Mezuzah

RRT 25-27

TALIT AND MEZUZAH TO GENTILES

QUESTION:

A Christian minister is to participate in a joint service with us in the synagogue. He is eager to wear a talit as the rabbi does. May we give him one to wear? Also, a Gentile friend asked for a mezuzah to be affixed to his door. Should that be granted? (Asked by Rabbi Jay B. Goldburg, Des Moines, Iowa.)

ANSWER:

THESE QUESTIONS come up frequently in the increasing ecumenical meetings between rabbis and the Christian clergy. While in Reform Judaism we do not ascribe especial sanctity to ritual objects, nevertheless we should be considerate of their use. It is therefore of importance to consider the attitude of traditional Halacha on these questions.

The four questions asked are really two. The first two questions involve the lending of a talit to a Christian minister to wear during a joint service. The answer depends on the classification of the talit in the order of sanctity ascribed to the various articles of worship. Some articles, such as the mantle of the Torah and the ark in which the Torah is kept, are called “appurte nances of sanctity” (tashmishey kedushah). Other objects, such as a Succah and a lulav after the holiday, and fringes, are of a lower degree of sanctity. They are considered “appurtenances of a mitzvah” (tashmishey mitzvah).

The law has, naturally, a different attitude to the “appurtenances of sanctity” (such as Torah mantles, etc.) than it has to the “appurtenances of a mitzvah.” The general principle is stated quite clearly in the Talmud (Megillah 26b), namely, that when these objects are no longer to be used, they, respectively, must be treated differently. The principle is stated there tersely as follows: Appurtenances of a mitzvah can be thrown away. Appurtenances of sanctity must be hidden away (nignozin), i.e., kept in a special place or buried. The Shulchan Aruch, in Orah Hayyim 21, says that the threads of a talit no longer used or broken “may be thrown onto the ash heap because it is an appurtenance of a mitzvah and not inherently holy.” Of course, as long as the fringes are in the talit they should be treated respectfully. However, it will be noticed in Orah Hayyim 21:3 that it is permitted to go to the toilet wearing the talit, and Isserles adds that it is permitted to sleep in it.

If, therefore, the talit may be worn in all sorts of places, and if its fringes (when separated) may even be tossed onto the ash heap, there is no question that one may lend it to a Gentile minister who will handle it reverently. In fact, thus we will fulfill the basic mitzvah of acting “to follow the paths of peace” (mipney darche shalom). As you will see, the same principle is involved in the second question.

The second question is whether it is permitted to give a mezuzah to a Gentile to affix on his doorpost. Or if a Jew moves from his house or rents it to a Gentile, whether he may allow the mezuzah to remain on the doorpost. Actually, only a house inhabited by a Jew requires a mezuzah. Thus, for example, if a Jew rents a house from a Gentile landlord, he must affix a mezuzah. If a Jew rents a house to a Gentile tenant, the mezuzah, if there was one there, must be removed (see the discussion in Yore Deah 291:2).

The note of Isserles is of considerable interest in this matter. He cites a responsum by Maharil of Mainz (14th cent.) that even if the Gentile asks for a mezuzah to be affixed on his doorpost, we may not give it to him. It is of interest to note that even in the fourteenth century in the Rhineland, Gentiles occasionally would ask for mezuzahs to put on their doors. However this prohibition by Maharil was evidently not firmly based because Isserles, in the sixteenth century, contravenes it. He says: “If the refusal to give the Gentile the mezuzah would create ill will, we may give it to him.”

Thus we see that both the question of the talit and the question of the mezuzah are related in the question of ecumenical relationships. In Jewish law such relationships are stated in two ways: in a positive way “because of the paths of peace,” and in a negative way “to avoid ill will” (meshum evah).

NRR 53-55

A GLASS MEZUZAH

QUESTION:

An artisan made a mezuzah case of spun glass. In this case the written mezuzah was inserted and rolled in such a way that the writing of the text is visible. Is this type of mezuzah in accordance with the law and the tradition? (Asked by Vigdor W. Kavaler, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.)

