Siman 287

The entrance is not obligated in a mezuzah, even if it stands in a place of obligation, unless it is made according to its proper form: that the entrance be ten tefachim high, and that it be a standing entrance. This excludes a lying entrance such as in a cellar, where the door lies upon the mezuzot, and the mezuzot also lie. And explicitly they said in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 22b): Just as a mezuzah is standing – so too the door must be standing, see there (Noda BiYehuda Tinyana siman 184). And so it is for us regarding a ladder ascending to the attics, as I wrote in siman 286 section 41, see there. And so too our chicken coops that are under the oven, which are not ten tefachim high – they are exempt from mezuzah. And anything similar to this. And that which was explained there in section 6, that if the filth is not great there it is obligated in mezuzah – that is in a building of a room where they raise chickens, and not in our coops that are by the homeowner.

And we have already explained there in section 2 that of the ten conditions that are essential for a mezuzah, one of them is that this entrance must have two mezuzot from the sides, and a lintel above them. And this has been the way of entrances since forever, as it is written regarding the entrance of Egypt: "And they shall put the blood on the two mezuzot and on the lintel." And the Tur wrote: And if the lintel that the door shuts against above is not straight, but rather one stone enters and one stone protrudes, or if the mezuzah is not straight but rather one stone enters and one stone protrudes – it is exempt. Thus far his words. And I do not know why our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, did not bring this.

However, they intentionally omitted this. For our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work that the Tur follows the approach of the Tosafot and the Rosh, that what they said in Menachot there, "that they have no lintels, that they have no ceiling"—the intention is that the stones protrude from one another, according to the words of the Tur. But Rashi and the Rambam explained it according to its plain meaning: that they completely lack lintels, and they lack ceilings, see there. And they were in doubt regarding this law, and therefore they omitted it entirely (see Tosafot Menachot 33b s.v. "De-leit"). And in truth, there is no proof that Rashi and the Rambam would disagree on this law, but rather they explain the language of the Shas according to its plain meaning. Nevertheless, regarding the law, it is possible that they would agree with them that they are exempt, for in truth this is not the form of a doorway at all.

The Tur further wrote: A doorway that has only one doorpost, such as 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. And if the doorway fills the entire space – it is obligated, for the walls of the house that are on the sides are considered as doorposts. Thus far his words. And this is from the words of the Rosh in siman 14, who explained that which we say in Menachot (Menachot 34a): This doorway that is at a corner is obligated in a mezuzah – not according to the explanation of Rashi that the doorway was in the corner angle, but rather that the doorway fills the entire eastern wall. And it asks: But it has no doorposts, for behold, only the southern and northern walls remain? And he said to him: They are as doorposts. That is to say: these walls that extend there are doorposts. And it further said there in the Gemara regarding a doorway that had only one doorpost, and concludes there that if the doorpost was on the right according to Rava – it is obligated in a mezuzah. For Rabbi Meir and the Rabbanan disagree there regarding this, see there. And the Rosh ruled like Rabbi Meir, because Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva stand according to him, see there. (See the Beit Yosef who wrote this regarding an arch. And it is not so, for the Rosh said this regarding this law, and the Ma'adanei Yom Tov already challenged him there in letter 6.)

The Rosh explained that which is taught, "if it has only one patzim," the meaning is: that from the other side the wall of the house continues without a patzim, and with this the words of the Tur are clarified. But the words of the Tur are very puzzling, for behold the Rosh rules like Rabbi Meir that one mezuzah is sufficient, but the Tur wrote at the beginning of the siman: A doorway is not obligated in a mezuzah etc., unless it is made in its proper form. How so? That it must have two mezuzot etc. Thus far his words. And this is like the sages who disagree with Rabbi Meir, so how did he validate it with one patzim, for this is only according to Rabbi Meir and not according to the sages, as is explained in the Gemara and in the Rosh? And I found one who raised this difficulty against the Tur (Ma'adanei Yom Tov there, chapter 8, letter 41, see there). And also regarding the Rosh it is difficult for me, for since according to him the edge of the walls serves as patzimin, if so, why does he call this "one who has only one patzim"? Behold, since from the other side the wall of the house continues—let the edge of the wall be like a patzim? And behold, in that case of a corner, the two walls serve as patzimin, so why should one wall not serve here as a patzim? And more than this is difficult for me, for if the Rosh ruled like Rabbi Meir, for what did he require that the wall of the house continue on the other side? For behold Rashi, of blessed memory, explained regarding that of Rabbi Meir in a house that has only one patzim, and this is his wording: that the doorway was near the corner, and the hinge of the doorway is the corner, and there is nothing next to it etc. Thus far his words. And the Rosh required that the wall of the house continue on the second side. And it requires great study.

