Must the Psalm card be covered when in the birthing room or in a room where children are changed:[1]

One may not be naked in front of Torah books, or writings of scripture.[2] Accordingly, the Shir Hama’alos card is to be covered while in the birthing room. Likewise, it is to be covered in a room where babies are changed or walk around naked. [Seemingly, even a single covering suffices and it does not need to be put in a double covering.[3] However, being that sone women defecate during birth, it is best to be placed in a double covering.[4] Many Poskim[5] rule that it is to be covered by a non-transparent covering. However from some Poskim[6] it is implied that one may use a transparent covering even in such areas so the name of Hashem remains visible.[7] If the card is properly attached to the actual wall [with glue or a nail on top and bottom, as opposed to hanging from a nail], then one may suffice with a single non-transparent covering.[8] A plastic lamination however does not serve as even a single covering[9], however those who are lenient have upon whom to rely.[10]

[1] Nitei Gavriel 63:3; See Sefer Hasichos 5747 p. 147 that one should ask a rabbi regarding if the poster must be placed within two vessels

[2] See Chesed Lealafim 40:2 and Kaf Hachaim 40:18 that the Shir Lamalos must be placed in a double covering in a room in which the couple will have marital relations, or do their needs. The following, however, is discussing being nude in front of the Shir Lamalos during birth, and not going to the bathroom or having marital relations

See regarding Tefillin in the presence of a nude person: It is forbidden to enter Tefillin in an area where there is a naked person present [with his or her Erva revealed].  [Admur 45:3; M”A 45:2; Rambam Yesodei Hatorah 6:6; Tefillin 4:23; Shabbos 120b; M”B 45:5; Afikei Maginim 75:14; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 45:2]

See regarding Sefarim in the presence of a nude person: (Therefore, one needs to be careful to cover one’s children in order so they are not naked in front of [Tefillin or] Torah books.) [Admur ibid in parentheses. Perhaps the reason for this is because this ruling is a novelty of Admur which is not sourced in other Poskim. Admur seemingly learned from the ruling in 275:13 [which he motions the reader to look in], which states that the custom is not to have naked children stand in front of the Shabbos candles due to it being belittling of the Mitzvah, that the same applies regarding them standing in front of Sefarim. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos 45 footnote 13]

See regarding a Mezuzah in the presence of a nude person: When placing a Mezuzah on the door of rooms in which women [or men  or even children ] at times are undressed, the Mezuzah is to be covered. [Shach 286:9; Taz 286:5; M”B 84:7; Regarding the general obligation of not being naked in front of Kisveiy Kodesh:Sefarim-See Admur 45:3; M”A 45:2; Shabbos 120b that one may not be naked if Hashem’s name is written on his skin as “it is forbidden to stand before Hashem naked”; Michaber Y.D. 281]  Many Poskim  rule that in such areas the Mezuzah is to be covered by a non-transparent covering. [Aruch Hashulchan 286:10; Ben Ish Chaiy 2 Ki Savo 15; Shulchan Melachim 162; Yad Hekatana Mezuzah 3:13] However from some Poskim  it is implied that one may [and should] use a transparent covering even in such areas so the name of Hashem remains visible. [Taz 286:5 “By placing a glass covering over the Mezuzah one nullifies the claim of some who refrain from placing Mezuzahs on rooms that women bathe in occasionally as through this [glass] the Mezuzah is covered even though it is visible”; Beir Heiytiv 286:8 in his summary of Taz “only in a room of marital relations is glass invalid”;]

Letter of law: Some Poskim rule that this is not required from the letter of the law. [So proves Mamar Mordechai 40:2; Aruch Hashulchan 286:15, see there!; Taz ibid: From the letter of the law it does not need to be covered as since the Mezuzah is above 10 Tefach from the ground it is considered as if it is in a different area. [See also Siddur Admur that Sefarim may be left on a table ten Tefach high in front of feces] These words of the Taz seemingly also apply to being naked in front of the Mezuzah. To note however that in 40:5 regarding marital relations Admur a) mentions forbidden and b) does not mention ten Tefach and c) In 45:3 rules it is forbidden to be naked in front of Kisveiy Kodesh.

[3] See Shut Tashbeitz 3:26, brought in Shaareiy Teshuvah 40:2 “Regarding feces and Ervah any covering suffices”; Piskeiy Teshuvos 45:2; See Admur 25:8; 43:7 and Siddur Admur [letter 20 Raskin] regarding covering in front of feces, and the same would seemingly apply here. Vetzaruch Iyun from the wording in Admur 45:3 which implies that even if it is covered it is forbidden.

