stamforum

stamforum
פורום בינלאומי לנושא סת"ם

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Does This Archway Require A Mezuzah?


See Picture. If it was built for decorative purposes (as an aesthetic feature to beautify an entrance hall) would it still require a mezuzah? (Obviously if it does, there would be no brachah said, as per any entrance without a door). Thoughts and comments welcome...

15 comments:

  1. Decorative is not a reason to put or not to put a Mezuza. If (and here it seems so) the two doorposts and mashkof differentiate between 2 rooms or 2 uses it needs a mezuza.
    In some cases a post that is made to uphold ceiling is decorated to look like a doorway -it needs a mezuza, since by decorating it in this manner you show that you want it as a doorway.
    A bracha is not recited where there is no physical door.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a tzuras hapesach between 2 rooms, it just happens to be ornate hence a mezuzah is affixed here, without a bracha as there is no door. Were this in a place where it served no purpose other than decor then a bracha wouldn't be affixed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's in the middle of an L shaped hallway. It does not separate two rooms. It was built later when the house was renovated to add character as it is opposite the front door.

      Delete
    2. I assume when you say a bracha wouldn't be affixed you mean a mezuzah wouldn't be affixed.

      Delete
    3. With this clarification, that it's in the center of a hallway then I'd agree there's no need for a mezuzah.

      Delete
  3. Agreed, a mezuzah should be affixed (no bracha, as mentioned since there is no door). As mentioned, a mezuzah should be affixed since the Rosh holds that a corner wall serving as a side post is also obligated in mezuzah. The decorative pillar does not diminish the need to affix a mezuzah.

    The gap between the pillars is also not a problem since it is connected on the bottom and the top. (This is besides the fact that the gap is under 3 tefachim and it would have the rule of 'levud'.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmmmm, interesting.

    I just spoke to his rabbi. He quoted me sefer Chovas Hador 7:19 where he is nishaar btzorich iyyun by a pesach sheasu l'noi (made specifically for decorative purposes). He said he was maikel for a number of reasons (including the fact that the guy was renting and didn't own the house).

    I just also noticed that a pesach made for decorative purposes is discussed in Chazan's sefer pischei mezuzos, page 253, where he too is mistapek.

    ReplyDelete
  5. נראה לי שאין זה נקרא כלל "פתח לנוי" אלא פתח גמור.
    מה שמבואר בספר חובת הדר "פתח לנוי" פירושו פתח שאין בו צורך כגון פתח לנוי באמצע חדר, אבל פה שהוא פתח גמור ועשו אותו יפה יותר בעמודים בודאי חייב

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The argument for saying it's a pesach lenoi is because it was an L shaped hallway and it was not an existing pesach there is no pesach where he put the pillars ( it's in the middle of a hallway, to the left is a door and to the right is a continuation of the hallway)

      Delete
    2. To the left, after the pillar the wall continues for about 40cm, then there is a door, then more wall, then the back wall which you can see

      Delete
  6. טוב, לא הבנתי את ציור הפתח. אני חוזר בי

    ReplyDelete
  7. What is clear is that the above is a proper Tzurat HaPetach... therefore, Lema'ase it should have a mezuzah regardless of the intention or what was there before.

    The last two factors (intention, and what was there before) are just irrelevant and should have no place in considering whether this entrance requires a mezuzah or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A pesach lanoi is a proper tzuras hapesach but made solely for decoration and not to serve as a division of space. While Rav Moshe and I originally agreed that a mezuzah should be affixed, when we learned that it was in the middle of a hallway and therefore the tzuras hapesach was made exclusively for decoration then we retracted.

      Delete
  8. Thanks again everyone for your comments. This has been a great discussion. I think it is fair to say there are enough angles to be meikel. Obviously if he chose to put one, it would be without a bracha for more than reason. As discussed above, there if his rav already paskened I'm satisfied to remain with the status quo.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.