11 S.k. 4 ↩
12 See at length in Sha'arei HaMezuzah ch. 11, note 35. And see Pischei Mezuzos p. 155 ↩
[35] (Halacha 453)
In the previous halacha we learned that for a doorway to be obligated in a mezuzah, it must have doorposts and a lintel.
Question: Is there a case in which a doorway that does not have two doorposts is obligated in a mezuzah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Menachos1 states: 'Rav Pappa came to the house of Mar Shmuel. He saw a certain doorway that had only one doorpost, on the left, and a mezuzah had been made for it. He said to him: In accordance with whom? In accordance with Rabbi Meir? Granted that Rabbi Meir said so — on the right. Did he say so on the left? .. What is the opinion of Rabbi Meir? As it was taught: A house that has only one doorpost — Rabbi Meir obligates it in a mezuzah, and the Chachamim exempt it. What is the reason of the Rabbanan? "מזוזות" ("doorposts") is written. What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? As it was taught: "מזוזות" ("doorposts") — I would understand the minimum of "doorposts" to be two. When it says "doorposts" in the second parshah, which is unnecessary, it is an inclusion after an inclusion, and an inclusion after an inclusion serves only to exclude; the verse reduced it to one doorpost — these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is not needed. When it says "על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות" ("on the lintel and on the two doorposts"), the word "two" is unnecessary; why then does it say "two"? This establishes a general principle: wherever "doorposts" is said, it means only one, until the verse specifies two for you.'
If so, we have seen in the Baraisa a dispute between the Chachamim and Rabbi Meir whether two doorposts are required for the obligation of a mezuzah, or whether even when there is only one doorpost, on the right side, it is obligated.
The Rif cites this dispute of the Tannaim but does not write whom the halacha follows. The Rambam, however, writes2: 'There are ten conditions in a house, and only then is one who lives in it obligated to make a mezuzah for it; if one of these conditions is lacking, it is exempt from a mezuzah. They are: .. that it have two doorposts, and that it have a lintel.'
And the Beis Yosef3 writes that: 'The Rambam ruled the halacha in accordance with the Chachamim, writing that a house is not obligated in a mezuzah until it has two doorposts.' If so, when a doorway has only one doorpost, it is exempt4.
The Rosh5, however, writes: 'And it appears that the halacha follows Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva concur with him. And so it is implied above, where it says "Granted that [Rabbi Meir] said so — on the right; did he say so on the left?" — implying that had the doorpost been on the right, he would have been satisfied that he acted in accordance with Rabbi Meir.'
And so writes the Tur6: 'A doorway that has only one doorpost, for example where on one side the wall continues beyond the doorway .. if the doorpost is on the right side it is obligated, and if it is on the left side it is exempt.'
If so, we have seen that the Rambam and the Rosh disagree about the ruling when there is a doorpost only on the right side.
As the halacha, the Mechaber rules7 in accordance with the words of the Rambam that: 'A doorway is obligated in a mezuzah only if it has two doorposts and a lintel.' It appears that he holds as he explained the words of the Rambam in his work, the Beis Yosef, that the halacha follows the Chachamim, and when there is only one doorpost it is exempt.
The Shach8, however, notes the Rishonim who disagree, and writes: 'Only if it has two doorposts, etc. And the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur is that even if it has only one doorpost, for example where on one side the thickness of the wall continues beyond the doorway, if the doorpost is on the right side it is obligated, and if on the left side it is exempt; and so is the opinion of Rabbeinu Yerucham at the end of Nesiv 21. And it appears that one should affix it without a bracha9.'
If so, in practice, when there is a doorpost only on the right side [see Diagram A], one should affix a mezuzah without a bracha10, and when it is the reverse and there is one only on the left side [see Diagram B], there is no need to affix one11.
Notes:
1 34a ↩
2 Hilchos Tefillin uMezuzah veSefer Torah 6:1 ↩
3 Yoreh De'ah siman 287 ↩
4 See the Divrei Chamudos (Hilchos Mezuzah, os 41), who raises a difficulty on the Tur, who also wrote 'that it have two doorposts', yet nevertheless ruled like the Rosh that the halacha follows Rabbi Meir, that it is obligated when there is a doorpost only on the right side. With difficulty, one could say that the Tur's intent is to exclude a case where it is entirely open on the left side; see below, note 10 ↩
5 Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah siman 14 ↩
6 Yoreh De'ah siman 287 ↩
7 siman 287, se'if 1 ↩
8 siman 287, s.k. 1. The Taz, s.k. 1, also cites the opinion of the Tur ↩
9 The plain meaning of the Shach's words is that when the doorpost is on the right side, one should affix without a bracha. And so writes the Rashash, Menachos 34a, and the Minchas Pittim siman 287, s.k. 1; and they note that what is written in the Ba'er Heitev — that the Shach's intent is that when the doorpost is on the left side one should affix without a bracha — is a scribal error. (But it should be noted that so too writes the Ben Ish Chai, Year 2, Parshas Ki Savo, os 12.) ↩
10 The Aruch HaShulchan (s.k. 8) and the Shevet HaLevi vol. 5, siman 160, write that it is obligated in a mezuzah only when on the left side there is a continuing wall; but if there is open air there, it is not considered a doorway at all. *[See Diagram C]* ↩
11 What was said — that if there is a doorpost only on the left side it is exempt — applies when the right-hand wall continues far beyond the doorpost on the left. But if it does not continue far (according to the opinion of the Rosh (which we learned yesterday) that the end of a wall is considered a doorpost), one could say that it is obligated in a mezuzah. And see the Da'as Kedoshim, s.k. 3, who was in doubt about this, and was in doubt whether the measure is four amos or three tefachim. *[See Diagram D]* ↩
[36] (Halacha 455)
Question: Is an arched doorway considered a doorway that requires a mezuzah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Yoma1 and in Eruvin2 states: 'It was taught in a Baraisa: An arch — Rabbi Meir obligates it in a mezuzah, and the Chachamim exempt it; and they agree that if its legs are ten, it is obligated in a mezuzah.' [The Gemara goes on to cite the words of Abaye, who explains when Rabbi Meir holds that there is an obligation.]
The halacha was ruled in accordance with the Chachamim3, but the Rishonim disagree as to the reason, and in which case the Chachamim said that an arched doorway is exempt from a mezuzah, as follows:
Rashi writes4: 'For there is no gateway without a width of four, and every arch narrows at its top to less than four. And they agree that if its legs are ten — before the curve begins and its width diminishes — it is obligated, for even if everything from ten upward is sealed, there is the measure of a doorway, ten in height by four in width.'
From Rashi's words it appears that the main reason the Chachamim exempt it from a mezuzah is that for an opening to be considered a doorway it must have a width of four tefachim at a height of ten tefachim, and when the curve reduces this width it is not considered a doorway and is exempt from a mezuzah.
The Rambam, however, writes there: 'A house that has a doorpost on each side and an arch like a bow over the two doorposts in place of the lintel — if the doorposts are ten tefachim high or more, it is obligated in a mezuzah, and if they are not ten tefachim, they are exempt, because it has no lintel.'
That is, the Rambam explains that the reason for the exemption is that when the doorposts are not ten tefachim high, they are not considered doorposts of the doorway apart from the arch, and if so this doorway has no lintel.
The commentators, however, disagree regarding Rashi's view — whether he disputes the ruling of the Rambam, that is, whether Rashi too agrees that there must be doorposts ten high in addition to the curve. The Ran5 understands Rashi to hold that there are two conditions for the mezuzah obligation: 1) a width of four at a height of ten; 2) in addition, there must be straight doorposts besides the curve; only that in explaining the words of the Chachamim he mentioned one of them. In his words: 'He mentioned one of the two, that is, that it curves, and a round doorway is not a doorway even if it is very high and wide; and apart from that, it is not four wide. And this is what is said shortly afterward: all agree that if it is ten high and four wide but its legs are not three, it is nothing, since its legs are not three — that is, even though it has a height of ten by a width of four, since the doorposts immediately begin to curve, so that they do not run straight even for three, it is nothing, for a round doorway is not a doorway.'
The Beis Yosef6, however, understood that Rashi disputes the Rambam, and wrote: 'Whereas according to Rashi's explanation, even if there are no two doorposts at all, but rather it begins to curve from the outset, if it has a height of ten by a width of four it is obligated.'
The practical difference in this dispute7 will be in a large gateway whose curve begins below ten tefachim: according to Rashi as understood by the Beis Yosef, the doorway is obligated in a mezuzah, but according to the Rambam and the Ran's understanding of Rashi8 this doorway is exempt from a mezuzah.
As for the halacha, the Mechaber writes9 in accordance with the view of the Rambam, in these words: 'A house that has a doorpost on each side, and an arch like a bow over the two doorposts in place of the lintel — if the doorposts are 10 tefachim high or more, it is obligated. And if it does not have 10 tefachim, it is exempt, because it has no lintel.'
The Taz10 and the Shach11, however, mention Rashi's view as understood by the Beis Yosef. And many Acharonim12 likewise hold that one should be stringent and affix a mezuzah in accordance with Rashi's view as well, but without a bracha.
Thus, as for the halacha, the Shulchan Aruch ruled like the Rambam that only when the doorway has doorposts [apart from the curve] ten tefachim high (according to Rav Chaim Na'eh, 80 cm) is it obligated in a mezuzah; but if it does not have doorposts of this height it is exempt from a mezuzah even if it is a large doorway. However, many of the Acharonim write to be stringent and affix one without a bracha on any doorway that has an opening four wide at a height of ten.
Notes:
1 11b ↩
2 11b ↩
3 See Rif, Hilchos Ketanos, Mezuzah 6a. Rambam, Hilchos Mezuzah 6:4. Tur Yoreh De'ah 287. [Regarding the view of the Rosh, the commentators disagree. The Beis Yosef remarks on the Tur: 'Although the Rosh wrote in his Piskei (Hilchos Ketanos §14) that it appears the halacha follows Rabbi Meir, our Rabbeinu [= the Tur] did not rely on this, and ruled here and in the Remazim (ibid. §15) like the Chachamim and in accordance with the view of the poskim. It appears that he held that even the Rosh did not say this as a halachic ruling, but only to say that it would seem one could say so; but in any case we would not set aside the general principle in our hands that in a dispute between an individual and the majority the halacha follows the majority (Brochos 9a) because of a slight proof he brought to say that the halacha follows Rabbi Meir.' However, the Maadanei Yom Tov (§50, and in Divrei Chamudos §41) takes issue with the Beis Yosef, holding that the Rosh was not speaking of a doorway made like an arch — in which he certainly ruled like the Chachamim — but of a doorway that has only one doorpost, which was explained in Halacha 453.] ↩
4 Yoma ibid., s.v. vaChachamim potrin ↩
5 In his Chiddushim, Eruvin 11b ↩
6 Yoreh De'ah 287 [who apparently did not see the words of the Ran] ↩
7 In addition, it is important to note that according to Rashi (Eruvin 11b, s.v. chayeves) the arch is not considered the upper lintel; rather, the upper lintel is the stones/ceiling above the curve (see also Shulei HaGilyon in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, §363, end of halacha 32). Some write that when there are no stones/ceiling above the curve, according to Rashi it would be exempt ↩
8 Except that according to the Ran the doorposts must be straight, whereas according to the Rambam it appears they need not be straight, but there must be doorposts apart from the arch. The practical difference is when the doorposts are curved but above them there is a straight upper lintel: according to the Rambam it is obligated, and according to the Ran it is exempt ↩
9 Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah 287:2 ↩
10 Ibid., s.k. 3 ↩
11 S.k. 2 ↩
12 Yad HaKetanah 3:2. Derech HaChaim §239:2. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch §11:12. Misgeres HaShulchan §11, s.k. 9 ↩
[37] (Halacha 456)
Question: Is a doorway without a door obligated in a mezuzah? (1)
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Menachos1 states: 'The Reish Galusa built a house. He said to Rav Nachman: Affix a mezuzah for me. Rav Nachman said: Hang the doors first.' The Rishonim disagree in explaining this Gemara, as follows:
The Rambam2 explained: 'The essence of the mitzvah was made dependent only on a gate [= a doorway with a door], as it says "על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך" ("upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates")'3 Therefore it was obvious to the Reish Galusa that doors are needed for the mezuzah obligation; rather, Rav Nachman told the Reish Galusa that the door should be installed before the mezuzah is affixed. In his words: 'And the Reish Galusa, who told Rav Nachman to affix a mezuzah for him on a doorway that had no doors — this does not mean that he thought the mezuzah obligation rests on the doorway alone; rather, since he had set up the doorpost, he told Rav Nachman to put the mezuzah on the doorway and afterward he would set up the doors,' for 'although the writing is placed on the doorpost, it is not put up until the door is in place, for the obligation is only on the doorpost of a gate, as we have explained, and not on a mere doorpost.' That is, Rav Nachman's words come to say that the door should be attached before the mezuzah is affixed.
Rashi4, however, writes that Rav Nachman was speaking not about the doors but about the doorposts of the doorway: Rav Nachman did not want to affix the mezuzah on the doorpost before the doorpost was set in its place. In his words: 'Set the doorpost into the building first, and afterward affix the mezuzos, for we learn from tzitzis, where it is written "תעשה" — and not from what is already made; and if I first affix the mezuzah on the doorpost and only then set the doorpost into the building, the mezuzah would have been made before it came to the mitzvah.' That is, Rav Nachman comes to say that one should not affix the mezuzah on the doorposts before they are attached, since then there is a problem of "taaseh velo min he'asui."
The Tosafos5 explained it in yet another way: 'It appears to explain that this house which the Reish Galusa built was, for example, a doorway between the men's quarters and the women's quarters, through which one goes up, and because of the indication of the hinge he told him: Hang the door first — from my teacher.' And so wrote the Ra'avad on the Rambam cited below: 'Says Avraham: that it must have doors was said only because of the indication of the hinge, and in a gate between two houses, both of which have an exit on either side, its entrance to the middle gate is recognizable only by the indication of its hinge; therefore he told him, Affix the doors first. End of quote.' And so the Rosh6 explained the words of the Gemara. That is, Rav Nachman comes to say that before the door is installed there is no indication of the hinge, so that it is not known on which side the mezuzah must be affixed; therefore he asked that the doors be attached first.
Thus the Rishonim disagree in explaining the Gemara: whether Rav Nachman asked to install the doors first because without a door it is exempt from a mezuzah, or whether there was a different reason for which Rav Nachman did not want to affix it.
This disagreement in understanding the Gemara is also a disagreement in practice, for the Rambam in Hilchos Mezuzah7 ruled in accordance with his understanding of the Gemara and wrote among the conditions a house requires in order to be obligated in a mezuzah: 'And it must have doors.' The Rosh8, however, took issue with him and wrote: 'I do not know from where he derives this, for we have found an exemption only for "pischei shima'ei," which have no ceiling or no lintel. But for a doorway made properly, we have not found that the door is indispensable.'
Thus we have seen the words of the Gemara and the disagreement of the Rishonim as to whether the Gemara indicates that the mezuzah obligation applies specifically when there are doors. Tomorrow, with Hashem's help, we will see the words of the poskim as practical halacha.
Notes:
1 33a ↩
2 In his responsum to the sages of Lunel, in Shu"t Pe'er HaDor §20. And see what his son Rabbi Avraham wrote in Shu"t Birkas Avraham §41 ↩
3 He explains his words: 'Do you not know that the essence of the mitzvah was made dependent only on a gate, as it says "על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך" ("upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates")? Are we to place it in two places, on the doorpost and on the gate? Rather, this is what it says: on the doorposts of your house and on the doorposts of all your gates. And so Chazal said: "both the gates of houses and the gates of cities," and they did not say "both the doorways of houses," for any doorway that has no doors is called a doorway; it is not called a gate.' ↩
4 Ibid., s.v. tali ↩
5 Ibid., s.v. tali ↩
6 Hilchos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah §8 ↩
7 6:1 ↩
8 Hilchos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah §8 ↩
[38] (Halacha 457)
In the previous halacha we saw the disagreement of the Rishonim regarding a doorway that has no door: according to the Rambam the doorway is exempt from a mezuzah, and according to the Rosh it is obligated in a mezuzah.
Question: What is the halachic ruling? (2)
Answer: The Beis Yosef writes1: 'As for the halacha, although the words of the Rambam appear correct, since Rashi, Tosafos, the Rosh and the Ra'avad disagree with him, and they are the stringent view2, that is how we hold.'
In practice the Mechaber writes3: 'A house, even though it has no doors, is obligated in a mezuzah; and there is one who exempts it.'
That is, the Mechaber wrote the view of the Rosh, that it is obligated in a mezuzah, as an unattributed ruling (stam), and afterward the words of the Rambam in the language "there is one who exempts." And we hold that where there is a stam ruling followed by "some say," the halacha follows the stam. Thus, according to halacha, a doorway without a door is obligated in a mezuzah.
However, there is room to discuss the matter of the bracha, for the Acharonim disagree regarding the principles of Maran the Mechaber when he writes a halacha as stam and afterward "some say": since the halacha follows the stam, for what reason did he also cite the opinion of "there is one who says"? The Rema of Fano explains4: 'That which he first ruled stam in accordance with the view of the Geonim to permit is a complete and absolute ruling according to his reasoning, and he mentioned the second reasoning only to pay respect to its proponents, for they too are great and many, and in many places the minhag has spread to prohibit in accordance with them.' Accordingly, in our case, according to the Shulchan Aruch one should recite a bracha on affixing a mezuzah even when there is no door5. But some write that when he cites "some say," it is in order to take into account, l'chatchilah, the opinion of the "some say" as well6, and therefore in this case it would seem that one should take the Rambam's view into account and not recite a bracha7.
In our case, however, we find that even the poskim who understood the Mechaber's intent to be to rule (in the stam) in accordance with the view of the Rosh and those with him — that it is obligated with a bracha — nevertheless8 hold that as practical halacha one should not recite a bracha.
The Shach writes9: '"And there is one who exempts." And if he affixed it before hanging the door, he has not fulfilled his obligation when he puts in the door afterward, for it is "taaseh velo min he'asui" — end of quote from the Ateres Zahav. To satisfy both views, he should hang the door in it immediately and affix it; and if it is impossible to hang it immediately, he should affix it without a bracha, or recite the bracha first on another one and have this one in mind as well; and when he hangs the door in it, he should remove it and affix it again without a bracha, or recite a bracha on another one and have this one in mind as well. In this way he satisfies all views. Consider this carefully.'
Thus, in practice, when there is a doorway that currently has no door, but the plan is to attach a door there later, one should wait and not affix the mezuzah until the door is attached, and only then affix it with a bracha. But if it is a doorway that will remain this way without a door, one should first recite the bracha on affixing a mezuzah on another door, and immediately afterward affix this mezuzah without a bracha. And if he has no other door on which to affix a mezuzah, he should affix the mezuzah on this doorway without a bracha10.
Question: What is the law for a doorway without a door, but where a curtain covering the doorway is fixed in place?
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw that the Rambam based his view on the fact that the Torah said "ובשעריך" ("and upon your gates"), and a gate is where there is a door, while without a door it is called only a doorway. But Rabbi Daniel HaBavli asked Rabbi Avraham son of the Rambam11: 'This matter is difficult for me, for we find a gate that has no doors and is called a gate, as it is written "ומסך פתח שער החצר" ("and the screen for the entrance of the gate of the courtyard"), and although the courtyard had no doors it is called a gate.' Rabbi Avraham answered him: '"ומסך פתח שער החצר" ("And the screen for the entrance of the gate of the courtyard") — the screen corresponds to the doors; therefore it is called a gate. Moreover, it is written "entrance," which is unlike "and upon your gates," where there is no mention of a doorway at all; and the meaning of the verse is simple: the screen that is over the entrance, which is in place of the gate of the courtyard.'
Some have learned from his words12 that a curtain too is considered a gate, and therefore when there is a fixed curtain covering the doorway it will be obligated in a mezuzah even according to the Rambam. And so several of the Acharonim have written in practice13.
Thus, for a doorway without a door but which has a curtain that is attached well and securely and covers the doorway, one should recite a bracha on affixing the mezuzah
Notes:
1 §286 ↩
2 The Divrei Chamudos (Hilchos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah §8) writes: 'And although a stringency that leads to a leniency is a bracha levatalah, this is no difficulty, for in any case it is a stringency regarding a mitzvah that is from the Torah; and in the Shulchan Aruch he did not refrain from also writing the view of the Rambam.' ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah 286:15 ↩
4 See Shu"t HaRema of Fano §97; Chelkas Mechokek Even HaEzer 1, s.k. 11 ↩
5 See Halichos Olam vol. 8, Hilchos Mezuzah 8, and the sources cited there. See also Mevo HaShulchan ch. 10, note 3. And see also the Divrei Chamudos regarding the words of the Beis Yosef, cited above in note 2 ↩
6 See Kaf HaChaim §13, s.k. 7 ↩
7 See the sefer Vaya'an Shmuel vol. 5 §23 ↩
8 Either because we apply "safek brochos lehakel" even against the words of the Mechaber, or (because although it is a doubt regarding a mitzvah and not regarding a bracha, and when the essence of the mitzvah is valid according to the Mechaber we do not apply "safek brochos lehakel," nevertheless) here there are additional Rishonim, who were not before the Mechaber, who also ruled like the Rambam. See at length in the sefer Mevo HaShulchan ibid. ↩
9 S.k. 25 ↩
10 See Ben Ish Chai, Year 2, Ki Savo 19. Chovas HaDar 7:17 ↩
11 Shu"t Birkas Avraham §41 ↩
12 Mezuzos Beisecha §286, Sha'ar HaTziyun s.k. 120. But see Amudei Eish (Eisenstein) §16 os 49 ↩
13 See Sha'arei HaMezuzah ch. 11 os 41. Sefer HaMezuzah ch. 7 os 63. [Especially since, as mentioned above, the main halachic view is that the halacha follows the Rosh; and with a curtain there is the additional factor that even according to the Rambam there are those who obligate it, and this is a doubt regarding the mitzvah and not regarding the bracha.] But see Pischei Mezuzos p. 46 ↩
[39] (Halacha 458)
Taaseh velo min he'asui (1)
Question: Does the disqualification of 'taaseh velo min he'asui' apply to a mezuzah [that is, that a person must perform the mitzvah — for example, tie the tzitzis onto a four-cornered garment — and not that the thing come about by itself, such as when one tied tzitzis onto a garment with three corners and afterward made a fourth corner on the garment]?
Answer: In Halacha 456 we learned the Gemara in Maseches Menachos1, which states: 'The Reish Galusa built a house. He said to Rav Nachman: Affix a mezuzah for me. Rav Nachman said: Hang the doors first.' And we saw that the Rishonim disagree in explaining this sugya [and there we dealt with the Rambam's view regarding a doorway without a door].
Rashi there explained that Rav Nachman did not want to affix the mezuzah on the doorpost before the doorpost was set in its place, because of the concern of 'taaseh velo min he'asui'2. In his words: 'Set the doorpost into the building first, and afterward affix the mezuzos, for we learn from tzitzis, where it is written "תעשה" — and not from what is already made; and if I first affix the mezuzah on the doorpost and only then set the doorpost into the building, the mezuzah would have been made before it came to the mitzvah.'3.
From Rashi's words it appears that this is a full derivation: just as with tzitzis this law is derived from the pasuk in which the Torah said "גדילים תעשה לך" ("You shall make for yourself twisted fringes"), so we learn from tzitzis regarding mezuzah as well, even though regarding mezuzah the Torah does not use the language of making4.
Further on, the Gemara there5 says: 'It was taught: If he set up for it a frame of reeds, he cuts a tube and places it [inside]. Rav Acha son of Rava said: They taught this only where he set it up and afterward cut and placed it; but if he cut and placed it and afterward set it up, it is invalid — "taaseh velo min he'asui."'
The Yere'im writes on this6: 'It was taught: If he set up for it a frame of reeds, he cuts a tube and places it. Rav Achai son of Rava said: They taught this only where he set it up and afterward cut; but if he cut and placed it and afterward set it up, it is invalid because of "taaseh velo min he'asui." Explanation: "וכתבתם על מזוזות" ("And you shall write them upon the doorposts") — and not that it is already written and placed.'7.
The Mabit, however, in Kiryas Sefer8 writes on the words of the Gemara that the disqualification of taaseh velo min he'asui regarding mezuzah is rabbinic. In his words: 'If he cut a reed and inserted a mezuzah into it, and afterward joined the reed to other reeds and made the doorposts of the doorway out of all of them, it is invalid, because the affixing of the mezuzah preceded the making of the doorpost of the doorway; and regarding tzitzis it is written "תעשה" and we expound "and not from what is already made," and we learn from it. And it appears that this is rabbinic, for from what would it be derived? There is neither a gezeirah shavah nor a hekesh.'
Thus we have seen that with a mezuzah too there is a disqualification of taaseh velo min he'asui; but they disagree whether it is Biblical — learned from tzitzis, or derived from the command "וכתבתם" ("and you shall write them") — or whether it is only a rabbinic law.
It is also cited as halacha in the Shulchan Aruch9: 'If he affixed it on the doorposts of the doorway while it was still detached, and afterward attached it to the doorway, it is invalid.' And the commentators explain10 that this is because of taaseh velo min he'asui.
However, regarding affixing the mezuzah on a piece of wood and affixing the piece of wood on the doorpost, the sefer Yad HaKetanah writes11: 'Where it is impossible to affix the mezuzah on the doorpost itself — for example, where the doorposts of the house are of marble stones and the like, and one must devise a means of fixing there a piece of wooden board like a square plaque, so that it will be possible to affix the mezuzah on this plaque — it appears in my humble opinion that in such a case, if he affixed the mezuzah first on the plaque and afterward affixed the plaque with the mezuzah on the stone doorpost, there is no issue of taaseh velo min he'asui, and it is valid, because certainly the plaque does not have the status of a doorpost of the house at all, for it is merely a plaque... and it is as if he put the mezuzah in a large case and affixed it in its case on the doorpost itself...'
Thus we have learned that one should take care to affix the mezuzah on the doorpost when it is already fixed in place, and not to affix the mezuzah on the doorposts while they are separate and then attach them to the building.
