The Laws of Mezuzah Part 3 - Rabbi Eyal Peled shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to the “Lema’an Yishme’u” podcast from Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 What remains for us to clarify is which side I put the mezuzah on. This is a very, very important question, because it comes up often. First, we need to know that a mezuzah goes on the right side as you enter. That’s a firm rule: the mezuzah goes on the right side as you enter. If I put the mezuzah on the left, it’s invalid. Where do we learn this? It says, “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house.” The word for “your house,” beisecha, is read as bi’asecha, “your entry.” That means a person must put the mezuzah on the side by which he enters. How does a person enter a house? “When a person lifts a foot, he lifts the right one first.” When someone enters a house, he enters with his right foot, so the right side is the side of entry. I put the mezuzah on the right as I enter. But there are many situations where I don’t know which direction counts as entering. I go through from this side and from that side. This generally comes up with two rooms connected by a doorway, and really, all the rooms in a house can present this question. I go from the main part of the house into a room, and the question is: which direction is considered the way in? The Gemara already discusses two adjoining rooms with a doorway between them. In the case the Gemara discusses, both rooms open onto the public thoroughfare. In other words, this front room also opens onto the public thoroughfare. I can enter it from there and go from it into another room, but that other room also opens onto the public thoroughfare. So the question arises: is entry through this doorway from the front room into the second room, or from the second room into the first? What do we do? This is how the halachic authorities explain the case. It isn’t entirely clear in the Gemara, but this is how they frame the question. And the Gemara says:

02:13 Speaker 2 We follow heker tzir, the way the door swings. In a case like this, we follow heker tzir. What does heker tzir mean? First of all, it doesn’t mean what people might think—that the question is where the hinge is. Whether it’s on the right or the left makes no difference to us. The tzir is the hinge on which the door turns. When I say heker tzir, I want to know which way the door swings. A door can open outward or inward. Say we’re talking about this room: the door can open inward, swinging on its hinge into the room, or it can open the other way, outward, in this direction. That’s the direction indicated by its swing. The reasoning is that the direction in which the door opens is the way in. If the door opens toward that room, then I enter from here into there. If it opens in this direction, then I enter from there into here. That’s what heker tzir means. So when I want to know where to put the mezuzah, I ask myself which way the door opens. If it opens toward that room, entry is from here into there, and I put the mezuzah on the right as I go from this room into that room. If the door opens in this direction, toward this room, I put the mezuzah on the right as I go from that room into this room. That is heker tzir. Okay, so that’s heker tzir. But what happens—and this is why I began by saying that the case involves two rooms that both open onto the public thoroughfare—what happens if one room doesn’t open onto the public thoroughfare? It’s an inner room. What happens in that case? Here,

04:04 Speaker 2 the halachic authorities give several possibilities. By the way, all these ways of deciding are called determining factors. There are several levels of determining factors for deciding which side is the right as you enter. So, some say that the determining factor is heker tzir. If I can’t use heker tzir to decide, because one of the rooms doesn’t open onto the public thoroughfare—it’s an inner room—then I follow the room’s primary use. Which room has the more important use? Which room do I use more? That is considered the main room, the one I am entering. So primary use depends on whether one room is where I eat and drink, while the other is a room where children play, or where there are other uses that aren’t as important. It follows that the room with the primary use is the room I am entering. I put the mezuzah on the right as I enter that room. This is one approach cited by the halachic authorities. The Shach cites this approach of primary use. By the way, when it comes to primary use, if one room is for eating and another is for sleeping, eating is considered the more important use. So the room used for eating has the primary use, and the mezuzah goes on the right as you enter it. There is another approach called “most entries,” or the usual way of entering. This is also brought in Pischei Teshuvah, which cites Chomos Yerushalayim as bringing this approach. “Most entries” asks which direction people pass through the doorway most often: from here to there, or from there to here. He gives the example of the men’s and women’s sections of a shul. The men’s section

06:01 Speaker 2 is here, in this room, and the women’s section is in the room over here. He describes it like this: Usually, between the men’s and women’s sections, most people going through the doorway go from the men’s section to the women’s section. The women don’t go into the men’s section. The men sometimes go into the women’s section to bring food, bring wine for Kiddush, bring in the Torah scroll, and so on. So most entries are from the men’s section into the women’s section. Therefore, when I ask myself where to affix the mezuzah in a doorway like this, between two rooms, I say: if most entries are from the men’s section into the women’s section, I affix the mezuzah on the right as I enter the women’s section. If it were the other way around, with most entries going from here to there, I would affix the mezuzah on the right as I enter the other room. Something like this can happen in our homes too. Sometimes, to reach a particular room, I can take a route that leads straight into it. But there is also another route where I have to go around and enter from the other side. Here too, most entries are through the first doorway, so that is considered the way in, not the other doorway at the side. Entry through the second doorway accounts for a minority of entries, not most of them. So I have to ask myself which direction accounts for most entries. We already have three determining factors: heker tzir, most entries, and primary use. There is another determining factor: which room is the inner room. This makes a lot of sense, because I ask myself: when I go from an outer room into an inner room, surely entry cannot be considered to be from the inner room into the outer room. After all, how do I get to the inner room?

07:51 Speaker 2 After all, the inner room is enclosed. It has no exit to the public domain; it’s enclosed. If it has no exit to the public domain, then the entrance to it must be from the outer room. So that also helps me decide where to put the mezuzah. Since the entrance is from the outer room into the inner room, I put the mezuzah on the right as you enter the inner room from the outer room. And seemingly, even if the outer room is the one used most, that doesn’t change anything; the inner room still determines it for me. Even if most of the entries are into the outer room, that seemingly doesn’t help in a case like this either. I’ll put the mezuzah on the right as you enter the inner room, because there’s no way to enter the outer room from the inner room. As we discussed, that’s only going back; there’s no direct way to enter the outer room from the inner room. So we can sum up the order of these deciding factors like this. The first deciding factor: an inner room. The first deciding factor: an inner room. Second, if there’s no inner room, I look at the room that’s used most—or, sorry, the room that most of the entries are into. That’s the second deciding factor: the room most of the entries are into. Third, if they’re equal in that respect too, with the same amount of entry into both, then the deciding factor is which room is used most. Which room is the main one in terms of use? The fourth deciding factor is heker tzir, the direction the door swings. Everything we’ve discussed now, this order of deciding factors, is according to the approach generally followed. That’s how people rule: heker tzir is, so to speak, the last deciding factor. Fine. But when we’re talking about the Chabad approach, we know that in Chabad, heker tzir comes first. We always follow heker tzir, so heker tzir takes precedence over

10:03 Speaker 2 all the other deciding factors. So in any situation—whether it’s an inner room, whether most entries are into this room, whether this is the room used most, or whatever else—as soon as I have heker tzir, meaning there’s a door with hinges and I can see which way it opens, whether it opens this way or that way, I follow the way the door opens. I follow heker tzir. That’s what ultimately determines where I put the mezuzah. If the door opens in this direction, I put the mezuzah on the right as you enter this room. If it opens in the other direction, I put the mezuzah on the right as you enter the other room. This comes up often with reinforced safe rooms or security rooms, and in all sorts of places and buildings where security requires the door to open outward. So I put the mezuzah the other way around. Everyone else would put it on this side, but I put it on the right as you leave the room toward the outside, whether that leads to a corridor or whatever it may be. That said, following heker tzir is all well and good when we’re not talking about a main entrance. At a main entrance, you always put the mezuzah on the right as you enter, regardless of which way the door opens. That, generally speaking, is the Chabad approach. We follow heker tzir in every situation, in every matter. But this raises a question about an inner room. Suppose the heker tzir points one way as I enter an inner room from an outer room, and the inner room, as we said, is enclosed on all sides, with no possibility of entering it from the public domain. Here we run into a contradiction, because I can’t say that the entrance is—if the door,