ANSWER:

THERE IS NO law that would forbid a mezuzah case made of glass. As a matter of fact, the Shulchan Aruch indicates that the case may be of any material. In Yore Deah 289:1 it is stated that the written text be placed in a case of reeds or any material.

Nor is there any basic objection if part of the writing in the mezuzah is visible through the glass. As a matter of fact, it is a long-established custom to have one or two inscriptions on the back of the text, and these inscriptions should be visible. There is, first of all, the custom that the word Shaddai, “The Almighty,” should be visible (see Yore Deah 288:14). And also there is a coded phrase which is also meant to be visible. The phrase is Kuzu b’muchtsas kuzu. These words have no meaning in themselves but are a coded form of the words in the mezuzah, Adonoi Elohenu Adonoi. The key to the code is a simple one. The words are made up by using the next letter of the alphabet. Instead of the Yod of Adonoi, the next letter in the alphabet, Kaf, is used; instead of the next letter, Hey, of Adonoi, the next letter of the alphabet, Vav, is used; and so on to produce the coded formula. This coded phrase, together with Shaddai, is meant to be seen. So there can be no general objection to words being visible through the glass.

But in the case of this specific mezuzah there is a strong objection. The mezuzah text in this glass case is rolled in a way that the text of the Biblical passage used in the mezuzah is on the outside. This is absolutely wrong. The two phrases mentioned above that are to be seen are on the back, the blank side, of the text. The text itself must be rolled so as to be inward and not visible. It must be rolled up beginning at the back of the lines and rolled toward the front so that only the blank back, except for the two phrases mentioned, is visible. To roll it as in this mezuzah with the text outside is absolutely wrong (see Yore Deah 288:14).

I must reexamine the glass mezuzah to see whether or not the glass is fused in such a way as to seal the mezuzah inside the case so that it is immovable. If that is the fact, then this mezuzah is wrong on this second count also; because it is a rule that Sefer Torahs and tefillin and mezuzahs must be regularly inspected. A mezuzah must be inspected at least once in seven years ( Yore Deah 291:1). If a mezuzah is not removable from the case, it cannot be inspected, and therefore the law is violated in this regard.

To sum up, then, there is no objection to the mezuzah case being of glass. If the mezuzah is rolled properly— namely, with the writing of the text inside, and not visible from the outside—and if the case is so constructed that the text can be removed for periodical inspection, then this mezuzah is quite proper for use.

NRR 17-19

PRINTED MEZUZAHS

QUESTION:

A gift shop in the congregation had sold a number of mezuzahs to members and others. Then it was discovered that the mezuzahs were printed instead of written by hand as the Halachah requires. What shall the congregation do? There is some doubt on the matter because a public admission of this deception might create scorn for Judaism in general. (Asked by Rabbi Jack Segal, Houston, Texas.)

ANSWER:

THE QUESTION is a serious one and also delicate. There have been in the last few years a number of widely publicized false and deceptive schemes in which rabbis and Jewish organizations, such as yeshivos, have been involved. The publicity given to these unfortunate occurrences has undoubtedly, in some circles, caused a certain amount of scorn and contempt for organized Jewish religious life. Therefore, especially these days, the congregation is justly hesitant about creating further chillul ha-shem, a profanation of the Name of God and the good name of the congregation. How, then should the congregation act in this delicate situation?

First of all, it must be realized that what has occurred—the selling of printed instead of written mezuzahs, i.e., posul mezuzahs —is a sin. The nature of the sin is a violation of the commandment,’ ‘Thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind” (lifney iver), that is to say, the sin of leading unsuspecting people to commit a sin. To put up these illegal mezuzahs on their doorposts certainly leads people to neglect putting up kosher mezuzahs, as they are commanded to do, and therefore causes them to sin by violating the positive commandment of affixing a mezuzah. Unfortunately, this sin of “causing the blind to stumble” (lifney iver) is not unusual in America; in fact it is widely practiced. J. D. Eisenstein, in his Ozar Dinim, p. 215a, makes a public record of those who print mezuzahs and sell them, and he states correctly that they are committing the sin of “putting a stumbling- block,” etc.