--------------
Notes:
1 33a ↩
2 It should be noted that even according to the Rambam's explanation of the sugya there — that the deficiency is that a doorway without a door is exempt from a mezuzah — Rav Nachman asked that the doors be attached first, and not that the mezuzah become valid retroactively afterward when a door is installed. As Rabbeinu Yehudah ben Kalonymus of Speyer writes in Erchei Tanna'im VeAmora'im, Rabbi Yaakov (2): 'It is puzzling: where do we find in mezuzah the exclusion of "taaseh velo min he'asui"? It appears that because it is written "וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך" ("And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates"), this implies that the doorposts and gates should already be fixed at the time of writing, and without a door it is considered neither a doorway nor a gate.' And so writes the Levush, Yoreh De'ah 286:15, cited in the Shach s.k. 25. (And note what the Sfas Emes writes in his Chiddushim on Yoreh De'ah 286 (printed under the name Chiddushei HaRim, Yoreh De'ah), that the installation of the door is not indispensable, but it suffices that he affixed it on a doorway designated for a door to be placed in it; but from the words of Rabbeinu Yehudah cited above it is evident that this is not so.) ↩
3 However, Rabbeinu Yerucham (Toldos Adam VeChavah, Nesiv 21:7) writes: 'And the Ba'alei HaTosafos challenged him and wrote that it is valid.' But the Beis Yosef (§289) writes: 'His words are not correct, for it never entered the mind of the Ba'alei HaTosafos, nor of anyone, to validate it, for Rav Acha son of Rava explicitly invalidates it, and Rabbeinu Yerucham himself wrote this there (180, beginning of side a); and Tosafos did not disagree with Rashi in the case of the Reish Galusa who built a house except regarding the explanation, not regarding the law.' ↩
4 See Rashi, Sukkah 11b, s.v. veyalfinan. And Pnei Yehoshua, Sukkah 11b, s.v. baGemara. See also the Nimukei Yosef and Rabbeinu Yehonasan of Lunel on the Rif, Hilchos Mezuzah 5b ↩
5 33b ↩
6 §400 ↩
7 See Levush, Yoreh De'ah 289:5: 'If he affixed it on the doorpost of the doorway while it was still detached and afterward attached it to the doorway, it is invalid because of the disqualification of "taaseh velo min he'asui" — that is, this is similar to the "taaseh velo min he'asui" stated regarding sukkah, for here too it is written [Devarim 6:9] "וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך" ("And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house"), which implies that you should affix them on the doorpost when it is embedded in the building of your house, and not that you should affix them on the doorpost and afterward embed the doorpost in the building of your house, for that is not within the meaning of "And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house."' ↩
8 Hilchos Mezuzah ch. 5 ↩
9 §289:5 ↩
10 See the Beis Yosef ibid., and the Taz s.k. 5, Shach s.k. 8. [However, it should be noted that it appears from the Acharonim that they explain the words of the poskim and the Shulchan Aruch regarding the disqualification of taaseh velo min he'asui (not only in a case where before the doorpost is attached there is no mezuzah obligation, in which case there is certainly a deficiency in his act, but) even where there is already a mezuzah obligation, and he affixed the mezuzah together with the doorposts — nevertheless there is a deficiency of taaseh velo min he'asui. This requires further study to find a clear source for the words of the Acharonim.] ↩
11 Ch. 3 of Hilchos Mezuzah, os 18, cited in the Pischei Teshuvah ↩
[41] (Halacha 461)
Fifty years of Mivtza Mezuzah, 5734 – 5784.
Question: Is a house owned by partners obligated in a mezuzah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Yoma1: 'The Rabbis taught: A shul, a woman's house, and a house of partners are obligated in a mezuzah. — This is obvious! — You might have said: "your house" — and not her house; "your house" — and not their houses. It teaches us otherwise. — But say that it is indeed so! — The verse says "למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם" ("That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children"): do these need life, and those do not need life? — Then why do I need "your house"? — As Rava taught. For Rava said: The way you enter; for when a person lifts his foot, he lifts the right foot first.'
This Gemara is also cited in Chullin2, and the Rashba asks in his Chiddushim3: '"Your house" — the way you enter. And if you ask: why do we not say "your house" to exclude a partnership with a non-Jew, as we say in all those cases above? It appears to me that this is because mezuzah is an obligation of the resident and is made for protection, and even in a partnership with a non-Jew, the Jew who lives in it needs protection.' And so writes the Ritva, adding: 'For even if the entire house belonged to a non-Jew and a Jew lived in it, it is obligated in a mezuzah, as we hold that mezuzah is an obligation of the resident, and a Jew needs protection everywhere.'
Thus, according to the Rashba and the Ritva, a house held in partnership with a non-Jew is also obligated in a mezuzah when the Jew lives in it.
The Mordechai4, however, writes: 'Rabbi Avigdor asked Rabbi Chaim whether a house in which a Jew and a non-Jew are partners is obligated in a mezuzah... perhaps... the verse included only partners who are both Jews, since the Torah was concerned with the lengthening of their days... And this is what he replied: I say, in my limited understanding, since the master has given me permission, that it appears to me that a house in which a Jew and a non-Jew are partners is exempt from a mezuzah... Regarding mezuzah, since the non-Jew has a share in the house itself and in the gate, and a non-Jew is not subject to a mezuzah, there is not a complete house here to be obligated in a mezuzah; and we require a complete house regarding mezuzah, for in the first chapter of Sukkah we exclude a house that does not have four amos, and likewise we require a complete gate; and when you remove the non-Jew's share, it is half a house and lacking.'
Thus the Rishonim disagree whether a house in which a Jew lives and in which a non-Jew has a partnership is obligated in a mezuzah.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains5: 'It appears to me that regarding a partnership of a non-Jew and a Jew, one may say that it depends on the two reasonings mentioned above: if we say that "your house" does not require that it be literally yours, and it depends only on residence, and it is an obligation of the resident to protect him, then a partnership with a non-Jew is likewise obligated in a mezuzah, for ultimately protection is needed since he lives in it. But if we say that "your house" requires that it be yours, one may say that a partnership with a non-Jew is exempt, for it is not exclusively your house, like all those cases at the beginning of the chapter Reishis HaGez; see there.'
We find another Gemara on this matter, in Maseches Yoma6: 'The Rabbis taught: "ובשעריך" ("and upon your gates") — whether the gates of houses, the gates of courtyards, the gates of provinces, or the gates of towns, there is an obligation of a mitzvah to the Omnipresent in them, because it says "וכתבתם על מזזות ביתך ובשעריך" ("And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates"). Abaye said to Rav Safra: These gates of Mechoza — what is the reason the Rabbis did not make a mezuzah for them? ... Rather, Abaye said: Because of danger.'
And Rashi writes: "The gates of Mechoza" — the gates of the city named Mechoza, and most of its inhabitants were Jews.
The Aguddah writes7: 'When the gates were made on the [Jewish] street in Cologne, I asked my teachers in the Upper Galil whether a mezuzah should be made, and they did not answer me; and it was in my mind to spend [money] on this, for with Hashem's help they were built at my direction. And I observed that the gates of the community of Worms had no mezuzah, and I took it to heart. A student also reminded me of those gates of Mechoza, which were exempt because of danger; so too, since Kusim live within it, and the council house8 is within the street, it is exempt.'
[It appears from their words that the case of the gates of provinces and towns applies even when Jews and non-Jews live in them together. And Rashi's view is that only when there is a Jewish majority is it obligated. Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains there: 'It appears to me that one can infer that Rashi too holds that a partnership with a non-Jew is exempt, from what he wrote in Yoma (11a), s.v. hanei avulei deMechoza: "the gates of the city named Mechoza, and most of its inhabitants were Jews" — which implies that if they were half and half, and all the more so if most were non-Jews, it would be exempt; and necessarily this is because a partnership with a non-Jew is exempt from a mezuzah.' ... And when there is a majority, 'one must say that since presumably it is called after the majority, it appears as if the entire city belongs to Jews, and non-Jews are given general permission to live in it and to come and go, and it is as if they are renting or borrowing from Jews; and this still requires study.'
The Ohr Same'ach9, however, disagrees with the words of Rabbi Akiva Eiger and explains that Rashi's words were said not regarding a residence but specifically regarding 'the gates of provinces and the gates of towns, which are made so that through them one enters a dwelling house, and their obligation is not intrinsic. If so, look to whom the gate pertains: if the majority are Jews, it is considered as if through them one enters the dwelling houses of Jews, and they are obligated in a mezuzah, and it is called "your gates," for the minority is set aside as if it does not exist — for is that gate not needed for the houses of Jews, and does it not pertain only to their houses? But when the majority are non-Jews, through it one enters the dwelling houses of non-Jews, and it is like the gate of a non-Jewish province, for this gate was made with the majority in mind.'
Thus the Acharonim disagree whether one may learn from the sugya of the gates of provinces and towns regarding the case of a house of partners.]
Thus we have seen that a house of Jewish partners is obligated, and the Rishonim disagree whether there is a mezuzah obligation when a Jew lives in a house in partnership with a non-Jew. Tomorrow we will learn the ruling of the poskim in practice, and what follows from it regarding shared buildings and the like.
--------------
Notes:
1 11b ↩
2 135b. There, there is an additional derivation for the obligation of partners from the inclusion "למען ירבו ימיכם" ("That your days may be multiplied") (see Rashi there, s.v. bekarcha, regarding a bechor). And see the Rashash, and Aruch HaShulchan §286:2 ↩
3 And Tosafos asks similarly, s.v. beisecha ↩
4 Chullin ch. 8, remez 740 ↩
5 Shu"t Mahadura Kamma §66 ↩
6 11a ↩
7 Yoma ch. 1 §1 ↩
8 In the Brizel edition of the Aguddah it reads: 'the council house, that is, the government house' ↩
9 Hilchos Mezuzah 6:7 ↩
[42] (Halacha 462)
A house of partners (2)
In the previous halacha, number 461, we learned that a house of partners is obligated in a mezuzah, but the Rishonim disagree whether a Jew who lives in partnership with a non-Jew is obligated in a mezuzah: according to the Rashba and the Ritva it is obligated, but the Mordechai cites a view that exempts it.
In addition, we saw the words of the Gemara and the Rishonim who wrote regarding the gates of provinces and towns that when there is a concern of danger one should not affix [a mezuzah].
Question: What is the halachic ruling in this matter?
Answer: The Beis Yosef writes in Bedek HaBayis1 that we hold like the words of the Rashba and not like the Mordechai. Likewise, in the Shulchan Aruch2 he did not write that a partnership with a non-Jew exempts; rather, he wrote without qualification: 'These are the places that are obligated in a mezuzah: the gates of houses and the gates of courtyards, provinces and towns... and a house of partners — all of them are obligated.'
Thus it appears from the plain meaning of the Mechaber's words that with partners one must affix a mezuzah, with a bracha; and likewise the gates of towns are obligated in a mezuzah even where not everyone is Jewish. [The Maharshal3 also ruled in accordance with the Mechaber that in a partnership with a non-Jew there is a mezuzah obligation.]
However, regarding a case where there is danger in affixing [mezuzos] on the gates of towns, the Shulchan Aruch did not address it; but in his sefer Beis Yosef and in Bedek HaBayis4 he cites the words of the Aguddah and the Orchos Chaim that one should not affix when there is a concern of danger.
See also the Bach5, who writes: 'For this reason too, a mezuzah is not made on the gates of our streets, such as in Cracow and in Prague, where gates were installed in the Jewish streets and are closed at night, and they never affixed a mezuzah on them. The reason is because of danger, for the libels of the ruler are always ready against the haters of Israel... And for another reason as well a mezuzah is not made there, since the non-Jews would certainly take it and desecrate it, and if so they would cause disgrace to the holy writings.'
The Rema, however, in his gloss there, disagrees with the words of the Mechaber regarding a non-Jewish partner and writes: 'This applies specifically when the house of partners belongs to Jews; but a house belonging to a Jew and a non-Jew is exempt from a mezuzah6; and likewise courtyards or towns in which some non-Jews live are exempt from a mezuzah.'
The Acharonim explain the words of the Rema [and so it appears from his words in the Darchei Moshe and in his responsa7] that regarding a house of partners he rules halachically like the words of the Mordechai8, and the Rema's words exempting the gates of courtyards and towns even when the majority are Jews refer to a case where there is a concern of danger9.
Thus we have seen that when there is a house of Jewish partners, all agree that it is obligated in a mezuzah; but in a house with a non-Jewish partner the poskim disagree: the Mechaber holds that it is obligated in a mezuzah, but according to the Rema it is exempt. However, in a situation where there is a concern of danger, all agree that it is not obligated.
In practice, regarding a house with a non-Jewish partner, the Acharonim write to take into account both the view of the Mechaber and the view of the Rema, and therefore to affix a mezuzah but without a bracha.
This is also how Sephardic poskim who follow the Mechaber's approach ruled, as Maran the Chida writes in Birkei Yosef10: 'As for the halacha, it appears that if the non-Jew who lives with him and is his partner in the house is known to him not to steal the mezuzah to desecrate it, and there is no danger at all, the Jew should put a mezuzah in his house, even though there is a non-Jewish partner, and he should not recite a bracha, as stated above11.'
On the other hand, in the words of the Ashkenazi poskim too we find that they (challenged the Mordechai, expressed surprise at the Rema, and) wrote that one should affix a mezuzah, as the Aruch HaShulchan writes12: 'I am surprised that he ruled so halachically... and all the words of the Mordechai there were refuted by the Yam Shel Shlomo with good reasoning; see there. Therefore it appears to me in my humble opinion, as a matter of law, that since it is a Biblical doubt, a courtyard in which Jews and non-Jews live is obligated in a mezuzah — unless the non-Jews do not allow it and tear it out; but we have seen with our own eyes that they allow a mezuzah to be affixed and are not particular...'
Thus, as for the halacha, when one lives in a house with a non-Jewish partner, one should affix a mezuzah, but without a bracha13.
Notes:
1 §286 ↩
2 286:1 ↩
3 Yam Shel Shlomo, Chullin ch. 11 os 2 ↩
4 End of §286 ↩
5 §286 ↩
6 But see Shu"t Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Mahadura Kamma §66: 'There is still room to discuss in our case: if the cellar is not subject to division, and sometimes this one uses all of it and sometimes that one, then in such a case, if it truly belonged to a Jew and a non-Jew in partnership, there would be room to argue that it is obligated in a mezuzah... If the law were so, then the same would apply to a Jew and a non-Jew who rented a house in partnership which is not subject to division and which they use at separate times, that it is obligated in a mezuzah, for it appears to be literally theirs, and it is obligated by the principle of bererah.' ↩
7 Shu"t HaRema §132 os 6 ↩
8 As for the reason for the exemption, the Taz (s.k. 4) writes in accordance with the words of the questioner in the Mordechai: 'For partnership is included from what is written "ירבו ימיכם" ("That your days may be multiplied"), and regarding a non-Jew one cannot say so'; but the Shach (s.k. 6) writes in accordance with the words of the responsum in the Mordechai: 'Since part of it belongs to a non-Jew.' ↩
9 See the Taz s.k. 3, and the Shach ibid. And see the dispute between Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Ohr Same'ach in explaining the reason for the obligation when the majority are Jews, cited in the previous halacha ↩
10 §286 s.k. 2 ↩
11 And see the Ben Ish Chai, Year 2, Parshas Ki Savo os 22, who writes that there are places in his region where they did not affix, relying on the view of the Rema ↩
12 Yoreh De'ah §286:2. * ↩
13 It is important to clarify that this refers to the rooms in which they are partners, and not where the Jew has a room of his own* ↩
[43] (Halacha 466)
Jubilee of Mivtza Mezuzah, 5734 - 5784
A house owned by partners (3)
Question: Is the entrance of a building obligated in a mezuzah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Yoma1 states: 'But it was taught: "בשעריך" ("Your gates") — whether the gates of houses, the gates of courtyards, the gates of provinces, or the gates of towns .. are obligated in a mezuzah. I might think that I include also a gatehouse, an exedra and a balcony — therefore the verse says "בית" ("house"): just as a house is designated for dwelling, these are excluded, since they are not designated for dwelling.'
Rashi explains there: 'Gatehouse: a small structure in front of the courtyard gate, which everyone uses as a shortcut. Balcony: alrod [= a gallery along the side of the courtyard of the house that serves as an entryway to the dwellings on that floor], and it is long, in front of the doorways of many upper stories, and all go up by way of it. Exedra — a corridor in front of houses.'
From the words of the Gemara and Rashi's explanation it appears that there is no obligation of a mezuzah in an entrance room or corridor serving as a passageway when it itself does not serve as a house.
On the other hand, the Gemara in Maseches Menachos2 states: 'A gatehouse, an exedra and a balcony are obligated in a mezuzah.'
In resolving the contradiction between the Gemaras regarding a gatehouse, we find two
approaches in the words of the Rishonim:
A) The Rif3 writes: 'And if you find difficult that which was taught, that a gatehouse, an exedra and a balcony are obligated in a mezuzah — there it refers to where houses open into them.'4.
And so writes the Rambam5: 'A gatehouse, an exedra, a balcony, a garden and a pen are exempt from a mezuzah, because they are not made for dwelling. If houses that are obligated in a mezuzah open into these places, they are obligated in a mezuzah. Therefore6 the gates of courtyards, the gates of alleyways, and the gates of provinces and towns are all obligated in a mezuzah, since the houses that are obligated in a mezuzah open into them. Even if there are ten houses, this one opening into that one and that one opening into another, since the innermost is obligated in a mezuzah, they are all obligated. And for this reason they said that a gate opening from a garden into a courtyard is obligated in a mezuzah.'
If so, according to this opinion, a gatehouse and an exedra are in themselves exempt from a mezuzah, unless they open into a house, in which case the obligation from the houses applies to them.
B) Tosafos7 write: 'And one can answer that here it speaks Biblically, and there Rabbinically.' And so writes Rashi8: 'And let it be like an inner gatehouse — for we hold in Menachos, in the chapter HaKometz Rabbah, that it is obligated in a mezuzah Rabbinically. Gatehouse — porch [= a small structure at the entrance of the house, in the vernacular], that is in front of the house.'
That is, according to the opinion of Rashi and Tosafos, even though a gatehouse and an exedra are in themselves exempt, nevertheless there is a Rabbinic obligation upon them (even when no houses open into them. The Ran9, however, explains the Gemara like Rashi and Tosafos, but writes that the Rabbinic obligation applies only when houses open into them).
If so, the Rishonim disagree about this law: some obligate only when one enters from the gatehouse into an obligated house, and some write that every gatehouse is obligated (Rabbinically).
The Tur10 cites the obligation of a mezuzah on the gates of the city and the courtyard, and regarding a gatehouse he cites both opinions. In his words: 'These are the places that are obligated in a mezuzah: the gates of houses, and the gates of courtyards and provinces .. and a gatehouse and a garden are exempt; and if a house opens into one of these, it is obligated, even at the place where one enters it from the public domain, except for the place where one enters it from the house. And the Ri explains that a gatehouse is obligated Rabbinically even if no house opens into it.'
And the Beis Yosef writes: 'As to the halacha, since the Rif and the Rambam agree on one opinion, that is how we hold; nevertheless it is proper to take into account the words of the Ri and Rashi.'
And so rules the Mechaber11, who first cites the law of the obligation of the gates of the city and the courtyard, writing: 'These are the places that are obligated in a mezuzah: the gates of houses, and the gates of courtyards, provinces and towns.' And regarding a gatehouse he writes12: 'A balcony, which is a way to go up by it to the upper stories, and a gatehouse and a garden, are exempt. And if a house opens into one of these, they are obligated. And some say that a gatehouse is obligated even if no house opens into it.'
If so, we have seen that not only the house is obligated, but also the gates of the courtyards and the rooms from which one enters the house are obligated in a mezuzah. Therefore the entrance to a building and to the stairwell is also obligated in a mezuzah13.
Notes:
1 11a ↩
2 33b ↩
3 Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah 6a - b ↩
4 See the Mikdash Me'at siman 286, s.k. 25, who explains that according to this, what is said in Maseches Yoma — that a balcony is exempt (which, as mentioned, is a passageway in front of the entrance to the upper story) — refers, for example, to where an open space of three tefachim separates them ↩
5 Hilchos Mezuzah 6:7-8 ↩
6 The Rambam's words — that the obligation of the gates of the city and the courtyards is because houses open into them — accord with the Rambam's explanation that the word "ובשעריך" ("and on your gates") speaks of the obligation of the mezuzah in a house, which is obligated only when there is a door there, cited in Halacha no. 456. And see Tosafos Yeshanim and Tosafos HaRosh, Yoma 11a, s.v. echad sha'arei medinah, what they cite from the Yerushalmi, Yoma 1:1 ↩
7 Yoma ibid., s.v. yachol. And see also Tosafos, Sukkah 8b, s.v. usehevei, and Menachos 33b, s.v. achsadra. And see there in Tosafos Yoma a further explanation ↩
8 Sukkah 8b ↩
9 Sukkah 4a in the pages of the Rif ↩
10 Yoreh De'ah siman 286 ↩
11 Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah siman 286, se'if 1 ↩
12 Se'if 7 ↩
13 However, the reason for and level of the obligation depend on the various opinions above. One could say that it is Biblical, like the gates of courtyards, which are an independent obligation (though regarding whether a gatehouse should be obligated like the obligation of the gates of the courtyard, see also Tosafos HaRosh and Tosafos Yeshanim cited in note 6); or that it is obligated as a gate because houses open into it (the Rambam cited above, and see the sources noted in Pischei Mezuzos siman 286, Bei'urim 1). Or one could say that it is Rabbinic, like a gatehouse into which a house opens ↩
[44] (Halacha 467)
A house owned by partners (4)
In the previous halacha we learned that there is an obligation of a mezuzah at the entrance to a building as well.
Question: Is the obligation upon all the partners, and what is the law in a case where one of the partners does not want a mezuzah to be affixed — may one recite a bracha?
Answer: We have learned that when there are two Jewish partners, it is obligated according to all opinions, and they disagree when a non-Jew has a share in the partnership: the Mechaber holds that it is obligated, and the Rema takes the position that it is exempt.
Regarding the opinion of the Rema, the Levush writes1: 'And a house of partners is obligated specifically when the partners are Jews, for "וביתך" ("your house") applies to each one of them, so that each one is obligated, since it is written after it "למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם" ("so that your days and the days of your children may be increased") — whoever desires life is obligated, that is to say, whoever fulfills the Torah and the mitzvah.'
And in Shu"t Avnei Nezer2: 'But regarding mezuzah, where the obligation takes effect first, one may well distinguish a partnership of Jews, which belongs entirely to Jews, upon all of which the obligation takes effect, so that this one is forbidden to live in his share without a mezuzah, and likewise the other in his share.'
That is, there is an obligation upon each of the residents of the building that there be a mezuzah on the doorway of the jointly owned building.
In the case of partners where one does not want a mezuzah to be affixed, the Da'as Kedoshim writes3: 'Partners in a house — one may affix a mezuzah even though his fellow does not want it, and he inclines to say that he may well recite a bracha.'4.
And the Mikdash Me'at writes5: 'When a partner comes to affix the mezuzah and the second protests, he can compel him even regarding half the expense [and if each of them wants to affix it himself and not his partner — see §289, s.k. 3, that without the consent of the homeowner there is no permission to affix a mezuzah; this requires further study], and the one who protests also fulfills his obligation even though it was affixed against his will. And even when a stranger affixed a mezuzah against the will of the homeowner, it is valid after the fact; see Gilyon Maharsha, s.k. 1.'
If so, in a case where one of the residents affixes a mezuzah, even if there are residents who oppose it, he may recite a bracha on affixing it6.
Question: When on each floor there is an entrance door to a corridor serving several apartments, who is obligated to affix a mezuzah there?
Answer: The Acharonim write7 that affixing the mezuzah at this entrance is not upon all the residents of the building, but only upon the residents of this floor, for whom it is the passageway to their homes.
Question: When the residents of the building have different minhogim regarding the script and the affixing of the mezuzah, how should one conduct oneself.
Answer: The Acharonim write that one should affix a mezuzah that is kosher according to all opinions8, even when this is not according to the minhag of the majority. But when the mezuzah is kosher for all the residents, with regard to the differing minhogim one should follow the majority9.
Notes:
1 Yoreh De'ah §286:1 ↩
2 Yoreh De'ah §381 ↩
3 §286, s.k. 4 ↩
4 In our case, in any event, an obligation in its own right rests upon each of the partners. And regarding an obligation on account of arvus (mutual responsibility), see also the words of the Alter Rebbe in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim §263, Kuntres Acharon, s.k. 5: 'And the reason is that they are commanded in this mitzvah by virtue of arvus (therefore they must recite the bracha "אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו" ("Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us") .. they must recite a bracha over mitzvos they perform which they are obligated to perform; for what difference is there whether they are obligated on their own account or obligated on account of arvus? For one who is obligated on account of arvus is called "obligated in the matter" to discharge the obligation of others who are obligated on their own account, as the Rosh writes in chapter 3 of Brochos. If so, why should he not recite a bracha over this obligation just as one who is obligated on his own account recites a bracha?' However, there it refers to where the other is his agent. And see what is written in Shu"t Divrei Yatziv, Yoreh De'ah §189 and §190, regarding where he is not his agent or [acts] with his knowledge. However, seemingly the foundation of his words there regarding the definition of arvus does not accord with the words of the Alter Rebbe cited above; and see below, note 6 ↩
5 S.k. 6 ↩
6 See also Mezuzos Melachim in Halacha LeMoshe, s.k. 71; Shu"t Har Tzvi, Orach Chaim vol. 1, §13; and Nachal Eisan §12, halacha 5, note 1, regarding one who affixes for another without his knowledge, that he may recite a bracha — and certainly in our case, where he is a partner. (But see Aruch HaShulchan, Yoreh De'ah §289:4, and the Divrei Yatziv cited above in note 4; and see what is answered to his words at length in Mishneh Halachos vol. 16, §99) ↩
7 See Pischei Mezuzos p. 211, cited in Sha'arei HaMezuzah p. 127 ↩
8 See the discussion regarding a parshah pesuchah in Halacha no. 440, and see Pischei Mezuzos, Milu'im p. 148, and see also Halichos Shlomo, Tefillah ch. 19, note 22 ↩
9 See Pischei Mezuzos p. 209, and see also what is cited in Sha'arei HaMezuzah p. 321 ↩
[45] (Halacha 468)
The obligation of a window in a mezuzah
Question: What is the law of a window through which people sometimes enter and exit — is it obligated in a mezuzah?
Answer: In the Talmud Yerushalmi1 it is stated: 'A window that is four by four, where servants sit and fan their masters, is obligated in a mezuzah.'
And the Korban HaEidah explains: 'And fan their masters — that the servants sit there in the summer days to fan air for their masters in the roofed room.'
And it is cited in the Ra'aviah2: 'A window of four by four is obligated in a mezuzah because servants sit there and fan their masters.'