12:04 Speaker 2 say, opens outward from the inner room, so that heker tzir points toward the outer room—I can’t say, in practical terms, that the entrance is from the inner room to the outer room. How would I get to the inner room? I have to reach it through the outer room, so there can’t be a direct entrance from the inner room to the outer room. So how can I follow heker tzir here? There are, in fact, accounts of what the Rebbe Rashab said about this situation, about an inner room. When the Rebbe Rashab was asked about a case like this—how would people get in?—he said, “That’s not my concern. Let them come in through the window; let them jump down from the roof.” Answers along those lines. And that brings us to the question of what his answer means. Was it just an offhand answer? The Rebbe doesn’t give answers for no reason, but what was he saying? Was he saying that he doesn’t care whether there’s a way in or not? Or was he actually saying, yes, let them come in through the window? In other words, that a theoretical way in is enough; I don’t need an entrance that people actually use. Nobody actually comes in through the window, but if there’s a theoretical possibility of entering through the window or from the roof, that’s enough. So even with an inner room like this, if there’s a window, a roof, or an opening in the roof, I’ll affix the mezuzah—if the door opens outward—on the right as you enter the outer room from the inner room. But the question is: What happens

14:04 Speaker 2 when there’s no window? If it’s a room without a window, or there are bars on the window, so that there isn’t even a theoretical possibility of entering the outer room from the inner room, there is a fairly serious disagreement among Chabad rabbis. Some say that in such a case we don’t follow heker tzir. Others say that even in such a case we do follow heker tzir. Rabbi Landau testifies that this was the practice: the window isn’t taken into account, and even if there’s no window, we follow heker tzir. But many other rabbis, including very prominent ones, say no: if there’s no window, we don’t follow heker tzir. So in practice, it would seem that each person should do as he understands the matter. In practice, it would seem that each person should do as he understands the matter. I would only say not to put up a mezuzah with a blessing in such a case. All of this is when there is heker tzir. But often there are doors with no heker tzir. There are doorways without a door, or openings with a sliding door—a sliding door or sliding windows and the like—where heker tzir simply doesn’t apply. Or it may be a door that swings both ways; that can happen too. So what do we do when we can’t decide based on heker tzir? Now, some do want to suggest other indicators in place of heker tzir, but in practice we treat it as a situation without heker tzir. So we can’t use heker tzir as the deciding factor in these cases; I have to rely on the other deciding factors we discussed: an inner room, where most entries are, which room is used most, and so on. The thing is, the order of these deciding factors according to Chabad—as it is written in the compilations of, of Rabbi

16:06 Speaker 2 Dvorkin, who also arranged the rulings this way. So according to how this order is arranged in Chabad, this is what comes out. The first ruling—and again, I’m talking about a case where there is no heker tzir, no indication from the direction the door opens—is this: rooms that do not have the same level of obligation. If a doorway connects two rooms, one of which has a full obligation to have a mezuzah and the other a lesser obligation, I affix the mezuzah on the right as you enter the room with the full obligation. That is the first ruling. The second ruling is the direction of travel. If a person enters the house and walks from here to there, that is the direction of travel. So I affix the mezuzah on the right as you enter the room in that direction. The third ruling: If I cannot use either of those rulings, I go by the room’s primary use, not by where most people enter, as people generally do. I go by primary use. Now pay attention: primary use takes precedence over an inner room. In other words, even if one room is an inner room, if the outer room is the one primarily used, I affix the mezuzah on the right as you leave the inner room for it. Even though, again, there is no possibility of entering that way, primary use still takes precedence. So I affix the mezuzah on the right as you leave the inner room for the room that is primarily used. That is the third ruling. The fourth ruling concerns an inner room. If the rooms are equal in all the respects we discussed—equal in their obligation, in the direction of travel, and in their primary use—the fourth ruling

18:03 Speaker 2 is the inner room. If one room is an inner room, I affix the mezuzah on the right as you enter it. The fifth ruling: If neither room is an inner room and all the other factors are equal, I go by where most people enter. As we said, I affix the mezuzah on the side leading into the room that most people enter. We see from all this that, as we said, these rules—including the whole matter of heker tzir—apply not to the main entrance but to doorways inside the house. Another important question concerns the entrance to a courtyard: Where do I place the mezuzah? Earlier we discussed whether a courtyard requires one at all. But in the cases where a mezuzah is needed, which are most cases, where do I put it at the entrance to the courtyard? Suppose I’m going from the house into the courtyard—say it’s a backyard or the like. Do I put the mezuzah on the right as I enter the courtyard, or, more precisely, as I go out to the courtyard? Or on the right as I enter the house from the courtyard? Do we follow heker tzir there too? What happens in that situation? Well, for a private courtyard that also serves as an entrance to the house—say it has an entrance from the public domain, and although it is a side entrance, it opens onto the public domain and I can enter the house through it—I put the mezuzah on the right as one enters the house. In other words, I treat it like a main entrance. I do not take heker tzir into account; I put the mezuzah on the right as one enters. That applies to a private courtyard through which one can also enter the house. When it comes to a backyard, either one that is completely enclosed or one that has an opening to the public domain but is not used as an entrance—

20:02 Speaker 2 people do not usually enter through there. It may have an opening to the public domain, but people generally do not enter the house from that courtyard; or it may be an enclosed courtyard. In both situations, I follow heker tzir. If there is a heker tzir, I follow it in both cases. If there is no heker tzir, we come back to the disagreement we discussed between the Rambam and the Rosh: Is a courtyard obligated to have a mezuzah or not? That disagreement also affects where the mezuzah is affixed: on the right as one leaves the house for the courtyard, or on the right as one enters the house from the courtyard? Since it is disputed, the poskim write that each person should follow their custom. Find out what the custom is where you are, and do that. All this is when there is no heker tzir, which is often the case. An exit to a courtyard is generally not through a door, but through some kind of sliding window. So there is the possibility of placing it on the right as one goes out to the courtyard, as one enters the courtyard. I think that in most cases we place it on the right as one goes out to the courtyard. But again, if there is a heker tzir, I follow it—as long as this is not a private front courtyard that has an opening to the public domain and through which people enter the house. If it is a backyard, even if it also has an entrance from the public domain, people do not generally enter the house through it, so in those situations I do follow heker tzir. For an exit to a balcony, too, if there is no heker tzir, the custom is to affix the mezuzah as you leave your room for the balcony—that is, from the house to the balcony.

21:50 Speaker 2 I affix the mezuzah on the right as I leave the house for the balcony. That is when there is no heker tzir. If there is a heker tzir, I affix the mezuzah according to it. Now, what happens if the heker tzir points toward a room that is exempt from mezuzah? I have a doorway between two rooms, and the door opens toward the room that is exempt. What would I say—that I should place the mezuzah on the right as one enters the exempt room? If it is exempt, no mezuzah is needed for it. So seemingly, the mezuzah must be placed for the other direction: I disregard the heker tzir and place the mezuzah on the right as one leaves the exempt room and enters the room that is obligated. There is a disagreement about this among Chabad rabbis too. In my opinion, the logic really does say to place the mezuzah on the right as one leaves the exempt room, without taking heker tzir into account. It makes no sense to place a mezuzah for entry into a room that is exempt. So I place it on the right as one enters the obligated room from the exempt room, and in such a case I do not take heker tzir into account. We also have a question about occupancy—the kind of occupancy that creates an obligation to have a mezuzah. We touched on this earlier, but there we discussed the manner of occupancy: what kind of use of a home requires a mezuzah. There is another issue concerning occupancy, because now we are talking about the people who live in the house. What happens when two kinds of people live there: people who are obligated in mezuzah and people who are not? Who are these people who are not obligated? We know that women are obligated in mezuzah. As for children, a child who has reached the age of chinuch certainly has a mitzvah, from that age, to be taught to fulfill the obligation of mezuzah. And if it is a house

