Question: Must you affix a mezuzah on every doorway of your house, or is it sufficient to just affix a mezuzah on your front doorway?
Short Answer: The mezuzah should be affixed on every doorway of the house.
Explanation:
I. The Source
The Gemara (M’nachos 34a) states that the entranceway between an attic and a house requires a mezuzah. If there are multiple entrances, then each entranceway requires a mezuzah. Accordingly, Rav Papa required four mezuzos for the four entranceways to and from a porch. Even though this appears obvious, the chidush is that all four need mezuzos even though the owner frequently enters through only one of them.
II. The Clear Halachah
The Maharil (94), cited in Noam Journal (Vol. 15, p.325), who lived in the 14th and 15th century, writes against a certain prevalent custom in his time, which was to only affix a mezuzah on the front doorway of a house. The Maharil was asked by his m’chutan whether it is “mechzi k’yuhara” (looks haughty) to affix mezuzos on all doors of a house. He responded very strongly, that his m’chutan should help abolish this practice, which violates both d’Oraisa and d’Rabbanan commandments. Indeed, he cites the Maharam, who expressly ruled that all doorways of a house need a mezuzah, and that the Maharam himself had 24 mezuzos in his house! The Maharil concludes that he has no idea why the custom developed against this clear halachah.
The Rama (Yoreh Dei’ah 287:2) codifies the Maharil, noting that even though “most of the Jewish community” only has one mezuzah – at the entrance to their house, this is unquestionably incorrect. He adds that there is no basis for this minhag and that all y’rei’ei Shamayim should affix mezuzos on all doorposts of their house.
In light of this clear halachah, what was the origin of the incorrect minhag of only having one mezuzah? Presumably there is some basis in halachah for this mistake. Many of the poskim ask this question and provide different answers, as detailed below.
III. Potential Origins and Reasons
First, the Maharam (cited in Noam Journal) himself suggests the reason for the minhag. In certain circumstances, halachah actually permits a longstanding minhag to uproot a halachah. Perhaps that is the case here, with only one mezuzah in a house. The Maharam rejects this suggestion, as he deems the “minhag” as a baseless minhag that employs a leniency on a clear halachah.
Second, the Maharil suggests that the people mistakenly thought that the indoor rooms were unclean, as they had dirty diapers and the like, and therefore it was inappropriate to have a mezuzah.
Third, the B’eir Sheva (p. 115) suggests that perhaps the mistaken minhag stems from a misread of Rashi on Chumash. Rashi (Parshas VaEschanan 6:9) comments on the pasuk of “u’ch’savtam al mezuzos beisecha” that we darshan the word “mezuzos” (which is written without a vav) to teach that you “only need one” mezuzah. Simply put, this Rashi understands that only one mezuzah is needed per house, exactly like the mistaken minhag!
The B’eir Sheva adds that certainly Rashi is NOT simply saying that the mezuzah goes only on the right side of the door, as opposed to both sides, as we have a separate drashah for that. The word “beisecha” teaches that it is affixed on the side you enter, i.e., the right side. Accordingly, the word “mezuzos” is not also teaching us this! Moreover, the B’eir Sheva notes that a certain rabbi altered the text of Rashi to read “only one ON the doorpost.” This is wrong – both because we already have “beisecha” to teach us this, as he just explained, but more because we never alter texts as an answer to a problem.
Nevertheless, the B’eir Sheva thinks that Rashi is not actually a source for this mistaken custom. Rashi is merely commenting that a doorway needs a mezuzah, even if there is only a doorpost on one side, such as when there is a doorway in the corner of a room. The Gemara (M’nachos ibid) cites a machlokes as to the source of this halachah, and Rashi is thus taking sides on this machlokes.
Fourth, Rav Menachem Kasher (Noam Journal, ibid) suggests simply that the mistaken minhag stemmed from a misunderstanding of the reason for mezuzah. Since some poskim explain that mezuzah is a form of protection for the house from outside thieves (see Article #1), people mistakenly thought that only one mezuzah was needed on the outside door to the house.
Fifth, Rav Kasher also suggests that perhaps the custom developed based on the opinion of the Rambam, that only doorways with actual doors need mezuzos, as the word “bish’arecha” refers to doors. Since earlier houses did not have many doors, just doorways, the custom developed like the Rambam, and a mezuzah was only placed on the front doorway which obviously had a door. However, the halachah really follows the other poskim who disagree.
Sixth, Rav Kasher cites a Mechilta and a Yerushalmi, which present a discussion regarding whether the blood on the doorposts in Mitzrayim were placed on all doorposts of the house or just the doorpost of the front door. Rav Pinchas in the Yerushalmi implies that it was only placed on the outside doorway. Accordingly, the custom developed – erroneously – that a mezuzah (which commemorates the blood in Mitzrayim) also only needs to be on the outside doorway.
Seventh, the Aruch HaShulchan (Yoreh Dei’ah 287:11) explains that he never heard of this minhag, and it should “not be mentioned” in light of our “kosher” generation. In other words, there really is no basis for this minhag, nor was it based on any logic.
IV. The Chidush of The Chechanover Rebbe
The Chechanover (Ciechanover) Rebbe, Rav Avraham Landau (1789-1875), says something astounding. The reason why the mistaken custom developed is because mezuzah is only d’Oraisa on the front doorway. The inside doorways within your house that lead from room to room are only d’Rabbanan. He supports this thesis based on a handful of sources in the Talmud that appear to indicate that you are only obligated d’Oraisa to affix a mezuzah on a “bayis.” Any room with an additional name is only obligated d’Rabbanan. Since indoor rooms are called “chadarim” (rooms) and not “bayis,” they are only obligated d’Rabbanan to affix a mezuzah. Indeed, the pasuk (in Parshas VaEira) refers to the frogs that went into “beisecha” and “chadar mishkavecha,” implying that an inner room is not a “house” but a “cheder.”
V. An Extrapolation
The Chashukei Chemed (Gittin 68b) extrapolates from this Rama an interesting point. Should a house only have one mezuzah, it should certainly be placed on the entering doorway into the house. From here we see that if a shul receives a grant or a gift, the shul should preferably use it for the entranceway instead of the paroches, as the suggestion is that the entranceway is more important than the inside.
Rabbi Ephraim Glatt, Esq. is the Associate Rabbi at the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills, and he is a Partner at McGrail & Bensinger LLP, specializing in commercial litigation. Questions? Comments? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