Seemingly, it appears from the words of the Yerushalmi that there is a case in which a window is obligated in a mezuzah.
But see the Aruch HaShulchan3, who explains that the words of the Yerushalmi are not regarding an obligation of a mezuzah on a window; rather, the Yerushalmi's intent is that this was the use of this room. In his words: 'It is further stated there: A window that is four by four, where servants sit and fan their masters [that they sit there and fan with a fan over their masters sitting in the roofed room, to bring them air], is obligated in a mezuzah; see there. And it is not understood that there should be an obligation of a mezuzah on a window; and if we say that it is a doorway and "window" is not meant precisely, it should have said ten tefachim in height. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: this room had no use at all and no walking through it, only that in the windows servants sat and fanned their masters; nevertheless the doorway is obligated in a mezuzah, for this too is called a use of the room, if it is four by four, a significant place fit for sitting, and it is similar to the previous law.'
And so writes the Da'as Kedoshim as halacha4: 'A window, even though people walk through it, since it was not made for that purpose, is exempt from a mezuzah .. and if it was made primarily for walking through, one could say that it is like an actual doorway.'
[And the Mikdash Me'at writes on this5: 'And in my humble opinion, even if it is made primarily for walking through, if the height of the wall up to the window is ten tefachim, their treading on top of the wall does not nullify the partition, and there is no doorway here — unless one goes up to it by a ladder; this requires further study.']
And in Shu"t Be'er Moshe6 he writes: 'Windows that were made originally only for the purpose of air and not for the purpose of entering and exiting, and now this window is often used for coming and going, for example to go out onto the roof and the like — I was asked whether to obligate the window in a mezuzah. And I answered that it is exempt, since the window was not made for the purpose of exiting and entering, and the fact that it is sometimes used for this purpose does not establish it for a mezuzah. And what is found in the Yerushalmi, that windows through which the servants fan their masters are obligated in a mezuzah, speaks of where they were made for this purpose; and even in such a case we do not hold like the Yerushalmi, for no one has cited their words as halacha. And see the Aruch HaShulchan (§286, se'if 48), who explains the words of the Yerushalmi in an entirely different way — that the Yerushalmi obligates the doorway of a room in which there is no use at all except the service at the window; see there. And it is a novelty on the part of the Da'as Kedoshim (§289, se'if 2), who is stringent in accordance with the words of the Yerushalmi, since all our masters, the early poskim, did not record it as halacha. And apparently he truly explains the words of the Yerushalmi like the Aruch HaShulchan.'
If so, we have seen that the poskim take the position that a window not designated as a doorway, even if it happens that people sometimes enter and exit through it, is exempt from a mezuzah7, unless it is designated for entry, in which case it is obligated in a mezuzah8.
Notes:
1 Yoma 1:1 and Megillah 4:12 ↩
2 Teshuvos uVei'urei Sugyos §1150 ↩
3 §286:47 ↩
4 §289, s.k. 10. (In §286, s.k. 18, he writes: 'And regarding entering by way of a window [whether its law is like a doorway]' — and the publisher noted that he recorded for himself points that he intended to clarify.) And see Shu"t Afarkesta DeAnya vol. 1, §102 ↩
5 S.k. 15 ↩
6 (Stern) vol. 2, §90 ↩
7 And so writes the Chovas HaDar ch. 7, note 43; Pischei Mezuzos, Beis Mezuzah ch. 21, os 6 ↩
8 And in the Chovas HaDar ch. 7, halacha 18, he writes [based on the Da'as Kedoshim cited above, note 5] that a doorway higher than ten tefachim is exempt, unless there is a fixed ladder. This requires further study ↩
[46] (Halacha 470)
Question: Is a person who rents a house obligated in a mezuzah, and is this obligation from the Torah or Rabbinic?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Menachos1 states: 'It was also taught so: One who lives in an inn in Eretz Yisroel, and one who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel — for all of thirty days he is exempt from the mezuzah; from then on he is obligated. But one who rents a house in Eretz Yisroel makes a mezuzah immediately, because of the settlement of Eretz Yisroel.'
And in Maseches Pesachim2: 'Come and hear: One who rents a house to his fellow — it is upon the renter to make a mezuzah for it. There, Rav Mesharshiya has said: A mezuzah is an obligation of the resident.'
[In addition, in Maseches Chullin3 the Gemara explains regarding mezuzah that even though it is stated with the wording "ביתך" ("your house"), this does not come to exclude a house of partners, but rather comes to teach us the words of Rava — to affix the mezuzah on the right, the way of your entry.
However, in Maseches Shabbos4 it is brought that a person can make his house ownerless (hefker), and even though he lives there, it is exempt from a mezuzah.]
If so, we have seen in the Gemara in Menachos and Pesachim that there is an obligation upon the renter to affix a mezuzah.
However, the Rishonim disagree regarding what is learned from the word "ביתך" ("your house"), and regarding the meaning of the Gemara's words concerning the obligation of a mezuzah placed upon the renter, which stems from the fact that 'it is an obligation of the resident' — and accordingly, whether this obligation is Biblical or Rabbinic:
Some learned that the word "ביתך" ("your house") excludes a house that is not his own; some learned from the words of the Gemara that "ביתך" comes to teach us only the words of Rava regarding the side on which the mezuzah is affixed; and some explained that this itself teaches that the obligation is on the resident. Likewise, regarding the Gemara's words 'an obligation of the resident', some explained that the Gemara's intent is to say that the obligation of the mezuzah is upon the one who actually resides there — the renter — and his obligation is from the Torah. And some wrote that the Gemara's intent is to say that since, in general, the obligation of the mezuzah upon the homeowner applies only when he lives there, if so, when the homeowner does not live there it is impossible to obligate him, and therefore the one who rents it out is exempt. Nevertheless, the Chachamim enacted that the renter too is obligated in a mezuzah.
Tosafos5 cite both sides and write: 'Even though with mezuzah the renter is obligated, as is concluded there that "ביתך" ("your house") does not come to exclude the house of others but rather [teaches] like Rava, who said "the way of your entry" — and in the first chapter of Yoma6 it is also so — and the reason is that it is not reasonable for the verse to exclude the house of others, for since it is made for protection, there is no difference; however, for all of thirty days he is exempt, since it is not his own dwelling .. for mezuzah, which is Biblical .. However, one can say that mezuzah too is Rabbinic, for "ביתך" is written twice. And that which is asked at the end of [the chapter] HaSho'el7, "upon whom is the mezuzah?", and it is challenged, "But Rav Mesharshiya said it is an obligation of the resident" — it is not brought to obligate the renter; rather, this is what it is saying: it is obvious that the one who rents it out is not obligated, since he does not live there. And likewise in the first chapter of Maseches Avodah Zarah8, where it challenges "a house too — he removes it from [the obligation of] mezuzah," and answers "it is an obligation of the resident" — meaning that if he wishes, he will not live in it but will use it for straw and stubble, and he is not obligated..'.
And Rabbi Akiva Eiger writes9: 'From the flow of their words there it appears that they hold primarily like the second approach mentioned above — that from the Torah, even after thirty [days], he is exempt. And so writes Tosafos in Avodah Zarah plainly, and so writes the Rosh in Halachos Ketanos.'
In the words of the Rosh10, Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah §15: 'But is not "ביתך" written twice? One is needed to exclude a renter and a borrower.'
As for the reason that the Rabbanan obligated him, Tosafos write11: 'Rather, it is the Rabbanan who obligated him after thirty days, because it appears as his own.' And so writes the Mordechai12.
On the other hand, however, some explained the Gemara's words 'an obligation of the resident' to mean that it is an obligation upon the one who actually lives in it, even if he is renting the house, and this is learned from the word "ביתך" ("your house"). As Rashi writes13 in Bava Metzia 101b: 'It is an obligation of the resident — for we expound in Menachos "ביתך" ("your house") as the way of your entry, for the one who enters and exits it — this is the one who lives in it.'
And the Ritva writes14: 'The Tosafos grappled with that which we hold — that it is upon the renter to put up a mezuzah, for it is an obligation of the resident — whether it is Biblical or Rabbinic. Some explain that it is Rabbinic, as we find regarding a tallis: even though borrowing confers acquisition like renting, nevertheless it is exempt from tzitzis except Rabbinically; here too it is no different. And some explain that it is a Biblical obligation, for mezuzah is different, since it is for the protection of the members of the household; and since that is so, with regard to protection, what difference is there between the homeowner and the renter? Therefore, since renting confers acquisition and it is because of [protection, the renter is obligated in it Biblically], and this is the main view.'
If so, we have seen that the Gemara says that one who rents a house is obligated in a mezuzah, but the Rishonim disagree whether this obligation is Biblical15 or Rabbinic. Tomorrow we will see the words of the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch, and the details of from when the renter becomes obligated.
--------------
Notes:
1 44a ↩
2 4a; and see also Bava Metzia 102a, and Avodah Zarah 21a ↩
3 135b - 136a ↩
4 131b. And see the Ramban, who writes: 'And likewise with a house — even though he lives in it, if it is ownerless it is exempt from the mezuzah, for it is not "your house" and it is not a house of the public.' And see also what the Rashba, the Ritva and the Ran write ↩
5 Menachos 44a, s.v. tallis ↩
6 11b ↩
7 Bava Metzia 101b ↩
8 21a ↩
9 Shu"t Mahadura Kamma §66 ↩
10 And see also the Rishonim in note 4, who also learned from "ביתך" ("your house") to exclude; however, the Ritva there concludes (cited below, note 14): 'that renting confers acquisition and it is because of [protection, the renter is obligated in it Biblically], and this is the main view' ↩
11 Avodah Zarah 21a ↩
12 Halachos Ketanos, Remez 950 ↩
13 And similarly writes Rashi in Avodah Zarah 21a. And so it appears from the words of Rashi in Pesachim: 'An obligation of the resident: and because it protects him.' And so it appears that the Rambam, in Hilchos Mezuzah 5:11, explains the meaning of 'an obligation of the resident'; and see also the Hagahos Maimonios, ch. 5, os 7. And see also the words of Rabbeinu Yehonasan cited in the Shitah Mekubetzes, Bava Metzia 101b, and the words of the Rashba, Chullin 136a. However, in the publisher's notes (Mossad HaRav Kook edition), note 9, and in Shabbos, note 74, they remark (on the words of Rabbi Akiva Eiger) from the Chiddushei HaRashba on Shabbos cited above, where it is explained that the renter's obligation is only Rabbinic ↩
14 Shabbos 131b; but note the words of the Ritva in Yoma 11b ↩
15 However, some learned that the renter is obligated Biblically because he is the one who lives in the house (Rashi), and some learned that the renter is obligated because it is considered his own (Ritva; and see also Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De'ah §380, in the name of Tosafos Rid: 'It is implied from his words that a renter is considered as [if it were] his own'). And see also Rabbi Akiva Eiger there, that seemingly, according to the opinion that renting confers acquisition to some degree, it is like partners, and if so, one who rents from a Jew would certainly be obligated, like partners ↩
[47] (Halacha 471)
In the previous halacha we saw that the Gemara says that one who rents a house is obligated in a mezuzah, but the Rishonim disagree whether this obligation is Biblical or Rabbinic.
Question: What is ruled as halacha — is it a Biblical or a Rabbinic obligation — and from when is the renter obligated?
Answer: We have already seen that the Gemara in Maseches Menachos1 states: 'It was also taught so: One who lives in an inn in Eretz Yisroel, and one who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel — for all of thirty days he is exempt from the mezuzah; from then on he is obligated. But one who rents a house in Eretz Yisroel makes a mezuzah immediately, because of the settlement of Eretz Yisroel.'
The reason for the distinction between within thirty days and after thirty days outside Eretz Yisroel depends on the dispute of the Rishonim whether the renter is obligated Biblically or Rabbinically.
As Tosafos write2, if one holds that the obligation is Biblical, then: 'However, for all of thirty days he is exempt, since it is not his own dwelling3, as we say in the first chapter of Bava Basra4 regarding one who stayed there thirty days, that he is like the people of the city.' That is, since it is rented, the place is not called his place of dwelling before thirty days. But according to those who hold that a renter is exempt because it is not "ביתך" ("your house"), but the Chachamim obligated him, Tosafos write5 that the reason they obligated him only after thirty days is: 'because it appears as his own.'
In understanding the statement that it appears as his own, the Avnei Nezer writes6: 'This wording can be explained in two ways: that people will think that the house is his — and so writes the Mordechai in Halachos Ketanos [there]7; or that in people's eyes a rented house is similar to a house of one's own.'
As the halacha, the Mechaber writes8: 'One who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel, and one who lives in an inn in Eretz Yisroel, is exempt from a mezuzah for thirty days. And one who rents a house in Eretz Yisroel is obligated in a mezuzah immediately, because of the settlement of Eretz Yisroel. (And the same applies to one who borrows a house — his law is like a renter.)' And he further9 writes: 'One who rents a house from his fellow — the renter is obligated to affix a mezuzah in it and to prepare the place where it is affixed..'.
And the Shach writes10 on the words of the Mechaber: 'Is exempt from a mezuzah, etc. — for it is not yet called a dwelling.' That is, in explaining the words of the Shulchan Aruch, the Shach wrote the first explanation in Tosafos, who wrote that the renter's obligation is Biblical, yet nevertheless he is obligated only after thirty days, because before then it is not yet called a dwelling. But Rabbi Akiva Eiger11 remarks on this: 'These are puzzling words, for Tosafos did not write so in Yoma, except according to that side that a renter is obligated Biblically. But according to what we hold — that a renter is always exempt Biblically, and after thirty days it is Rabbinically that he is obligated, since it appears as his own — it follows automatically that within thirty days he is exempt, for they left it at the [basic] law.'
[In the continuation of his words he explains that perhaps one could strain to say that the Shach learns that according to the words of the Mechaber, who obligates in a partnership with a non-Jew12, a renter too is obligated Biblically. But Rabbi Akiva Eiger concludes:] 'We hold that the opinion of the Mechaber too is that he holds primarily like the conclusion of Tosafos and the Rosh, that a renter is always exempt from the Torah, since we require "ביתך" ("your house") — yours — and only Rabbinically is he obligated after thirty [days], since it appears as his own'13.
And this is the consensus of many poskim, that the main view is that it is Rabbinic, as the Avnei Nezer writes14 that most poskim hold the obligation is Rabbinic.
If so, we have seen the reasons for the obligation of the mezuzah on a renter specifically after thirty days, and that many of the poskim take the position that the obligation is Rabbinic.
Question: What practical difference is there whether it is a Biblical or a Rabbinic obligation?
Answer: The Pischei Teshuvah writes15: 'One who rents a house — see (the responsa of Rabbeinu Akiva Eiger, end of §66), where he writes that likewise one who rents a house for straw and wood is obligated in a mezuzah. Although at first glance it would appear that he is exempt — since a renter is exempt from the Torah, it is a Rabbinic doubt, for perhaps the halacha follows the Rambam that a house for straw and wood is exempt — nevertheless, since the Shulchan Aruch and the Acharonim did not cite the opinion of the Rambam to take it into account so as not to recite a bracha, they therefore hold that his words are rejected from the halacha, and we do not treat it as a Rabbinic doubt; see there. And according to this, it appears somewhat that those cases where the Shulchan Aruch mentions a lenient opinion — such as a place where women sleep in se'if 2, a gatehouse if no house opens into it in se'if 7, and a beis midrash in se'if 10, and a house that has no doors in se'if 15 — it is possible that for a renter it is exempt.'
If so, according to the opinions that a renter is exempt Biblically and obligated only Rabbinically, in a case of a doorway without a door (or other doubts) there is more room to be lenient16 where there is a need17, according to the instruction of a rav.
In the next halacha we will see further implications that emerge from this sugya.
Notes:
1 44a ↩
2 Ibid., s.v. tallis she'ulah ↩
3 The Beis Yosef, at the end of §286, cites the words of Rabbeinu Manoach: 'That the reason one who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel is exempt from the mezuzah until thirty days is because, since a mezuzah is an obligation of the resident, less than thirty [days] is a temporary dwelling, and he is not obligated' ↩
4 8a ↩
5 Avodah Zarah 21a ↩
6 Shu"t Yoreh De'ah §380 ↩
7 The Mordechai, Halachos Ketanos, Remez 950, writes: *'But Rabbinically he is obligated after thirty [days], for people assume after thirty days that it is his'* ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah §286:22 ↩
9 §291:2 ↩
10 §286, s.k. 28 ↩
11 Shu"t Mahadura Kamma §66 ↩
12 See Halacha no. 462 ↩
13 But note Pischei Mezuzos §286:22, in the Bei'urim, s.v. hasocher bayis ↩
14 Yoreh De'ah §380 ↩
15 Yoreh De'ah §286, s.k. 16. And see also Mikdash Me'at §286, s.k. 57. Note a further practical difference from what Rabbi Akiva Eiger writes in his responsa, end of §9 (cited in the Pischei Teshuvah §291, s.k. 4, and in the Nachalas Tzvi, Yoreh De'ah §286:22), regarding one who bought a house that was already rented by him — whether he must recite a bracha again on the mezuzah, since previously he was obligated only Rabbinically and now he is obligated Biblically. This is not the place to elaborate ↩
16 And see Sefer Alei Desheh, Mezuzah §286, se'if 18, leaf 4. And although Shu"t Maharash Engel vol. 3, §59, writes on this that we do not say a Rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently, for if so the enactment of the Chachamim would be nullified — his words require explanation, for seemingly the case is not at all comparable, since here the enactment will be upheld except in certain cases. This is not the place to elaborate ↩
17 And see the Mikdash Me'at there, who writes: 'Unless one could say that since it is possible to put up a mezuzah, one should not rely on doubts — as in Avodah Zarah 37 regarding a safek tumah in reshus harabim, at "here is water in the river, go and immerse"'; and see also Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak vol. 2, §83 ↩
[48] (Halacha 472)
We learned in the previous halacha that one who rents a house is also obligated in a mezuzah. In this halacha we will discuss cases that branch out from this sugya.
One hospitalized in a hospital, or convalescing in a convalescent home
Question: When a person is hospitalized, Heaven forfend, in a hospital for a period of time, is the patient obligated in a mezuzah there1?
Answer: The Avnei Nezer writes2 that since the patient does not rent the building, and also the two ways of explaining why the Chachamim obligated a renter — whether because people will think it is his, or because people will mistakenly regard a rented house as like one's own — do not apply to a patient, because: 'Now, that they will think it is his obviously does not apply at all in a hospital, for even if it were his, if he were not ill he would not be in the hospital. It is because of his illness that he is there, even though it is not his, for that is how the building is set up — for the sick. So from where would it be supposed, because he is there, that people will think on account of this that it is his? And also that in people's eyes a rented house resembles a house of one's own likewise does not apply here, since he does not rent the building, but only pays for being there, as mentioned above. If so, there is no basis to obligate in a mezuzah except according to the first opinion — that he is obligated from the Torah even though the house is not his3. And we have already written that most of the poskim are against it, and there are also difficulties with this opinion. Therefore, the hospital is not to be obligated in a mezuzah at all.'
However, the Minchas Yitzchak4 raises a difficulty on the Avnei Nezer: 'Now, the above responsum of the Avnei Nezer is not before me to examine, and it seemingly astonishes me, for it is explicitly stated in the Birkei Yosef (§286, din 4) regarding a lazaretto (and this is something like a hospital, as the Nesiv HaChaim on the Derech HaChaim (§238, os 4) copied the above Birkei Yosef; or the intent is a convalescent home), where people stay forty days and sometimes two months, that it is exempt for the reason that these places are essentially for temporary dwelling, and it should be like the cabins on a ship — until here the gist of his words. And I have written about this elsewhere. Thus they wrote regarding a hospital itself that the exemption is only because it is a temporary dwelling5, and this is not like the Avnei Nezer mentioned above.'
If so, we have seen that a person who is hospitalized is not considered a renter, and is not obligated to affix a mezuzah there. And as for the reason for the exemption, we have seen several reasons written by the Acharonim.
Students in a dormitory
Question: Is a student who lives in a dormitory obligated to affix a mezuzah6?
Answer: The Be'er Moshe writes7: 'According to the above true words, the dormitory [= pnimiyah] is truly similar to the law of the Avnei Nezer. For who is it that would entertain the idea and think that the room in the yeshivah building in which the bochur lives is his? Or would think that by virtue of what he pays it is his? And the bochurim never pay for the room, but rather for using the yeshivah's facilities, and for learning there, eating there and receiving meals from the yeshivah. If so, they are not obligated in a mezuzah at all.'
On the other hand, in the sefer Revavos Ephraim8 he cites that some have written that: 'The obligation is upon the bochurim, likewise by virtue of the law of an inn outside Eretz Yisroel, which after thirty days is obligated in a mezuzah.'
If so, we have seen that the Acharonim disagree whether there is an obligation upon the bochurim themselves to affix the mezuzah in their room in the dormitory9.
Notes:
1 The discussion is regarding whether there is an obligation upon the patient, and not regarding the obligation of the place on the part of its owner, in the event that the owner of the place is Jewish and the like, as is explained in Shu"t Maharsham vol. 6, §116 ↩
2 Yoreh De'ah §380 ↩
3 See Shu"t Shevet HaLevi vol. 2, §156: 'And in truth there would be room for his reasoning even if we say that renting obligates from the Torah, for even according to them, in a house that is not actually his they agree that it is exempt .. nevertheless, since he rented the house itself, this suffices with regard to a Biblical obligation of mezuzah according to those opinions; and all this does not apply in a hospital, where one does not rent the building, but only the right to be there, as the Gaon, the Avnei Nezer, wrote' ↩
4 Shu"t vol. 2, §83 ↩
5 And see also Nesiv Chaim (by Rabbi Lavaut) §238, s.k. 4. However, in the Chovas HaDar ch. 3, halacha 7 and note 20, he discusses why this is called a temporary dwelling: for according to the words of the Minchas Yitzchak vol. 2, §82, that it is considered a temporary dwelling because they were made from the outset for temporary dwelling, if so, in a hotel built from the outset for guests there would never be an obligation of a mezuzah, even by virtue of the law of an inn, and even beyond thirty days in Eretz Yisroel it would not be obligated in a mezuzah — and we have not found this novel ruling in any of the poskim .. And with difficulty one could explain the intent of the Chida, that his view is to distinguish a place where all who stay there are there under compulsion, for then it is a temporary dwelling ↩
6 The discussion is regarding whether there is an obligation upon the student, and not regarding the obligation of the place on the part of the administrators of the institution and the like. And see the Mordechai, Halachos Ketanos, Remez 962 (and the Maharil — Minhogim, Hilchos Mezuzah), from a responsum of the Maharam of Rothenburg: 'And in our house there are close to twenty-four mezuzos — for the beis midrash, and for the winter house, and for the doorway of the house, and for the courtyard gate that opens to the public domain, and for the doorway of the house that opens to the courtyard, and for the roofed upper story in which I eat in the summer, *and for all the rooms of the bochurim*. And shalom, Meir bar Baruch' ↩
7 Stern, vol. 2, §95, os 4 ↩
8 Vol. 3, §506; and see also the sefer Shvus Yitzchak, Mezuzah p. 57 ↩
9 And see also Chovas HaDar ch. 3, din 6, note 19 ↩
[49] (Halacha 486)
The law of one who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel for thirty days or more (1)
In Halacha no. 471 we learned, regarding the obligation of a mezuzah for a person who rents a house, that one who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel is obligated in a mezuzah only after thirty days, as the Gemara states in Maseches Menachos1: 'It was also taught so: One who lives in an inn in Eretz Yisroel, and one who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel — for all of thirty days he is exempt from the mezuzah; from then on he is obligated. But one who rents a house in Eretz Yisroel makes a mezuzah immediately, because of the settlement of Eretz Yisroel.'
Question: What is the law when a person from the outset rents the house for a period longer than thirty days — is he obligated in a mezuzah immediately?
Answer: The poskim write that from the plain wording of the Gemara, the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch it appears that even one who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel for a long period is not obligated in a mezuzah during the first thirty days2.
However, the Meiri writes3: 'And some explain regarding it [= a tallis]: after thirty [days] it is obligated — that is, if he borrowed it for more than thirty, it is obligated immediately. And likewise with mezuzah: one who rents a house — for all of thirty days it is exempt from the mezuzah; but from thirty onward it is obligated — that is, that if he rented it for more than thirty, it is obligated immediately, since his intention is to live in it for so long.'
And so it appears from the words of the Nimukei Yosef4, who writes: 'A renter outside Eretz Yisroel, since he did not rent it for thirty days5, is not obligated in a mezuzah, for we are not particular about its settlement.'
As the halacha, the Mechaber writes6: 'One who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel, and one who lives in an inn in Eretz Yisroel, is exempt from a mezuzah for thirty days. And one who rents a house in Eretz Yisroel is obligated in a mezuzah immediately, because of the settlement of Eretz Yisroel. (And the same applies to one who borrows a house — his law is like a renter.)'
And in the Siddur Derech Chaim (by Rabbi Yaakov of Lissa, author of the Chavos Da'as)7 he writes: 'One who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel for thirty days is exempt from a mezuzah.'8.
And the Pischei Teshuvah in the Nachalas Tzvi writes on the words of the Shulchan Aruch there: 'One who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel, etc., is exempt from a mezuzah for thirty days. This implies that even if he rented the house for an entire year, he does not affix the mezuzah until after thirty [days]; and so is implied by the wording of the Baraisa, "for all of thirty days he is exempt," etc. However, in the Siddur Tefillah of the Gaon of Lissa he copied: "one who rents a house — until thirty days he is exempt," implying that if he rented for more than thirty he is obligated immediately. This requires study — from where did he derive this? For we hold that a renter is obligated only Rabbinically after thirty [days], because it appears as his own; if so, within thirty [days], when it does not appear as his own, what difference is there whether he will also live in it after thirty9?'
The poskim disagree about this law — how one should conduct oneself in practice, and what the time of obligation is for one who rents for a long period10. Some have written that the plain minhag is to obligate affixing immediately, as the Aruch HaShulchan writes11: 'If he rented it for more than thirty days, it is like his own house and is obligated in a mezuzah; and the same applies to one who borrows a house — his law is like a renter in all that has been explained. And it appears clear that what was explained — that for thirty days he is exempt — is when he rented for less than thirty days or rented without specification; but if he rented it for thirty days, he is obligated immediately, for a rental for a day is a sale with respect to several matters, except that less than thirty is called temporary; but when he rented it for thirty days or more, it is obvious that he is obligated immediately. [And so it appears from the Shach, s.k. 28, and so writes the Chavos Da'as in the Derech HaChaim. And I have seen one who challenged this from the second answer of Tosafos in Menachos there, that this is Rabbinic; see there. I am astonished — what difference does it make? In any event he is obligated immediately Rabbinically. And so is the plain minhag, and one should not change it. And it is obvious that the thirty days must be consecutive, unlike one who is in doubt about this.]'