23:49 Speaker 2 his, since some say that he himself can affix a mezuzah. But we can certainly say that a non-Jew is exempt from affixing a mezuzah. So what happens in a home where Jews and non-Jews live together? When a home is shared by a Jew and a non-Jew, whether they rent it together or bought it together, there is a dispute among the halachic authorities. It appears in the Taz and the Shach, in section 286: Does a non-Jewish partner exempt the home from mezuzah or not? So in practice, we affix a mezuzah without a blessing. In a home shared by a Jew and a non-Jew, we affix a mezuzah without a blessing at the entrance to the home, unless we are concerned that the non-Jew will treat the mezuzah disrespectfully. That would exempt it, but nowadays such a thing is uncommon. So that is the situation. Based on this, we can also discuss intermarriage, may Hashem protect us: a Jewish man married to a non-Jewish woman, or it could be the reverse. After all, a woman is also obligated in mezuzah. So if it is a Jewish woman married to a non-Jew, G-d forbid, the conclusion is the same. I think the Rambam also addresses such a situation, but the conclusion is the same: we affix a mezuzah at the entrance to the home without a blessing. Now, that concerns a private home. But when we speak about a building, a multistory apartment building, as we said, we know that a beis shaar, an entrance area, also requires a mezuzah. So the building entrance, the corridors, and all of that fall under the definition of a beis shaar, which in certain circumstances requires a mezuzah even by Torah law. But what happens if I live in an apartment building with apartments occupied by Jews and apartments occupied by non-Jews? It is mixed, and that can certainly happen abroad; it can happen in Israel too. Is there an obligation to affix mezuzahs at the entrance

25:52 Speaker 2 to the building? By the way, it is very important to know that mezuzahs must be affixed at the entrance to the building too. All the residents are supposed to share the cost, but if some residents are unwilling to contribute, you are obligated to put up the mezuzah at your own expense. You can buy a simple mezuzah and put it up, but you cannot exempt yourself from it. Once we are talking about an apartment building shared by Jews and non-Jews, though, the question is what happens in that case. We can say—and there is a very strong rationale for this, as Chovas Hadar notes, and Aruch Hashulchan as well. Or rather, it is the Avnei Nezer who discusses it. He says that since this is a beis shaar, and we know that the entire obligation of a beis shaar comes from the fact that it leads to a dwelling, what difference does it make that this building is shared by Jews and non-Jews? After all, why do I require a mezuzah on this entrance area and these corridors? Because they lead me to the Jew’s apartment. Since the Jew’s apartment requires a mezuzah by Torah law, this beis shaar also requires a mezuzah by Torah law, and the fact that a non-Jew also shares the building does not affect that. Therefore, according to the Avnei Nezer, a mezuzah should be affixed there with a blessing. It would seem that one can rely on him. That is regarding mezuzahs in shared apartment buildings. What about hotels, whether in Israel or abroad? If a person stays in a hotel in Israel, the halachah says that if he is not there for thirty days, he is exempt from mezuzah. Often a person arrives at a guesthouse or hotel. Usually, if Jews run it, they put up a mezuzah, but if non-Jews run it, there is no mezuzah. Or sometimes there is a mezuzah, but it is not a proper one—it may be invalid. I have also encountered situations like that.

27:39 Speaker 2 So there is no need to panic and immediately go buy a mezuzah. As long as you are not living there, not staying there for thirty days, you do not need to put up a mezuzah in a hotel. After thirty days, you do need to put up a mezuzah. Abroad, though, several halachic authorities argue that you never need to put up a mezuzah in a hotel. If I am staying in a hotel abroad, or even just in someone else’s home, a guesthouse, or the like, these authorities write that even after thirty days I do not need to put up a mezuzah. Nevertheless, important halachic authorities—Chovas Hadar and Aruch Hashulchan—write that abroad too, a mezuzah should be put up after thirty days. If I remember correctly, that is indeed the guidance. It is told that when the Rebbe Rashab would go away for a summer retreat, he would take a mezuzah with him and affix it immediately. When he arrived at the guesthouse, he would put it up right away, without even waiting thirty days. It is also told that someone once asked him about this: Where does this come from? Seemingly there is no source for it in halachah. The Rebbe Rashab used a very interesting expression. He said, “For us, an hour is a day, and a day is a year.” So the scale, the proportions, are entirely different. All right, that was the Rebbe Rashab. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to take this into account, and at least if one stays there for more than thirty days, it is appropriate to put up a mezuzah—at any rate, without a blessing, so that it accords with all opinions and approaches, and so that we may merit the protection of the mezuzah. With Hashem’s help, may we merit to fulfill this mitzvah properly, as it should be fulfilled. The Rebbe launched the Mezuzah Campaign. In other words, the Rebbe saw fit to strengthen

29:31 Speaker 2 this matter. So if we are not carrying out the Mezuzah Campaign out in the streets, at least let us make sure that the mezuzahs in our own homes are in proper order, according to halachah and to the highest standard. That will spare us all sorts of undesirable things. Regarding the layout we discussed, where there is a doorpost on the right and the wall continues on the left, we said that according to the Rosh a mezuzah must be affixed there. We affix it without a blessing. That is when the doorpost is on the right. When the doorpost is on the left and the wall continues on the right, we said that, strictly speaking, it is exempt from mezuzah. But we should know this: True, it is exempt because I have no doorpost on the right—my doorpost here is on the left. Nevertheless, as we said, Chabad practice is still to affix a mezuzah; even in situations like these, we put one up. So the question is: Where do I affix the mezuzah in such a case? At first glance, I should affix it on the right side as one enters, even though that means placing it on the wall. Although there is no actual doorpost there, it is aligned beneath the lintel, and I affix the mezuzah on the right. Even though there is no projection from the wall there—the wall simply continues—I would still put the mezuzah on the right, opposite the left doorpost. Nevertheless, we heard in the name of Rabbi Ashkenazi, a"h, that he would instruct people to put it on the left, because there is no doorpost on the right. The only doorpost here is on the left, so he would instruct them to put it on the left. Seemingly, that must apply only in certain circumstances, because it is difficult to see what would permit putting a mezuzah on the left. A mezuzah placed on the left is invalid. So what would permit putting it on the left? So

31:31 Speaker 2 We have to say that he meant certain situations. What does that mean? Usually, we determine the right-hand side by the right of the person entering, according to the direction of entry. I come in from outside the house, and then I enter the kitchen or the living room—let’s say I enter the kitchen. My direction of entry is from outside toward the kitchen, so I need to put the mezuzah on the right side of the entrance to the kitchen. But in a case like this, if I can’t put a mezuzah on the right and can only put one on the left, according to Rabbi Ashkenazi I can put it on the left. Why? Because in this particular case, and similar cases, I can rely on the Mordechai’s opinion. The Mordechai holds that the right-hand side—the right of the person entering—is determined by which room has the more important use. In other words, according to his view, I don’t even take the direction of entry into account. I go by which room is primary and which is secondary in its use. So, applying that to our case—and by the way, we discussed that, according to what was written in the name of Rabbi Zalman Shimon Dworkin, there is a strong basis for this approach. That is, after heker tzir, it seems that going by the room with the more important use is actually the main deciding factor. So when we look at an entrance from the living room to the kitchen, the living room’s use is more primary and important than the kitchen’s. According to the Mordechai, then, we determine the right side of the entrance by the entrance to the primary room, which in our case is the living room. It turns out that although the mezuzah is seemingly on the left of someone entering, according to this approach it is on the right, because it is on the right of

33:44 Speaker 2 the entrance to the primary room, the living room. So in that situation, there is indeed room to say that I should put it on that side. It is the left side for someone entering the kitchen, but the right side for someone leaving the kitchen for the living room. But again, that is only where these circumstances actually apply. In other situations, there would seemingly be no logic or reason to put a mezuzah on the left, and we would put it on the right. It is important to know that in all these halachos of mezuzah that we’ve discussed, we’ve been talking strictly about what halachah requires: places that are obligated, places that are exempt, Torah-level obligations, cases of doubt, and so on. But in practice, there is also a customary practice. I heard it from Rabbi Braun, and it is also said in the name of Rabbi Ashkenazi, that the practice was—and apparently this was also the Rebbe’s approach to the matter—that anywhere with some kind of doorway, even if it is exempt, even if everyone agrees it is exempt, we nevertheless put up a mezuzah. There is still importance and value in putting a mezuzah on every kind of doorway, even though there is seemingly no obligation and no halachic authority says there is one. It is exempt according to everyone, yet we customarily put mezuzahs on every doorway in the house, without a brachah, of course. I wanted to discuss something very important to us as Chabad chassidim regarding placing a mezuzah according to heker tzir. This is a halachah—or you could say a custom—that isn’t entirely clear. As is known, when placing a mezuzah, in every situation we take heker tzir into account first. So let’s first understand what is distinctive about this custom compared with common practice. There are several differences. First,