Whose sin is it in the situation spoken about in the question? Definitely it is not the sin of the congregation, unless, of course, those in charge of the gift shop knew that the mezuzahs were printed but concealed the fact. This is certainly not the situation. They bought the mezuzahs as kosher mezuzahs and sold them as such. If it is a sin on their part, it is an unintentional one and, therefore, forgivable. The real sinners are the manufacturers and the wholesalers who sold them to the gift shop. This being the case, the congregation has nothing of which to be ashamed.

Nevertheless, it cannot keep silent (as it might prefer to do), for to do so would be a conscious sin on its part of lifney iver. To know, as the congregation knows well, that the mezuzahs are posul, and nevertheless to let the people affix them, would certainly be a sinful act of conscious deception which the congregation cannot possibly permit itself.

Clearly, what the congregation must do is this: It must frankly inform the members that it has now bought a large number of kosher mezuzahs and is ready, without charge, to exchange them for the non-kosher mezuzahs which it had inadvertently sold. As for the non-kosher ones, those who wish to keep them may use them as pendants, as some do, but they cannot be used in fulfillment of the commandment of mezuzah. In other words, the congregation has a duty to prevent the members from committing the sin of neglecting the positive commandment of putting up a mezuzah, and it must frankly make up for its unintended mistake. If this procedure is followed, no blame will be felt against the congregation. Nevertheless, we must all bear the shame of the fact that there are certain manufacturers who are willing to mislead the Jewish people. In fact, we must do more than be ashamed of it. Public protest against them should be made through the appropriate national organizations.

TRR 20-23

A MODIFIED MEZUZAH

QUESTION:

The congregation is planning a modification or “modernization” of the mezuzah to be sold in the congregational gift shop. The mezuzah will be modified as follows: It will be photographed, not written. The type will be that of the printed prayerbook, not of the Sefer Torah. And in addition to the usual text, the opening words of each of the Ten Commandments will be written into the mezuzah. This modified mezuzah, made up locally, will be sold in the gift shop and will be a source of income to the Temple. Is this a proper enterprise according to the spirit of tradition and of Reform? (Asked by Rabbi Stanley R. Bray, St. Petersburg Beach, Florida.)

ANSWER:

The question is rather complex since opposite attitudes are involved in the suggested plan. As for modifying the form of an old ritual, we in Reform Judaism are accustomed to do that. For example, we add Bat Mitzvah to Bar Mitzvah. We have the woman light the Sabbath lights in the synagogue and have made a formal ceremony of it. Change in itself is not objectionable but, on the other hand, there is a possible deception involved. The mezuzah properly must be written on parchment, exactly as a Sefer Torah is written. The same letters must be used as in the Torah and even the little spurs (tagin) on certain letters must be added. Unless the mezuzah is written on parchment exactly as a Sefer Torah is written, it is not a kosher mezuzah. A firm in New York had photographed mezuzot on parchment like paper and sold them as kosher mezuzot to unsuspecting people. This was denounced as a sin of deception according to the verse: “Put not a stumbling-block before the blind.” The deception, in other words, caused people to “stumble” into sin by affixing a non-kosher mezuzah on their doorpost. So, here, if this modified mezuzah is sold simply as a mezuzah, some people will be deceived and think they are fulfilling the traditional commandment when they affix it on their doorpost. If, then, these modifications are to be made, the gift shop must make it clear that these are not Orthodox of kosher mezuzot, and so those, therefore, who nevertheless would want to affix them on their doorposts, do so by their own choice.