And in the Shulchan Aruch, these words of the Tur were not brought at all. And they follow the approach of the Rambam, who also did not mention these two laws. Now, regarding that of one patzim—it is well understood why he did not bring it, because he ruled that one requires two mezuzot like the sages and not like Rabbi Meir. (Even though Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva stand like Rabbi Meir, he did not concern himself with it. Furthermore: that the sages would interpret their words as referring to actual mezuzot, meaning: that it is not necessary to write two mezuzot, see there. Examine closely and you will find it easy.) But why did he not bring that of akarna, regarding which there is no disputant? And even the Rif brought this in his laws, see there. And even if one interprets "akarna" as "a corner" according to the explanation of Rashi, nevertheless, the primary novelty is that the sides of the walls are considered patzim. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book, and this is his wording: And it is possible that his reason is because it is implied of itself that the ends of the walls are considered mezuzot. Thus far his words. And it is a great wonder: how is it implied of itself? For behold, in the Gemara there, Rav Ashi said: But it has no patzim. And Amemar said to him: They are better than patzim, for the ends of the walls are the patzim; behold, Amemar innovated this? And it is forced to say that he holds that Rav Ashi did not agree with Amemar and he ruled like Rav Ashi, for if so, the Shas should have explained so. And everywhere in such a case, the first who asked accepted the words of the second who answered, when the Shas is silent such that the first did not respond to the answer of the second. (And it is also forced to say it is because we say at the beginning of Eruvin 6a: People do not make an entrance in a corner. And it is not at all clear, for there it refers to an alleyway made for the walking of the many, and what is the relevance of this to a house? Furthermore: that the Shas should have said so. Furthermore: that the Tosafot there 6a (Eruvin 6a) wrote explicitly that regarding mezuzot and a lintel it is indeed an entrance. See there.)

It appears to me that the Rambam interpreted according to the explanation of the Aruch (entry "עד"), and this is his wording: "Petacha d'akarna" – an opening situated in the corner of the house. And it asks: But does it not lack pitzimin like other openings? He said to him: "Adei pitzimin." That is to say: even though they are different – they are considered pitzimin. Thus far his words. And the explanation of his words: that this opening did have actual pitzimin, but because it is in a corner they do not resemble all pitzimin, which stand exactly opposite one another. And also the lintel does not go straight, as is understood, and they are different from other openings. And he said to him that despite all this they are considered pitzimin, even though they are different. And it turns out that since the Rambam did not distinguish between an opening situated in the middle and one situated in the corner, it follows that there is no distinction. (And in truth, the core of the matter is perplexing: for if the ends of the walls are considered pitzimin, when does an opening ever lack pitzimin? And it is always customary to explain that the mezuzot, which are the pitzimin, are independent posts called "osniakes," two on the sides of the opening and one the upper lintel, into which the door enters. And they stand upright, as it is written in Kiddushin: just as a mezuzah is upright. And they protrude slightly from the walls. And so too in stone houses, when they make the mezuzot from bricks and stones, they also make them in the form of a mezuzah, and it is recognizable that this is a pitzim. And so wrote the Shiltei Gibborim in the name of the Riaz, see there. And my heart tells me that the Beit Yosef in the Shulchan Aruch retracted his words, and therefore he did not bring this in the Shulchan Aruch. And according to the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur, one should be concerned. And see Shach, subsection 1.)

And also regarding the opinion of the Rosh, it appears in my humble opinion that he too admits that pitzimin are nothing other than pillars standing on their own. And the ends of the walls are not pitzimin except when they are from other directions, like a "doorway at a corner" according to his explanation, where the doorway fills the entire east. And the pitzimin are the edge of the northern and southern walls, which are completely from the sides of the doorway—it is well said that they are like pitzimin and not walls that are in this direction. And that which he explained regarding one pitzim where the wall from the second side continues further than the doorway, it is not in order that it should be like a pitzim, for if so, why do I need the one pitzim? Let the wall at its side also be considered like a pitzim. Rather, it is because in this too he disagrees with Rashi, and he holds that if on the second side it is completely open—it is not in the category of a doorway at all. Therefore, it is necessary that on the second side the wall continues. But it is not because it is considered like a pitzim. However, the words of the Tur remain difficult, unless we say that he taught and then explained: that first he says that it requires two mezuzot, and afterwards he says that if it has only one, if on the right—it is obligated in a mezuzah. And if on the left—it is exempt.