[4] It is forbidden to defecate [or urinate ] in a room that contains Tefillin or Sefarim, even if the room is not designated for bathroom use. [Admur 315:3; Rama 315:1; M”A 315:3; Mordechai Shabbos 311 in name of Maharam] However if the Tefillin/Sefarim is behind a valid Mechitza, or is doubly covered, then it is permitted to do so. [Admur 315:4] Accordingly, it is forbidden to defecate [or urinate] in a room that contains Sefarim unless they are doubly covered. [Although indeed according to Admur in his Siddur, even a single covering or an elevation of ten Tefachim suffices, this only applies regarding having feces or Erva revealed in front of it, and not regarding using the bathroom in front of it, which requires two coverings. However, perhaps regarding urinating, even Admur would agree that one covering is enough. See Piskeiy Teshuvos 40:5 and footnote 38 who concludes so]

[5] See Aruch Hashulchan 286:10; Ben Ish Chaiy 2 Ki Savo 15; Shulchan Melachim 162; Yad Hekatana Mezuzah 3:13

Opinion of Admur: It is implied from Admur 40:5 that it is definitely forbidden to be naked in front of a Mezuzah, even if it is covered by glass, as Admur forbids marital relations being it is similar to Erva, and hence certainly he would forbid Ervah itself! Vetzaruch Iyun.

[6] Taz 286:5 “By placing a glass covering over the Mezuzah one nullifies the claim of some who refrain from placing Mezuzahs on rooms that women bathe in occasionally as through this [glass] the Mezuzah is covered even though it is visible”; Beir Heiytiv 286:8 in his summary of Taz “only in a room of marital relations is glass invalid”; However some of the above Poskim in previous footnote seem to not understand the Taz ibid to be referring to women who are at times naked in the room, and that in such a case in truth a non-transparent cover is required. So is implied from Aruch Hashulchan ibid and Shulchan Melachim ibid. Furthermore, the Mikdash Me’at 286:12 explains the statement in the Taz of “women bathe in occasionally” to refer to women who are not naked while they bathe. It is however clearly implied from the Taz ibid, as he writes in his conclusion, that only marital relations in a room requires a non-transparent cover, and not a mere undressed woman.

^[7] The reason: Although the Mezuzah will still remain visible through its case, nevertheless the Torah was only stringent that the Mezuzah be covered, and covered it is. This is similar to the law regarding covering excrement before praying. [Taz ibid] Now, although by Davening in front of the Ervah we rule that being covered does not suffice and it must also not be visible [see Admur 75:8-9] nevertheless perhaps the Taz holds that this only applies regarding Davening, while regarding simply being naked in front of Kisveiy Kodesh it is allowed. See also P”M 75 in Hakdama, and 74 A”A 1 and Kaf Hachaim 75:38 and Chazon Ish 16:7 [brought in Piskeiy Teshuvos 75:15] that Min Hatorah a glass covering is valid for Erva, and it is only due to Hirhur that we prohibit by  a man. Thus this is a clear reason to say that regarding Kisveiy Kodesh, if the Mezuzah is covered even with glass it is valid, as Hirhur is not applicable.

Opinion of Admur: It is implied from Admur 40:5 that it is definitely forbidden to be naked in front of a Mezuzah, even if it is covered by glass, as Admur forbids marital relations being it is similar to Erva, and hence certainly he would forbid Ervah itself! Vetzaruch Iyun, as marital relations is stricter than revealed Erva, as everyone agrees that sefarim require two coverings by marital relations, which is unprecedented in all the laws of Tzoa and Erva, and hence we see marital relations is a different category of Erva and is more strict.

[8] Conclusion of Admur 40:5 and Taz 286:5 regarding a Mezuzah; Ma’amar Mordechai 40:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 2:38; Piskeiy Teshuvos regarding Bedieved; Sheyikadesh Atzmo 32:6 regarding even Lechatchila; See Halacha J for the full details and other Halachic opinions on this matter

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is to always have a double covering even when attached to the wall. [1^st opinion brought in Admur; M”A 40:2; Chesed Le’avraham; Taharas Yisrael ibid; Kaf Hachaim 40:13 and Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid concludes it is best to be stringent]

[9] See Admur 40:2 and M”A 40:1 that the binding of a Siddur is considered like the Siddur itself and therefore may not be hung; Peri Megadim 40 A”A 2 that the same applies and it does not serve as a covering, hence, a double covering is still needed; M”B 40:4; See Taharas Yisrael 240:56; Ohel Yosef 2 brought in Kaf Hachaim 40:14; