Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah - Chapter Six

The Rambam’s choice of phraseology emphasizes the concept mentioned in the last halachah of the previous chapter: that the mezuzah is the obligation of the dweller and not the dwelling.

It appears that all these requirements are mid’oraita, postulated by Scriptural Law.

See Halachah 2.

Note the Turei Zahav 287:1 and the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:11, which state that if an entrance has a doorpost on the right side and a wall which continues on the left side, a mezuzah should be affixed without a blessing. If the doorpost is on the left side, and the wall continues on the right, there is no need for a mezuzah.

According to most authorities, the doorpost need not be an addition to the walls of the house. Even if the entrance to the house does not have a frame attached to it, but rather the wall of the house itself serves as the doorpost attached to it, a mezuzah is required. Note the statements of the Turei Zahav 287:1. (See also Halachah 3.)

A beam above the doorposts. According to many authorities, the ceiling of the house is not considered to be a lintel. (See also Halachah 4.)

See Halachah 5.

The Ra’avad, Rabbenu Asher, and others differ with the Rambam’s opinion. In a responsum attributed to the Rambam, his view is explained as follows: The Torah states that a mezuzah should be placed “on your gates.” This expression implies an entrance with doors.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 286:15) obligates us to place a mezuzah even on entrances which do not have doors. Nevertheless, in deference to the Rambam’s opinion, the Siftei Cohen 286:25 states that a person should not recite a blessing when affixing such a mezuzah. (See also Halachah 5.)

If the entrance is not at least this high, it is not fit to be used by adults. (See also Halachah 4.)

See Halachah 6.

This principle is not accepted by all authorities. See Halachah 7.

See Halachah 9.

See Halachah 9.

A cubit is approximately 48 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah.

Any smaller area would not be considered fit for a dwelling (Rabbenu Asher).

The Or Sameach explains the advantage of a rectangular shape based on Hilchot Tzara’at 14:6, which states that only a square or rectangular-shaped building is considered to be a house with regard to the impurity of tzara’at.

Rabbenu Asher does not accept the Rambam’s view. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 286:13) accepts the Rambam’s view, in deference to Rabbenu Asher’s opinion, the Siftei Cohen 286:23 states that one should not recite a blessing when affixing a mezuzah on such a dwelling.
The Merchevat HaMishneh does not agree with the Shulchan Aruch’s interpretation of the Rambam’s words, and explains that the Rambam is referring to a circular building whose circumference is large enough to contain a square four cubits by four cubits. Compare with Hilchot Sukkah 4:7.
As explained in Halachah 8, a mezuzah must be affixed to an entrance which leads to another entrance which requires a mezuzah even if the former entrance would not require a mezuzah in its own right. Accordingly, we must say that this halachah is speaking about an independent structure and not a room in a house.

An exedra was a very common structure in Greek and Roman architecture that was also frequently employed in Jewish homes. It resembled a porch with three sides enclosed and the fourth side left open. (At times, both the third and fourth sides were left open. See Hilchot Sukkah 4:8,9.)
It was covered by a roof which often contained an aperture to allow sunlight to enter. Decorative pillars were placed at each of the corners of the aperture.

According to the Kessef Mishneh, this decision applies even if doors are affixed to the pillars.

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 286:6) states that if the exedra has a wall (even if it is low) on the fourth side as well, a mezuzah is required. According to this decision, most porches that have pillars at their entrance require a mezuzah.

If, however, a building has four walls, even though large openings are left in them, a mezuzah is required (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah, loc. cit.).

And not to serve as doorposts. See Menachot 33b.

Which stand straight and are not part of the arch.

Since it has both two doorposts of at least ten handbreadths each and a lintel.

The Rambam’s phraseology has aroused questions from the commentators. Though all agree that a mezuzah is not required, most maintain that the reason is not that the entrance does not have a lintel—for the arch takes the place of the lintel—but rather because the entrance is not of the required height, ten handbreadths.
The Turei Zahav 287:3 explains that were the doorposts to be ten handbreadths high, the archway would be considered as the lintel. Since they are not ten handbreadths high, the archway is considered to be part of the doorposts, and thus, the entrance is considered to be lacking a lintel.