If so, we have seen that the poskim disagree about the time of obligation of one who rents for a long period, and some say that he is obligated to put it up immediately and with a bracha. In the coming halachos we will discuss, according to the opinion of the poskim that he is not obligated, whether he may nevertheless affix it and recite a bracha.
Notes:
1 44a ↩
2 See Sdei Chemed, Ma'areches HaMem, Klal 112 (vol. 3, p. 1044). And see also Shu"t Aryeh DeVei Ila'i, Yoreh De'ah §17: 'In truth, according to the plain wording of the Baraisa and the poskim it is clear that one should not err and say that it speaks only where he rented it for thirty days; rather, in truth it speaks even where he rented for more than thirty days — nevertheless, for all of the first thirty days he is exempt, as it teaches: "for all of thirty days he is exempt; from then on he is obligated."' ↩
3 Shabbos 148a ↩
4 Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah 6b ↩
5 Seemingly, even though in principle his words are like the words of the Meiri cited above, nevertheless they differ regarding thirty days: the Meiri wrote "if he rented it for more than thirty," and the Nimukei Yosef wrote "thirty days." And see Shu"t Yosef Ometz §30, but see the Sdei Chemed there. And see also Shu"t Aryeh DeVei Ila'i there ↩
6 Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah §286:22 ↩
7 §238, halacha 16 ↩
8 However, the Sdei Chemed there writes that perhaps there is a printing error, and it should read "until thirty days." But seemingly, if one comes to change the text, one could say "for all of thirty days," as in the words of the Baraisa ↩
9 And see there the continuation of his words. Seemingly, this question regarding one who rents for a long period also depends on the dispute (see Halachos 470/1) whether the renter's obligation is Biblical. For if we hold that he is obligated Biblically because he lives there (except that there is an exemption for thirty days, since it is not his own dwelling), then certainly one can say that the exemption is specifically when his entire stay is thirty days, for then it is not considered his dwelling; but one who rents for a long period becomes obligated immediately. But if the obligation is Rabbinic because it appears as his own, and only after thirty days does it appear as his own, there is a side to say that even for one who rents for a long period, for all of the first thirty days it does not appear as his own. On the other hand, one could say that even according to this side, that it is a Rabbinic obligation, they obligated him because it is a permanent dwelling, and if so one who rents for a long period is obligated immediately. And see Shu"t Aryeh DeVei Ila'i and the Sdei Chemed there. But see Chamudei Daniel §286, se'if 22. And see also in Halacha no. 487 the words of Rashi and Tosafos regarding the exemption within thirty [days] ↩
10 The opinions of the poskim were collected and explained in the Sdei Chemed cited above ↩
11 Yoreh De'ah §286:49. And see also the Dovev Meisharim vol. 1, §12, who writes: 'In my opinion it appears like the opinion of the Gaon of Lissa zt"l.' But the continuation of his proof from Tosafos seemingly requires study, for the Nachalas Tzvi explained according to the second answer in Tosafos ↩
[50] (Halacha 487)
The law of one who rents a house outside Eretz Yisroel for thirty days or more (2)
In the previous halacha we saw the opinions of the poskim regarding a long-term rental — when the obligation takes effect: some wrote that he becomes obligated immediately, and some wrote, in accordance with the plain meaning of the words of the Gemara and the poskim, that even in such a situation the obligation applies only after thirty days.
Question: In a case where one signs a binding rental contract (as is customary nowadays), or in another binding manner, does the law exempting the renter for thirty days still remain?
Answer: Regarding the reason for the thirty-day exemption for a renter outside Eretz Yisroel, we find several explanations in the Rishonim, as follows:
A) Rashi1 writes: 'And one who rents a house, etc. — he is exempt, lest he retract.'
B) Tosafos2, in the understanding that a renter is obligated Biblically, write: 'For all of thirty days he is exempt, since it is not his own dwelling.' And similarly writes Rabbeinu Manoach3: 'Less than thirty is a temporary dwelling, and he is not obligated.'4.
C) Tosafos5, in the understanding that a renter is obligated Rabbinically, write that the obligation begins only after thirty [days]: 'It is the Rabbanan who obligated him after thirty days, because it appears as his own.'
Some have written that the question of the obligation when there is a binding contract depends on these opinions, as the Yad HaKetanah writes6: 'And Rashi explains: lest he retract. And it appears that according to this, if he rented it in a manner in which he cannot retract, he is obligated immediately from the first moment .. But according to the opinion of Tosafos, who wrote that the reason is that for all of thirty [days] it is not yet called a dwelling, it follows that even where he rented it in a manner in which he cannot retract, he is nevertheless exempt for all of thirty [days]. And according to this, if he rented it in a manner in which he cannot retract, he should affix a mezuzah immediately without a bracha, and after thirty [days] he should remove it and affix it again without a bracha .. All this appears so in my humble opinion.'
And likewise regarding Tosafos in Avodah Zarah, the Chamudei Daniel writes7: 'In Rashi: lest he retract. And according to this, if he rented the house in writing and with a kinyan for one year and the like, he is obligated immediately. But in truth Tosafos in Avodah Zarah ruled .. that he is obligated after thirty days because it appears as his own; if so, even in such a case he is also exempt..'.
However, some have written that even according to the explanation of Tosafos in Menachos he is obligated, as the Chida writes in Shu"t Yosef Ometz8: 'And so it is proven from the words of Rashi.., who writes, in his words: "And one who rents a house, etc. — he is exempt, lest he retract" — until here his words. If so, if he rented it for more than thirty [days], for a period of months, and all the more so for a year or years, and it was written in a document, he is immediately obligated. Also according to what Tosafos write there, that for all of thirty days it is not his own dwelling .. if so, if at the outset he rented it for a year or years and a contract or document was written for this, it is his own dwelling and is obligated in a mezuzah immediately. And likewise according to what the Mordechai writes in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah, that we require that he be fixed in his dwelling, and he is not fixed until thirty days — one can say that when he rented a house for a year or years, and it was done and finalized through a rental document that cannot be changed, and this is the common practice of the town, in such a reality there is room to say from the outset that he is immediately called fixed in his dwelling and is obligated in a mezuzah immediately, even outside Eretz Yisroel .. And the matter is a kal vachomer regarding the case where thirty days suffice: that in this case, when they made the rental document for several years or for a year, and he brought there all his belongings, small and large, and especially if he made renovations there through craftsmen of various kinds, it appears that in this case he is obligated in a mezuzah immediately, and he should affix it and recite a bracha immediately at the time he enters to live there. And the Rav, the Toras Chesed, also agrees with this, as discussed. So it appears to my limited understanding.'
Some further have written that since nowadays the landlord cannot evict the renter, it is automatically considered as a sale and not as a rental, and he is obligated immediately, and Biblically.
For the Rosh9 writes in Avodah Zarah: 'And furthermore, granted that for us renting does not confer acquisition — since the hand of the nations is strong, and in their laws a rental for a day is like a sale, and even if the landlord's house collapsed he cannot evict him, it is like a sale.' And based on this, the Nachal Eshkol writes10: 'And for this very reason I say that one who rents a house in our times should, immediately when he comes to live there, make a mezuzah and recite a bracha.'11.
On the other hand, however, some have written that even when he signed and cannot retract, he is nevertheless exempt from a mezuzah for all of thirty days, since the plain meaning of the words of the poskim who wrote that one who rents for a long period is exempt applies also to a renter whom the landlord has undertaken not to evict. As the Chikrei Lev writes12: 'And then, after many years — more than twenty — there was printed, by the Rav, the wonder of the generation in our days, may he live forever, the sefer Ometz Yosef, §30, and he addressed this doubt .. and from this he concluded that one who rents for a year and with a document is obligated immediately; see there. Nevertheless, my heart hesitates about it, for the plain meaning of the sugya and the unqualified words of the poskim appear to disagree and to exempt even where he rented for a year, and so is the plain practice, to instruct every questioner thus. At the least it does not depart from the category of doubt; if so, it appears that one who is lenient has not lost, for a leniency results from it regarding the bracha, and also according to what I will explain shortly, that it is an affixing before its time. And the one who studies it will choose.'
If so, we have seen that the poskim disagree regarding the law of one who rents a house for a long period with a contract under which the landlord cannot evict him — whether there is an obligation to affix immediately, or whether he is still exempt for all of thirty days.
In the next halacha we will learn whether, in a case where he is exempt, he may nevertheless affix with a bracha.
---
Notes:
1 Menachos 44a ↩
2 Menachos ibid., s.v. tallis ↩
3 Cited in the Beis Yosef, end of §286. But see the Heshiv Moshe, Yoreh De'ah 53, that the opinion of Rabbeinu Manoach is like the words of Rashi: 'And there is no dispute between them, only a difference of wording, and what one omitted the other revealed.' And see also what his son-in-law writes in Shu"t Aryeh DeVei Ila'i, Yoreh De'ah §17; and Shu"t Shevet HaLevi vol. 6, §160, remarks on this that it is not compelling ↩
4 And see similarly in the Mordechai, Avodah Zarah, Remez 810: 'That he be fixed in his dwelling, and he is not fixed until thirty days' ↩
5 Avodah Zarah 21a, s.v. ha amar ↩
6 Hilchos Tefillin uMezuzah, s.k. 2 ↩
7 §286, se'if 22, s.k. 2 ↩
8 §30. And see also the Ben Ish Chai, Year 2, Parshas Ki Savo, se'if 23 ↩
9 Avodah Zarah ch. 1, §22. Cited in the Shach, Yoreh De'ah §151, s.k. 17 ↩
10 Vol. 2, end of §25, os 8 ↩
11 And see also Shu"t Shevet HaLevi there, and Teshuvos VeHanhagos vol. 1, §644. But see the Pri Megadim, Orach Chaim, Eshel Avraham §246, s.k. 8, who writes: 'The Shach wrote according to the second answer [in the Rosh there], that in their laws renting confers acquisition — that is, to permit a Rabbinic prohibition, not a Torah prohibition as here.' If so, in our case too it is possible that one should not recite a bracha. However, some have proven that the words of the Rosh apply also to a Biblical prohibition; see at length Kovetz Beis Aharon VeYisrael, issue 130, p. 98 ↩
12 Vol. 3, §128. And see also Shu"t Mishneh Halachos vol. 4, §132 ↩
[51] (Halacha 488)
The Law of One Who Rents a House Outside Eretz Yisroel for Thirty Days or More (3)
We have learned that one who rents outside Eretz Yisroel is exempt from mezuzah for the entire thirty days. [We saw (in Halacha no. 486) the dispute among the poskim when one rents for more than thirty days. We also saw (in Halacha no. 487) that the poskim disagree regarding a renter with a lease under which the landlord has no ability to evict him].
Question: When one affixes the mezuzah within the thirty days, during the period of exemption from mezuzah, may he recite a bracha?
Answer: The Shu"t Halachos Ketanos wrote1: 'Question: One who enters a house outside Eretz Yisroel and wishes to place a mezuzah on the doorway within thirty days — may he recite a bracha? Answer: Although one could say that this is comparable to tallis and tefillin, etc. .. for which one does not recite a bracha before their time has arrived, nevertheless one could also say that there, according to all opinions, it is not fit for a bracha, whereas here, according to all opinions, it is the time of mezuzah; and in Pesachim 69b there is a distinction of this kind, and see there 72b regarding "Shabbos was given to be overridden" in the case of infants'.
However, regarding a borrowed tallis with tzitzis, many of the poskim wrote that even in a case of exemption one may recite a bracha, as the Alter Rebbe wrote2: 'One who borrows from his fellow a tallis that does not have tzitzis is exempt from attaching tzitzis to it for the entire thirty days, as it says "כסותך" ("your garment") — yours, but not that of others; but after thirty days he is obligated to attach tzitzis to it by Rabbinic law, because it appears to be his .. If he wishes to attach tzitzis to it within thirty days and recite a bracha on it, he is permitted to do so3, and it is not a bracha levatalah; and although he is exempt from the matter, he may say "and commanded us to wrap ourselves," just as women recite brochos on all the mitzvos from which they are exempt, for the reason that will be explained in siman 17; see there'.
Many poskim4 learned from tzitzis to the affixing of a mezuzah, that one who affixes a mezuzah before the time of obligation may also recite a bracha. Moreover, some wrote that even according to those who say that with tzitzis one may not recite a bracha, nevertheless with mezuzah one may. As written in Shu"t Beis Yehudah5 on the above-mentioned Shu"t Halachos Ketanos: 'In my humble opinion it seems at first glance that this depends on the dispute of the great Rabbis regarding women, who are exempt from positive time-bound mitzvos: according to the opinion there that they recite a bracha although they are exempt, because they receive reward, so too here with the exemption of mezuzah. However, one may say that even according to the opinion that they do not recite a bracha, the case is different, for they never come into the category of obligation, whereas here he will eventually come to be obligated after thirty days .. Nor is there a difficulty from a borrowed tallis, for if he borrowed it without tzitzis, even though he attached tzitzis to it he does not recite a bracha, as is evident from the Tur Orach Chaim siman 14, for there it is different, because one does not recite a bracha on a tallis that is not his own; but with a mezuzah, when one has rented a house, from now on it is his, for it is not returned like a borrowed item. This is similar to a minor, who although exempt may recite a bracha since he will come into the category of obligation. Nevertheless, one should not rely on this in practice'.
On the other hand, some wrote that even according to those who hold that with tzitzis one may recite a bracha, nevertheless one who affixes a mezuzah during the period of exemption should not recite a bracha6, as the Pischei Teshuvah wrote in Nachalas Tzvi7: 'In my humble opinion it requires investigation whether it is proper to do so; perhaps it is preferable to wait for the time of obligation, for one may say that specifically with a borrowed tallis, since one recites a bracha on a tallis every day, even if he recites a bracha during the time of exemption he can also recite a bracha on it at the time of obligation; whereas here with a mezuzah, on which one recites a bracha only once, at the time of affixing it, perhaps it is preferable to wait for the time of obligation, that is, after thirty days'8.
Others explained in a different way why one cannot learn from tzitzis, as written in Shu"t Aryeh Dvei Ila'i9: 'It appears to my humble understanding that specifically regarding a tallis did Tosafos write that one who recites a bracha has not lost, since the bracha on the tallis is not on the making of the tzitzis but only on wrapping oneself in the tallis, as explained in the Shulchan Aruch siman 19 [se'if 1] and in the Magen Avraham there [s"k 1]. If so, it is quite fitting to say that one who recites a bracha has not lost, for although he was exempt from attaching tzitzis to it, nevertheless since he has already attached tzitzis to it he should recite a bracha on the wrapping .. In any event, there is room to say that one cannot compare our matter of the bracha on a mezuzah, where one recites the bracha on affixing, to the bracha on a tallis, where one recites the bracha on wrapping, for one may well distinguish as above. Furthermore, this is also puzzling regarding the common custom, that people recite a bracha immediately at a time when there is no obligation at all, and afterwards, when the obligation arrives, he sits in his house with the mezuzah and does not recite a bracha on it at all'.
Some wrote that since he cannot recite a bracha, it is preferable that he not affix a mezuzah during the period of exemption, but rather wait until the time of obligation and then affix it and recite a bracha, for several reasons:
A) He loses the bracha, since some say that afterwards he will not be able to recite a bracha, as the Chikrei Lev wrote there10: 'He cannot recite a bracha even on the thirty-first day11, and therefore one should not affix it at all before the time of obligation..'.
B) The Chikrei Lev wrote there12: 'One who affixed the mezuzah during the time of exemption is as though he actively nullifies the positive commandment, for when the time of obligation arrives the act is discharged by itself, without any act; so how can we permit him to affix it within thirty days so that he actively nullifies and refrains from the positive mitzvah?'. Therefore he also enters into a further question13: C) that of "ta'aseh velo min he'asui", for when the thirtieth day arrives there will already be a mezuzah on his doorway without an act of affixing a mezuzah. The Minchas Chinuch wrote similarly14: 'One should investigate regarding one who rented a house and, within the thirty days during which he is exempt from mezuzah, affixed a mezuzah in it — whether he fulfills his obligation with it after thirty days, for it may be "ta'aseh velo min he'asui," since it was made during the exemption, when he was exempt; and it may be that since it is only lacking time, it is not considered "min he'asui." The Acharonim investigated this regarding tzitzis made at night, see their words, and also regarding a sukkah, this law of "ta'aseh," etc.'.
Thus we have seen a dispute among the poskim as to whether one may recite a bracha when affixing a mezuzah during the period of exemption, and some wrote that therefore it is proper not to affix it. Tomorrow we will learn the accepted practice according to the words of the Rebbe and other poskim.
--------------
Notes:
1 By Mahari Chagiz, vol. 2, siman 95 ↩
2 Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, siman 14, se'ifim 4-5 ↩
3 One should note what the Machatzis HaShekel wrote on the Magen Avraham s"k 6: 'It is clear from this [=from the words of the Rosh, Chullin perek 8, siman 26] that it is better not to recite a bracha, for it is not truly comparable to women; rather, since it is somewhat similar to women, therefore one who recites a bracha has not lost'. The Aruch HaShulchan there, se'if 8, followed him. But see what is written in Yad Shaul (Bik) ↩
4 See Eshel Avraham (Oppenheim), Orach Chaim, siman 14, s"k 2. And see Mikdash Me'at, siman 286, s"k 59 ↩
5 Shu"t, Yoreh De'ah section, siman 19; Rabbi Akiva Eiger cited it in Yoreh De'ah siman 286 ↩
6 And see also Toras Chesed (Perachya), siman 53 ↩
7 Yoreh De'ah, siman 286, s"k 22 ↩
8 The Chikrei Lev wrote similarly, vol. 3, siman 128, d"h "Vehadavar kasheh" ↩
9 Yoreh De'ah section, siman 17 ↩
10 D"h "Umiho" ↩
11 And see there the continuation of his words. And see Mikdash Me'at 286, s"k 59: 'It requires investigation how he can recite the bracha "to affix a mezuzah" when he is not performing an act of affixing'. And see the words of the Alter Rebbe, Orach Chaim siman 263, se'if 11: *'How can you recite "and commanded us to kindle" when they are already burning from before?'.* And see Sha'arei Mezuzah, perek 9, note 20, and the sources noted there ↩
12 D"h "Ach es zeh"; and see there the lengthy discussion of this ↩
13 Chikrei Lev there, d"h "Umitzad acher" ↩
14 Mitzvah 423. And see also Shu"t She'aris Yisrael (Minzberg), Yoreh De'ah section, end of siman 26, who was concerned about this; but see the sources noted in Sha'arei Mezuzah, perek 9, note 19, that many were not concerned here about "ta'aseh velo min he'asui" ↩
[52] (Halacha 489)
The Law of One Who Rents a House Outside Eretz Yisroel for Thirty Days or More (4)
We have learned that some poskim wrote that even one who rents outside Eretz Yisroel with a fixed lease and for a long period is also exempt from mezuzah, and some wrote that therefore it is proper that he not affix one, because he loses the bracha or because of other concerns. On the other hand, some wrote that he is obligated to affix one when he rents for a long period, and especially when there is a lease under which the renter cannot be evicted.
Question: What is proper to do in practice when a person moves into a rented apartment for a long period?
Answer: The poskim wrote several pieces of advice for such a case: 1) Some wrote that he should affix it immediately upon moving in, and he may recite the bracha afterwards, after thirty days, when the mezuzah is already affixed1. However, the Mikdash Me'at wrote2: 'It requires investigation how he can recite the bracha "to affix a mezuzah" when he is not performing an act of affixing'.
2) Some wrote that he may take down the mezuzah after thirty days and affix it again with a bracha, as written in a question in Shu"t Aryeh Dvei Ila'i3: 'And one who wishes to affix it immediately — in any event it is proper not to recite a bracha, since he is exempt, and after thirty days to take the mezuzah, recite a bracha on it, and affix it again'. The Mikdash Me'at wrote similarly4: 'It is more correct that he not recite a bracha, and after thirty days he should take it down and affix it again with a bracha'.
However, some wrote that it is not proper to take down the mezuzah and affix it again, because in this way he cannot recite a bracha, as explained in the Nachalas Tzvi5: 'One cannot say that here too he may, after thirty days, take it and affix it, for this is not so, since in such a case there is no need to recite a bracha, as I wrote below at the beginning of siman 289; and this still requires investigation'.
3) Some wrote6 that he should take it down, divert his attention, and then affix it again; but this was said regarding affixing a mezuzah on a doorway without a door.
However, one should note what the Kesav Sofer wrote7: 'One may say that perhaps the primary view is that of those who hold that a house without a door is obligated in mezuzah, and he is forbidden to wait until he diverts his attention'. If so, in our case as well, when he lives in the house after the thirty-first day, it would seem improper for him to take down the mezuzah and wait until he diverts his attention, since the house is obligated in mezuzah.
4) Some suggested taking down one mezuzah for checking or to replace it, as written in Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak8: 'It appears that in practice, after thirty days, he should take one mezuzah to check it, or to replace it with a nicer one than it, which is permitted according to halacha, and recite a bracha on it, intending to include also those on all the doors, as this advice is explained in the Acharonim'.
The Rebbe likewise instructed in practice, as cited in Sefer HaMinhogim9: 'Surely you know of our minhag to affix the mezuzos immediately upon entering the house10, and of course without a bracha; but when thirty days are completed, one takes one mezuzah to check it, and it is permitted to replace it with a nicer one than it, and accordingly one affixes the new one with a bracha, intending to include also those on all the other doors'.
In a letter as well, the Rebbe noted11 that he should take it down for checking and, if possible, replace the mezuzah with a nicer and more mehudar mezuzah: 'Anash are accustomed to bring into the new apartment, first of all, a siddur, Chumash, Tehillim and Tanya, and likewise to affix mezuzos immediately, of course without a bracha; and on the thirtieth day to take one mezuzah in order to check it, and if possible to replace it with a nicer and more mehudar one than it, and upon affixing it to recite the bracha and intend to include the entire house with the bracha'.
Thus, in practice, it is proper that the renter affix a mezuzah immediately, but without a bracha. After thirty days12 he should take down one mezuzah13 in order to check it, and if possible replace it with a nicer and more mehudar one than it, and upon affixing it he should recite the bracha and intend to include the entire house with the bracha'.
Notes:
1 See Sha'arei HaMezuzah, perek 9, note 20 ↩
2 286, s"k 59. And see the words of the Alter Rebbe, Orach Chaim siman 263, se'if 11: *'How can you recite "and commanded us to kindle" when they are already burning from before?'* ↩
3 Yoreh De'ah, siman 17; however, in his conclusion he inclines to the view that one is obligated from the outset ↩
4 286, s"k 59. And see also the sources noted in Sha'arei Mezuzah there, note 19 ↩
5 Yoreh De'ah, siman 286, s"k 22. But see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak, vol. 10, siman 93, who wrote: 'Nevertheless the distinction is simple, for there, at any rate, he recited a bracha .. on the mezuzah at the time he first put up the mezuzah, and therefore he rightly does not recite a bracha again; but here, where the case is that he did not recite a bracha at first, they rightly wrote that when he takes it down and affixes it again he should recite a bracha' ↩
6 See Sha'arei Mezuzah there ↩
7 Shu"t, Yoreh De'ah, siman 139 ↩
8 Vol. 9, siman 105; and in vol. 10 there he suggested that he initially take a borrowed mezuzah. [It would seem that the reason there is no concern about taking it down, despite the words of the Kesav Sofer above, is that he takes it down for checking, and there is reason for checking before an obligation of a higher level, which begins on the thirty-first day] ↩
9 P. 81; Igros Kodesh, vol. 10, p. 219. Cited in Chovas HaDar, perek 3, note 9 ↩
10 However, one should note what is related (Hearos UBiurim, issue 1057, p. 83) in the name of the Rebbe Rayatz, that he said to affix it after thirty days. And one should also note what is related (see Igros Kodesh, vol. 13, p. 169; Asif Minhogim VeHanhagos, perek 26, se'if 14) about the conduct of the Rebbe Rashab upon purchasing the house in Rostov, that he waited two weeks until he affixed it. And likewise the discussion regarding the conduct of the Rebbe upon entering a purchased house ↩
11 Igros Kodesh, vol. 15, p. 390 ↩
12 See Sdei Chemed, Kelalim, Ma'areches HaMem (Kehos edition, vol. 3, p. 1044), kelal 112 at its beginning; Nesivim BeSdeh HaShlichus, vol. 1, p. 91, note 15. And regarding what we sometimes find in the Rebbe's wording in letters, 'and on the thirtieth day', see Asif, perek 26, note 31 ↩
13 And apparently they were not concerned about the issue of "ta'aseh velo min he'asui," which is why the other mezuzos are left in place; and see Sha'arei Mezuzah there ↩
[53] (Halacha 1154)
Question: What is the source for writing the Name Shin-Daled-Yud (שד-י) on the outside of the mezuzah?
Answer: It is written in the Zohar1: 'Come and see: at the time that those evil species approach the doorway of a person, they lift their heads and gaze at the holy Name that is visible outside, which is Shin-Daled-Yud, adorned with its crowns. This Name rules over all of them; they fear it and flee, and do not approach the doorway of the person. Rabbi Yitzchak said to him: If so, let a person inscribe this Name on the doorway of the house and no more — why the entire passage? He said to him: That is well asked, for this Name is adorned only by those letters, all of them inscribed with the inscription of the King; and when the entire passage is written, then this Name is adorned with its crowns, and the King goes out with all His hosts, all inscribed with the inscription of the King, and then they fear Him and flee before Him. Come and see: "VeHayah" is the holy Name from below to above, and therefore Shin-Daled-Yud is inscribed outside, opposite this Name; "VeHayah" inside, Shin-Daled-Yud outside, so that the person is guarded on all sides, inside and outside'.
This minhag is mentioned in the words of the Rishonim2, as written in Machzor Vitri3: 'One must leave, at the beginning of the line of "VeHayah im shamo'a," the measure of a small word, so that he may write Shin-Daled-Yud on the back. And when he inserts the mezuzah into a tube, he rolls it from the end of the line to the beginning of the line, and he opens a window in the tube, of a size so that window aligns with window, and Shin-Daled-Yud will be seen written'.
The Eshkol wrote similarly4: 'Except for the seventh line, which is the line of "VeHayah im shamo'a," in which a little space is left opposite a window on the outside, and Shin-Daled-Yud is written in that place .. and he writes the Name on the outside, over the place of "VeHayah"'.