36:05 Speaker 2 in common practice, the situation we’re talking about is a doorway between two rooms, where we don’t know where to put the mezuzah: on the right when entering this room, or on the right when entering the other. Those are the two possibilities. There are several accepted ways of deciding, and they also have an order of priority—what comes first and what comes next. Common practice goes by the direction of entry, and by whether one room is an inner room. If one of the rooms is an inner room, the mezuzah is put on the right when entering it. There is also the direction of most entries: the mezuzah is put on the right when entering the room into which people enter most often. We discussed this in the classes. There is the primary direction of entry, the more important use, and so on. There are several ways of deciding. The last resort is heker tzir. When you can’t decide based on any of the other factors, you go by heker tzir. But in Chabad custom, heker tzir is the first and foremost deciding factor; that is the main thing. We follow heker tzir. That is the first distinction. The second concerns the inner room we discussed. When it comes to an inner room, logic would seemingly say there is no room for this. After all, you can only enter an inner room from outside it. So we put the mezuzah on the right when entering the inner room, since there is no way to enter the other rooms from it. That is indeed common practice. But according to Chabad custom, we do not take that into account. We follow heker tzir even for an inner room. That is a distinctive point, but within that there is a disagreement among Chabad rabbis. What happens with an inner room? Do we follow heker tzir

38:02 Speaker 2 if there is a window, or only if there is a window, or even if there is no window? In practice, this is a matter of disagreement. Some maintain that we follow heker tzir for an inner room only if it has a window. Why? Because when the Rebbe Rashab was asked, “Where would they enter from?”—the question was raised with the Rebbe Rashab because we are aware of the problem. You cannot enter the outer rooms from the inner room; it is the other way around: you enter the inner room from the outer rooms. So how can I follow heker tzir if it points toward the outer room? How can I place the mezuzah according to heker tzir when I can’t enter the outer room from the inner room? The Rebbe Rashab said, “What difference does that make to me? Let them come in through—jump through the window, jump from the roof.” Some take his words specifically: he spoke about a window and a roof. That is, the Rebbe Rashab meant that a theoretical possibility of entering is enough. Nobody enters a room through the window; they’re not a burglar or anything like that. But since there is a theoretical possibility of entering through the window, I will follow heker tzir here too, and put the mezuzah on the right when leaving the inner room for the outer room. That is one group of Chabad rabbis. I’ve seen Rabbi Raskin and Rabbi Levin argue this way, along with several others. But on the other hand, some say no. When the Rebbe Rashab said to jump from the roof, he didn’t mean it literally. He meant that the question simply doesn’t matter. It makes no difference how people would enter the inner room. As far as I’m concerned, let them make a hole in the wall and come in. It’s just not relevant. Deciding according to heker tzir does not take into account

39:51 Speaker 2 In this matter generally. That is what Rabbi Landau and several other rabbis seem to say: in every situation, we follow heker tzir—the direction indicated by the hinges—even if there is no window, no entrance from the roof, nothing at all. Now, if we want to understand the reasoning behind heker tzir, and what difference it makes whether there is a window or not, let’s consider a few points. First, what is heker tzir? Put simply, it doesn’t matter whether the hinges are on the right or the left. What matters is which way the door opens. We say that the direction in which the door opens is, as it were, the direction of entry. So if the door opens from here to there, I put the mezuzah on the right as you enter from here to there. If it opens from there to here, I put the mezuzah on the right as you enter from that room into this one. That, generally speaking, is heker tzir. Though if we go a little deeper, we’ll see that it does depend on the location of the hinge—not which side it’s on, but where it is located. That also seems to be the Rambam’s wording, and it may have practical implications in these matters. But in practice, as things are built today, the hinge will always be on the side of the room into which the door opens, so it isn’t a practical problem. In principle, though, the two don’t necessarily depend on each other. What really matters is where the hinge is. We’ll look at that point a little later. In any case, let’s try to understand how this ruling is reached, what it is based on, and why the ruling based on heker tzir carries so much weight. As I say, these are, of course, lines of reasoning, matters of judgment. Other things can be said too, but what

41:49 Speaker 2 I’ve found from looking into these matters a little more deeply is this. First, let’s add another point by way of introduction. Let’s look at another difference between Chabad and the generally accepted ruling about where to place a mezuzah when there is no heker tzir. What do we do then? As we discussed, we follow the inner room, the majority of entries, the usual direction of entry, and so on. But here too, the accepted Chabad practice is different. Rabbi Zalman Shimon Dworkin writes in his compilation that when there is no heker tzir, we follow the primary use of the rooms. We place the mezuzah as one enters the room whose use is more central to the person. “Primary use” means the room whose use is more important. For example, a room where people eat and sleep is more important than a room where they play or do various other things. A room where people eat is more important than one where they sleep, and so on. Right? That is the room of primary use. So this, too, differs from what is generally accepted. Primary use is treated as a consideration at a later stage; the majority of entries is considered stronger than primary use. So let’s try to understand why it is set up this way. If we give it a little thought, we see a fundamental distinction between deciding by the majority of entries and deciding by primary use, or between following the inner room and following primary use. When we speak about the majority of entries, what are we trying to determine? We’re trying to identify the right side as one enters. I ask myself: Where is the right side as one enters? After all, the mezuzah must be placed on that side. So which direction counts as entering—from this room into that one, or from that room

43:48 Speaker 2 into this one? I ask: In which direction do most entries take place? You’re asking me about the right side as one enters, so where do most entries take place? If most entries are from here to there—take a door between the women’s section and the men’s section, where most people enter from the men’s section into the women’s section—then I place the mezuzah on the right as one enters the women’s section. That is the majority of entries; that is the right side as one enters. If we go a little deeper into this approach, once I’ve determined that this is the right side as one enters, and that the usual way in is from the men’s section into the women’s section, for example, I have automatically determined that movement in the opposite direction is not an entry but an exit. So in our example, most entries are from the men’s section into the women’s section. If that is the majority of entries and defines the right side as one enters, then the opposite direction, from the women’s section into the men’s section, is an exit, not an entry. And we have a halacha that a door or opening used only as an exit, not as an entrance, is exempt from a mezuzah. All right, so that is why I place the mezuzah on the right as one enters. That is the ruling based on the majority of entries. But when I consider primary use, the question is different. I’m not looking at the person entering. We’re talking about the obligation: where does the primary obligation to affix a mezuzah lie? A room whose use is more important, more central, has a greater

45:48 Speaker 2 or, we might say, more pressing obligation to have a mezuzah than a room whose use is secondary and not as central. If we wanted to put it in the terms of a conceptual distinction, we could say that deciding by the majority of entries follows the gavra, the person: in which direction does he enter most often? Deciding by primary use follows the cheftza, the house itself: which room has the greater obligation to have a mezuzah? On that basis, we can say something interesting. There is something novel about deciding by primary use, and we’ll see that it also has implications for deciding by heker tzir. When I decide to place the mezuzah according to primary use, I create a situation in which that mezuzah covers entry in both directions. It covers everything. In other words, that mezuzah covers both this room and that room. It covers them both. Think about it. When we decide by the majority of entries, we’ve already established that most entries are from here to there. Consequently, travel in the opposite direction is an exit and is exempt. That is what the ruling based on the majority of entries rests on: I determine which room is the one people enter and which entry requires a mezuzah, and I affix the mezuzah for entry into that room. Entry into the other room is considered an exit and is exempt from a mezuzah. But when I decide by primary use, I can have a situation in which I’m not saying that one is exempt and the other is obligated. Both rooms are obligated. They’re both rooms; both require a mezuzah. Why should I exempt one? On the contrary,