Although a gate to a courtyard or a city requires a mezuzah even though the area enclosed by its walls is open, a house is different; unless it is covered by a roof, it is unfit to dwell inside and, hence, does not require a mezuzah. (See Yoma 11b, Rabbenu Asher, Hilchot Mezuzah.)

Throughout the Mishneh Torah, the expression “it appears to me” indicates a decision for which the Rambam has no explicit source in the Rabbinic texts of the previous generations.

The covered portion must be four cubits by four cubits (Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 286:14). Note, however, the Or Sameach, which does not require the covered portion to be this size.

See also the Pit’chei Teshuvah 286:13, which states that a part of a house which is customarily built without a roof requires a mezuzah.

Though this statement, based on the following passage from Menachot 33a, is accepted by all halachic authorities (see Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 289:3), its interpretation has been a source of controversy, based on the difference of opinion (see Halachah 1) between the Rambam and other authorities whether an entrance without doors requires a mezuzah or not.
The Talmud states: “The exilarch built a house. He requested of Rav Nachman: ‘Affix a mezuzah for me.’ Rav Nachman told him: ‘Attach the doors first.’”
The commentaries maintain that, according to the Rambam, Rav Nachman was telling the exilarch that if the doors were not attached before the mezuzah was affixed, it is invalid. Since an entrance without doors does not require a mezuzah, affixing it before the doors would create a problem. Other authorities explain that Rav Nachman made this statement only because it was necessary to determine the direction the doors would open in order to establish the proper side of the doorway on which to place the mezuzah.

There was a wall around the complex of the Temple Mount separating it from the remainder of the city of Jerusalem. It had five gates, as described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:2.

Within the Temple, there were many different chambers and courtyards; they are described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, Chapter 5.

Which are referred to as “sanctuaries in microcosm” (Megillah 29a).

Since students often eat and sleep in a house of study, it is customary to place mezuzot there (Tur, Yoreh De’ah 286). In the present era, it is an accepted practice to place mezuzos on all the doors of synagogues, because they are also used for communal needs other than prayer. The Shulchan Aruch (286:10) suggests affixing a mezuzah without reciting a blessing beforehand.

Yoma 11b derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:9: “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your homes.” The Temple is not “your home,” a private dwelling, and therefore does not require a mezuzah.
The Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De’ah, Responsum 281) asks: Since the Chamber of Parhedrin was the only portion within the Temple Courtyard used as a person’s dwelling, why does the Rambam state that these entrances do not require mezuzot because they are consecrated? Since they are not used as a dwelling, why would one think they require a mezuzah?
The Chatam Sofer explains that the Temple is a dwelling—in fact, the ultimate dwelling, the resting place of the Divine Presence. Nevertheless, since it is not a dwelling for humans, it does not require a mezuzah.

The Nimukei Yosef (Halachot Katanot) explains that synagogues in villages would generally have apartments for guests, because the villagers’ homes were usually not large enough to accommodate them. In contrast, in large cities, there were generally enough people willing to invite guests to their homes, and thus it was unnecessary for a synagogue to have a guest apartment.

The central gate to the Temple Courtyard. (See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:5.)
The Gate of Nicanor required a mezuzah because it was the gate directly before the Chamber of Parhedrin. As explained in Halachah 8, the gate of a courtyard which leads to a dwelling requires a mezuzah. Based on this rationale, Rav Kapach asks why the gates before the Gate of Nicanor did not require a mezuzah, since they led to a gate which led to a dwelling.

The other six gates to the Temple Courtyard.

The Kessef Mishneh and others note that the Rambam’s text differs from his source (Yoma, loc. cit.), which reads “the Gate of Nicanor and the Chamber of Parhedrin, which was further within.” He does explain, however, that the Rambam’s version is acceptable: Since all these gates lead to the Chamber of Parhedrin, they therefore require a mezuzah.
Rav Kapach supports this interpretation, noting that the Chamber of the Hearth also served as a dwelling for the priests, and hence, the gate to it would require a mezuzah. According to this interpretation, this gate is also included, while according to our text of the Talmud, it is not.