The Rambam5 wrote: 'It is a widespread minhag to write Shin-Daled-Yud on the outside of the mezuzah, opposite the space between one passage and the next, and there is no harm in this since it is on the outside'.
The Rosh6, cited by the Tur7, wrote: 'The custom is to write Shin-Daled-Yud on the outside of the mezuzah, in the space between one passage and the next'.
As halacha, the Mechaber wrote8: 'It is forbidden to add anything to it, except that on the outside one writes Shin-Daled-Yud'.
Question: What is the significance of writing this Name?
Answer: The Orchos Chaim wrote9, and likewise the Kol Bo10: 'The reason this Name is written rather than the others is that it is an acronym of "Shomer Diras Yisrael" (Guardian of the dwelling of Israel)'11.
Rabbeinu Bachya12 wrote: 'Our Sages of blessed memory, the Sages of Truth, received that the place for putting up the mezuzah is at the end of the upper third13, and so it is explained in the Yerushalmi14. The reason for this is that it alludes to the end of the structure, which is the third Glory, called by the name Shin-Daled and Alef-Daled. For this reason we write the Name of Shin-Daled on the back of the parchment of the mezuzah, so that it is visible in the hollow of the tube through the hole; and for this reason it is called by the name "mezuzah," which is the numerical value of the Name Alef-Daled, and He is also called the Guardian of Israel; and so the mezuzah guards the person from outside while he is inside. According to the plain meaning, the reason we write the Name Shin-Daled-Yud on the mezuzah is that the nations think that the success of houses depends on the system of the stars; and since this Name overpowers and prevails over that system, we therefore write it to allude that from Him the bounty and good enter the houses, and not from the system. And so said Eliphaz15: 'ומה יפעל שדי למו' ("And what can the Almighty do for them"), and adjacent to it: 'והוא מלא בתיהם טוב' ("Yet He filled their houses with good")'.
The Maharsha16 wrote: '"בפרש שדי מלכים" ("When the Almighty scatters kings"), etc. For this is the Name that emerges from the passage of Kerias Shema to protect a person from demons and spirits, as we say in the second perek of Shevuos17 regarding the song against afflictions: "יושב בסתר עליון בצל שדי" ("He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, in the shadow of the Almighty"), etc. And therefore this Name is written on the outside of mezuzos, opposite the passage of Shema that is inside'.
The Etz Yosef18 wrote: 'The Name Shin-Daled-Yud written on the mezuzah is the acronym of "Shomer Dalsos Yisrael" (Guardian of the doors of Israel), so as not to allow a destroyer and a harmer into the house of Israel. This is why they established in the bracha "Baruch Atah Hashem, shover oyvim umachnia zeidim" (Who breaks enemies and humbles the wicked), for the initials of "shover oyvim umachnia zeidim" equal the numerical value of Shin-Daled-Yud. "כי חזק בריחי שעריך ברך בניך בקרבך" ("For He has strengthened the bars of your gates; He has blessed your children within you") — the initials of "chizak berichei she'arayich beirach banayich" equal the numerical value of Shin-Daled-Yud. "Who opens each day the doors of the gates of the east" — the initials of "yom dalsos sha'arei" are Shin-Daled-Yud'.
In Minchas Aharon19 he wrote: 'He should have in mind that on the mezuzah the Name Shin-Daled-Yud is inscribed outside and Havayah inside, as written in the Zohar, and he should say: "'Shmor 'Demusi 'Hashem 'Shomer 'Dalsos 'Yisrael" (Guard my likeness, Hashem, Guardian of the doors of Israel); Master of the World, save me from the Angel of Death and his company; "מגדל עוז שם ה' בו ירוץ צדיק ונשגב" ("The Name of Hashem is a tower of strength; the righteous runs into it and is safe")20. And he should have in mind that the letters following those of the Name Shin-Daled-Yud in the alphabet are Tav-Kaf-Hei, that he be saved from the yetzer hara by the power of Shin-Daled-Yud, which is sealed in the letters of "yetzer" spelled out in full — Yu'd, Tza'di, Rei'sh — whose final letters are Shin-Daled-Yud, which subdues it'.
The Yafeh LaLev wrote21, cited in Kol Yaakov22: 'In the sefer Nefesh Kol Chai, Ma'areches Shin, os 29, he wrote that it is an acronym of "Sh'as D'in Y'ishmor" (He will guard at the time of judgment), to allude to what is written in the holy Zohar, sefer 96, along these lines; see there'.
It is written in the Zohar23: 'A person makes a house, and the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: Write My Name and place it on your doorway'. The holy Rabbi Levi Yitzchak, the father of the Rebbe, wrote24: 'See Nitzotzei Oros, os 1. It would seem closer to explain that "My Name" refers to the Name Shin-Daled-Yud on the outside of the mezuzah, which is the guardian, the acronym of "Shomer Dalsos Yisrael" (whereas according to his explanation, that "My Name" refers to "mezuzah," whose numerical value equals Alef-Daled — neither the word "mezuzah" nor the Name Alef-Daled appears in the mezuzah, so how could He say "Write My Name"?). "My Name" also alludes to "VeHayah" (the letters of Havayah) inside and Shin-Daled-Yud outside, which together equal the numerical value of "shem" (name); and "place it on your doorway" refers to the doorway of Malchus, the Name Alef-Daled, whose numerical value is "mezuzah" (and so here there is a complete unification of Havayah and Shin-Daled-Yud — Tiferes and Yesod (which is "Kudsha Brich," holy is Tiferes, blessed is Yesod) — in the mezuzah, Alef-Daled of Malchus). I later found this in the Ramaz'.
> Thus we have seen that there is an ancient minhag to write the Name Shin-Daled-Yud on the back of the mezuzah, and we have seen various reasons and allusions for this25. In the next halacha we will see where this Name is written on the mezuzah.
--------------
Notes:
1 Va'eschanan 266a ↩
2 The Mordechai, Halachos Ketanos, siman 961, wrote this minhag in the name of Halachos Gedolos (also cited in Darkei Moshe, Yoreh De'ah siman 288, s"k 3), but it is not found in the Halachos Gedolos before us. And see further the sources noted in Encyclopedia Talmudis, notes, vol. 43, Mezuzah, column 540, note 206 ↩
3 Siman 515 ↩
4 Hilchos Mezuzah 71b ↩
5 Hilchos Mezuzah, perek 5, halacha 4 ↩
6 Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah, siman 18 ↩
7 Yoreh De'ah, siman 288 ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah, siman 288, se'if 15 ↩
9 Vol. 2, Hilchos Mezuzah, os 1 ↩
10 Siman 90 ↩
11 In the Siddur of the Arizal it is written "Shomer Dalsos Yisrael" (and some of the Acharonim quoted it this way from the Kol Bo); and see Likkutei Sichos, vol. 19, Eikev 2 ↩
12 Va'eschanan 6:9 ↩
13 Menachos 33a ↩
14 Megillah, perek 4, halacha 12 ↩
15 Iyov 22:17 ↩
16 Brochos 15b, in Chiddushei Aggados ↩
17 15b ↩
18 Menachos, HaKometz Rabbah, 33b, os 4 ↩
19 Kelal 9 ↩
20 Mishlei 18:10 ↩
21 Vol. 2, Yoreh De'ah, siman 288 ↩
22 There, os 28 ↩
23 Vol. 2, 36a ↩
24 Likkutei Levi Yitzchak, vol. 2, p. 59. And see Likkutei Sichos there, in the marginal note to note 7 ↩
25 And see Be'er Mayim Chaim, Parshas Lech Lecha ↩
[54] (Halacha 1155)
The Name Shin-Daled-Yud
Question: Where on the mezuzah must the Name Shin-Daled-Yud be written?
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw the Zohar1, which wrote: 'והיה שמא קדישא מתתא לעילא ועל דא שד״י אתרשים מלבר לקבלי שמא דא והי״ה מלגו שד״י מלבר למהוי נטיר ב״נ מכל סטרין מלגאו ומלבר [="VeHayah" is the holy Name from below to above, and therefore Shin-Daled-Yud is written outside, opposite this Name; "VeHayah" inside, Shin-Daled-Yud outside, to guard the person on all sides, inside and outside]'.
That is, according to the Zohar, the Name Shin-Daled-Yud is written on the outside, parallel to the word "VeHayah".
On the other hand, the Rishonim wrote that the minhag is to write it opposite the space between the passages, as written in Machzor Vitri2: 'One must leave, at the beginning of the line of "VeHayah im shamo'a," the measure of a small word, so that he may write Shin-Daled-Yud on the back'.
In the sefer HaEshkol3 he wrote: '"VeHayah im shamo'a," in which a little space is left opposite a window on the outside, and Shin-Daled-Yud is written in that place'.
The Rambam4 wrote: 'Opposite the space between one passage and the next'. The Rosh wrote similarly5: 'In the space between one passage and the next'.
The Mordechai6 wrote: '"VeHayah im shamo'a" begins in the middle of a line, and opposite that empty space one writes Shin-Daled-Yud on the outside, aligned directly opposite it'.
However, the Kesef Mishneh on the Rambam there wrote: 'And in the sefer HaZohar, Parshas Va'eschanan, [it is written] that one must write Shin-Daled-Yud on the outside opposite the word "VeHayah" that is inside'.
He elaborated on this in his sefer, the Beis Yosef7: 'But regarding what he [=the Tur] wrote, that the custom is to write it over the space between one passage and the next — the Rambam also wrote so, and I have not found any hint for it anywhere. And in the sefer HaZohar, in the above-mentioned parsha, it is explained that one must write it opposite the word "VeHayah" .. and so it is proper to institute as the practice'.
However, the Rema in Darkei Moshe8 wrote: 'The custom is not so, but rather as Rabbeinu wrote'.
> Thus, the Beis Yosef wrote that it is proper to institute the practice according to the words of the Zohar, and the Darkei Moshe wrote that this is not the custom.
As halacha, the Mechaber wrote9: 'Opposite the word "VeHayah" that is inside'. And so it is written in the writings of the Arizal10.
However, the Rema there, in his gloss, wrote: 'Some say opposite the space between the passages, and this is the custom'.
These are the words of the Levush11: 'The scribes, according to their tradition, are accustomed to write Shin-Daled-Yud on the outside opposite the word "VeHayah" that is inside, and a sign for this is "והיה שדי בצריך" ("And the Almighty shall be your treasure")12 — do not read "betzarecha" but "betzirecha," meaning: on the mezuzah, which is on the hinge (tzir), Shin-Daled-Yud shall be opposite "VeHayah". And some say opposite the space between the passages, and this is the custom'.
In explaining the words of the Mechaber, the sefer Shulchan Gavoah wrote13: 'One should not ask: since the Rambam and the Rosh wrote that one should write the Name Shin-Daled-Yud within the space .. how did our Rabbeinu abandon his general rule, setting them aside and ruling according to the sefer HaZohar? For they too did not write it as a requirement, but only from a minhag the scribes practiced; but according to the Zohar one must specifically write the Name Shin-Daled-Yud opposite the word "VeHayah" ..'.
The Prishah wrote14: 'To write Shin-Daled-Yud on the outside over the space. And although he wrote shortly before that it is good to leave a space between one passage and the next of less than three letters, how then can he write in the space the word Shin-Daled-Yud, which is three letters? One may answer that he may write one letter outside the line15, or he may write the word Shin-Daled-Yud in small letters'.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach16 brought two ways of reconciling, so as to fulfill one's obligation according to all opinions: 'You wrote, regarding the two views brought in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah siman 288 — whether to write the Name Shin-Daled-Yud of the mezuzah opposite the word "VeHayah" that is inside, or opposite the space between the passages — that you heard from elders and scribes that there are those who are meticulous to fulfill both views, by taking care to write part of the Name opposite the word "VeHayah" and also extending it partly opposite the space between the passages. Your honor remarked on this that since this minhag has no basis at all, it is possible that this is not a correction but a spoiling, since it is neither like this view nor like that view — these are the essentials of your words. In my humble opinion it is not an error, and thereby one fulfills the obligation according to all opinions .. In any event it is simple, as we said, that there is no room at all to cast doubt on those who are particular to do this; they do well, and there is in this an added good. However, I, the humble one, am as one who suggests to men of truth who know the hidden wisdom that perhaps it is more correct to write the Name in large letters in such a way that it is aligned opposite the entire word "VeHayah" and also opposite the entire space between the passages, for perhaps both are good when they are all aligned opposite the Name'.
Chabad minhag: There is a response from the Rebbe17: 'To clarify with a Rav among Anash שי' whether they are not particular that the Name Shin-Daled-Yud be on the back of the "VeHayah".
> In practice, Sephardim are accustomed18 to follow the words of the Mechaber and write the Name Shin-Daled-Yud opposite "VeHayah," and Ashkenazim write it opposite the space between the passages19 [and some write it in such a way that the beginning of the Name Shin-Daled-Yud is opposite "VeHayah," and it extends opposite the place of the space]. Regarding Chabad minhag, it appears that in the past they were accustomed to write according to the words of the Rema, opposite the space; however, following the Rebbe's response, some changed to write according to the words of the Mechaber, and some followed the above-mentioned reconciliation, beginning opposite "VeHayah" and continuing to the place of the space20.
--------------
Notes:
1 Va'eschanan 266a ↩
2 Siman 515 ↩
3 Hilchos Mezuzah 71b ↩
4 Hilchos Mezuzah, perek 5, halacha 4 ↩
5 Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah, siman 18 ↩
6 Halachos Ketanos, HaKometz Rabbah, remez 961 ↩
7 Yoreh De'ah, siman 288 ↩
8 Os 4 ↩
9 Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah, siman 288, se'if 15 ↩
10 See Likkutei Torah of the Arizal, end of Parshas Va'eschanan; Mishnas Chassidim, Maseches Mezuzah, perek 1, halacha 10. [And see Ben Ish Chai, year 2, Ki Savo, in the introduction: 'With this, with the help of Heaven, one will understand "להנחיל אוהבי יש" ("to cause those who love Me to inherit substance") — "yesh" is the acronym of Havayah and Shin-Daled-Yud, for these Names bestow influence and shine specifically upon those who love, namely Israel. With this one will understand the reason that the two Names Havayah and Shin-Daled-Yud are inscribed on the mezuzah opposite each other, for the Name Shin-Daled-Yud outside is opposite the word "VeHayah" written inside, in which the Name Havayah is alluded, and this is because these two Names guard Israel. With this one will understand "כי בשם קדשו בטחנו" ("for in His holy Name we have trusted"), for the numerical value of Havayah and Shin-Daled-Yud equals "shem"'] ↩
11 There, se'if 15 ↩
12 Iyov 22:25 ↩
13 There, os 25 ↩
14 Yoreh De'ah there, s"k 16 ↩
15 See also the words of the Maharshal, siman 37: 'Who is the prophet who declared that it would cause harm if it is not all over the space, or if it begins slightly outside the margin?' ↩
16 Shu"t Minchas Shlomo, Tinyana, siman 84 ↩
17 See Kovetz Tiferes Shimshon, issue 6, a correspondence on this matter between the Mara D'asra of Crown Heights, Rabbi Avraham Osdaba, who maintained the old minhag of writing according to the Rema, and the scribe Rabbi Zirkind, who wondered why the practice does not follow the Zohar ↩
18 See Kol Yaakov, siman 288, s"k 29; and see also Yeri'os Shlomo, vol. 1, perek 6, se'if 22 ↩
19 See also Keses HaSofer, siman 27, se'if 7 ↩
20 And see the above-mentioned Kovetz Tiferes Shimshon, where he wrote that it would seem that in such a case, where this is a dispute between the poskim and the mekubalim, then according to the words of Sha'ar HaKollel in the name of Rabbi Hillel of Paritch, in the view of our Rebbeim, our Nesiim, in such a case one should rule according to the words of the mekubalim ↩
[55] (Halacha 1156)
The Name Sha-dai
In the previous halachos we saw the ancient minhag of writing the Name Sha-dai on the outside of the mezuzah.
Question: Must the Name Sha-dai be visible1?
Answer: We saw in the previous halacha the words of the Zohar2, which writes: 'The holy Name that is seen on the outside, which is Sha-dai.'
And it is written in Sefer Raziel HaMalach3: 'And the Name Sha-dai guards against the mazikin; "בצל שדי יתלונן" ("he shall abide in the shadow of the Almighty") is said in the Shir shel Pega'im. And therefore one writes Sha-dai on the mezuzah, and the iron that is over the mezuzah is pierced, so that the Name Sha-dai will be read and recognizable, to drive away the mazikin ..'.
And in Sefer HaTerumah4, cited in the Hagahos Maimonios5 and in the Beis Yosef6: 'And there we learned that one must leave [enough blank space] to roll around the circumference in other sefarim; and if so, perhaps the same applies to tefillin and mezuzos. However, it appears that perhaps it is not necessary, since the world's practice is to write Sha-dai on the mezuzah on the outer side, opposite the blank space between the parshah of Shema and Vehayah im shamoa, and they make a small hole in the hollow tube in which the mezuzah is placed, and there is a hole in the wood about the size of the letter dalet, so that the Name Sha-dai will be visible on the outside. And if a blank margin were required at the beginning of the mezuzah to roll around its circumference, then the Name would not be visible from the outside. And the same applies to tefillin, that it is not required.'
And the Mordechai7 writes: 'And furthermore, we say in the Halachos Gedolos that they would make Sha-dai opposite the space of the parshah, and there was a window in the tube, so that window would be opposite window, and then one could see Sha-dai from outside if one pierced a hole in his door. And this does not accord with the explanation of Rabbeinu Tam. [However, one could say that Sha-dai need not be seen from the outside except as a mitzvah, and the Bahag, etc. — M.Y.] However, this is not a proof, for say that even as a mitzvah one need not see Sha-dai from the outside.'
And in Sefer Halachos by Rav Yechiel ben Rav Yekusiel8 it is written: 'And one must leave, at the beginning of the line of Vehayah im shamoa, the measure of a small word, so that he may write Sha-dai there on its back. And when he inserts the mezuzah into the tube, he rolls it from the end of the lines to the beginning, and opens a window in the tube at Vehayah, so that the window of the tube will be opposite the window of Vehayah, and Sha-dai will be seen outside the tube.'
And the Smag9 writes: 'Some say that there is in the Yerushalmi that a city in which there are swine is exempt from the mezuzah. And Rabbeinu Yitzchak son of Rabbi Avraham says [that] the matter was forgotten and not stated, for he checked all of them and did not find it. However, he was accustomed to cover it entirely at the doorway, and so I am accustomed to cover it; and also in rooms, in a place where small children are found /there/, I cover the hole with a little wax.'
And the Kolbo writes10: 'However, in any place where there is filth around it, it is good to cover it so that it will not be visible, and in a place of purity it is good for it to be visible.' However, in his words he wrote generally about the mezuzah and did not mention that it is regarding the Name Sha-dai.
And in the Minhogei Maharil11: 'And the one that he had in the courtyard — he would seal the hole with wax, and so it is in the Smag. And he said that closing the door does not help on account of the filth, since it is constantly opened and locked. [ .. And Mahari Segal said that he affixes a mezuzah at the doorway [at the gate] of his courtyard even if it is a place of filth from urine and the like, but he covers the mezuzah on all sides, and also the hole that people usually leave open to see there the word Sha-dai. And sometimes the bochurim — those passing by — [those who saw] scraped it at its side and did not know the reason for that sealing with the wax, and he would seal it again.'
And the Rema writes in the Darchei Moshe12: 'And the Mordechai writes in Hilchos Ketanos: we say in the Halachos Gedolos that they would write Sha-dai between parshah and parshah, and there was a window in the tube so that window would be opposite window, and then one could see Sha-dai from the outside if one pierced a hole in his door. However, if he did not do so, it is implied there that it is not invalidated; and see there.'
> If so, we have seen the words of the Rishonim that it is proper [that the mezuzah, and in particular] the Name Sha-dai, be exposed [and they would make a hole in the tube in which the mezuzah is placed, opposite the Name Sha-dai, so that it would be visible], except in a filthy place. In the next halacha we will see the words of the authors of the Shulchan Aruch and the Acharonim.
Notes:
1 See below, that there are Rishonim who wrote generally regarding the mezuzah ↩
2 Va'eschanan 266a ↩
3 8a ↩
4 Hilchos Tefillin §205 ↩
5 Hilchos Mezuzah ch. 5, os 1 ↩
6 Yoreh De'ah §288. And see also Orach Chaim §32 ↩
7 Halachos Ketanos, chapter HaKometz Rabbah, Remez 961 ↩
8 Kovetz Al Yad, 15 (5761), p. 185 ↩
9 Asin §23. Cited in other Rishonim as well; see Beis Yosef, Yoreh De'ah §286 ↩
10 §90 ↩
11 Hilchos Mezuzah [2] ↩
12 Yoreh De'ah §288, os 3 ↩
[56] (Halacha 1157)
The Name Sha-dai
In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Rishonim regarding the importance of the Name Sha-dai being visible.
Question: How was it ruled halachically?
Answer: The Mechaber1 cited the words of the Kolbo that were brought in the previous halacha: 'In a place where there is filth, such as where small children are found, it is good to cover the mezuzah; and in a place of purity, it is good for it to be visible'2.
And the Taz3 writes on the words of the Mechaber: 'And since he wrote "it is good to cover it," learn from this that the essence of the mitzvah is not that it be visible. From this I learned that those people who do not put up a mezuzah because they say that it is stolen from there and treated with disgrace — this does not exempt them, for they can place the mezuzah there in such a manner that it is not exposed at all on the outside, even opposite the Name Sha-dai, for this in any event is better than nullifying the mitzvah entirely'.
The Rema4 mentioned that the Name Sha-dai must also be exposed, and this is his wording: 'One leaves a hole in the tube opposite the Name Sha-dai, so that it will be visible from the outside'.
> Thus, the Mechaber mentioned that where there is no filth, it is good for the mezuzah to be seen, and the Rema mentioned that one must pierce a hole in the tube so that the Name Sha-dai will be seen.
And the Shelah5 writes: 'And especially such a holy mitzvah, which contains the unity of the Name, blessed be He, and the acceptance of the mitzvos — one should see to it that it is always clean within four amos of the mezuzah. And how good and how pleasant it is to place the tube in which the mezuzah is inside a whole glass vessel made like a tube, for then the letters of the Name Sha-dai shine through the glass vessel. And I have seen chassidim and men of deed who conduct themselves so, and "קדוש יאמר לו" ("holy shall be said of him")'.
And in the Yosef Ometz6 he writes: 'The Reishis Chochmah writes in Sha'ar HaYirah, chapter 14: one should not pour murky water in front of the mezuzah, because of the holiness of the Name that is in it, and one should not carry any filth or dirt through the doorway of the house. End of his words, in brief'. And since it is impossible for every person to stand up to this, I saw my father and teacher, the chassid z"l, who was accustomed to cover all the mezuzos with a copper plate over the whole of them; only at the place of the Name Sha-dai, written on the outside of the mezuzah, was there a hole in that plate, and over that hole there was a kind of copper door hanging from the plate itself, and that door turned on its hinge in such a way that a person could lift the door and place his finger beneath it upon the aforementioned Name Sha-dai. And the chassid, the Gaon Mahar"r Yeshayah Segal, who traveled to Yerushalayim, instituted in his wholeheartedness, when he was Av Beis Din here, to seal the hole over the Name Sha-dai with glass or translucent horn, in such a way that the Name Sha-dai was clearly visible through it. And this too is a very proper way'.
And Rav Shmuel Abuhav7 writes: 'And one must be very, very careful regarding placing the hand on the Name Sha-dai written on the outside of mezuzos, that it not, chas v'shalom, erase it, for that is an outright sin for which one receives lashes by Torah law, as the Rambam z"l writes at the beginning of chapter 6 of Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah [halacha 2]. And the matter is plain to the eyes, that because of placing the hand constantly, several times every day, the holy and pure Name Sha-dai is gradually being erased all the time; and this point of precision I heard from those who are meticulous in mitzvos. They also sought straight paths to remedy the matter, "וצדיקים ילכו בם" ("and the righteous walk in them"): some do not pierce any hole at all in the tube into which the mezuzah is inserted; some make a tube of glass, so that the Name Sha-dai is visible from within, while the hand touches from the outside and does not erase at all; some, who fulfill both, also make the hole of the tube narrow and with little hollow space; and some, along these lines, make a kind of handsome case for the mezuzah, in such a way that the narrowness of the hole together with the thickness of the wood prevents the hand from touching. And all these ways and the like are all right to the one who understands and straight to those who fear Hashem and think upon His Name, and they are worthy of being expounded publicly'.
The Taz8 explained the advantages of covering the mezuzah with a glass case: 'It seems to me that one should not make it visible with no covering at all, for a transgression results from this: every time people touch it when entering and leaving, a little of the Name Sha-dai is erased, until after a long time it is erased entirely, as we see in most houses. Rather, he should insert a piece of glass there; consequently the Name will be visible. And with this the claim of those who are lenient about putting up a mezuzah — because filth is sometimes found around that place, or because women occasionally wash there — is also nullified, for with this it is considered covered even though it is visible. And the proof is from what is stated in Orach Chaim, siman 76: excrement in a glass lantern — it is permitted to recite Krias Shema facing it even though he sees it through its walls, because the Torah made it dependent on covering, and it is covered. And the same applies here, in the reverse: since the Name is covered, there is no prohibition here, for the matter does not depend on seeing. And all the more so regarding [a mezuzah] that is higher than ten tefachim, which is like a separate domain, as the Smag writes, cited by the Beis Yosef; and one would not need even a glass covering, except that this is the preferable way. And in a room where a husband and wife are, one should cover the mezuzah with wax, as the Beis Yosef writes in the name of the Smag in the name of the Riva regarding where filth is found; and so one should do in the aforementioned room, for in this case a glass covering is not enough, since marital relations take place there, and it is written "לא יראה בך ערות דבר" ("there shall not be seen among you any unseemly thing"), just as we say that [with] nakedness in a glass lantern it is forbidden to recite Krias Shema facing it. So it seems to me'.
> Thus we have seen that it is proper for the Name Sha-dai to be visible, but one must pay attention to two details that the Acharonim wrote9: a) that it not be in a filthy place; b) one must be careful that the Name of Hashem not, chas v'shalom, be erased10. [An additional precaution is cited by several poskim — not to touch the parchment directly — and it will be explained in a separate halacha.] Indeed, nowadays transparent mezuzah cases, or mezuzah cases that have a hole with a plastic or glass covering, are commonly available, so that one can easily use them without the above concerns, and this is proper lechatchilah. In the next halacha we will see further details regarding a place where it is proper for it to be covered.