47:46 Speaker 2 The novel point is that this one mezuzah covers both openings, both rooms. Now let’s take an example: where have we seen a single mezuzah cover several openings or several rooms? There is a discussion of this that the Tur cites in section 286, from the Gemara in Menachos. The Gemara speaks about “an opening behind the door.” Its wording is: “An opening behind the door: if it has a doorpost a tefach wide, it requires a mezuzah.” What does this mean in simple terms? Say we have a corner. There’s an entrance on the north side, let’s say, and another entrance on this side. So there are two openings with a pillar between them. I can enter from here or from there. If the pillar between them is less than a tefach wide, I put up one mezuzah. According to Rashi’s explanation—there are several interpretations of this passage—that mezuzah is placed on the doorpost, on the pillar that forms the corner. Now notice: I’ve put a mezuzah on that pillar. If I enter through this opening, the mezuzah is on my right, but if I enter through the other opening, it’s on my left. Yet this mezuzah covers both openings. That is what emerges from Rashi, and that is how the Bach, the Derishah, and the Perishah explain it. We see something interesting here: one mezuzah is on the right for one opening and on the left for the other, and nevertheless it covers both. We regard it as one mezuzah for one opening, yet it covers both openings. So we could say the same

49:32 Speaker 2 in our case. I put the mezuzah on the opening between two rooms, on the right as I enter one particular room. For the other room, it will be on the left, and nevertheless it will cover that room too. Why? Because, as we said, when I speak of deciding based on the room’s primary use, what am I really trying to establish? Not which direction of entry requires a mezuzah and which counts as an exit and is exempt. I’m trying to establish which room is the primary one obligated and which room is subordinate to it. So I can certainly say that I place the mezuzah on the right as I enter the room that has the primary use. Since, after all, we are dealing with a single opening—it’s like the opening behind the door discussed in the Gemara—it is one opening. I want to establish the connection between the rooms. So I place the mezuzah facing the room with the primary use. The room that does not have the primary use is, so to speak, subordinate to it; it is joined to it and covered by that mezuzah. The same mezuzah that I place facing the room with the primary use is in its proper position, on the right as one enters, and that is enough. Since it is on the right as one enters, it is essentially in the correct place. It can therefore certainly cover the second room as well, even though, in relation to that room, it is on the left. There is [unclear] who explains the passage we discussed, about the opening behind the door, in this way. He argues that once the mezuzah is positioned in the correct place, it covers both openings. So here too, it could cover both openings, and we have, so to speak, gained one mezuzah

51:24 Speaker 2 that covers both openings. So if we say that—if this novel idea applies here, based on the distinction we are making between deciding according to the person’s direction of entry and deciding according to the house itself—we can also say that deciding according to the primary hinge gives us this same advantage, perhaps even more than deciding according to primary use. The primary hinge, too, allows a mezuzah positioned on that basis to cover both openings—both rooms, really. But first, to see how this works, let’s look at the basis for this practice of following the primary hinge. The Rebbe writes that it accords with the view of the early authorities on this matter. He does not explain or specify which early authorities he means, but he says that deciding according to the primary hinge follows their view. So whom does he mean? Let’s look at the Shulchan Aruch, which brings this ruling about the primary hinge. In section 286 it says: “If someone divides his house in two, with each part having an opening to the public domain, and there is an opening in the dividing wall from one part to the other, the place where the door’s hinge turns, where the doors are set, is the house. The mezuzah is affixed on the right as one enters it.” That is how it describes deciding according to the hinge: the direction in which the door and its hinge turn, as we described—whether the door swings this way or that way. That is the house; that is the direction of entry. I affix the mezuzah on the right as I enter it. But notice that it is speaking here about

53:14 Speaker 2 two rooms, each of which has an opening to the public domain. It is not speaking about an inner room. Each one has an opening to the public domain. So can I follow the indication of the hinge? That makes sense: either the direction of entry is from here to there because the door opens that way, or it is from there to here. Both possibilities are reasonable, because I can enter from the public domain into either room; both are open to the public domain. But when we look at the Rambam, he brings this law in chapter 6 of Hilchos Mezuzah and writes: “For an opening between two houses, we follow the door’s hinge; the mezuzah is affixed on the side where the hinge is visible.” He does not say that they are open to the public domain. He makes no distinction; he states it generally. In every case, you follow the indication of the hinge. We can see quite clearly from the Rambam that he holds this is what decides the matter. There are no other deciding factors. In every situation, in every case, we always follow the indication of the hinge. But notice, too, that his description is a little different from the Shulchan Aruch’s. The Shulchan Aruch says, “the place where the door’s hinge turns.” The Rambam’s wording is, “the side where the hinge is visible.” So as you can see, according to the Rambam, where the hinge is located does matter. Now the question is: what is the Rambam himself basing this on? What is his basis for saying that we follow the indication of the hinge in every situation? We could explain it this way. There is a ruling the Tur brings in section 286, citing the Rambam’s position. The Rambam writes: “A house is not obligated to have a mezuzah until doors are installed in it.” In other words, according to the Rambam, a house without a door is not considered

55:10 Speaker 2 a house for this purpose. It is not obligated to have a mezuzah. The Beis Yosef cites other early authorities who disagree with the Rambam—and there are many of them. Rashi, Tosafos, and the Rosh disagree with him. They require a mezuzah even for a house without a door. If it has a proper doorframe, the lack of a door does not change that for them. The Beis Yosef sums up by saying: “As for the practical ruling, although the Rambam’s words appear correct”—so again, he is certainly inclined toward the Rambam—but he says that since Rashi, Tosafos, the Rosh, and the Raavad disagree with him and take the stricter view, “that is how we rule.” So what do we see first of all? He agrees with the Rambam, but after all, the others take the stricter view, and there are many of them. Accordingly, that is also how he rules in the Shulchan Aruch: “A house requires a mezuzah even if it has no doors, though there is an opinion that exempts it”—that is the Rambam. The Shach does not disregard the Rambam’s view either. He says that since the Rambam exempts it, you should put up a mezuzah without a blessing. So we certainly give weight to the Rambam’s position.

56:15 Speaker 2 If we look at it, we can see something like this. First of all, what follows? According to the Rambam, without a door at all, this room is not obligated in mezuzah. It’s exempt. Now, if its entire obligation comes from the door, it stands to reason that the placement of the mezuzah would also depend on the door: where does the door open, and where doesn’t it open? But if we go a little deeper, we can say much more than that. If we analyze what’s happening here, it comes out like this: We have a doorway with a door. Now my question is, there are two rooms with a doorway between them, and there’s a door in that doorway. Which room does that door belong to? This room or that room? So when we look at it in terms of heker tzir, the hinge-side indication, we say that the door is situated on the side of the left-hand or right-hand room, wherever the hinge is visible with it. That, plainly, is what the Rambam means. The hinges are generally fixed on the side of the room into which the door opens. So if the door is situated there, that plainly means the door belongs to that room. What follows? The other room is a room without a door. So in practice, you have one room with a door that is obligated in mezuzah, and another room without a door that is exempt. Where would you put the mezuzah in that situation? Let’s set everything else aside. We have a room—even according to those who don’t follow heker tzir—that is exempt from mezuzah, and a room that is obligated. Even if the room that is exempt is the inner room, can you put

58:17 Speaker 2 the mezuzah on the right as you enter it? It’s the inner room, so you would have needed to put it on the right as you enter it. But you can’t; it’s exempt. What sense would it make to put a mezuzah there? You’re forced to put the mezuzah the other way around. That’s the situation with heker tzir. That’s why the Rambam doesn’t distinguish between all these cases; they aren’t relevant to him. With heker tzir, this is how you place the mezuzah. Now, I’ll say again: this still doesn’t completely resolve everything for us, because at the end of the day, if that room is exempt, then this still doesn’t settle the whole issue. In any case, if we make this argument, we’ll see that this reasoning fits with everyone. The Shulchan Aruch agrees with it, the Shach agrees with it, and so on. After all, we said earlier: Why did the Shulchan Aruch take into account the other opinions—the Rashba, Tosafos, and so on—that even a house without a door requires a mezuzah? Because he says they are being stringent, so we’ll be stringent and put up a mezuzah. The Shach says to put it up without a blessing, because the Rambam disagrees. But all that applies when the question before you is whether to put up a mezuzah at all. So I’ll put one up to be stringent. Fine. But here the question isn’t whether to put up a mezuzah. I’m putting one up in any case. The only question is where: on the right or on the left? Here, the Shulchan Aruch would also agree that you determine it by heker tzir. What does that have to do with it? There’s no stringency or leniency here. What’s stringent for one side is lenient for the other, and vice versa. That isn’t the question. You’re putting up a mezuzah regardless. The question is which