This term means “officer of the king,” and was used as a derisive reference to the High Priests of the Second Temple period, who were not righteous and would purchase this position from the ruling authorities for lavish bribes (Yoma 8b).

Note Yoma 10b, which states that the obligation to place a mezuzah on the gate of Nicanor and the Chamber of Parhedrin applies only during these seven days and not throughout the entire year. Nevertheless, since as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 11, one should not remove a mezuzah after leaving a dwelling, the mezuzah should remain there afterwards as well (Rav Kapach).

See Yoma 2a; Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:3.

Rav David Arameah notes that there are commentaries who point to a contradiction between these statements and Hilchot Melachim 7:5, where the Rambam states that a soldier who is excused from the battlefield for building a new house (see Deuteronomy 20:5), is released for constructing one of these structures.
He explains, however, that the Rambam’s phraseology clearly indicates how this difficulty can be resolved. In Hilchot Melachim, the Rambam states that these structures are “fit to dwell in.” In this halachah, he states that they are not “set aside for their use.”
A house requires a mezuzah only when a person dwells in it. Accordingly, since these structures are not used for that purpose, they do not require a mezuzah. To receive an exemption from military service, by contrast, all that is necessary is to build a house “fit to dwell in.” Since it is possible to use these structures for that purpose, the exemption is granted.

I.e., for human habitation. This principle is not accepted by all authorities. Based on the opinion of the Tur and others, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 286:1-2) requires that a mezuzah be affixed to such structures.

Provided they are not also used as dwellings by humans.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 286:2) emphasizes that if the women stand there naked, it is improper for a mezuzah to be affixed.

For this reason, according to the Rambam, if one dresses there, a large walk-in closet requires a mezuzah. Other authorities are more stringent and require a mezuzah even if one does not dress there.

Even if they possess roofs, four walls, and doors. Note the decisions of the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 286) and other Ashkenazic authorities, which obligate placing a mezuzah on these structures if they conform to all the other necessary requirements.

Based on the following halachah, this decision would apply even if these structures also lack other requirements a building must have for a mezuzah to be placed upon it.

Not only on the door between them and the dwelling, but even on an entrance which leads to them from the outside (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 286:8).

E.g., the gates to the old city of Jerusalem.

Even though the areas to which they lead are not covered by roofs and are not dwellings.

Yoma 11a relates that the obligation to affix mezuzot on such structures is derived from the inclusion of the word, “And on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9). This implies that even structures which are not themselves “homes” should have mezuzot on their entrances.

We have translated the term batim loosely. Manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah substitute the term “entrances.”

For example, a gate to a courtyard opens to a gate to an alleyway, which leads to a further alleyway, which leads to a courtyard.

The Rambam rarely mentions references to any source other than the Tanach. In this instance when he does, the definition of the source to which he refers is a matter of question.
Most commentaries cite the Rambam’s source as Menachot 33b. The passage there, however, speaks of a gate leading from a room to a garden or from a room to a courtyard. The Kiryat Melech cites a reference in Chapter 2 of the tractate of Mezuzah, which describes precisely the situation mentioned by the Rambam.

Which is characterized by a foul smell, since feces are often used in the processing of leather.

Yoma 11b explains that this exclusion is implied by the commandment to place a mezuzah on our “homes.” Only a dignified dwelling, like a home, requires a mezuzah.

If, however, one would dwell in such a structure for the entire year, a mezuzah would be required.

Although the commentaries accept this law in principle, they question the Rambam’s source. Among the possibilities offered are the Midrash Tannaim, Parshat Va’etchanan, and the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 4:12.
The latter source compares tefillin to mezuzah and explains that the mitzvah of tefillin has an advantage, because it is fulfilled by those who travel in the desert or journey upon the sea. From this, one can conclude that the mitzvah of mezuzah is not fulfilled at sea.