--------------
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, siman 286, se'if 5 ↩
2 Some have remarked on the words of the Mechaber, who wrote generally regarding the mezuzah and did not mention this regarding the Name Sha-dai; especially according to the Mechaber, who wrote: a) that one writes the Name Sha-dai opposite "Vehayah". On the other hand, b) he wrote (in siman 288, se'if 1) that one leaves parchment at the beginning in order to roll it. If so, it automatically follows that the Name is covered, and the Shulchan Aruch did not mention the solutions that the Rishonim wrote, cited in the Beis Yosef, of making a hole in the parchment and the like. And c.) he wrote (in siman 289, se'if 1) without qualification that one places the mezuzah in a hollow tube, and did not mention making a hole. If so, it is possible to say that according to the Mechaber there is no need for the Name of Hashem to be seen, and it suffices that the mezuzah is seen (and see Pe'as Sadcha (Munk), vol. 1, siman 130.) [And it is possible that for this it also suffices when one sees the mezuzah case in which the mezuzah is located; and seemingly this appears so from the words of the Kolbo, since this statement comes in continuation of his words that one places the parchment in a hollow tube. However, according to this, seemingly his intent is that in a place of filth one must cover the tube as well. And this requires further study] ↩
3 There, se'if katan 4 ↩
4 Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, siman 288, se'if 15 ↩
5 Maseches Chullin, Perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
6 Vol. 1, Dinei Kevi'as Mezuzah, siman 480 ↩
7 Sefer HaZichronos, Zikaron 9, chapter 3 ↩
8 There, se'if katan 5 ↩
9 And see also Shu"t Kaneh Bosem, vol. 2, siman 95 ↩
10 See Lishkas HaSofer, end of siman 27, se'if katan 6: 'And they should be very careful to place a piece of glass inside the hole, so that they not, chas v'shalom, come through touching with the hand for kissing to the prohibition of erasing the Name, as is seen and evident in many mezuzos in which the Name was erased because of touching with the hands when there is no glass there'. [It should be noted that this can also occur with plastic cases on which the Name is written, where one must be careful that it not be erased through touching] ↩
[57] (Halacha 1158)
Adding Writing on the Inside.
Question: Is it permitted to write names in a mezuzah on the side of the writing?
Answer: We find in the works of the Rishonim that there was an ancient minhag, from the time of the Geonim, to write holy names and names of angels in the mezuzah, as the Ran1 writes: 'And what Rashi z"l wrote, "and in mezuzos" — this is because in earlier times, in the time of the Geonim, they were accustomed to write some names on the top of the mezuzah in those letters, and those letters are the script of the Cutheans, and so is the truth, as stated above'.
This minhag is also cited in works from the beis midrash of Rashi, as the Machzor Vitry2 writes: 'And one must be careful that the 24 names, and the 12 angels and their 24 seals, be set apart in the margin at the end of the line. And likewise the three verses written below. So that they not be absorbed and mixed within its lines, since they are not of the essence of the mitzvah of mezuzah'3.
And the Yerei'im4 writes: 'Apart from the halachos of Maseches Menachos stated regarding mezuzah, people have become accustomed, as additional protection for the house, to write at the end of the lines seals and names of [all] angels; and they are not indispensable, nor even a mitzvah, but rather additional protection'. And he elaborates there to explain where one writes the additional holy names and the names of the angels.
However, the Rambam5 firmly rejected this minhag, writing: 'If one wrote it without sirtut (ruled lines), or was not precise regarding full and deficient spellings, or added on the inside even one letter, it is invalid'. And afterwards he writes: 'It is a widespread minhag to write on the mezuzah, on the outside, opposite the space between one parshah and the next, Sha-dai; and there is no harm in this, since it is on the outside. But those who write on the inside names of angels, or holy names, or a pasuk, or seals, are included among those who have no portion in the World to Come, for these fools are not satisfied with having nullified the mitzvah, but they have made a great mitzvah — which is the unity of the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His love and His service — as if it were an amulet for their own benefit, as it entered their foolish hearts that this is something that benefits in the vanities of the world'.
> That is, the Rambam writes that there is no harm in the minhag of writing the Name Sha-dai, since it is written on the outside, i.e., on the other side of the mezuzah; but he rejected any addition of writing on the inside.
And in Sefer HaNeyar6 he emphasized that even regarding adding writing on the outside, this is only the Name of Hashem: 'But it is forbidden to add on the inside even one letter, nor to make seals of angels on the outside, nor anything at all, except the Name of the Master alone'.
And the Hagahos Maimoniyos7 writes, in a gloss on the conclusion of the Rambam's words above: 'And so is written in Sefer HaMitzvos in his name; and so R' Moshe son of R' Yehoshua told me, that our teacher R' Avigdor Kohen zt"l instituted throughout the entire land of Austria not to write in the mezuzah any seal or angel, only the two parshiyos as they are written, not adding even one letter; unlike R' Eliezer of Metz [= the author of the Yerei'im], who wrote the form of the mezuzah with seals and names of angels, though he wrote that they are neither indispensable nor a mitzvah but additional protection. And likewise in the ס״ע of Rabbeinu Simcha he wrote three verses beneath the mezuzah: ה' ישמרך ("Hashem will guard you") etc.'.
And the Rosh8 writes: 'On the inside one should not add anything, nor make seals, because it appears as if he intends to make it an amulet for protection. Rather, he should perform the mitzvah properly, to fulfill the word of the Creator, blessed be He, and He will guard us, and He is our shade at our right hand'.
Halachically, the Mechaber9 writes: 'It is forbidden to add anything to it, except that on the outside one writes Sha-dai, opposite the word "Vehayah" on the inside'.
And the Rema writes: 'But on the inside one should not add anything to the two parshiyos'.
> Thus we have seen that there were those who were accustomed to write names inside the mezuzah as well, on the inside; but halachically it was ruled that one should not add names and the like inside the mezuzah.
Question: Halachically, does the mezuzah become invalid if one writes on it these names, or marks attesting to the mezuzah's kashrus?
Answer: We saw above the words of the Rambam, who writes: 'that he added on the inside even one letter, it is invalid'. Some understood10 that these words of the Rambam were said also regarding one who adds names of angels and the like beside the parshiyos — that then too the mezuzah is invalid — and that this is the Rambam's intent regarding those who add names of angels and the like, that these fools 'nullified the mitzvah'11, meaning that because of the addition of the names the mezuzah is invalid, and therefore they nullified the mitzvah. However, the Rosh there cites the words of the Rambam and does not write that the mezuzah is invalid12, and likewise many poskim13 cite the din that one should not add, and do not write that this addition invalidates the mezuzah.
In practice, the Acharonim disagree on this, as the Igros Moshe14 writes: 'In conclusion, it is clear in my humble opinion that anything added inside the mezuzah — even without any ink at all, and even by chak tochos (engraving), and even mere marks — the mezuzah becomes invalid; and likewise with tefillin and a Sefer Torah. Therefore, those mezuzos on which the letters 'נבדק מד' ("checked") were engraved on the inside are invalid, and they must be removed; and once they are removed, they become kosher.
However, in Shu"t B'tzel HaChochmah15 he writes: 'Extra letters and words written in ink on the margins of STa"M, far from the parshiyos, in a manner that it is clearly recognizable that they do not belong to them — it appears that according to all opinions, or at least according to the decisive majority of the poskim, they do not invalidate according to the basic din; nevertheless, certainly lechatchilah one should remove from them any extra letter or word'.
> Thus one should not write on the mezuzah letters or marks indicating that the mezuzah is kosher or was checked [and some say that the mezuzah is invalid until this writing is erased]. Therefore, before affixing a new mezuzah, one should check that no writing or the like remains from the sofer or the proofreader.
--------------
Notes:
1 Sanhedrin 21b ↩
2 Siman 515 ↩
3 See also Siddur Rashi, siman 455: 'And it requires angels: at the end of the lines of "HaDevarim," Michael; and at the end of the lines of "Uveshochbecha," Gavriel; and at the end of "Mitzvah," [Azriel]'. The addition of holy names and names of angels is found in more of the Rishonim; and see the sources cited in Shu"t Az Nidberu, vol. 3, siman 62 ↩
4 Siman 400 ↩
5 Hilchos Mezuzah, ch. 5, halachos 3-4 ↩
6 Os 36, Hilchos Mezuzah ↩
7 On the words of the Rambam there, os 4 ↩
8 Hilchos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah, siman 18. And the Tur cites it, Yoreh De'ah, siman 288 ↩
9 Siman 288, se'if 15 ↩
10 See Az Nidberu there ↩
11 See Chasam Sofer, Even HaEzer, vol. 2, siman 90 ↩
12 And likewise the Tur copied the words of the Rambam, and did not write "that they nullified the mitzvah," but rather wrote "the mitzvos that they nullified," which can be interpreted to mean that they nullified mitzvos in general ↩
13 See the sources cited in Az Nidberu there. However, he writes there that if one wrote close to the script, we have not found anyone who would validate it, 'and it can be said that the other Rishonim who cited the minhag of adding names also meant [names] set apart in the margin'. And see also Shu"t B'tzel HaChochmah, vol. 2, siman 54, that even according to those who invalidate due to an extra letter, nevertheless it can be said that it is not invalidated by writing names far from the script, 'for within the parshiyos they too agree that an extra [letter] invalidates; and only on the margin, somewhat far from the script, in a manner that it is recognizable that it is not part of the body of the mezuzah, do they hold that it is permitted to add even lechatchilah'. And see there further, at length, regarding our case ↩
14 Yoreh De'ah, vol. 2, siman 140; and in siman 141 he elaborates to explain the invalidity in this ↩
15 Cited in note 13 ↩
[58] (Halacha 1159)
Kuzu Bemuchsaz Kuzu
In the previous halacha we saw that one should not write holy names, kashrus markings, or the like on the inside of the mezuzah.
Question: What is the din regarding writing holy names on the outside of the mezuzah parchment?
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw that the Rambam mentioned writing the Name Sha-dai, and explained that there is no harm in this because it is written on the outside, i.e., on the other side of the mezuzah.
However, we find an ancient minhag to write additional names on the outside, as written in the Machzor Vitry1: 'כוזו במוכסז כוזו. They were accustomed to write it on the other side of the page, opposite ה' אלהינו ה' ("Hashem our G-d, Hashem"). Holy letters of the alef-beis that follow the letters of ה' אלהינו ה'. After yud, kaf. After hei, vav. And so with all of them'.
And so writes the Hagahos Maimoniyos2: 'And likewise one writes, opposite ה' אלהינו ה' אחד, the Name substituted for them in the alef-beis, which is כוז״ו במוכס״ז כוז״ו; and they were accustomed to invert the letters, the opposite of the writing of the mezuzah, so that each letter will come opposite the letter for which it is substituted. End of quote'.
> Thus it is an ancient minhag to write on the outside of the mezuzah כוזו במוכסז כוזו, but in inverted form (with their tops facing downward), so that the letter כ will be behind the letter י, the letter ו behind ה, and so on.
The Rosh3 cites this minhag: 'And so they were accustomed in Ashkenaz and in France to write, opposite ה' אלקינו ה', on the outside, a Name of fourteen [letters], and they are adjacent to the letters of ה' אלקינו ה' in the alef-beis. But on the inside one should not add anything, nor make seals, because it appears as if he intends to make it an amulet for protection. Rather, he should perform the mitzvah properly, to fulfill the word of the Creator, blessed be He, and He will guard us, and He is our shade at our right hand'. And the Tur4 cites it.
This minhag is cited and mentioned in more of the Rishonim, and it is likewise cited by Rabbi Yishmael HaKohen, one of the great rabbis of Egypt5.
However, the Beis Yosef writes on the words of the Tur: 'And what he writes, that they were accustomed to write on the outside, opposite ה' אלהינויי', a Name of fourteen letters, etc. — so writes the Hagahos Maimon, and they wrote that one writes each letter opposite the letter for which it is substituted. And now they are not accustomed to write so'.
And in the gloss in the Prishah6 he writes: 'And the Beis Yosef wrote that now they are not accustomed to write so — this is specifically in his country; but in all our countries they are accustomed to write so, as we have heard and seen'.
Halachically, the Mechaber did not mention this minhag, in accordance with what is written in the Beis Yosef, that in his place they were not accustomed to write it. And he writes in the Shulchan Aruch7: 'It is forbidden to add anything to it, except that on the outside one writes Sha-dai..'.
But the Rema writes: 'They are further accustomed to write on the outside: כוז״ו במוכס״ז כוז״ו opposite ה' אלהינו ה', and one should invert these letters from the writing of the mezuzah, so that each letter will come opposite the letter for which it is substituted in the alef-beis; but on the inside one should not add anything to the two parshiyos'.
[In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Rambam, that one should not write on the inside any names or names of angels, and that the Hagahos Maimoniyos wrote in the name of R' Avigdor Kohen zt"l not to write in the mezuzah any seal or angel, only the two parshiyos. The plain meaning of their words is a rejection of writing on the inner side of the mezuzah; but we will see below that some derived from them a ruling also regarding writing on the outer side of the mezuzah, and therefore rejected all writing (except the writing of Sha-dai), as follows]
Shu"t Hon Rav8 writes: 'And although all these words of the Rambam are only about those who write on the inside, nevertheless, according to his words — in which he wrote that they make the mitzvah of Hashem .. as if it were an amulet .. — accordingly, who would be so light-headed as to place himself in doubt of having no portion in the World to Come? For according to the reason the Rambam z"l wrote, that they make it for their own benefit, what difference is there between inside and outside ..'. And further on he cites the words of the Hagahos Maimoniyos mentioned above and writes: 'From these words9 it is implied that the words of R' Avigdor z"l apply even on the outside .. And I remember that many days and years ago there passed through our land a certain Torah scholar from the Ashkenazim, Moshe Kapsuto, in the time of the master, the Maharam A., author of Sefer Devar Moshe z"l; and he heard that the aforementioned scholar Kapsuto was writing mezuzos with names on the outside, and he sent and called for him, and decreed upon him that he give him all the mezuzos that were in his possession; and so he did, and he took them from him and placed them in geniza. And I heard from truthful reporters that those names that were written on the outside were the three Names mentioned; nevertheless, the Rav z"l invalidated them, since they were not accustomed to do so in our place .. And likewise I heard from truthful reporters that when the aforementioned Torah scholar passed through Larissa — may Hashem protect it — while the wondrous Rav, the Mahar"ch Abulafia nr"u, was there, this matter was revealed before him; and when the aforementioned scholar went before the aforementioned Rav, he sent him out from before him with great rebuke and spoke harshly with him, words that may not be put into writing ..'.
However, HaGaon R' Y. Palagi, in Yafeh LaLev10, rejected his words and wrote that Heaven forbid that one should cast aspersion on an ancient minhag cited by our teachers the Rishonim and cited by the Rema; and even the Beis Yosef did not reject the minhag, but only wrote that now they are not accustomed to do so. And although the Sephardim are not accustomed to do so, certainly one should not cast aspersion on such a mezuzah or place it in geniza.
And in Shu"t Pele Yo'etz11 he writes: 'And since this is so, it appears in my humble opinion that although Maran HaKadosh wrote that we are not accustomed to write them, nevertheless, for one who wishes to be stringent and write them, there is no question whatsoever, and this does not fall into the category of "a person should not deviate from the minhag", for that applies only to a minhag established because of a trace of prohibition or to keep far from a prohibition, as the Maharashdam z"l writes, Orach Chaim siman 34. On this matter, see Sefer Divrei Yosef by the Mahari Irgas z"l, siman 1 and siman 5, at length; and from there it is clarified that one who changes the minhag in order to do something preferable to it may change it; see there'.
> Thus we have seen that it is an ancient minhag to write on the back of the mezuzah כוזו במוכסז כוזו, and in Ashkenaz they were accustomed to do so, as written by the Rema and the Prishah. Regarding the minhag of the Sephardim, apparently there is no uniform minhag12: some do not write it, as the Beis Yosef writes that they were not accustomed to write so; but today there are communities that do write it, and the poskim wrote to explain that this is not a change from their minhag.
Notes:
1 Siman 515 ↩
2 Hilchos Mezuzah, ch. 5, there, os 3 ↩
3 Hilchos Ketanos, Hilchos Mezuzah, siman 18 ↩
4 Yoreh De'ah, siman 288 ↩
5 In the generation of the Beis Yosef, in his Sefer HaZikaron, Hilchos Mezuzah ↩
6 Os 17 ↩
7 Yoreh De'ah, siman 288, se'if 15 ↩
8 Vol. 2, daf 5, 3 ↩
9 His intent is that the Hagahos Maimoniyos cited the words of R' Avigdor after citing the minhag to write כוזו. However, in the versions we have, these are two separate sub-sections, on two [separate] parts of the Rambam's words, and are not one continuous piece. And see also what is written in Yafeh LaLev, below, rejecting his understanding of the Hagahos Maimoniyos: that it did not speak about the outside, but only rejected writing on the inside ↩
10 Vol. 2, siman 288, se'if koton 2 ↩
11 Yoreh De'ah, siman 17 ↩
12 See Yerios Shlomo, vol. 1, ch. 6, se'if 24 and the notes there; and see Shu"t Yabia Omer, vol. 8, Yoreh De'ah, siman 28, who elaborates and writes: *'Therefore it appears that the Sephardic sofrim who are accustomed to additionally write on the mezuzah, on the outside, "כוזו במוכסז כוזו" — one should not protest against them, for they have something on which to rely'* ↩
[59] (Halacha 1160)
Touching the Mezuzah
Question: Is there significance in touching or kissing the mezuzah? (1)
Answer: The Rambam1 writes: 'A person must be careful with the mezuzah, because it is an obligation upon everyone constantly; and whenever he enters and exits he will encounter the unity of the Name, the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and will remember His love, and will awaken from his slumber and from his preoccupation with the vanities of the time, and will know that there is nothing that endures forever and ever except knowledge of the Rock of the world; and immediately he returns to his senses and walks in the paths of uprightness2. The early Sages said: Whoever has tefillin on his head and on his arm, tzitzis on his garment, and a mezuzah on his doorway, is assured that he will not sin, for he has many reminders, and they are the angels that save him from sinning, as it says: חונה מלאך ה' סביב ליראיו ויחלצם ("The angel of Hashem encamps around those who fear Him, and rescues them")'.
> The words of the Rambam explain what the mezuzah awakens in a person when he enters and exits his home; however, there is no mention that there is significance in touching the mezuzah.
However, in the Gemara in Maseches Avodah Zarah3 we find the concept of touching the mezuzah: 'Onkelos bar Kalonymus converted. The Caesar sent a troop of Romans after him; he drew them in with verses, and they converted. He then sent [another] troop of Romans after him, and told them: Do not say anything at all to him. As they were taking him and going, he said to them: Let me tell you a mere matter: the torch-bearer holds the torch before the pipiyora, the pipiyora before the duke, the duke before the governor, the governor before the koma; does the koma hold a torch before people? They said to him: No. He said to them: The Holy One, blessed be He, held the fire before Israel, as it is written: וה' הולך לפניהם יומם וגו' ("And Hashem went before them by day..."); and they [all] converted. He then sent another troop after him, and told them: Do not converse with him at all. As they took him and were going, he saw a mezuzah [that was placed on the doorway], and placed his hand upon it and said to them: What is this? They said to him: You tell us. He said to them: The way of the world is that a king of flesh and blood sits inside and his servants guard him from outside; but the Holy One, blessed be He — His servants are inside and He guards them from outside, as it says: ה׳ ישמר צאתך ובואך מעתה ועד עולם ("Hashem will guard your going out and your coming in, from now and forever"); and they converted. He did not send after him again'.
Likewise we find among the Sages of Ashkenaz the concept of touching the mezuzah, as cited in the Minhogim of the Maharash of Neustadt4: 'One who wishes to set out on a journey outside the city, when he exits the doorway of the house he places his hand on the mezuzah and says: בשמך טל אטלה, for טל in gematria equals כו״זו, and that is the Name [written] doubled on the mezuzah'. And it is further written there5: 'I heard from Moreinu HaRav Shalom: one who sets out on a journey should touch the mezuzah, and say בשמך טל אטלה; and it is the gematria of the Shem HaMeforash, "Hashem Echad," and the gematria of כוזו, the Name written on the mezuzah; and it is alluded to in the verse ויתן לך האלהים מטל השמים ("May G-d give you of the dew of the heavens")'. And it is further written there6: 'The Maharash z"l: whenever a person exits the doorway of the house, he places his hand on the mezuzah and says: השם שומרי השם צילי על ידי ימיני. אשירי. The Maharash zt"l'.
And it is likewise cited in the Minhogim of his great student, the Maharil7: 'The Maharash said: One who wishes to go outside the city, when he exits the doorway of his house, should place his hand on the mezuzah and say: בשמך טל אטלה. For "טל" in gematria equals כוז״ו, and that is the Name written on the mezuzah on the outside, opposite the four-letter Name, for its letters are the second letters, following the letters of the four-letter Name in the alef-beis. Whenever a person exits the doorway of his house, he should place his hand on the mezuzah and say: ה׳ שומרי ה׳ צלי על יד ימיני, אשר״י. And the Maharash further said that it is in the Gemara that one should say: השם ישמור צאתי ובואי מעתה ועד עולם'.
And in the Leket Yosher8, regarding the conduct of his teacher, the author of the Terumas HaDeshen: 'I found, and I remember, that when he went out of his house he did not touch the mezuzah but looked at it; but when he went out of his house to set out on a journey, he touched the mezuzah'.
And the Rema writes in the Darkei Moshe9: 'The Maharil writes: One who wishes to set out on a journey outside the city, when he exits he should place his hand on the mezuzah and say בשמך טל אטלה, for טל in gematria equals כוזו. And whenever he exits from the doorway, he should place his hand on the mezuzah and say ה' שומרי ה' צילי על יד ימיני; and in the Midrash, that he should say ה' ישמור צאתי ובואי מעתה ועד עולם. And the matter of placing the hand which he wrote is mentioned explicitly in the first perek of Avodah Zarah, daf 11'.
And in Sefer Chareidim10 he writes: 'And a person should place his hand on the mezuzah always, when he enters the house and when he exits, and remember that He, blessed be He, is the Master of the house, and the person, his children, his wife, and all that he has are guests, and all his possessions are His, and He is the One who guards him in the house and in the field; and through this, the mitzvah of mezuzah is counted for him every day before Him, blessed be He, like the mitzvah of tzitzis and tefillin'.
Halachically, the Rema11 writes: 'Some say that when a person exits the house he should place his hand on the mezuzah and say: ה' ישמר צאתי etc. And likewise when a person enters the house, he should place his hand on the mezuzah'.
And the Shach12 writes: 'And when he sets out on a journey outside the city, he should place his hands on the mezuzos and say בשמך ט״ל אטל״ה, for ט״ל in gematria equals כוז״ו — the Maharil there, and the Darkei Moshe cites it'.
[In Shu"t Shleimas Chaim13 he was asked: 'Regarding what the Rema wrote, to place the hand on the mezuzah when exiting the house and when entering — must one place it every time he exits and enters, several times a day? Also, regarding the basis of this matter, which he proved from the episode of Onkelos the convert — it seems to me that someone rejected the proof, [arguing] that there it is different, for he was compelled to do so in order that they would ask and he would engage them in conversation. And I heard that the Gaon Maharil Diskin zt"l was not accustomed at all to place his hand, but rather would look at the mezuzah; and perhaps this too is like placing the hand, since the intent is in order to remember.
And he answered: 'Certainly there is zrizus in doing so each time. And the one who did not do so was concerned that it might lead, Heaven forbid, to erasure; therefore he was careful about this, for it seemed to him that there is more concern regarding this'].
> Thus we have seen that there is significance in touching the mezuzah when entering and exiting the house. In the next halacha we will discuss kissing the mezuzah.
Notes:
1 Hilchos Mezuzah, ch. 6, halacha 13 ↩
2 And see Shu"t Minchas Shlomo, vol. 1, siman 1: 'And it appears that although we may not expound verses on our own, nevertheless it is obvious that regarding tzitzis, about which it is written וראיתם אותו וזכרתם ("and you shall see it and remember"), it is reasonable that this is the essence of the mitzvah: that if one wears a four-cornered garment, it should have tzitzis so that he will see and remember. And likewise regarding mezuzah, which is to remind of the unity of His Name, blessed be He, each time one enters and exits — therefore the mezuzah is the essence, and he properly fulfills a mitzvah every moment' ↩
3 11a ↩
4 Siman 60 ↩
5 Siman 445 ↩
6 Siman 61 ↩
7 Likutim [91] ↩
8 Yoreh De'ah, page 60, inyan 1 ↩
9 Yoreh De'ah, siman 285, se'if koton 2 ↩
10 Mitzvos Aseh, ch. 5 ↩
11 Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, siman 285, se'if 2, in the gloss ↩
12 Se'if koton 4 ↩
13 Yoreh De'ah, siman 165 ↩
[60] (Halacha 1161)
Touching the Mezuzah (2)
In the previous halacha we saw that one should touch the mezuzah when entering and when exiting.
Question: Is there significance in kissing the mezuzah?
Answer: The concept of kissing the mezuzah is first mentioned in the Likutei Torah of the Arizal1: 'I heard in the name of Moreinu HaRav A. z"l a kavanah: when a person exits the doorway of his house, and places his hand on the mezuzah and kisses, he should intend in his kavanah [that it] save him from the yetzer hara; for יצר, spelled out in full, is יו״ד צד״י רי״ש, whose final letters are שד״י. He should intend the Name Sha-dai written on the mezuzah, to save him from the yetzer hara, and it enters within him to subdue him'.
And the Chida writes in Birkei Yosef2: 'He should place his hand on the mezuzah, etc. And the Arizal zt"l wrote that he should place his finger called "amah"3 on Sha-dai and kiss it, and pray to Hashem that He guard him by the Name Sha-dai and its substitution in the following letters, תכ״ה, that He save him from the yetzer hara'.
Likewise we find several of the great poskim who mentioned the kissing, as the Knesses HaGedolah4 writes: 'It is customary to pierce the case at the place of the Name Sha-dai so that it will be visible outside; and so that it not be erased, Heaven forbid, when placing the hand to kiss the mezuzah, they make and place glass in that hole'.
And in Yosef Ometz5 he writes: 'When he exits his house, he should place his hand on the mezuzah and say: בשמך טל אטלה, ה' שומרי ה' צילי על יד ימיני, ה' ישמור צאתי ובואי מעתה ועד עולם; so it is written in the Likutei Maharil in the name of the Maharash z"l. And I saw my father and teacher, the chassid z"l, accustomed to do so three times, and each time he kissed his hand and placed it on his eyes'.