59:56 Speaker 2 side. Here we would certainly follow the Rambam. After all, the Shulchan Aruch wants to follow the Rambam; he just says not to let that result in a leniency. Here it doesn’t result in any leniency. So why wouldn’t we do that? It comes out that, essentially, everyone agrees. It isn’t only the Rambam; it’s the Shulchan Aruch and the Shach too, and we haven’t seen anyone else disagree. So, seemingly, it fits together nicely. That’s how we can explain it simply. But we still need to clarify the point about the window. Why is a window needed? Why isn’t it needed? What exactly are the opinions and their reasoning as to whether a window is needed? So let’s make a small distinction, and afterward we’ll see that all these questions are connected to one another. When we ask ourselves about a doorway without a door, a house without a door: Is the absence of a door a deficiency in the house, or is it a deficiency in the doorway? We can certainly see two distinct categories here. There is a house that is obligated in mezuzah, and there is a doorway. The doorway has its own requirements. It needs the form of a doorway, doorposts, a lintel, a particular shape—a rounded doorway or a doorway that isn’t rounded. There are certain requirements for the doorway. The Shulchan Aruch has an entire section dealing with the doorway. In the Shulchan Aruch, there’s a section devoted entirely to the requirements for a doorway. We can see it in section 287. The heading of the section is: “Which doorway is obligated in mezuzah?” So now the question is: Is the absence of doors a deficiency in the doorway or in the house? The house, too, has requirements that must be met for it to be obligated in mezuzah. It needs to be

1:01:51 Speaker 2 four amos in size. The doorway has requirements, and the house has requirements. Is a door one of the requirements of the doorway, or one of the requirements of the house? When we look at the sources, we see that on the one hand, the Rambam writes in the Yad HaChazakah: “There are ten requirements for a house before the person living in it is obligated to put up a mezuzah.” He lists the requirements, and at the end he concludes: “And it must have doors.” The house must also have doors. That implies that doors are a requirement of the house. On the other hand, in a responsum the Rambam writes: “The Torah made the essence of the mitzvah depend only on a gate. And any opening without doors is called an opening; it is not called a gate.” That implies a deficiency in the doorway: it isn’t called a gate. What is it called? “It is called an opening; it is not called a gate.” That implies a deficiency in the doorway. So one could argue either way. But when we take a broader look, first of all, the wording in the Rambam’s responsum can be explained in various ways. It can also be explained differently. But the wording in the Yad HaChazakah is unequivocal: “There are ten requirements for a house.” He explicitly says that the door is a requirement of the house. In addition, we see that the Rambam doesn’t mention the doorway at all. Even when he discusses requirements for the doorway, the doorposts and lintel, he doesn’t mention a doorway there. He says the house needs to have doorposts and a lintel. Those are requirements of the house. For him, it’s all about the house; he doesn’t mention the doorway at all. Even when he discusses a rounded doorway, he connects it to the house; he doesn’t mention a doorway there. So we see clearly that, for him, all the requirements follow the house and not the doorway. We have to say that the Rambam actually differs on a fundamental point

1:03:50 Speaker 2 concerning the obligation of mezuzah. In other words, we can explain the obligation of mezuzah in two ways. Let’s take another very important principle that we use a lot in the laws of mezuzah. There’s an important principle that appears in the Gemara in Pesachim and in Menachos: “Mezuzah is an obligation of the occupant.” We know that mezuzah is an obligation of the occupant. In simple terms, that means the responsibility and obligation to put up a mezuzah does not follow the homeowner or ownership of the house; it follows the person who actually lives in the house. That is the basic meaning of the principle that mezuzah is an obligation of the occupant. From the Rambam, it appears that he doesn’t understand it that way. From the Rambam, it appears that the obligation of mezuzah arises from the house, not from the occupant. It’s not an obligation on the person; it’s more of an obligation arising from the object. Why? Let’s look at some of the Rambam’s wording. And let’s look at something else interesting. Regarding “mezuzah is an obligation of the occupant,” we find two interpretations among the Rishonim. In the Chiddushei HaRitva on Bava Metzia, the Ritva writes: What does it mean that mezuzah is an obligation of the occupant? There are two interpretations. He cites one interpretation in the name of the Riva: “Because if a person does not live in it, it is not obligated in mezuzah.” What do we understand from that? He says that if a person doesn’t live in the house, it isn’t obligated in mezuzah. So what kind of house is it? A house is something people live in. If no one lives in the house, that is a deficiency in the house. The fact of someone living there is what makes it a house, so that an obligation of mezuzah can apply to it. According to this explanation, then, the obligation is on the house. There’s also another explanation, which he cites in the name of Rabbeinu Yonasan, and Rashi explains it somewhat this way too. He says: Why is mezuzah an obligation of the occupant? Because it protects him. We see a real distinction here. Mezuzah is an obligation of the occupant

1:05:46 Speaker 2 Because it protects the person living there, he has to put up a mezuzah. So once again, we see that this all relates to the person, the occupant: the obligation of mezuzah comes from his side, from the obligation upon him. But in the other approach, mezuzah is connected to the obligation of the house. Now let’s look at the Rambam’s wording as well. When the Rambam explains in his responsa why the parchment for a mezuzah does not have to be prepared for the sake of the mitzvah—it is also quoted in the Beis Yosef, siman 288—he writes: “The mezuzah itself is not a mitzvah, and is considered a mitzvah only because the house is obligated in it.” That is quite sharp wording. It is considered a mitzvah only because the house is obligated in it; if there is no house, there is no mezuzah. More than that, Rabbeinu Yonah, whom the Beis Yosef also cites in the laws of tefillin, puts it this way: “With the tefillin on his head, a person subjugates to the blessed Creator the soul that is in his brain. With the tefillin on his arm, a person subjugates his body; and with a mezuzah, a person subjugates his property.” The point of mezuzah is to subjugate your house to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. It is all connected to the house. If we follow this approach, we can say the following: placing the mezuzah on the right side as one enters is really meant to establish what we mean. If the obligation rests on the house, we want to put the mezuzah on the right side of the doorway. “The right side as one enters” tells us what counts as the doorway’s right side. Is it the right side when leaving the house, or the right side when entering it? So we say: the right side as one enters. The right side

1:07:55 Speaker 2 of the doorway is determined from the direction in which a person enters the house. The side on the right as you enter is the doorway’s right side, and that is the side where I have to put the mezuzah. So “the right side as one enters” only clarifies what counts as the doorway’s right side. Interestingly, we already see this in the Gemara itself, in its source for placing it on the right side as one enters. What does it say? “You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” What does “your house” mean? “The way you enter.” I can understand “the way you enter” quite simply. It tells us exactly what we want to clarify: is the right side determined when leaving or when entering? The verse says, “the way you enter your house”—the right side is the side on your right as you enter the house. Rashi says, “When a person lifts his foot, he lifts the right one first.” Rashi adds that this alone is not enough; we also need the fact that when a person steps forward to enter a house, he moves his right foot first. But it does not necessarily have to depend on that. On the contrary, the Gemara brings another source for the right side as one enters, a verse from the Prophets: “And Yehoyada the Kohen took a chest,” and so on, “and placed it beside the altar, on the right.” What does “on the right” of the altar mean? From which direction is it the right—the right from this side or from that side? So the verse continues: “as a person enters the House of Hashem.” The right side is determined from the direction in which the person enters. We see fairly explicitly that the right here is the right side of the entrance; the question is only from which direction we determine it. The verse teaches us that it is from the direction of entry. Fine. Now, if we take this a little further, we can say that this is also a disagreement between the Taz and the Shach: is “the right side as one enters” only an explanation

