Siman 289

One should not ask why we do not write two mezuzot on the two doorposts, from the right and from the left, as it is written: "And you shall write them on the mezuzot etc." And even though in the first passage of "V'ahavta" it is written "mezuzot" deficiently, nevertheless in "Vehaya im shamoa" it is written fully. Furthermore, there is the principle that the tradition of the reading is authoritative. However, we learned in Menachot (Menachot 34a): It was taught in a Baraita: "Mezuzot" – I might understand the minimum of "mezuzot" to be two. When it says "mezuzot" in the second passage, which is otherwise superfluous, it is an inclusion after an inclusion, and an inclusion after an inclusion serves only to exclude – the verse excluded them to a single mezuzah; these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: This is not necessary. When it says "upon the lintel and upon the two mezuzot," what does the teaching learn from "two"? This established a paradigm: every place where "mezuzot" is stated – it is only one, etc. See there (and this is the intention of the Taz, subsection 1).

And one should not ask: Behold, Rava Meir expounds there from that of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva that even with one patzim—one is obligated in mezuzah. And from this the Rosh inferred that the halacha is like Rabbi Meir, as I wrote in siman 287, section 4. However, we will say according to the system of the Rambam and the majority of the poskim who ruled like the Sages against Rabbi Meir, that they would interpret the words of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva regarding the writing of the mezuzot. And we alluded to this there in section 6, see there. And on the contrary, according to this it works out well why in the first instance "mezuzot" is written deficient, to tell you that one only needs to write one mezuzah. And in the second instance it is full, to tell you that one specifically needs two patzimin. (And one should not answer: since "beitecha" was necessary—the way of your entry, etc., for behold "beitecha" is not superfluous. And be precise and you will find it easy.) (And see in section 5).

If he comes to fix it—he should place it in a tube of reed or of any material, and fix it in its place. And he shall bless: "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to fix a mezuzah." And he should not bless at the time of its writing, for one only blesses at the completion of the mitzvah. And even though the completion of the mitzvah is only at the time of dwelling, as mezuzah is an obligation of the dweller, nevertheless, he presumably fixes the mezuzah at the time of his entry to dwell within it. Therefore, if in truth he does not want to dwell in it—he should not fix the mezuzah. And if he fixed it—he should not bless. And when he enters to dwell in it, then there are those who say he should bless "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to dwell in a house that has a mezuzah" (Magen Avraham siman 19, subsection 1). And it is possible that they only instituted the blessing at the time of its fixing, and even if his intention is to enter after some time—nevertheless he can bless at the time of its fixing upon the entrance, since the intention is to dwell within it. And it seems to me that such is the custom. And we have never heard anything but the blessing "to fix a mezuzah." (And also the Magen Avraham there only wrote this by way of possibility, see there. And so wrote the Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of the Birkei Yosef who disagrees with him. And see what I wrote at the end of siman 291 and in Orach Chaim siman 19. And see in siman 262).

One who affixes two or three mezuzot or more—he recites one blessing for all of them, provided he does not interrupt between them with idle conversation that is not relevant to the matter of the mezuzah. And if he removes it from the entrance to check it, and it is found to be kosher, and he returns and affixes it—he does not need to recite a blessing, like one who removes his tallit for a short time to return and wear it, who does not recite a blessing. And if he affixed it after a day—he certainly recites a blessing. And if it is found to be invalid and he affixes another mezuzah—he also recites a blessing. And so too if it fell on its own—he recites a blessing when he affixes it, like if his tallit fell in Orach Chaim siman 8. And the master of the house recites the blessing even if another person affixes it. And if he is not in his house—his wife or one of the members of the household recites the blessing, as the obligation is incumbent upon them. But the other person who affixes it does not, for the mitzvah is not incumbent upon him, as it is an obligation of the resident. And one who rents a house from his fellow—it is upon the renter to affix the mezuzah, as is explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 314. Therefore, the renter recites the blessing and not the owner. And more will be explained regarding this in siman 291 with the help of Heaven.