And in the Eliyah Rabbah6 he writes: 'The [Kitzur] Shelah [Hanhagos Shabbos] writes: When one kisses the mezuzah, he should not say ה' ישמור etc., just as we do not say שומר עמו as on weekdays; rather, he should say זכור את יום השבת ("Remember the day of Shabbos"). End of quote'.
Likewise the Shulchan Gavoah7 mentions it: 'הנה כי כן יבורך גבר ("Behold, so shall the man be blessed") when he kisses the mezuzah upon his going out and his coming in, as the author of the Kitzur Shelah writes on daf 38, column 4, in the name of the Maharan Shapira z"l ..'.
And so it is written in practice in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch8: 'And since the mezuzah is to remind him of the unity of His Name, blessed be He, therefore, when he exits the doorway of his house, and likewise when he enters, he should kiss it. But he should not place the hand on the mezuzah itself; rather, he should be careful that there be glass over the Name. And when he exits his house and places his hand on the mezuzah, he should say: ה' שומרי ה' צלי על יד ימיני, ה' ישמר צאתי ובואי מעתה ועד עולם'.
> Thus we have seen that it is cited in the Kabbalah of the Arizal, and likewise many poskim mentioned, that after touching the mezuzah one kisses the hand.
However, there were those who argued against the minhag of kissing the hand that touched the mezuzah, as written in Sefer Zecher Nosson9: 'And the masses place their hands on the mezuzah and kiss their hands; and likewise when the Sefer Torah is shown to them from afar and they say וזאת התורה etc., they kiss their hands. And this is certainly a minhag of ignorance and foolishness — has the kedushah flown away from the Sefer Torah or from the mezuzah, to the point that they make their hands holy so as to kiss them? The mitzvah is to kiss the Sefer Torah or the mezuzah itself, not the hands. And likewise we find that the greatest of the Sages would kiss the tefillin themselves, not the hands that touched the tefillin. And because I saw that several Torah scholars also do so, I therefore wrote this'.
However, in Damesek Eliezer (Papo)10 he rejected his words: 'May his Master forgive him for writing that it is a minhag of foolishness and ignorance. On the contrary, this is chibuv mitzvah, that even the hands that touched the Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzah are kissed — just as people are accustomed to wash their faces with the leftover wine of Havdalah, and likewise to smell [the smoke] when extinguishing the Havdalah candle, and all of it is because of chibuv mitzvah. And likewise one kisses the matzah and the maror on the night of Pesach, as the Shelah writes — and is there kedushah in matzah and maror? Rather, it is specifically chibuv mitzvah, like many good minhogim that exist among Israel'.
We find the concept of kissing in the teachings of our Rebbeim, our Nesi'im, regarding the chinuch of children, as the Rebbe Rayatz11 related: 'I remember — Moshe continues his words — when I was about three years old, twice each day, in the morning upon rising from my sleep and at night before going to sleep, my mother, the most upright of women, would lift me up to kiss the mezuzah affixed on the doorpost of the doorway, with tears flowing down her cheeks. My mother was diligent to do so every single day ..'.
The Rebbe, at a yechidus on 16 Adar 574712, said: 'Therefore, care is taken in every Jewish home that the young children kiss the mezuzah on the doorway of their room before going to sleep, in which is written 'שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד' ("Hear, O Israel, Hashem is our G-d, Hashem is One"), so that through this it becomes engraved in them that 'ה' אחד' ("Hashem is One") is the One who guards them, together with all who are in their room (as stated in the Zohar, that the mezuzah guards all who are in this house, even when they go out of their house'.
And the Rebbe further said on Shabbos Parshas Vayeira 575213: 'As is emphasized in the mitzvah of mezuzah [whose endearment is recognizable in every single Jew even in his childhood, as we see tangibly among Jewish children, whose nature draws them to kiss the mezuzah, and they raise their bodies upward in order to kiss the mezuzah, several times during the day, and especially at the beginning of the day, immediately upon rising from sleep, and at the end of the day, before going to sleep, that through its being affixed on the doorway of the house and on the doorway of each and every room in the house, it is recognizable that all the objects in the room, the entire room, and the entire house belong to Hashem, Who is One',
However, in the Rebbe's own conduct we saw that the Rebbe touched with his holy hand14 the mezuzah, and did not kiss the hand afterwards.
> Thus we have seen that it is an ancient minhag also to kiss the hand that touched the mezuzah [however, the Rebbe only touched it], and likewise that our minhag in practice is to educate children to kiss the mezuzah, at least at the beginning of the day upon rising from sleep and at the end of the day before going to sleep.
--------------
Notes:
1 Ta'amei HaMitzvos, Parshas Va'eschanan, the mitzvah of mezuzah ↩
2 Yoreh De'ah, siman 285, se'if koton 4; and see also Tziporen Shamir, siman 2, os 10, and Midbar Kedemos, ma'areches yud, os 12 ↩
3 The concept of touching with the "amah" finger is cited by R' N"Sh Shapira in Matzas Shimurim: 'And this is the kavanah: when a person comes [out] from the doorway of his house, *he should place the middle finger of the right hand, called "amah," on the mezuzah*, and intend that its gematria is מ״ו, which is the milui of ע״ב, and say this request ..'. And in Mishnas Chassidim, Maseches Mezuzah, ch. 3, mishnah 1, mishnah 9: 'Upon his going out, he should place his finger called "amah" .. on the Name Sha-dai .. and pray to Hashem that He guard him ..' ↩
4 Shiyurei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos HaTur, Yoreh De'ah, siman 289, os 2 ↩
5 Siman 454 ↩
6 Siman 267, se'if koton 8 ↩
7 Yoreh De'ah, siman 285, se'if koton 6 ↩
8 Siman 11, se'if 24 ↩
9 In the Hashmatos ↩
10 Os mem, siman 20 ↩
11 Likkutei Dibburim, vol. 4, p. 1189 (in the Lashon HaKodesh edition, p. 784) ↩
12 Toras Menachem 5747, vol. 2, p. 647 ↩
13 Toras Menachem 5752, vol. 1, p. 271 ↩
14 Regarding the hand itself, some inferred that it should be the right hand; and therefore Shu"t Be'er Moshe (Stern), vol. 2, siman 2 writes: 'And according to this, I would say that at any rate a left-handed person should kiss the mezuzah with his own right [hand], for this is a mitzvah involving his body'. However, it is worth noting regarding the Rebbe's conduct (Hiskashrus, issue 467, p. 18) that he placed his holy hand sometimes with the right hand and sometimes with the left hand ↩
[61] (Halacha 1162)
Touching the Mezuzah (3)
In Halachos numbers 755-757 we saw the words of the poskim regarding touching a Sefer Torah and a Megillah.
Question: What is the din regarding a mezuzah — is it permitted to touch it with the hand ?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Megillah1 states: 'The only difference between scrolls and tefillin and mezuzos is that scrolls may be written in any language, whereas tefillin and mezuzos are written only in Ashuris. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even for scrolls, they permitted them to be written only in Greek'. And in the Gemara there: 'But regarding sewing them with sinews, and rendering the hands tamei, this and that are equal'2.
And the Eshkol3 writes: 'And we learn in the first perek of Shabbos: hands that come [into contact] by way of a scroll — on that very day they decreed [that they are tamei], because of what R' Parnach said in the name of R' Yochanan: Whoever holds a Sefer Torah bare is buried bare .. And all Holy Writings, and even tefillin and mezuzos, render the hands tamei, and even Megillas Esther renders the hands tamei. And it was asked before Mar Rav Hai z"l whether the halacha follows Shmuel, who said that Esther does not render the hands tamei, or not. And he replied: For what halachic purpose do you need the halacha? Do we nowadays have tumas yadayim, and terumah, and kodesh? But in truth the halacha does not follow Shmuel, since his was established as an individual opinion, and the halacha follows the anonymous Mishnah; and moreover, all of Israel count it among the Holy Writings. And what Mar Rav Hai z"l explained, that the halacha does not follow Shmuel — these are correct words. But as for what he said, "For what halachic purpose do you need the halacha, and do we nowadays have tumas yadayim?" — we do indeed need the halacha: for if Megillas Esther renders the hands tamei, it is rescued from a fire; and furthermore, if you say it renders the hands tamei, it is like the other Holy Writings, and we treat it with kedushah like the other Holy Writings, which it is forbidden to hold bare. And so said Rav Natronai z"l, that all Holy Writings are like a Sefer Torah and render the hands tamei, and one touches them only with cloths'.
And so write the Tosafos4: 'One who holds a Sefer Torah bare — it is somewhat implied that this is not specifically a Sefer Torah, for regarding all Holy Writings we learned in Maseches Yadayim that they render the hands tamei'.
And so writes the Agudah5: 'One who holds a Sefer Torah bare — they explained in Tosafos: the same applies to all Holy Writings, that it is forbidden to touch them without a cloth; and [according to] Tosafos, even right after washing [the hands]'.
And the Rema writes in the Darkei Moshe6: 'And I am of their descendants, and I have not seen this minhag among them; on the contrary, they are careful not to touch a Sefer Torah bare, but regarding other Holy Writings they are not careful at all, and I have never in my life seen anyone who was concerned about this regarding other books'.
Halachically, the Rema7 writes [on the words of the Mechaber, who wrote: 'It is forbidden to hold a Sefer Torah bare, without a cloth']: 'And some say that the same applies to other Holy Writings; and the practice is not so, but it is good to be stringent if he has not washed his hands; and with a Sefer Torah, even in such a case it is forbidden'. And see also the Magen Avraham8, who was stringent.
And the Pri Megadim writes in Rosh Yosef9: 'And in the holy words of the Magen Avraham in [siman] 147, regarding the poles of a Sefer Torah, and os 1 there, that tefillin render [the hands] tamei — this is [because of] R' Parnach, according to the Rambam z"l, ch. 9 of [Hilchos She'ar] Avos HaTumah, not according to R' Shimon .. And according to our words, the same applies to a mezuzah, that one should not touch it with the hands, since it too renders the hands tamei, [having] 85 letters, except as stated .. And know that [the prohibition of] R' Parnach applies only where there is no need; but where there is a need — to sew the Sefer Torah, or to affix a mezuzah, which is impossible otherwise — it would appear that it is permitted; and one builds in the Heichal where it is impossible [otherwise]. And regarding a Megillah we wrote that it is proper to wash one's hands before the Megillah. And the Rav decided to distinguish between a Sefer Torah and Holy Writings, since it is akin to a safek sfeika; also, what the Rav wrote, "I have not seen them careful," refers to a Megillah, as the Eliyah Rabbah writes ..'.
> Thus we have seen that some were stringent not to touch a mezuzah unnecessarily [unless he washed his hands].
And based on this, Rabbi Akiva Eiger10 writes regarding the din of touching a mezuzah: 'A note: I have seen several people acting improperly, for they are accustomed, upon exiting the doorway of their house, to place their hand on the mezuzah, and they do not distinguish whether the mezuzah is inside a case11 or not. And Tosafos wrote explicitly in the first perek of Shabbos, s.v. Ha'ochez, that this is not specifically a Sefer Torah, for regarding all Holy Writings we learned in Maseches Yadayim that they render the hands tamei; see there. Thus they hold that the reason all Holy Writings render the hands tamei is because of R' Parnach, that it is forbidden to touch them with a bare hand; and it is obvious that a mezuzah too is included among the Holy Writings, like tefillin, which are counted in Maseches Yadayim as rendering the hands tamei .. And the reason we are not careful with tefillin, to [avoid] holding them bare, is that this is how the mitzvah is performed, and it is impossible otherwise. If so, it follows that it is not proper to touch a mezuzah with bare hands if it is not covered; and sometimes the hands are soiled. And this very matter, placing one's hand on the mezuzah, has no source in the Shas12, only in the Shulchan Aruch, in the gloss, in the name of the Maharil. If so, it is obvious that one should not do so if there is concern of a prohibition whose source is in the Shas, namely that of R' Parnach, and it would be a mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah. Therefore, if he wishes to place his hand on the mezuzah, it is good to lower the garment that is over his arms, to place [it] on the mezuzah. So it appears in my humble opinion'.
However, the Kesses HaSofer13 writes: 'But in my humble opinion, the words of the Magen Avraham are puzzling in this; and see what a great man (the Rema) testifies regarding it, and certainly his testimony is reliable, that regarding all Holy Writings — even though they were written according to halacha, such as tefillin, mezuzos and Megillas Esther — people are not concerned about touching them. And in our days too this is a widespread minhag, and in our days we have never seen anyone who was concerned about this. And we must stake ourselves upon the minhag of Israel'.
And he elaborates there to explain his position, and concludes: 'And at any rate, in my humble opinion, the view of the Rambam appears clear, that the prohibition of R' Parnach applies only to a Sefer Torah and not to other Holy Writings; and this is also evident from the fact that he wrote this prohibition only in Hilchos Sefer Torah. And I have already written that the view of the Shulchan Aruch also appears so, unlike the Agudah .. And behold, in Shu"t Rabbi Akiva Eiger, siman 58, he questioned what several people are accustomed to do upon exiting their houses, placing the hand on the mezuzah even when it is not in a case. And I am puzzled that he did not question the everyday practice of holding tefillin, mezuzos and a Megillah without a cloth. But according to what I have written, they have something on which to rely, and leave Israel alone, and so on. (And in siman 27 I wrote, for a different reason, to be stringent not to place the hand on the Name when it is not covered.) However, since our teacher the Rema wrote "and it is good to be stringent," one who is a ba'al nefesh should be stringent for himself, and he will receive a bracha from Hashem, blessed be His Name'.
And in Chasdei Avos14 he likewise writes to explain that there is no concern about touching a mezuzah: 'And in my humble opinion, since it does not stand to be learned from, they did not decree upon it; and the proof is from that [passage] of Shabbos, "until he touches the mezuzah" — and let him derive it from [the law of] Holy Writings! Rather, perforce, since it is concealed within the case, they did not decree upon it. And so it is explained in the Avnei Nezer, vol. 4, siman 370, that the decree upon touching Holy Writings, so that they not come to harm, applies only to those from which one learns.
> Thus we have seen that although there were those who were stringent not to touch the mezuzah, many poskim held that in practice one need not be stringent; and even according to those who are stringent, this is only when one touches the mezuzah directly, but it is certainly permitted to touch the mezuzah case.
Notes:
1 8b ↩
2 And so it is also explained in Maseches Yadayim, ch. 3, mishnah 5, that all Holy Writings render the hands tamei; and so too it is ruled in the Rambam, Hilchos She'ar Avos HaTumah, ch. 9, halacha 8, based on the Tosefta (Yadayim 2:4), that even 'one who writes Hallel and Shema for a child to learn from — even though he is not permitted [to do so] — these render the hands tamei'; and seemingly the same applies to a mezuzah ↩
3 Hilchos Sefer Torah, 59a-b ↩
4 Shabbos 14a, s.v. Ha'ochez ↩
5 Shabbos, ch. 1, siman 20 ↩
6 Orach Chaim, siman 147, os 2 ↩
7 Orach Chaim, Shulchan Aruch, siman 147, se'if 1 ↩
8 Se'if koton 1 ↩
9 Shabbos 14a ↩
10 Shu"t, Mahadura Kamma, siman 58. Cited in the Pischei Teshuvah, se'if koton 4 ↩
11 It appears from his words that one need not be stringent when the mezuzah is in a case — perhaps because it is not attached to the case, and therefore it is not comparable to a Sefer Torah, regarding which the Rambam writes, Hilchos She'ar Avos HaTumah, ch. 9, halacha 10: 'The case of a scroll and the wrappers of scrolls, when they are sewn [to them], render the hands tamei'. And see Halacha 756 ↩
12 In Sefer HaKsav VehaKabbalah, Parshas Va'eschanan, 30b, he wonders at what was written, that there is no source in the Shas, for we saw in the previous halacha that the Rema (cited in the previous halacha) wrote in the Darkei Moshe that the source of the matter is in the Gemara: 'And the matter of placing the hand which he wrote is mentioned explicitly in the first perek of Avodah Zarah, daf 11'. And in Sefer Zecher Nosson, Hashmatos 135a, he writes to reconcile this: 'And in truth, there is not in the aforementioned Gemara any hint of an obligation to place the hand on the mezuzah, for it is stated in the aforementioned Gemara that he sent another troop and told them, "Do not converse with him at all," see there; and if so, he was compelled to do something so that they would begin to speak with him. And the words of the Gaon R' Akiva Eiger z"l are correct' ↩
13 Lishkas HaSofer, end of Chakirah 19 ↩
14 Kuntres Geram HaMa'alos, p. 24, note 1 ↩
[62] (Halacha 1163)
Replacing a Mezuzah
Question: One who took down a mezuzah to check it, and it was found kosher — may he nevertheless affix in its place another, more mehudar mezuzah?
Answer: It is written in the She'iltos1: 'Or also, if one was living in a house and had affixed a mezuzah, and he is leaving it, it is forbidden to take it from there, because he is nullifying the mitzvah .. However, it must be said: these words — that it is forbidden to take it — apply where he does not affix it as a mezuzah at that time; [and] techeiles likewise, where he does not put it on another garment at that time. Where he wishes to take [it] from this doorway and affix it on another doorway, or from this garment to another garment at that time — is it permitted or not? Do we say that since he takes them with the intent of making a mitzvah with it, there is no disgrace and it is fine; or perhaps, since a [mitzvah] has been performed with them and they are being withdrawn from their mitzvah, there is disgrace and it is forbidden? Come and hear, for it was stated: Rav said: One may not untie [tzitzis] from garment to garment, and Shmuel said: One may untie. Rav said: One may not light from lamp to lamp, and Shmuel said: One may light. Rav said: The halacha does not follow R' Shimon regarding dragging, and Shmuel said: The halacha follows R' Shimon regarding dragging. Abaye said: In all matters the Master acted like Rav, except for these three, in which he acted like Shmuel .. That is to say, the halacha follows Shmuel, who permits'2.
And in Sefer HaEshkol3 he writes: 'And a Gaon further wrote: a mezuzah that is found among the books — it is a mitzvah to affix it again in some house, and not to remove it from its kedushah, as we explained regarding the straps of tefillin and their wrappers'.
[In the words of Tosafos, Bava Metzia 101b, it is explained that the prohibition of taking down a mezuzah is not because of disgrace of a mitzvah, but rather: 'because the mazikin come into a house that has no mezuzah, and when he takes it, it is as if he harms those who will live in the house'. And we will see below what the Acharonim wrote based on this]
> Thus, according to the She'iltos, one should not take down a mezuzah when he thereby nullifies a mitzvah, unless he moves it to another doorway. And in the name of a Gaon they wrote that even a mezuzah that has already been taken down should properly be affixed again.
And accordingly, the Torah Lishmah4 writes: 'As for the din in the case of the question: certainly he must put up the first one, which was checked and found kosher and valued; for he removed it from there only in order to check it, and he brought the second only in case the first would be found invalid, so that he would put it in its place. And since the first was found kosher, it acquires its place, and the mitzvah is with the first; and how could he insult it by removing it from the place of its mitzvah, which it has acquired? And in such a case, all agree that there is concern for the honor of the holy mezuzah. However, at first glance it appears that if the first is old and the second has an advantage over it — whether in the beauty of the ink, the fineness of the parchment, or other beauty and superiority — he may put up the second, for the sake of mitzvah min hamuvchar. But after consideration, it appears that even in such a case he should put up the first, since it is kosher according to the din and has already acquired its place'. And so writes Shu"t Meishiv Devarim5.
And in Shu"t Yad Yitzchak6 he writes: 'Regarding one who sold his house to a Jew and does not want to leave there the mezuzos that are in it, since they are precious to him, having come to him as an inheritance from his father, and moreover they are from an expert sofer .. Behold, the Sha'arei Teshuvah wrote there in the name of the Birkei Yosef that even if both are standing there — this one to take out his mezuzos and that one to bring in his own, with the entry and exit taking place immediately — nevertheless they forbade it; even though the reasons stated for the prohibition do not apply in this case, nevertheless the Rabbanan did not distinguish. End of his words. Thus, even in such a case it is forbidden, even where the reason for the prohibition does not apply. And in Orach Chaim siman 15, the Magen Avraham, se'if koton 2, writes that the She'iltos permits regarding a mezuzah when he wishes to affix it on another doorway, but Tosafos forbid; and he writes in the name of the Levush that if he wishes to make more beautiful tzitzis, it is permitted to take them off. It is implied from this that regarding a mezuzah, even in such a case, it is forbidden; and likewise the Pri Megadim there, on the Taz, se'if koton 2, forbids in all cases'.
However, the Da'as Sofer7 rejected the words of the Yad Yitzchak: 'I saw that he cited the teshuvah of the "Yad Yitzchak," who infers from the words of the Magen Avraham, siman 15, that specifically regarding tzitzis it is permitted to remove them in order to hang others more beautiful than them, but regarding a mezuzah it is forbidden. And I did not find such in the Magen Avraham there; rather, the Magen Avraham distinguished between tzitzis, which it is permitted to remove in order to hang them on another garment, whereas regarding a mezuzah it is forbidden, for the reason that Tosafos wrote in Shabbos 22: because of mazikin, since he harms his fellow (if), it is forbidden to remove the mezuzos; for this reason it is forbidden to remove the mezuzos even if he intends to affix them in his [own] house. And all this is if he removes the mezuzah and leaves the doorway without a mezuzah; but if he affixes another in its place, there is no prohibition in this whatsoever. And greater than this, see the Pri Megadim in the aforementioned siman, se'if koton 2, in the Mishbetzos, who wished to permit removing the mezuzah from his house if he closes the house and no person lives there. We see that its entire prohibition is only because of the people who live there, i.e., because of the house and the people — and not because of disgrace to the mezuzah. And all this is if he removes the mezuzah and does not affix another in its place, and the house remains without a mezuzah; but if he affixes another in its place, why should it be forbidden? And see the Pri Megadim there, who writes that even according to the reason of Rashi — who wrote that the reason one may not untie [tzitzis] from garment to garment is because of disgrace of the tallis, and even according to Shmuel, who permits, nevertheless if he did not tie them on another tallis, even according to Shmuel it is forbidden because of disgrace of the tzitzis — nevertheless it is permitted to remove the tzitzis [and set them aside] in order to tie others more beautiful, since there is no disgrace [of tzitzis] in this, since he ties others more beautiful, as the Levush writes, that it is permitted to make others more beautiful. If so, regarding a mezuzah too it is permitted to cover [it] and affix another, more beautiful and more mehudar one, because of זה אלי ואנוהו ("This is my G-d and I will glorify Him"); so it appears in my humble opinion'.
And in Milei D'Avos8 [cited in Mezuzas Melachim9] he likewise challenged the Yad Yitzchak: 'And after kissing his dust, with forgiveness, I say that it seems he did not look in the Levush itself, for these are the words of the Levush: "But if he wishes to untie tzitzis from the garment and discard them, and make on it other tzitzis more beautiful than the first, it seems to me that it is certainly permitted, for this too is a mitzvah, and it is written זה קלי ואנוהו." End of quote. From this wording it is certainly implied that only regarding tzitzis, even though he discards them, it is permitted to untie them and make more beautiful tzitzis, since there is no disgrace of a mitzvah in this .. but regarding a mezuzah, in such a case, no, for in this there is disgrace of kedushah. But in truth, if he takes the mezuzah and places it in geniza in order to affix a mezuzah more mehudar than it, it seems to me that this is permitted, for in this too זה קלי applies etc.'.
And he concludes there: 'And behold, even according to Shu"t Yad Yitzchak, who forbids in this manner, I have good and proper advice for taking the mezuzah in order to affix a mezuzah more mehudar than it: for I saw in Sefer Olas Chodesh by HaRav HaGaon R' E. Fleckeles zt"l, Derush 5, and these are his words: "And although they said in Yoma 11 that a private mezuzah is checked twice in a seven-year cycle, and that of the public twice in a Yovel — that is in terms of the obligation; but within the time, whoever increases in checking constantly is praiseworthy." End of quote. Therefore, he should intend in his mind to take the mezuzah in order to check it, and afterwards affix a mezuzah more mehudar and beautiful than it, and this is according to all opinions, as stated above. And after this occurred to me, I found something similar in Da'as Kedoshim, Hilchos Mezuzah, and these are his words: "I further found written that although one should not take out a mezuzah, as stated in siman 291, nevertheless there is no concern about exchanging it, [where one had] placed there a mezuzah that is not from so outstanding a sofer; and especially since he can say that he is taking it out to check it, and afterwards places another mezuzah that is not invalid." End of quote'.
This matter — taking down a mezuzah for checking and replacing it with a more beautiful one — is also written by the Rebbe10 regarding affixing a mezuzah in Chutz La'aretz before the time of obligation, thirty days: 'Although my custom is to advise those who ask me to affix the mezuzah immediately upon entering the apartment, of course without a bracha .. and in continuation of the aforementioned conduct, on the thirtieth day one mezuzah is removed in order to check it and replace it with a more beautiful one, and at the time of affixing the new mezuzah one recites the bracha and intends to include all the mezuzos with the bracha'11.
> Thus in practice we have seen that there is a dispute12 regarding one who wishes to replace a mezuzah with another, more mehudar mezuzah, whether this is permitted13; and several poskim14 wrote that he should take down the first for checking, and afterwards put the mehudar one in its place. [And best of all is to immediately affix the mezuzah that he took down in another place of obligation; and of course he can also give it as a merit to another Jew who has no mezuzah on his doorway].