1:09:47 Speaker 2 or is it the determining factor itself? In other words, do we follow the actual right side of the person entering, so that it specifically has to be the entrant’s right and not the doorway’s right? We see that the Shulchan Aruch discusses a house whose residents include right-handed and left-handed people. The Taz points out that even if the homeowner is left-handed, we do not follow that and put the mezuzah on the left because he is left-handed. We follow the majority of the household. Since most of them are right-handed, we follow the majority. Seemingly, according to his approach—and I say “seemingly” because it is not conclusive—if every member of the household is left-handed, if only left-handed people live there and enter it, and a right-handed person never enters, then we would put the mezuzah on the left. That would seemingly follow from the Taz. The Shach, on the other hand, writes explicitly—and the very fact that he needs to stress it shows, as we said, that it is not so simple: “It would seem that the same applies if one person lives alone in the house and is left-handed, or if all the members of the household are left-handed: the mezuzah is still placed on the right.” Why? He writes: “It is not like tefillin, which are mitzvos performed on one’s body, where we therefore follow his right side. A mezuzah, by contrast, is solely an obligation of the house, so we follow the right side of people in general.” That fits quite well. If I hold that the right side as one enters has to be the entrant’s actual right side, then when everyone is left-handed, I would put it on the other side. But if I say that “the right side as one enters” only explains what the doorway’s right side is, then it makes no difference to me that everyone there is left-handed. Most

1:11:27 Speaker 2 people are right-handed, so their right side as they enter defines the doorway’s right side. Consequently, even if everyone in the house is left-handed, I will put the mezuzah on the right side of the doorway. I need the doorway’s right side, not the entrant’s right side. The entrant’s right side is only a way of defining it. For that purpose, it is enough that most people enter as right-handed people. So here, too, we see another distinction. If we look a little deeper, we can say that the root of these distinctions lies in the very definition of the mitzvah of mezuzah. The Shulchan Aruch and the Tur mention the mezuzah’s protection and speak about it quite explicitly. In Likkutei Sichos, the Rebbe also speaks about the mezuzah’s protection as a central part of the mitzvah, a central part of its definition. Rashi, too, writes: “Mezuzah is an obligation of the occupant, because it protects him.” According to these views, protection is a very central element of the mitzvah. The Rambam, by contrast, does not mention protection at all. On the contrary, he strongly condemns the notion of treating the mezuzah as something that provides protection. The Rebbe explains in a sicha how protection fits with the Rambam’s view, but on a straightforward reading, the Rambam condemns it. According to the Rambam, it would seem that mezuzah is a decree of Scripture. As we said, the idea of subjugating the house fits well: a person subjugates his property to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. It is an obligation of the house, and so on. It is therefore understandable that the point here is not protection. Protection relates to the person; with the mitzvah of mezuzah, I subjugate the house to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. So this also fits with what we said earlier. If

1:13:13 Speaker 2 I say that it all centers on the person and on protection—and protection relates to the person—then we need the right side as one enters, and we also need the obligation associated with the entrance. As we go on, we see how it all fits together. But on the other side, if I say that the obligation rests on the house itself and is not connected with protection, then it follows that we are concerned not with the entrant’s right side, but with the doorway’s right side, and so on. Now, following this approach, we can go one step further. If “the right side as one enters” only clarifies what the doorway’s right side is, I can say this: suppose I have an entrance to an inner room, and that room has a window. True, I could ask: how does the window help? A window is not a normal way in; it is not an entrance. I cannot say that just because it is possible to enter through the window, it becomes a way of entering. Tosafos in Tractate Eruvin says that a window does not count—it is an awkward way in, not what is called an entrance. All of that is true if I need the actual right side of the person entering. For a person, going in through that window is not a normal way to enter. But when we say that “the right side as one enters” only serves to clarify the right side of the doorway, then yes, it is a window, and yes, it is not a normal entrance; it is an unusual way in. But if it is only a way of clarifying the right side, that does not matter to me. It does not present a problem. The mere fact that entry is possible—even if it is an awkward way in—is enough to establish which side is the doorway’s right side. So even though we are speaking about an inner room that has only a window, that is enough. To determine the right side, it is enough that there is a possibility of entering. So there is a right side—the right side of the doorway.

1:14:53 Speaker 2 The right side as one enters determines this. I don’t need someone actually to enter. It’s like the case of left-handed people: everyone in the house is left-handed. It could be that a right-handed person will never enter that house. That makes it even more remote. It’s a far-fetched possibility of entry—something that may never happen. Say I’m in an isolated place, and no right-handed person will ever come there or enter. In their day, people didn’t travel around so much anyway. But ultimately, that too is a kind of far-fetched possibility of entry. It doesn’t matter to me. The very fact that most people are right-handed and that they could enter this house means that this is considered the right side as one enters. Along the same lines, I can say that here too. If it’s a question of determining the right side as one enters, that’s enough for me. Determining it by means of a window is also enough for me to establish which side is the right as one enters, and to place the mezuzah on the right side of the entrance to the room toward which the hinges indicate. That is regarding the opinions that require a window. But we still need to understand the point we started with. We said that there is a way to explain that a mezuzah affixed according to the direction of the hinges actually covers both rooms. So let’s see how we can understand that. We’ve already begun by saying that we see a distinction between the obligation of the doorway and the obligation of the house, between the person and the object, between the requirement of the right side as one enters and the right side of the doorway. Now we can say this: we can actually infer it from the Rambam as well. Unlike Rashi, the Rambam speaks about a doorway between a shul and one’s home, and he learns from the Gemara’s statement, “Regarding a mezuzah, follow the usual way.” What does the Rambam understand that to mean? The Gemara is discussing a situation where we are trying to determine which doorway should have a mezuzah. So we put the

1:16:45 Speaker 2 mezuzah on the doorway through which people usually enter and leave. Now the Rambam makes a distinction here. He says that with a doorway between one’s home and a shul, it needs to be used regularly. If people do not regularly enter and leave through that doorway, then, since a shul is exempt from mezuzah, only regular entry and exit through that doorway would make it obligated in a mezuzah. On the other hand, when he speaks about a house with several doorways, he says that even if people enter and leave through only one doorway, and don’t enter or leave through the others at all, those other doorways are nevertheless obligated in a mezuzah. So why does he distinguish between them? There is room to discuss this at length, but I won’t go into it that far here. There are also points to examine closely in the Shulchan Aruch and further points in the Rambam, but this is enough for our purposes. It leads us to the following understanding: on the contrary, the mitzvah of mezuzah actually has two obligations. There is an obligation relating to the house and an obligation relating to the doorway. I have a doorway here, with conditions that apply to a doorway and conditions that apply to a house. As we’ve seen, there are conditions for a doorway and conditions for a house, and so on. So we can certainly say that both exist here as well. A mezuzah involves both the obligation of the doorway and the obligation of the house. To understand this better, we can bring in what we discussed earlier. We asked ourselves: the mezuzah is there for protection, so is the obligation of the resident an obligation relating to the house or to the person? By the way, the Rambam also agrees that a mezuzah is the resident’s obligation. But he explains what that means: once the house is fit to be lived in and the obligation of mezuzah applies to it, the duty to put up the mezuzah, to discharge the house’s obligation