The same principle applies to other dwellings of a temporary nature. Based on this principle, the Birchai Yosef (Yoreh De’ah 286) exempts patients in a hospital or inmates in prison of the obligation to have a mezuzah on their doors.

In Talmudic times, a potter would set up two booths, an inner booth, where he would live and store his belongings, and an outer booth, where he would work and exhibit his wares (Sukkah 8b). The inner booth requires a mezuzah.

Sukkah (loc. cit.) asks: Although the outer booth is not a dwelling and, therefore, does not itself, require a mezuzah, perhaps a mezuzah should be affixed to it because it leads to the inner booth? Our Sages explain, as above, that it is not a permanent structure, and only an entrance of a permanent nature can be considered an “entrance to an entrance” and is required to have a mezuzah (Kessef Mishneh). Note the Ra’avad and Rashi, who interpret the passage from Sukkah differently.

Note the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:14, which states that this law applies only to stalls used for business fairs that are left vacant after the fair is over. If, however, merchandise is continually left in a store, a mezuzah is required.

Or room.

That meets the ten qualifications mentioned above.

Even if a doorway is never used. As long as the potential for using it exists, a mezuzah is required. If, however, the doorway is barred closed so that it will not be used, no mezuzah is necessary.

On the surface, this statement is unnecessary. Clearly, such an entrance would require a mezuzah. Perhaps the Rambam is implying that a mezuzah is required even though the opening lies horizontally in the roof of the house. There is a difference of opinion on this matter, and the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:20 requires a mezuzah only on an entrance that stands upright.

There is no maximum number of mezuzot in a house.

The Kessef Mishneh states that this law is self-evident, based on the Rambam’s statements in Halachah 8. The commentaries explain, however, that the above halachah describes a situation where many entrances require a mezuzah because of another room. In this instance, each of the rooms itself requires a mezuzah.

Which do not require a mezuzah, as mentioned in Halachah 6 above.

Because the fact that it is an entrance to one’s own house is considered of predominant importance.

Or more particularly, between two rooms in the same house.

This principle is called heker tzir (Menachot 33a).

I.e., the side to which the door opens. This halachah is very significant with regard to contemporary homes, which possess many rooms, and it is necessary to determine the side of the entrance on which the mezuzah should be placed. The Rambam explains that this is determined by the direction to which the door opens: The mezuzah is placed on the right side of the entrance to the room to which the door opens.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 289:3) quotes the Rambam’s decision. The Turei Zahav 289:4 and the Siftei Cohen 289:6 mention two other factors:
a) The order in which one enters the rooms from the entrance to the house. The room which is closer to the entrance to the house is considered as leading to the room which is further removed, and the mezuzah is placed on the right side of the entrance to the latter room;
b) The importance of the rooms. The room which is less important is considered as leading into the room which is more important, and the mezuzah is placed on the right side of the entrance to the latter room.
These principles are also significant if an entrance has no doors or has sliding doors. The above concepts apply only to rooms within a house. If the door leads to the public thoroughfare, the mezuzah is always placed on the right-hand side as one enters the house.

Menachot 32b explains that the Hebrew uvish’arecha, translated as “and on your gates,” can also be rendered “and within your gates.” See the notes to Chapter 5, Halachah 8, which explain that, when there is no other alternative, the mezuzah may be affixed on the outer part of the doorpost facing outwards or inside the entrance, on the back of the doorpost. See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 289:2, and Siftei Cohen 289:4.

Menachot 33b gives two reasons for this position: a) so that one will encounter God’s name as soon as one enters one’s home; b) so that the protective influences aroused by the mezuzah will affect a greater portion of the home

Menachot 33a derives this concept from the fact that the Torah teaches the mitzvah of mezuzah directly after the mitzvah of tefillin. Just as tefillin are placed on the upper portion of one’s arm, a mezuzah should be placed on the upper portion of the entrance. (Note the Nekudot HaKessef 289, who objects to this decision.)

Note the Ra’avad, who states that when a doorway is very high, the mezuzah should be placed at the height of one’s shoulders. (See Siftei Cohen 289:4.)

Rabbenu Asher and the Ashkenazic authorities maintain that the mezuzah may be placed next to the lintel.