With the above caution against deception, we can now consider whether from our liberal point of view it would be proper to make these particular additions as suggested by the enquirer, namely, to include in the mezuzah the opening word of each of the Ten Commandments. As to that, it has long been a folk practice in certain mystic circles to add names of angels to the mezuzah. Maimonides has written a powerful denunciation of these additions (Yad Hil. Mezuzah 5:4). He says that those who add the names of angels, etc., to the mezuzah are fools and they do not deserve a portion in the world to come, because, he said, the purpose of the mezuzah is the noble one of reminding us of the presence of the Eternal One God, and these fools are spoiling a commandment and converting it into an amulet.

It is worth noting that during the last war, many Jewish soldiers began to wear a mezuzah around their neck as a protective amulet, and the question arose whether the Chaplaincy Commission should provide these mezuzot. But because of the stern prohibition of Maimonides we hesitated to do so.

While from the Orthodox point of view it is forbidden to add anything to the text of the mezuzah, it may well be said that the additions suggested here, namely, the opening words of the Ten Commandments, certainly could not come under Maimonides’ stricture against superstition. If, therefore, some of those who purchase this modern mezuzah would want to wear it as a sort of an amulet, it would not come under the specific condemnation of Maimonides. There is certainly nothing superstitious in adding the words of the Ten Commandments.

Of course, it may be asked what is the use of the entire enterprise? The gift shop can raise money if it will sell only the traditional mezuzah in a variety of beautiful cases. But perhaps the justification of this enterprise might be that the modern, non-kosher mezuzah may be worn as an ornament which would not be proper if it were a kosher mezuzah.

In summary, therefore, we may say that it might be best if the gift shop sold both traditional (kosher) mezuzot and these modern mezuzot, and make it clear to each purchaser which mezuzah is being bought. If it is the modern mezuzah being bought, it may well be worn on a chain, or even if it is affixed on the doorpost, the purchaser must know that he is not thereby fulfilling the Orthodox halakhah.

CARR 117-119

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

71. Casing of a

Mezuzah

QUESTION: A member of the Adath Israel Youth Group

has collected some seashells. After cleaning the shells, they will mount them on a piece of

walnut and insert a kosher scroll to form a mezuzah. Would it be improper or violate

Jewish law to use seashells as the casing of a mezuzah? This is a fund raising effort of

the Youth Group (Rabbi John Adland, Lexington, KY)ANSWER: The

commandment of the mezuzah is found in Deuteronomy (6.4 ff; 11.13 ff). The text deals

with affixing a mezuzah on the doorpost. Later discussions turn to three questions, the

nature of the text, the way in which the text is written, the places which do or do not require a

mezuzah. The text itself has always included the appropriate paragraphs from

the shema (Deut. 6.4-9; 11.13-21), which was inscribed on a piece of parchment rolled up

in such a way that the text was on the inside, while the empty portion of the parchment faced

outward (M. Mezuzah, 2.10; Sof. Mezuzah 1.1; Shab. 108a; Yad Hil.

Tefillin Umezuzah V’sefer Torah; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 271). The laws, at

least in the Talmud, were a little more lax about writing a mezuzah than writing a

Torah. It need not be copied but could be done from memory (Men. 32b), however, it had

to be completely accurate and no letter could be missing. The text itself must always

be handwritten, be free of errors and be inscribed on parchment (M. Men. 3.7). Originally

it could be written in any form as long as it did not imitate the decorative practices of pagans

(Franz Landsberger, “The Origin of the Decorative Mezuzah,” Hebrew Union College

Annual, Vol. 31, pp. 157 f). The pattern for a mezuzah called for a twenty-two line

document with the material on each line specified, so the first line began with the word

shema, the second with adonai and the third with had’varim, etc. Although

if written differently, it would be (bedivad) acceptable as long as the text was accurate

(Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 285). In the early Middle Ages additional material

was often included on the back of the mezuzah as there was no prohibition against that.