What is its location? On the mezuzah of the entrance that is on the right side of the entry. And there is no distinction whether he is left-handed or left-footed, for the house is made for everyone who dwells in it, and not for a specific individual. Furthermore: here the Torah did not make it dependent on the specific person, as with tefillin where we derive "your hand" – the weak hand, and it depended on the hand of the person. But regarding mezuzah it is written "your house," and when a person seeks to enter, does he not lift his right foot first? Thus our sages, of blessed memory, derived in Menachot (Menachot 34a). And this is according to the way of all people, for his specific foot is not mentioned in the Torah. (See Shach, subsection 5, who labored over this. And according to what I have written, it works well. Examine it and you will find it simple.) And the right side is indispensable. And if he fixed it on the left side – it is invalid, and it is as if he did not make a mezuzah at all. And he removes it from the left and fixes it on the right and recites the blessing. (The Levush wrote that "your house" is superfluous, see there. And it requires further study.)

It is an understood matter that when there are several rooms and several doorways in a house, and it has two exits to the reshut harabbim or to a courtyard—one exit in the eastern wall and another exit in the western wall, or north and south—consequently, the right and left sides will be reversed. For that which will be the right side when entering through the east will be the left side through the west. And for this they said in Menachot (Menachot 33a) regarding mezuzah: Follow the distinction of the hinge, such as doorways between two houses. Rashi explained that there is an exit for each house to the reshut harabbim, and regarding the doorway between one and the other we do not know which should be considered the entry and which should be considered the exit; we follow the hole in the threshold in which the hinge of the door turns—that side where the hole is (and where he stands the door) is considered the house, and on the right side when entering it, one places the mezuzah. Thus far his words. And so it is in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 3 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 289:3). And there is no difference whether there is one door for the doorway or two half-doors—the room where the doors open is the place of entry, and he shall fix the mezuzah to the right of the entry.

However, it is not a general rule, as the Levush wrote, and this is his wording: A doorway through which one enters from the house into the winter house, it seems to me that one places the mezuzah on the right of the entrance when entering from the house into the winter house. For our primary usage is in the winter houses, and we do not pay attention to the recognition of the hinge at all. For whether the hinge is on the outside or whether it is on the inside—one places the mezuzah on the right of the entrance. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Mordechai in the name of Ri, and this is his wording: Specifically when both of them are primary etc., but from a house to a room or to an attic etc., since the primary usage of entry and exit is through there—we do not pay attention to the recognition of the hinge. Thus far his words.

The general rule of these matters is that according to the custom of our houses, several doubts arise regarding the doorways: which is the right side of the entrance? For in most cases, when there is a doorway to the street on the eastern side and a doorway to the courtyard on another side, all the rooms will consequently change; for if we consider the entrance from the street, this side will be the right side, and if we consider it from the courtyard, it will be the opposite. Similarly, when there are two doorways from the house to the courtyard, as is the custom in many of our houses where one doorway goes from the house and one doorway from the kitchen, which they call "kukhnya," if they are on two different sides, the right and the left will change. Furthermore, in the house itself, in many rooms, the right and the left will change, and the "hiker tzir" is not a constant sign as I have written—one must reflect deeply on this. It is impossible to explain the details of these matters; rather, the general rule is this: from the place where the passage is more regular—from there the entrance is considered. And in a place where the passage is equal—they should follow the "hiker tzir." Beyond this, it is impossible to explain, as is understood.

And in what location on the right side shall he affix the mezuzah? It is stated in Menachot (Menachot 32b): It is a mitzvah to place it within the hollow of the doorway and not outside. And it is a mitzvah to place it within the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain. And this is so if the thickness of the hollow is four or five handbreadths, such as a stone structure where the wall is very wide in thickness—he shall place it in the hollow of the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain, so that he will encounter the mitzvah sooner upon his entry into his house.

And at what height is the measure to fix it there? They said there (Menachot 33a): It is a mitzvah to place it at the beginning of the upper third. For example, if the height of the entrance is three amot—he should place it at the beginning of the third amah. And if he placed it lower than this—it is pasul. See in section 12. But higher than this is kosher, provided that he distances it one tefach from the upper lintel. And ex post facto it is kosher even without the distancing of a tefach (Beit Yosef). And the Tosafot there brought from the Yerushalmi that he should place it opposite his shoulders, and not higher than his shoulders, see there. And according to this, if the entrance is very high in a manner where the beginning of the upper third is higher than his shoulders, what shall he do? And in the Yerushalmi, fourth chapter of Megillah, it says explicitly: when does one place it in the upper third? When it is opposite his shoulders. But when it is higher than his shoulders—one should not pay heed to the upper third, see there. And so explained the Tosafot in Yoma (Yoma 11b), see there. And so wrote the Mordechai, see there. However, the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch mentioned only the upper third. And the great Acharonim agreed like the Yerushalmi (Levush and Shach, subsection 4). But the Tosafot in Menachot (33b s.v. u-mai) wrote that the Yerushalmi disagrees with our Talmud, see there. Nevertheless, since it is explained there in the Yerushalmi that they acted so in practice, it is necessary to do so. And it must be said that the reason our Talmud did not mention this is because it is a simple matter. (For behold, there is one who holds that a tefach above the ground is sufficient, see there. Furthermore: for the upper third we derive: just as binding is at a height—so too writing, see there. And from this it is to be learned: just as binding is upon the person—so too writing is opposite the person. Furthermore: for their entrances were not so high that the beginning of the upper third would be higher than his shoulders.)

This is the wording of the Tur (Tur Yoreh Deah 289): And what is its place? On the doorpost of the right entrance etc., within the space of the entrance in the outermost handbreadth adjacent to the public domain, from two-thirds of the height of the entrance and above etc. And if he placed it behind the door—this is not its mitzvah. And it appears that if he changed from these locations—it does not invalidate, provided that it is on the right side, for if he did not fix it on the right side—it certainly invalidates. Thus far his words. And it is explicitly clarified that regarding everything he said previously, it does not invalidate post facto, for he only specified the right side. And according to this, even if he did not place it in the upper third, and not in the outermost handbreadth, and not within the space but rather behind the door—this does not invalidate post facto if he only placed it on the right side of the entrance. And so it is implied in the Gemara there, that regarding all the mentioned laws it used the language of "mitzvah" and not "invalidation." And regarding the right side it did not use this language, see there, because this is for invalidation.

And so it is implied from the words of our teacher, the Rema, in section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 289:2), for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: Which is the place of its fixing? Within the hollow of the entrance, in the handbreadth adjacent to the outside. Thus far his words. And he wrote regarding this: And if he deviated—it does not invalidate, provided that he places it on the mezuzah itself. Thus far his words. Behold, this also refers to a deviation within the hollow of the entrance, which is to say that he placed it behind the door on the mezuzah itself. And it should not be said that his intention is only regarding the handbreadth adjacent to the entrance, but that within the hollow is indispensable, for if so, he should have said: provided that he places it within the hollow of the entrance. And there are some of the great authorities who hold that there is no one who disagrees regarding behind the entrance that it would invalidate (Taz, sub-section 3). And there is one who wrote that the Rambam and the Nimukei Yosef disagree regarding below the upper third, and regarding behind the door, that it is invalid. (Nekudot HaKesef regarding behind the door, and in the Shach, sub-section 4, regarding below the upper third. And so it is implied in the Beit Yosef. And therefore we wrote in section 10 that below is invalid, see there.)

But in my humble opinion, there is no proof from the words of the Rambam. For in the sixth chapter, law 12 (Rambam Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah 6), regarding the law of the upper third, he did not mention at all that lower than this is pasul; see there. And in the fifth chapter, law 8 (Rambam Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah 5), he wrote: If he hung it on a staff—it is pasul, etc. If he placed it behind the door—he has done nothing, etc. Thus far his words. On the contrary, since he did not write regarding "behind the door" the language of "pasul," it implies that this is not a complete disqualification, but rather that he did not perform the mitzvah properly. And the wording of the Tur is also thus, for he wrote: "this is not its mitzvah"—and despite all this, it is not a requirement. Furthermore, even if we were to say that his intention is that it is a requirement, one could say that this is when he placed it further away from the mezuzah of the house or the gate. And the Nimukei Yosef wrote this explicitly, and this is his wording: Behind the door, outside the mezuzah of the gate. Thus far his words. And for this reason, our teacher, the Rema, was precise to say: Provided that he places it on the mezuzah itself. That is to say: not further away from the mezuzah. And also from the words of the Tosafot and the Rosh it is explained that it is not a requirement; see there.