Notes:
1 Shelach, She'ilta 126 ↩
2 And see also Orchos Chaim, vol. 2, Hilchos Mezuzah, os 1 ↩
3 Hilchos Mezuzah, 76a ↩
4 Siman 244 ↩
5 Orach Chaim, siman 10 ↩
6 Vol. 3, siman 339 (and see also siman 277). However, his words were said regarding one who comes to take down a mezuzah before another Jew moves in, and there the reason of mazikin also applies; and if so, even though he holds that [the Rabbanan] did not distinguish, there is less to learn from his words for our case. Nevertheless, the Acharonim cited his words and discussed them. And see below ↩
7 Yoreh De'ah, siman 101 ↩
8 Shu"t, vol. 5, Orach Chaim, siman 6 ↩
9 Halacha LeMoshe, os 186 ↩
10 Igros Kodesh, vol. 13, p. 169 ↩
11 However, the Rebbe's words were said with regard to one who affixes from the outset with the intent of taking it down after some time, in which there is more room for leniency to take it down; and we will see in the coming halachos regarding mezuzos of a gemach, taking them down from a place of obligation to a place of exemption ↩
12 And see also Mezuzas Melachim, who cites these three opinions ↩
13 And see also the Minchas Elazar (vol. 1, siman 41), who writes regarding tefillin: 'And behold, seemingly, according to our words, one should raise [the question]: if someone has kosher parshiyos, and afterwards is able to buy more beautiful parshiyos, would he be forbidden to remove those parshiyos and put the better ones in their place? For according to our words, in which we forbade removing one kosher sheet from a Sefer Torah, since it is thereby reduced from the kedushah of a Sefer Torah to the kedushah of a single sheet — if so, parshiyos too that are not placed inside the batim do not have the kedushah of complete tefillin; and if so, when he removes them from the batim, he lowers them from their kedushah. However, this is not at all comparable, for parshiyos — even though he removes them and puts others in their place — do not stand for geniza, for he can give them to another to put them inside batim and wear them, and they still remain in their kedushah, for he can certainly give them or sell them to someone who will wear them. And if [one objects] because in the meantime some time will pass — he is not obligated to wear these particular tefillin and parshiyos every day; and this is simple' ↩
14 And see also Chovas HaDar, ch. 1, note 41 ↩
[63] (Halacha 1164)
Changing the Location of a Mezuzah
Question: When a person takes down mezuzos to have them checked, must he return each mezuzah to the same doorway from which it was removed?
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw the words of the She'iltos, who writes that one may not take down a mezuzah when doing so nullifies the mitzvah, and therefore it is permitted only when he moves it immediately to another doorway. [In practice, there are poskim who permitted taking one down in order to put up a more mehudar mezuzah, thereby fulfilling 'זה אלי ואנוהו' ("This is my G-d and I will glorify Him").]
Accordingly, we must discuss the case where one moved a mezuzah from a place whose obligation is mid'Oraisa to a place whose level of obligation is only mid'Rabbanan, or only a stringency — whether this is considered removing the mezuzah from its kedushah. As follows:
The Pri Megadim1 discusses a similar case regarding tzitzis, and these are his words: 'I will further explain to you: from a garment that is obligated, even only mid'Rabbanan, one may not untie them [if he does not intend to place them on another garment], and so writes the Eliyah Rabbah, os 2. And it requires further study whether, from a garment obligated by Torah law to one obligated mid'Rabbanan, it is permitted to untie, or perhaps one may untie from garment to garment only when both are equal, but not in a case like this'.
> That is, according to the Pri Megadim, the prohibition against removing tzitzis applies even where the tzitzis were tied to a tallis that is obligated only mid'Rabbanan; and he was in doubt about a case where one wishes to move tzitzis whose obligation is mid'Oraisa to tzitzis whose obligation is mid'Rabbanan.
And in the Artzos HaChaim2: 'It is permitted to untie tzitzis from this tallis and place them on another tallis, even from a new tallis to a new tallis, and even from a tallis gadol to a tallis koton; but lechatchilah one should not untie them unless he does not have other tzitzis as fine as these. And it is permitted to untie tzitzis from a tallis of wool to place them on a tallis of silk, even when he has tzitzis of silk and wishes to fulfill the mitzvah in the choicest manner by placing woolen threads on it; but one may not untie tzitzis from the tallis of an adult to place them on the tallis of a child'.
And he explains in the Ha'Meir La'Aretz3: 'Even according to the first opinion above4, that other materials are obligated only mid'Rabbanan, it can be said that this is not a disgrace according to Shmuel; and an allusion to this: one lights from one lamp to another, even though the mitzvah of Chanukah lights is one lamp for a man and his household, and adding progressively is only for the mehadrin min hamehadrin — nevertheless there is no disgrace to the mitzvah when one lights from the first lamp, which is an obligation, to the second lamp, which is merely an enhancement of the mitzvah. And although this can be rejected, since we rule that other materials are obligated mid'Oraisa, the Pri Megadim in the Eshel Avraham was in doubt about this, and in my humble opinion it appears as I have written'.
And the Mishnah Berurah5 cites their words, and these are his words: 'Even from a new tallis to a new tallis, and all the more so from an old tallis, that it is permitted to untie them and place them on a new tallis which he wishes to wear and fulfill the mitzvah with. Also even from a tallis gadol to a tallis koton, since a tallis gadol and a tallis koton are equal. But one may not untie tzitzis from the tallis of an adult and place them on the tallis of a child, whose obligation is only mid'Rabbanan. And the Pri Megadim was in doubt whether it is permitted to move tzitzis from a tallis of wool to a tallis of other materials, according to the poskim above in siman 9, se'if 1, who hold that other materials are only mid'Rabbanan; and the Artzos HaChaim is lenient in this'.
> Thus we have seen that some of the Acharonim write that one may not move tzitzis from an adult's tzitzis to a child's tzitzis, and they disagree regarding moving from a tallis whose obligation is from the Torah to a tallis whose obligation is mid'Rabbanan. And similarly they discussed regarding a mezuzah moving it from a proper and fine place to a less proper place, or moving it from a place of mid'Oraisa obligation to a place of mid'Rabbanan obligation.
And in the Sha'arei Emes6 he writes: 'It requires further study whether it is permitted to make an individual's mezuzah into a public mezuzah — whether this is not like lowering it from its kedushah, since originally it was checked twice in a seven-year period, and now its time has been pushed off to twice in a Yovel. But this is obvious in my humble opinion: that a mezuzah of a dwelling house may not be affixed to a straw shed, storehouses, or cattle barns'.
And in his commentary Beis Aryeh he discusses this at length, and cites the Mishnah in Shekalim7 that the table on which they would place the lechem hapanim for distribution had to be of gold like the inner table, 'because it is forbidden to lower the bread that was placed inside on a table of gold; if so, the same applies to a mezuzah that was originally placed in a place of beauty and splendor — it is forbidden afterward to affix it in a cattle barn, a dirty and unbecoming place..'. And see also what his son writes in Shu"t Meishiv Devarim8.
The Mezuzos Melochim9 cites his words10: 'And when he removed it and affixed another in its place, it appears that he should not affix the mezuzah he removed from the house on a shed for straw and wood, whose obligation of mezuzah is only mid'Rabbanan11. And there is one who writes12 that he should not affix it even on the mezuzos of a gate, since that is lowering it from kedushah; rather he should put it in geniza'13.
And in Teshuvos VeHanhagos14 he writes: 'It appears that when one takes down the mezuzos from the house to check them, one should be careful not to mix them up, and take care to know from which room he took down each and every mezuzah, since there are places where the obligation of mezuzah is only due to doubt — for example, when a kitchen is not four by four [amos], or a porch and the like. And in such a case, when he takes it down and affixes it, there is concern that originally it was in a place that is definitely obligated and now it is a doubt, or previously mid'Oraisa and afterward mid'Rabbanan, and he will thus be lowering it from its kedushah, and it is forbidden to lower from kedushah. And what we permit regarding tzitzis from garment to garment is specifically when it remains in its kedushah, but to lower it is forbidden. (And elsewhere I discussed one who moves a mezuzah from his own house to a house in which he lives as a renter — whether it is permitted, since he is moving it from mid'Oraisa to mid'Rabbanan; and similarly regarding moving tzitzis from a woolen garment to a cotton garment, see Mishnah Berurah siman 15, se'if koton 1)'.
[Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach writes15: 'And even a mezuzah that was affixed on the doorway of his house, which is obligated mid'Oraisa, and he takes it out and affixes it in a rented house and the like, which is obligated only mid'Rabbanan — even so it appears that this is not called lowering, and it is permitted'. However, elsewhere16 he later writes: 'And a mezuzah that was affixed on the doorway of a room that is obligated in mezuzah, it appears that it is certainly forbidden to affix it in a place that is a doubt, because this is actual lowering, when one moves a mezuzah that merited the mitzvah of mezuzah to a place that is possibly exempt'.]
> Thus, in practice, when taking down mezuzos from doorways with different levels of obligation, it is proper to mark where each mezuzah was taken from, so that one does not come to affix it on a doorway whose obligation is lesser than the doorway from which it was removed. And in the next halacha we will see whether there is reason to be particular, even with doorways of the same level of obligation, to return them specifically to their original places.
Notes:
1 Eshel Avraham, Orach Chaim, siman 15, se'if koton 2 ↩
2 Lev HaAretz, siman 15, se'if 1 ↩
3 Se'if koton 5 ↩
4 Siman 9, se'if 1 ↩
5 Siman 15, se'if koton 1 ↩
6 Hilchos Mezuzah, ch. 18, os 5-6 ↩
7 Ch. 6, Mishnah 4 ↩
8 Orach Chaim, siman 10 ↩
9 Se'if koton 186, 2 ↩
10 See there in Shalom VeEmes, os 64 ↩
11 And in a note he cites the words of the Sha'arei Emes ↩
12 And in note os 65 he refers to the Meishiv Devarim; and see what he writes to explain this ↩
13 And in note os 66: 'And geniza is not lowering from kedushah, as written in Shu"t Imrei Yosher (siman 5), that lowering is only when one uses it for a mundane use, or for a use of lesser kedushah than the first, which is not the case when one does not use it for anything at all'. However, see the opinions in the previous halacha ↩
14 Vol. 1, siman 649 ↩
15 Halichos Shlomo, Tefillah, Miluim 7 ↩
16 See there, ch. 3, note 35 ↩
[64] (Halacha 1165)
Changing the Location of a Mezuzah
Question: When two doorways are obligated at the same level of obligation, may one move the mezuzah to another doorway that is obligated like it?
Answer: It is written in the Talmud Yerushalmi1: 'Rabbi Immi said: והקמות את המשכן כמשפטו ("And you shall erect the Mishkan according to its proper manner"). Is there a "proper manner" for wood? Rather, whichever board merited to be placed in the north shall be placed in the north; in the south, shall be placed in the south'.
The words of the Yerushalmi do not explicitly clarify whether there is any significance at all in not changing the position, or only because there is a special distinction in a particular place, and therefore one should not change it and lower it from kedushah.
And in the commentary Korban HaEidah he writes: 'Shall be placed in the north — for that is where the Shulchan was. Shall be placed in the south — for that is where the Menorah was'. It is clear from his words that the reason not to change is due to the importance of each side, [and accordingly, with an ordinary item whose order has no special importance, there would seemingly be no reason not to change2].
However, in the Minhogei Maharil3 it is written: 'The Mahari Segal said that he saw that his teacher, the Maharash, would mark the boards for the walls of the sukkah with alef, beis, gimmel, in order to see the order in which they stood, so as not to change them from year to year'.
And seemingly4, with the walls of the sukkah there is no difference between one side and another, and nevertheless he was particular that each wall remain in its place, and therefore he marked the walls.
And this also appears from the words of the Maharshal5: 'And regarding the mitzvah of the atarah, I will say a new idea about it, which I received from the elder, my father-in-law, the Mahari"k: that the reason is only as a sign, to know each time which part of the tallis merited to be on the head, and which side to the south, and which other side to the north; for if he does not mark it, then the upper will be turned to the lower, and we ascend in kedushah and do not descend, and also do not change. And he brought a proof from the Yerushalmi in Perek HaBoneh, regarding the fact that they would mark the boards to know which was its pair, so as not to switch them: Rabbi Immi said, the verse says והקמות את המשכן כמשפטו ("And you shall erect the Mishkan according to its proper manner") — and what "proper manner" is there for wood? Rather, whichever board merited to be placed in the north shall be placed in the north, and whichever board merited to be placed in the south shall be placed in the south, etc. And he learns from there that the same applies to every item of importance and kedushah. And that sage expounded this at the edge of the land of Yishmael and the exile of Spain, and they heard his words and agreed to make a distinct sign on the tallis, to know the place designated for the head, so as not to change it'.
And so writes the Ya'avetz6: 'See in the Levush regarding the atarah for the tallis that the Ashkenazim make. And the Shiyarei Knesses HaGedolah writes in the name of the Lechem Chamudos, and these are his words: I heard another reason — so that there be a sign for the place that rests on the head, so as not to lower it, because we ascend in kedushah, as above. End quote. But there is no reason in this, since there is no place of kedushah here, nor ascent. Rather, this is the reason of those who practice so: because of what they said, a board that merited to be placed in the north — in the north; in the south — in the south; that they are not changed, even though the reason of "we ascend in kedushah" does not apply from one direction to another; nevertheless there is a concern.
However, some write that indeed the words of the Yerushalmi are only because of a kedushah in the north or in the south, and not that there is a concern with the change itself; and therefore wherever there is no kedushah, it is permitted to change. As the Bikkurei Yaakov writes7: 'In the Maharil he writes that the Maharash would mark the walls of the sukkah to see the order in which they stood, so as not to change from year to year. And so it is in the Yerushalmi: והקמות את המשכן כמשפטו ("And you shall erect the Mishkan according to its proper manner") — is there a "proper manner" for boards? Rather, a board that merited to be placed in the north shall always be placed in the north; see there. And the poskim did not cite it, nor have I seen anyone who was concerned about this. And in Orach Chaim regarding tzitzis, the Magen Avraham cites in the name of the Shelah that some have the practice of making a sign on the tallis, so that those tzitzis that are in front of him will always be so, for the reason of the above Yerushalmi. But in the name of the Kesavim he writes that the Arizal was not particular about this. And in my humble opinion it appears that it is not at all similar to the Yerushalmi. For granted there, the north has greater kedushah, since kodshei kodashim are slaughtered specifically in the north, and the Shulchan was in the north; and likewise the south has kedushah, since the Menorah was in the south; therefore one does not lower from kedushah. But with tzitzis and with the sides of the sukkah, there is no greater kedushah to one than to another; therefore they are not particular to mark them'.
[However, there are poskim (who may agree that where there is no special kedushah it is permitted to change, but) who write that regarding a tallis too, there is a distinction in the part of the tallis that rests on the head, as the Shelah writes8: 'Regarding putting on the tallis, it is proper that those tzitzis which first came on the side of the head should always be on the side of the head; since they merited to be above, it is not proper that they descend from their level. Therefore the practice is to make an adorned atarah as a sign that it is the head part, so that one not switch it or exchange it, the upper ones below and the lower ones above'. (The details of this, and the words of the Alter Rebbe regarding it, we will see in the coming halachos)]
And in Shu"t Be'er Moshe (Stern)9 he writes: 'First I will copy for him the words of my revered father, the holy Gaon, zt"l, Hy"d, in his sefer Shulchan Eish, on the words of the Magen Avraham in the name of the Shelah that one should make an atarah from a piece of silk as a sign that those tzitzis which are in front of him should always be in front of him, as it says: a board that merited to be placed in the north is always in the north. And on this my revered father, Hy"d, writes, and these are his words: And the Bikkurei Yaakov, siman 630, writes that it is not similar to what is said in the Yerushalmi, for the north has more kedushah, since kodshei kodashim are slaughtered specifically in the north; but with the tzitzis in front of him, what additional kedushah is there? And in my humble opinion, here too there is kedushah in the tzitzis in front of him, since during tefillah they are toward the Aron Kodesh, while the tzitzis behind him are opposite a person's back. And it can also be said, based on the Midrash, that the tzitzis in front of him allude to the positive mitzvos, "ועשיתם אותם" ("and you shall do them"), and the tzitzis behind him to the negative mitzvos, "ולא תתורו" ("and you shall not stray"), etc.; and the positive mitzvos stem from love and the negative mitzvos from fear, and love is greater than fear — an allusion to this is "until a thousand generations" (as the Ramban writes) .. And the novelty is that the Maharil was particular even with the walls of the sukkah, that a wall that merited to be in the north shall be placed in the north, and likewise all the directions; and it is a wonder why he was particular about this. And perhaps the Maharil, who certainly slept in his sukkah, and his bed was placed between north and south (see Maseches Brochos 5b and Shulchan Aruch siman 3, se'if 6, and siman 240, se'if 17, and the commentators there), and also davened in it and davened toward the east — the sides were east, and the north and south sides where his head rested were sanctified for him (and perhaps in a sukkah one need not be exacting about this, and it requires further study), or other hidden reasons — that he built his sukkah as a counterpart to the fallen sukkah of Dovid, and on each and every side he had awesome kavanos, which our eyes are sealed from seeing and our hearts closed from understanding; and therefore he was stringent not to change the boards of the sukkah from north to south and the like. And understand this. And I have heard it said that also with a mezuzah that was placed on this doorway, they should place it on this doorway and not switch it from doorway to doorway when they take it to be checked; rather, the doorway that merited this mezuzah — it shall be placed on this doorway. And I do not believe that this came from the mouth of a rav established in hora'ah; and if it did come out, these are astonishing words, and there is no foundation or root in hora'ah for such a ruling. What came from the mouth of the Maharil is certainly good and correct, and it is a holy obligation upon us to fulfill it even if we do not understand his instruction, for who is as great to us as the Maharil, all of whose rulings and minhogim are founded upon holy mountains; but let us not add to it. And perhaps the one who heard heard incorrectly, that a mezuzah that was on the doorway of a house which is obligated mid'Oraisa should not be placed on a doorway that is not obligated mid'Oraisa, such as a doorway without a door and the like, about which there is a dispute among the poskim — see Yoreh De'ah siman 286, se'if 10 and se'if 15; and in such a case, the ruling he heard is reasonable'.
And so writes the Chovas HaDar10: 'It is permitted to take a mezuzah from this doorway and affix it on another doorway, specifically on a doorway whose obligation is also like the first; but not from a doorway whose obligation is mid'Oraisa to a doorway whose obligation is mid'Rabbanan'.
> Thus we have seen that one who takes down mezuzos for checking and wishes to return them is not obligated to mark the mezuzos so that he will know to return them precisely to the same room, when dealing with mezuzos from rooms that are at the same level of obligation11. [However, it appears that there is reason for one who does practice this, based on the conduct of the Maharash, the teacher of the Maharil, regarding the sukkah12.]
Notes:
1 Maseches Shabbos, ch. 12, halacha 3, and Maseches Horayos, ch. 3, halacha 5 ↩
2 And see also Shu"t Imrei Yosher, vol. 1, siman 79; Ayeles HaShachar, Shabbos 103a. However, see Alei Tamar, Shabbos, ch. 12, halacha 3 ↩
3 Hilchos Sukkos ↩
4 However, see below what is written in Shu"t Be'er Moshe ↩
5 Yam Shel Shlomo, Yevamos, ch. 1, siman 3 ↩
6 Mor U'Ketziah, siman 10 ↩
7 Orach Chaim, siman 630, se'if koton 16 ↩
8 Maseches Chullin, Perek Ner Mitzvah [21] ↩
9 Vol. 5, siman 3, os 1 ↩
10 Ch. 1, halacha 9 ↩
11 However, in a case where one takes it down and comes to affix it within a short time, so that no bracha is needed, it is worthwhile to make sure to affix it again in the same place, so as not to enter a doubt whether one must make a bracha. And see what is written in Shu"t Mishneh Halachos, vol. 7, siman 188: 'It is possible that the mezuzos were switched, and consequently a bracha is required; and it is possible that each one will come to its own room. And seemingly the matter depends on bereirah, and it is retroactively clarified that every mezuzah he affixes is the mezuzah he took down from there, and he does not make a bracha again even if the mezuzos were mixed up. However, it can also be said that since we have the opinion of the Gaon Rabbi Shlomo Kluger that even when simply taking it down for checking one makes a bracha again, if so, since there is a doubt that perhaps they were switched, we can also combine the opinion of the Gaon Rabbi Shlomo Kluger and he should make a bracha again. Therefore, in my humble opinion, lechatchilah he should see to it not to mix them up or switch them; and if they became mixed up, then it is worthwhile to leave them for a while and divert his attention, and then he should make a bracha again. However, if he wishes, he may rely on bereirah and not make a bracha' ↩
12 And the words of the above Be'er Moshe are not agreed upon, as above ↩
From the 'Shone Halacha' project - a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (quiet) group: 'Shone Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp groupMivtza Mezuzah
[1] (Halacha 460)
Upon the completion of a yovel of years since Mivtza Mezuzah, 10 Shevat 5734 – 5784! Today in our halacha we will deal with the Rebbe's mivtza, Mivtza Mezuzah, about which the Rebbe declared1: 'In my humble opinion it — mezuzah — is the mitzvah of the hour, an hour in which there is a special need for the Guardian of the doors of Israel, etc.'.
Laws of Mezuzah [40]
Mutual Responsibility in Mitzvos - Mivtza Mezuzah (1)
Question: When we see that another Jew does not have a mezuzah on his doorway, is there an obligation upon us to make an effort that he affix a mezuzah on his doorway?
Answer: It is stated in the Torah2: 'הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא' ("You shall surely rebuke your fellow, and not bear sin because of him"), and this mitzvah is not only rebuke regarding the past, but also concern for the future, to ensure that the other Jew will fulfill the mitzvah, as the Rambam writes3: 'One who sees his fellow who sinned or who went on a path that is not good, it is a mitzvah to bring him back to the good and to inform him that he is sinning against himself with his evil deeds, as it says, הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ("You shall surely rebuke your fellow")'.
And in addition to the obligation stemming from the mitzvah of rebuke to see to it that the other fulfills his obligation to perform the mitzvah, our Sages further learned that there is also arvus of every Jew for another Jew, such that every Jew has an obligation that the other fulfill the mitzvah. As the Gemara says in Maseches Sanhedrin4: 'וכשלו איש באחיו ("And they shall stumble, one man upon his brother") — one man because of the sin of his brother; this teaches that they are all responsible for one another'5.
And the Acharonim elaborated at length to explain the difference between these two aspects6.
The Rebbe instituted 'Mivtza Mezuzah' to grant many Jews the merit of this important mitzvah on the doorway of their homes. He also established participation in the expenses of this mivtza.
Below we will bring some of the words of the Acharonim regarding the obligation of arvus to see to it that another Jew has a mezuzah.
The Da'as Kedoshim writes7: 'When one has a mezuzah in an exempt room, only for protection, it is proper for him to lend it to someone who is obligated in mezuzah and does not have one. And so the Acharonim write regarding an esrog, that one should forgo an enhancement for himself so that his fellow merits the essential mitzvah8 .. And when he has a mezuzah in a place that is possibly exempt.. there would be room to say, according to the answer of Tosafos that only where his fellow was negligent do we not say "sin so that your fellow may merit" — that even though we hold that a doubt in a Torah law is, by Torah law, treated stringently, it can be said that the doubt is set aside in favor of the certainty, since he was not negligent. And also according to the fifth answer of Tosafos, that only for a mitzvah of the public do we say "sin so that he may merit," etc., it can be said that the advantage of certainty over doubt is greater than the advantage of the public over the individual… But all this is when he wishes to lend.. whereas when, for monetary reasons, he does not wish to give of his own even temporarily, there is no obligation upon him [for one need not forgo money so that his fellow merits]'.
And see also Shu"t B'Tzel HaChochmah9: 'But if his fellow bought a house and did not affix a mezuzah in it, each and every one of Israel is obligated, due to the mitzvah of arvus, to make an effort that the other affix a mezuzah on the doorways of his house, .. And so it is also regarding his fellow, for only if he already lives in his house and has not affixed a mezuzah does it then fall upon each and every one of Israel, due to the mitzvah of rebuke and the obligation of arvus, to see to it that there be a mezuzah affixed in that house'.
And see also Shu"t Divrei Yatziv10: 'And in general it appears in my humble opinion that one who has the presumptive status of a Jew is at any rate not presumed to be a mumar; and even though he has lost his presumption of being kosher, nevertheless he is not a mumar until we know with certainty that he is so. And especially in our times, when ignorance is very great, and many of these people are in the category of a tinok shenishba, as has been discussed at great length — if so, as a general matter, granting these people the merit of mitzvos is in the category of bringing merit to the public, and the merit of the public depends on him'.
And in the sichah of the second day of Chag HaShavuos 573411 the Rebbe said: 'In addition to the fact that at all times it is a great mitzvah to make an effort and influence the greatest possible number of Jews to fulfill all matters of Torah and mitzvos, at this time one must make a special effort regarding the mitzvah of mezuzah, which has a special segulah regarding protection — and not only when one is inside the house, but in a manner of 'ה' ישמר צאתך וגו'' ("Hashem will guard your going out, etc."), since one goes out from a house that has a mezuzah, and the protection is 'מעתה ועד עולם' ("from now and forever"); and especially in Eretz Yisroel, where there is a need for extra protection, and particularly after the above-mentioned event, when they are still searching for additional terrorists who infiltrated there, etc.
And due to the concept that 'all of Israel are responsible for one another', when one Jew fulfills the mitzvah of mezuzah, wherever he may be, this has an effect also regarding (all the more so than it is with the opposite measure, for the measure of good is greater, etc.).
And indeed, already on Motzei Shabbos Parshas Beshalach, 10 Shevat 5734, the Rebbe announced Mivtza Mezuzah, as noted at the beginning of the sefer Hayom Yom12: 'Begins a campaign (in addition to 'Mivtza Tefillin') regarding the mivtzoim: ..'Mezuzah''..'. And it is also noted there: 'Announces regarding financial participation in 'Mivtza Mezuzah'.
Thus we have seen that the Rebbe established Mivtza Mezuzah to grant many Jews the merit of this important mitzvah, and we have also seen a little of the words of the poskim regarding the obligation and arvus toward another Jew to fulfill the mitzvah.
Notes:
1 Igros Kodesh, vol. 31, p. 333 ↩
2 Hilchos De'os, ch. 6, halacha 7. Cited in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, Orach Chaim, siman 156, se'if 7 ↩
3 27b ↩
4 And see Tanna D'Vei Eliyahu Rabbah, parsha 11, and the words of Rabbeinu Yonah in Igeres HaTeshuvah, day 1, klal 4 (and in the commentary Patshegen HaKesav), where it appears that arvus is the foundation of the obligation of rebuke ↩
5 And see at length Encyclopedia Talmudis, vol. 28, entry "Kol Yisrael Areivim Zeh LaZeh" ↩
6 Siman 291, se'if koton 2 ↩
7 However, he remarks later in his words: 'But it requires further study whether one fulfills the obligation of mezuzah with a borrowed one ..' ↩
8 Vol. 3, siman 106. And see further what is written there, siman 43, os 12, and the sources cited there. And Teshuvos VeHanhagos, vol. 1, siman 645 ↩
9 Vol. Yoreh De'ah, siman 189 ↩
10 Toras Menachem, vol. 76, p. 266 ↩
11 'Shalsheles HaYachas VeRoshei Perakim MiToldos Beis Rabbeinu'. Year 5734 ↩