The name of God, Shadai was inscribed there and that became common practice (Kol

Bo 90, Yad Hil. Telifin, Umezuzah Vesefer Torah 5.4). It is interesting to note

that Maimonides did not disapprove of this practice which has remained current to this day. On

some mezuzot we find longer names of God added (J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic

and Superstition p. 148). From Gaonic Times until the late Middle Ages, the

names of angels were sometimes added to the text side especially by Ashkenazic Jews. This

practice is first mentioned by Judah Hadassi. It was considered normal by the Mahzor

Vitry and the Sefer Hapardes (V. Aptowitzer, “Les Noms de Dieu et des Anges dans

la Mezouza,” Revue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 60, p. 38 ff). Maimonides and others

vigorously fought against this practice and by 1300 it had disappeared. The works of Aptowitzer

and Landsberger provide examples of specific angels as well as the placement of their names in

the text. The use of angels enhanced the feeling that a mezuzah possessed

special power to ward off evil spirits. A hint of this was already found in the Talmud (A. Z.

11a; Men. 32b f; Gen. Rabba 35.3). Various medieval figures felt that the

mezuzah possessed protective powers. Among them were Rashi, Meir of Rothenburg,

Solomon Luria, Isaiah Horowitz, etc. (Rashi to Men. 33b; Meir of Rothenburg, Responsa,

#108; Shelah, Vol. I, 187a). The use of the name of angels represented a

difference of custom between Askenazim and Sephardim. The Northern Europeans favored the

practice while Maimonides and those of the Mediterranean Basin opposed it vigorously

(Yad Hil. Tefillin Umezuzah Vesefer Torah; 5.4). The custom eventually

disappeared. There was a problem about exposing the name of God, Shadai, if

the room was occupied by children, was a bedroom, etc. Moses of Coucy, therefore, covered the

word, Shadai, with a bit of wax (Sefer Mitzvot Hagadol Aseh #23), while

the Shulhan Arukh and its commentaries suggest that under those circumstances it might

be wise to cover the entire mezuzah (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 286.5). This led

to mezuzah cases which had hinged openings over the word

Shadai). There are lengthy discussions of the place which required a

mezuzah as well as how it is to be affixed to the door (Sof. Mezuzah 114

ff). Maimonides lists ten places which require or should not have a mezuzah (Yad

Hil. Tefillin Umezuzah Vesefer Torah). The Shulhan Arukh follows a similar

pattern. In the discussion of how the mezuzah should be affixed, some mandated a

vertical position while other commentaries prefer a horizontal position. Isserles suggested the

slanted position now customary as a compromise between these two points of view. It is placed

on the right hand door as one enters the house slanting inward with the upper portion pointing

outward. Relatively little is said in the traditional literature about the casing of the

mezuzah. Landsberger suggests that the original way of affixing a mezuzah to the

door was by inserting it into a hole which had been drilled in the doorpost (Sof. Mezuzah

1.10; M. Mez. 2.10; Yad Hil. Tef. 5.6; see also F. Landsberger, op. cit., p. 152 f).

In addition, it was suggested that the mezuzah be placed in a reed or similar protective

covering of wood or metal (Sof. Mezuzah 1.10). Only slowly did the mezuzah

container become decorative and Landsberger feels there were virtually no decorated

mezuzot until the seventeenth or eighteenth century (Landsberger, (op. cit., p. 162

f). In the last few centuries, a wide variety of decorated mezuzot have evolved with

abstract decorations, floral designs, animals as lions, griffins, as well as Hebrew inscriptions of

various kinds (Wolpert and others). The traditional literature, as well as artistic

practice during the last century, indicate that there are no restrictions on the decoration of the

casing of the mezuzah. It would be permissible to use an animal shell as any other form

of decoration. The young people should be encouraged in this project which shows imagination

and should add beauty to the mezuzah.August 1986

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 225

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

141. Mezuzah on a Trailer

QUESTION: A young man has taken a position on an Indian reservation for a period of three months; he will live in a trailer. Is it appropriate to affix a mezuzah to the door of the trailer as this is only a temporary home? (Clark Fishman, Tuscon AZ)ANSWER: If a trailer is to be used for a very short time, as for example for a vacation, as I have seen often on family camping trips, then it is not necessary to affix a mezuzah. It is not required on a succah or a cabin on a ship, etc. (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 286.11 ff). Here, however, we are dealing with a semi-permanent residence which will be home for a period of time. He should, therefore, treat this as his permanent home and place a mezuzah on the door. Perhaps, as these trailers are treated with less care than a normal house, he should not leave the mezuzah when he moves (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 291.2) but remove it.December 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5753.14 35