This law applies even when a house is owned by a left-handed person (Rama, Yoreh De’ah 289:2).

Yoma 11b explains that the word veitecha, “your house,” can also be read as: b’viatcha, “as you enter,” implying that the mezuzah should be positioned as one enters a house or room.

It is not considered as if one has fulfilled the mitzvah at all.

Yoma, loc. cit., explains that although Deuteronomy 6:9 uses the singular form for “your house,” it does not exclude houses belonging jointly to many people.
The Kessef Mishneh relates that it would have been more appropriate to mention this law at the beginning of the chapter; nevertheless, the Rambam mentions it here because it is derived from the same Talmudic passage as the preceding law.
Note the Rama, Yoreh Deah 11:19, who states that an entrance which one shares with a gentile does not require a mezuzah. Others differ and require a mezuzah.

During the day and at night. Though the Rambam maintains that a person fulfills the mitzvah at the time he affixes the mezuzah on his entrance (see Chapter 5, Halachah 7), the fulfillment of the mitzvah has a continuing influence on the person who fulfills it.

As the Rambam states in Hilchot Berachot 11:2, a person is not obligated to live in a house which requires a mezuzah. Nevertheless, since most of our dwellings do require mezuzot, speaking about the obligation of mezuzah as incumbent upon us is appropriate.

Both men and women (Chapter 5, Halachah 10).

Which is implied by the verse, Shema Yisrael, which teaches us God’s oneness (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:7).

As mentioned in the command, “And you shall love God, your Lord,” which is also contained in the mezuzah.

Compare with Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4.

Note Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 4:9:
The form of this soul... is from God.... It knows and comprehends knowledge which is above matter, knows the
Creator of all things, and exists forever. In his wisdom, Solomon [gave this description]: “The dust will return
to the earth... And the spirit will return to God who granted it.”
See also Hilchot Teshuvah 8:3:
The soul, as mentioned in this context... refers to the knowledge of the Creator which it has grasped according
to its potential.... This life—because it is not accompanied by death—is called “the bond of life.”
See also similar statements in the Rambam’s introduction to Chapter 10 of the tractate of Sanhedrin, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, and in his Iggeret T’chiyat HaMeitim.

Menachot 43b associates these three mitzvot with the verse (Ecclesiastes 4:12): “The three-plied cord will not easily be severed.”

This does not mean that the person’s free-choice will be taken away from him, but rather that, because of these reminders, he will always be aware of the values that are true and genuine and never slip into sin.

Who are brought into being by his fulfillment of the mitzvot.

Note Likkutei Sichot, Ekev 5746, which questions why the Rambam quotes this statement in Hilchot Mezuzah. Seemingly, it would have been more appropriate to have mentioned it in Hilchot Tefillin, the first of the halachot which deal with these three mitzvot, or in Hilchot Tzitzit, the final halachot.
Indeed, its placement in Hilchot Tzitzit would have been appropriate, for there the Rambam concludes with the concept of remembering the mitzvot. (Significantly, the passage in Menachot from which this statement is quoted actually concerns the mitzvah of tzitzit.)
Likkutei Sichot explains that with regard to tefillin, it is the holiness of tefillin which affects a person (see Chapter 4, Halachah 25). Similarly, tzitzit remind a person because “the Torah made its performance equivalent... to all the other mitzvot” (Hilchot Tzitzit 3:12)—i.e., the reminders are other factors aside from the actual performance of the mitzvah. In contrast, it is the content of the mezuzah itself which constantly reminds the person. When a person sees a mezuzah, the mezuzah makes him aware of “the unity of God...,” and this awareness influences his behavior.

Frequently, the Rambam concludes groups of halachot in the Mishneh Torah with this expression. It is, however, questionable why he does so in the present instance, since the three halachot, Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah, are considered as a single entity. It can be explained, however, that since the mitzvah of mezuzah aids a person constantly to be aware of God (as explained in the last halachah), after completing the explanation of its laws, it is appropriate to give thanks to God for His assistance (Likkutei Sichot, loc. cit.).