And according to this, our custom is well-settled regarding several doorways that face the street or the courtyard where there is a concern lest they take them, or due to a lack of cleanliness, that they fix the mezuzah not within the space of the doorway but behind the doorway adjacent to the edge of the doorpost, which is the patzim, for they have fulfilled the mitzvah of mezuzah according to all opinions. And it is not only according to the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur, but even according to the opinion of the Rambam and the Nimukei Yosef. And especially since we act out of necessity. And even though for the sake of cleanliness it is sufficient when it is covered, as I wrote in siman 286, section 11, nevertheless, the mind cannot tolerate seeing that opposite the mezuzah there should be constant filth. Therefore, it is better that the mezuzah should not see this. (And also Rashi, of blessed memory, explained "behind the door," that he fixed it in the wall behind the door, see there. But regarding the doorpost itself it is possible that it is permitted, as I wrote from the words of the Nimukei Yosef and the Rema. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

How does one fix the mezuzah? After he has placed it in a tube as I wrote in section 3, he shall nail it with nails into the doorpost of the entrance, or he shall dig a cavity in it and fix it within it. And he shall not dig a handbreadth deep, for if he did so—it is invalid; as it is written: "and on your gates"—the place where the gate closes, and when it is a handbreadth deep it is not called "on your gates" (Bach). Thus wrote the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And they wrote further: If he hung it on a staff in its place and did not fix it—it is invalid, see there. And it is clear from their words that this is an essential requirement, that the mezuzah must be attached to the doorpost of the wall specifically by means of nails. And it stands to reason: if he wraps the mezuzah in paper and attaches it with adhesive to the doorpost of the wall, it is perfectly fine, for what is the difference to me between a nail and what is the difference to me between adhesive, since it has been attached with a complete attachment? However, without attachment, such as if he makes a protrusion from the doorpost of the house and places it there, or the mezuzah stands there—it is nothing, since it has not been attached with a complete attachment to the doorpost of the wall.

And know that from the phrasing "he shall nail it etc." or "he shall dig a hole for it etc.," it is explicitly implied that when digging a hole, nails are not required. The reason is: since it is placed inside it, it is as one with the mezuzah of the wall. For specifically when it is **upon** the mezuzah of the wall it is not a connection without nails, but not when it is **inside it**. (And even though it seemingly appears from the wording of Rashi and Tosafot in Bava Metzia 102a, s.v. *begubta*, that even upon the mezuzah nails are not required, and so wrote the Bach—there is no proof from there. And see Maharal of Lublin, and so wrote the Nimukei Yosef there, and this is his wording: that he should fix it there with planks or with lime, and there is no need to engrave within the mezuzah. Thus far his words. And so it is explicit in the Yerushalmi at the end of Megillah, which says: and even if he did not nail it. And it asks: but was it not taught "provided that he nailed it"? And it answers: provided that he designated it for that purpose; those of the house of Milyon would do so during wars, see there. And this is the explanation: that when he designated it for that purpose so that it should be there permanently, such as when he dwells in the house, it is not effective without nailing. And that which it said "even if he did not nail it"—this is when traveling on the road and doing so only as a mere remembrance, such as during a time of war when they have no permanent house and are exempt by law from mezuzah. Rather, those of the house of Milyon would hang it as a mere remembrance. And so in Menachot 32b, those of the house of Munbaz would do so in inns, as a remembrance of the mezuzah, see there. And I wonder at the Bach and at the Shach, subsection 7, who wrote that for a temporary period nails are not required, see there, for it is implied from their wording that they fulfill the obligation with this. But it is not so as I have written, for one does not require a mezuzah at all in such a case except as a mere remembrance. And perhaps their intention is also thus. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