CCAR RESPONSA

Mezuzah on a Synagogue

5753.14

She’elah
When we built our present synagogue we did not put a mezuzah on the building. We are now expanding and want

to revisit the issue. What is your advice and judgment? Should we affix a mezuzah now? (R. Norman D. Hirsh,

Seattle, WA)

Teshuvah
The command to affix a mezuzah derives from Deuteronomy 6:9 which says that it should be done to

“your house and gates.” The term “house” has traditionally been interpreted as a dwelling place, and the

Shulchan Arukh expressly states that synagogues do not need a mezuzah unless they contain an

apartment.1

However, minhag has gone beyond the minimum requirements of the Halakhah. In Israel, all

public buildings and synagogues have mezuzot, and this custom is also found in the Diaspora. Similarly,

in Toronto all synagogues have mezuzot, and it is our feeling that the custom will sooner or later spread to

most places.

Is there any reason why Reform temples should have a special policy that disagrees with this

development? We see no reason for it. On the contrary, the affixing of a mezuzah to the entrance(s) of the building

will give you the opportunity to stress the importance of this symbol for every Jew.

For the command to affix mezuzot to our private homes and apartments is being increasingly neglected, and it

must be made clear that in this respect as in any other, the synagogue serves as a model but not as a surrogate for

our obligations. It will also give you a chance to discuss this with your building and worship committees and thus

make the she’elah an instrument for talmud torah.

Notes

NARR 223-224

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

140. The Paper Mezuzah Text

QUESTION: May the gift shop of a congregation sell mezuzot which contain the text on paper rather than on parchment as the tradition has mandated? (Rabbi Sue Levy, Houston TX)ANSWER: The tradition of using parchment for the Torah, the megillah and the mezuzah has already been recorded in the tractate Softim 1:1 ff; Mezuzah 1:1 and all later codes. Despite the use of paper alongside parchment during this and subsequent periods, parchment continued to be mandated probably as it was more durable and was readily available. Irrespective of the reasons involved, tradition has demanded parchment. We must now ask whether there is any good reason for us to change this tradition? For us in the twentieth century the use of a traditional Torah, megillah, and mezuzah serves as a direct link with the past and with fellow Jews. As Reform Jews we are open to suggestions for change, but only for good and valid reasons. No such reasons exist in this instance. We may contrast this with the use of a Torah which is very expensive. If a congregation cannot afford a Torah then it may simply read from a printed Bible until a Torah can be acquired (W. Jacob Contemporary American Reform Responsa #69). No great expense is involved with a mezuzah. It is possible for everyone to set aside enough money to purchase a mezuzah with the proper parchment. We should be careful about any unnecessary escalation of the costs of this parchment. It might well be possible for congregations to train scribes who can produce mezuzot and do so at a minimal charge or perhaps as a gift to the congregation. We at Rodef Shalom years ago trained a high school student who wrote a megillah which we still use. This should be encouraged. There are some unusual conditions under which a paper mezuzah may be acceptable. For example, during the recent persecution of Soviet Jews, affixing a mezuzah presented an act of courage. As a kasher text was difficult to obtain a printed text was acceptable under those circumstances until an appropriate text could be obtained. It is especially important for a synagogue gift shop to sell only kasher mezuzot. Anyone purchasing a mezuzah would assume that the text was kasher. A printed text violates the prohibition of Leviticus “do not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Lev 19:14). If for some reason a paper text is provided by the supplier, then this should be made absolutely clear to the purchaser. Better yet, a kasher text should be substituted. In summary, therefore, the gift shop of a congregation should sell only mezuzot with a kasher text. Anything less would be inappropriate.February 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