1:18:40 Speaker 2 and fulfill this mitzvah, rests on the person who lives there. The resident is the one personally obligated to do it, but the obligation applies to the house. In any case, we can say that when we speak about the obligation of the doorway and the obligation of the house, we also connect this to the resident’s obligation on account of protection—as we said, because the mezuzah protects him. And we have the Rambam’s approach, that it is an obligation by Scriptural decree: the house requires a mezuzah, and you must commit your own resources to it, however we explain that. It divides between the doorway and the house. In fact, we find something interesting: the source for this whole matter of protection is the Zohar. In Parshas Acharei Mos, the Zohar writes: Where are the harmful forces that harm a person found? The Zohar says explicitly, “They dwell and are found at the entrances to houses, and they harm those who enter and leave through the doorway; the mezuzah affixed to the doorway saves the person.” That is what the Zohar writes in Parshas Acharei Mos, and it writes this in Parshas Vaeschanan as well. In other words, the Zohar tells us explicitly where those harmful forces are: at the doorway. The gate, the doorway, is where they are found. There are various other aspects to this as well, with certain practical differences. I also saw this in a work of responsa called Divrei Yatziv. On that basis, he says that the main doorways where protection is an issue are the main entrance to the house. If you have put a mezuzah on the main entrance and driven away the harmful forces, then seemingly the inner doorways should not have a problem requiring protection—or at least not a primary problem. There is still

1:20:28 Speaker 2 an aspect of protection there, but the main concern with protection from harmful forces is at the main entrance to the house. Accordingly, we can say that every doorway has two obligations: one relating to the house and one relating to the doorway. What is the obligation relating to the doorway based on? The person entering and leaving. It is all connected to the person. Because a person enters and leaves, those forces at the doorway harm him as he enters and leaves. So the obligation of the doorway arises from the harm present there: there is protection, there is a person entering and leaving, and that all fits. But with the other doorways of the house, the obligation relates to the house, not to the person entering and leaving. It is not based on protection or on entry and exit, but on the house itself. This lets us understand what the Rambam says. With a doorway between one’s home and a shul, since the shul is exempt from mezuzah, what creates the obligation there? Entry and exit through the doorway. It does not relate so much to the house, because a shul is exempt from mezuzah. So the obligation relates to the doorway, to the person entering and leaving. That is why he makes it depend on whether people regularly enter and leave there. If someone does regularly enter and leave through that doorway, then it will be obligated in a mezuzah. But when he speaks about a house with several doorways, as we said, the inner doorways do not have the same concern of protection. There, the main obligation relates to the house itself, so I do not need anyone to enter and leave through them. The obligation applies to them on account of the house itself; they do not require someone to enter and leave. On this basis we can explain—and with this we may also

1:22:12 Speaker 2 be able to bring the matter to a close—the direction indicated by the hinges, and the doorway behind the door that we mentioned: a doorway with a beam and two openings, one on the north side and one on the west side. We said that one mezuzah covers both openings. We can actually explain this very well. When we speak about the right side as one enters, that requirement is primarily due to the obligation relating to the house. But as far as protection is concerned, seemingly it makes less difference where the mezuzah is. After all, we know that a mezuzah has a special power to protect even if I put it in my pocket. There were several occasions when the Rebbe told people to take a mezuzah with them. And even at doorways that are completely exempt from mezuzah, there is value in putting up a mezuzah for protection and the like. So yes, ideally we must put it on the right side of the entrance, but it is not so essential to protection that, if it is not on the right, it loses its protective effect. Therefore we can say the following about this opening, where there are two openings with a post between them: the post, the doorjamb, is less than a tefach wide and joins the openings together. We can explain it very well. By putting the mezuzah on the right as one enters through that opening, I have defined it as the entrance to the house. I put it on the right; that opening is the entrance to the house, and that is fine. The other part of the opening is not the entrance to the house. Affixing the mezuzah on the right establishes for us that this is the right side of the house, that this is the entrance to the house. The other part of the opening is a sort of continuation of the doorway, and it is not the entrance

1:24:02 Speaker 2 of the house, but it is a doorway, and its obligation is as a doorway, not as a house. The obligation of that doorway comes from a person entering and leaving through it, and there are harmful forces there that he needs protection from. So the mezuzah there is only for protection, and if it is only for protection, it does not have to be on the right. If I put it on the right side of the doorway into the house, where the essential obligation of the mezuzah requires it, I put it in the proper place: on the right side of the house, on the right side of the doorway. The fact that it ends up on the left side of the doorway into the other room does not bother me, because that doorway’s entire obligation is for protection. It does not bother me that it is on the left rather than the right. From all this, we can sum up this ruling about heker tzir. We can apply it to heker tzir as well. Now let’s see what actually happens with heker tzir. With heker tzir, we say that the room the door opens into is the house. As the Rambam tells us, the house is the one the door opens into; that is where the heker tzir points. The other room, then, is a room without a door and is exempt. So we can define it this way too: the room the door belongs to is obligated in a mezuzah as a house, and therefore I need to put the mezuzah on the right as you enter that house. The continuation of the doorway, where it leads into the other room, has no obligation as a house, because it is a room without a door and is therefore exempt. But it is still a doorway that people regularly enter and leave through. So that part has only an obligation as a doorway, not as a house. As a doorway, it needs a mezuzah for protection,

1:25:51 Speaker 2 but there it is enough that you have a mezuzah on the right side as you enter the room where the house’s primary obligation applies. You have a mezuzah on the right. Although it is on the left as you enter the other room, which is exempt, the mezuzah’s only purpose there is protection. So it does not really bother me that it is on the left, since it is fixed in the place where it needs to be, on the right. Therefore, if it serves both rooms, it fulfills the obligation for both, and it works out. One last thing we need to clarify is the reasoning of those who say that even if there is no window, we still follow heker tzir. According to them, briefly, there is room to consider the status of that room without a door. We said the door belongs to one room, leaving the other room without a door. So we can ask whether it is considered a room at all, or whether it is more like a public domain. Now, actually, I saw that the Chazon Ish addresses this specifically. By the way, in one place the Chazon Ish wrote “the rabbi and gaon,” and so on, so that does give some basis for it. But he writes something with reasoning behind it. It is a line of reasoning. What interests us is not who wrote it, but that there is a fairly sound line of reasoning here. He discusses an inner room that is not four cubits by four cubits, and he says that there you put the mezuzah... He actually wants to distinguish between two kinds of places that are exempt from a mezuzah. Some places are exempt because they are not considered a dwelling at all. Other places are considered dwellings, but are exempt

1:27:40 Speaker 2 for another reason, such as a bathroom and the like—a place that is undignified or unclean. That is still a dwelling. A person goes in there and uses it, and so on. The room itself meets all the conditions; it is exempt only for another reason. Now he says this: places that are exempt for another reason are nevertheless considered dwellings. There is an external reason that exempts them, but they are still dwellings. Places that are exempt because they do not qualify as dwellings, though—such as a room that is not four cubits by four cubits, or one without a roof, and the like—are considered, as he puts it, like open air, like a public domain. Actually, this is not entirely his own innovation; it is based on an earlier proof, on Rabbi Akiva Eiger, and on several others. So now we can ask ourselves: A room without a door—do I define it as a dwelling that is exempt for some reason, or do I say it is not considered a dwelling at all? In fact, when we look at the Rambam’s wording, we see that he says a house has ten conditions, and one of them is a door. That implies that lacking a door is a deficiency in its very status as a dwelling. It is not merely exempt; it is not considered a house at all. If we want, we can quote the Rogatchover’s wording, which the Rebbe also cites in Likkutei Sichos, volume 16. The Rebbe quotes him as saying: “Without doors, it does not have the status of a house, for the form of a house is completed by its doors.” If we say that, then the other room—the one the door does not open into, which we said is considered a room without a door—can be described

1:29:28 Speaker 2 as having no status as a dwelling at all. It is considered like open air, like a public domain. And if it is considered like a public domain, I have no problem placing the mezuzah according to the heker tzir, even if that room has no window or anything else, because I do not consider it a dwelling at all. I consider it like open air, like a public domain. I am coming from the public domain, and the heker tzir points toward the other room, so of course I will put the mezuzah on the right as I enter that room, even though, as we said, there is an inner room here with no window. Because, as we said, that room is considered like open air, like a public domain. The actual entrance is when you come back from that room toward the room the heker tzir points into. That is the entrance, and so I will put the mezuzah on the right there. That may be how we can explain the opinions that hold that even without a window, I place the mezuzah according to the heker tzir. Of course, all of this is just thoughts and reasoning, to give us at least some understanding of this practice of following the heker tzir.