We say in Menachot (Menachot 33a): If one made it like a bolt—it is invalid. And it elaborates there on this. According to the explanation of Rashi there, the mezuzah must specifically be standing, and lying down—it is invalid. And according to the explanation of our teacher Tam there in Tosafot it is the opposite, for standing—it is invalid, and lying down—it is valid, see there. And the Rambam in the fifth chapter, law 8, wrote: If one hollowed out the doorpost and inserted the mezuzah like a bolt, and it is like the bar of the planks in the rings—it is invalid. Thus far his words. And this is according to Rashi. And the Rosh wrote also that the world is accustomed to follow Rashi. And the Tur wrote: And those who are meticulous fulfill the obligation of both, half of it upright and half of it lying down, like a bent nun. Thus far his words. However, according to this the mezuzah will be creased, and it is prone to be damaged, as is understood. And it appears to me that therefore our teacher, the Rema, changed his wording in section 6, as will be explained with the help of Heaven (and see in the Mordechai).

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: It must be upright, its length along the length of the doorpost. And one should intend that "Shema," which is the end of the rolling, be toward the outside. Thus far his words. Meaning: toward the air of the doorway and not toward the wall. And this is from the Yerushalmi (see Beit Yosef). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And so they have practiced. But there are those who say it is invalid when upright, but rather it must be lying down, its length along the width of the doorpost. And those who are meticulous fulfill the obligation of both, and they place it on a slant and diagonally. And so it is proper to practice, and so they practice in these countries. And one should intend that the head of the mezuzah, which is "Shema," be toward the inside, and the last line toward the outside. Thus far his words. So that according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam it will be as if lying down, and so that one who enters the house will read it. And this is not related to what has been explained that "Shema" should be toward the outside, for that refers to the thickness of the doorpost, where "Shema," which is the end of its rolling, must be toward the air of the doorway. And the words of our teacher, the Rema, refer to the length of the mezuzah, as is understood. (And that which he wrote at the beginning of his words "And so they have practiced" – this refers to the countries of the Beit Yosef. And that which he wrote afterward "and so they practice" – this refers to these countries. And see Shach, subsection 9. And be precise and you will find it simple.)

It is a simple matter that first one must fix the doorpost properly, and afterward fix the mezuzah upon it. For if one were to fix the mezuzah to the doorpost before he fixed the doorpost to the wall properly, it would be "make it, and not from that which is already made" and it is invalid. Consequently, if one removed the doorpost of the entrance from the wall together with the mezuzah, when he fixes it afterward he must remove the mezuzah from the doorpost, and fix the doorpost to the wall, and afterward fix the mezuzah. And if he did not do so—it is invalid because of "make it, and not from that which is already made." And know that there are those who require that the mezuzah specifically be visible to the outside. In my humble opinion there is no such requirement, and a small indication that there is a mezuzah there is sufficient. And it is necessary to do so when they are afraid that it might be stolen (see Pitchei Teshuva subsection 5 in the name of Ya'akov). And it is simple that if the doorpost of the entrance is not thick, and it is impossible to place it diagonally—he should stand it upright, for such is the primary law as I have written. (I saw in Pitchei Teshuva subsection 2 in the name of the conduct of the Gra, that one should not wrap the mezuzah at all, so that there should be no chatzitzah between it and the wall, see there. And it is a great wonder: besides the fact that in all the poskim it is not so as I have written, it is further difficult: for how shall he fix nails into the mezuzah itself? And what relevance does chatzitzah have? For everything is nullified to the wall. And how is the paper that the mezuzah is wrapped in, or the tube of wood or of metal, any worse than the wood or the stones of the doorpost of the house itself? And it is clear that the one who heard—heard and erred. And know that in the Shita Mekubetzet Bava Metzia 102a it is written in the name of our teacher Yehonatan that even if a person has many houses, and there are some he does not enter except once a year—they all require a mezuzah, as this is called a dwelling, see there.)