From the Rav’s Desk: Is a doorway with a misaligned Mashkof obligated in a Mezuzah

1. Question: [Thursday, 19^th Elul, 5782]

One of the rooms in our home has a very interesting doorway, in which its lintel does not hover over the doorposts but rather is to the side of the doorposts with the doorposts reaching all the way to the ceiling. Meaning, that the lintel is attached to the side of the doorposts and protrudes outside, and does not hover over the doorposts at all. Is such a room obligated in Mezuzah, and if yes do I say a blessing? I know that if a doorway does not contain a lintel on top then it is not obligated in mezuzah and my question is regarding if this is considered a valid doorway.

Answer:

A Mezuzah it is to be placed without a blessing.

Explanation: There are a number of conditions that need to be fulfilled in order for a room to be obligated in a mezuzah. One of these conditions that need to be fulfilled is that the doorway must contain Mezuzos and a Mashkof. The Mezuzos refer to the doorpost on each side of the doorway, and the Mashkof is the casing or lintel which hovers over the two doorposts. If a doorway does not contain doorposts, or if it contains doorposts but does not contain a lintel which hovers over the doorposts, then it is not obligated in Mezuzah. This form of a doorway which contains two doorpost and a lintel is referred to as Tzuras Hapesach. Now, the question is raised regarding a doorway in which the lintel is not aligned over the doorpost and does not hover over it, but is rather to its side, either in back of the doorposts or in front of them, such as if one placed a supporting beam of wood across the doorposts by its top, rather than on top of the doorposts. On the one hand, we find regarding the laws of Eiruvin and Reshuyos, then any doorway that does not contain a lintel which hovers over the doorposts is not considered a Tzuras Hapesach at all, and hence, if a beam is placed to the side of the doorposts rather than on top of them, then such a doorway is not considered an entrance at all regarding the above laws of Eiruvin. On the other hand, perhaps the requirements of a doorway regarding the obligation for a mezuzah, in which it does not say anywhere that it must be the halachic status of a Tzuras Hapesach, is different than the laws of a doorway which is discussed in the laws of Eiruvin in which it explicitly states that a must contain a halachically legal Tzuras Hapesach. Practically, this matter is debated amongst the Poskim, and the conclusion is that a Mezuzah is to be placed without a blessing.

Sources: See Chovas Hador 7:10 footnote 26; Pischeiy Mezuzos 287:6 [and in Beis Mezuzah 22:18; Pischeiy Ayin p. 406-14]; Pischeiy Shearim 287:26-27; See regarding the requirement for a doorway to have two doorposts and a lintel: Michaber Y.D. 286:1; See regarding the invalidation of Tzuras Hapesach for the laws of Eiruvin when the lintel is to the side of the doorposts and not hovering over them: Admur 362:20; Michaber 362:11; Eiruvin 11a and Rashi there; M”A 362:19; Taaz 362:4; Levush 362:11; Rosh Eiruvin 1:14; Maharam Merothenberg 336; Mordechai Eiruvin Remez 478; Poskim who exempt from a Mezuzah a doorway without a lintel that hovers over the two doorpost: Mishkanos Yaakov O.C. 123; Mahrsham 4:71; Poskim who obligate in a Mezuzah a doorway with a lintel that does not hover over the two doorpost: Bris Avraham O.C. 19:4; Tuv Taam Vadaas 1:247 leaves this matter in question if we compare to Kilayim or Shabbos; Chovas Hador ibid