And know that the measurement of an entrance is ten tefachim high and four tefachim wide, and so it is written in Yoma (Yoma 11b). And in the entire tractate of Shabbat and Eruvin this measurement is explained regarding the measurements of partitions, entrances, and windows, as we learned in the Mishnah at the beginning of the seventh chapter of Eruvin, see there. And so wrote the Rosh and the Tur regarding the law of an archway which will be explained. And even though there in Yoma, where it counts six gates that are exempt from mezuzah, it counts one that is not ten high and did not mention four tefachim in width—it is simple that it did not need to mention it, for regarding the rectification of an alleyway they said explicitly in Eruvin (Eruvin 12a) that with less than an entrance width of four tefachim—it requires nothing, see there. However, the Rambam, in the ten conditions regarding mezuzah, says: and that the entrance be ten tefachim high, as I wrote in siman 286, section 25, and he did not mention the width of four tefachim at all. And so it is implied from his words regarding the law of an archway which will be explained. And so wrote explicitly the Maggid Mishneh in the sixteenth chapter of Shabbat, law 20, and this is his wording: and our teacher holds that we do not require a width of four for a tzurat hapetach or for the matter of mezuzah. Thus far his words. And I found a proof for this from the words of the Rambam himself there in the seventeenth chapter, law 9, where he wrote: An alleyway that does not have three tefachim in its width—requires neither a lechi nor a korah. Thus far his words. And his reasoning is based on the sugya of the Shas in Eruvin there, see there in the Maggid Mishneh. And the reason he requires three tefachim—is because less than that is considered lavud, and automatically it is certainly so regarding mezuzah as well. And this he did not need to mention, for anything less than three—is as lavud. And according to this, in an entrance that has only three tefachim in its width, according to Rashi it is exempt from mezuzah, and according to the Rambam it is obligated. Therefore, in practice, it seems clear that from three until four—one should fix it without a berakhah. And I am wondered at our teacher, the Rema, who wrote in this siman that any entrance that does not have ten tefachim in its height is exempt from mezuzah, see there. And why did he not mention the width? And also the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch did not write anything regarding this. But nevertheless, the law is clear as I have written, and so one should instruct.

It is stated in Yoma (Yoma 11b): It was taught in a Baraita: An arched doorway – Rabbi Meir obligates it in a mezuzah, and the sages exempt it. And they agree that if its legs have ten, it is obligated in a mezuzah. Rashi explained: And the sages exempt it – for there is no gate without a width of four, and every arch narrows at its top to less than four. And they agree – that if its legs have ten before the curve begins and its width diminishes, it is obligated. For even if everything is closed from ten and above, there is the measure of an entrance: in its height ten with a width of four. Thus far his words. It follows that according to his explanation, even though it begins to curve within ten – this is nothing if there are four within the curve. This is the wording of the Tur: And if it has two mezuzot, and the lintel upon them is made like a bow, and it progressively narrows until it does not have four tefachim in width, if there is a height of ten tefachim in the mezuzah before it narrows until it does not have four – it is obligated. And if not – it is exempt. Thus far his words. And this is as we said according to the method of Rashi, of blessed memory. And even if it begins to curve from the ground, even so it is obligated, since there is a height of ten with a width of four. And that which he employed the language of "two mezuzot" – it was to emphasize the point of the latter clause, that even so, when it is not ten high – it is exempt (Taz subsection 6). And furthermore to emphasize: that even though in the place of the mezuzot it is only four wide, and consequently in the place where it begins to curve it is not four wide, and if so the curve separates between the upper ceiling and the two mezuzot, nevertheless it is obligated in a mezuzah (Bach and see Beit Yosef).

But the Rambam wrote: A house that has a mezuzah from here and from here, and an arch like a bow over the two mezuzot in place of the lintel, if there is a height of ten tefachim or more in the mezuzot – it is obligated. And if it does not have ten tefachim – it is exempt, because it has no lintel. Thus far his words. And his intention is that there should be ten tefachim in equal height before it begins to curve. And that which he wrote "because it has no lintel," this is its explanation: for when there is a height of ten in equality – we subsequently consider the entire curve as the lintel. But when there is not a height of ten in equality, and if so one must consider the curve as the height, and therefore it is impossible to also consider it as the lintel (Taz subsection 3), for we consider the entire curvature as one (and the difficulty of the Kesef Mishneh is answered). And he did not mention a width of four at all, and he follows his reasoning that we do not require a width of four tefachim, and three tefachim is sufficient as I wrote in section 9. (See Taz subsection 2, who is uncertain in a case where there is a height of ten tefachim in equality, and afterwards it begins to curve, and there is still a width of four tefachim or more, in which place do we fix the mezuzah? See there. And it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 289. And the custom that the Rema mentioned, thanks be to G-d in this the generation is fit, and we have not heard of this custom, and it should not be mentioned.)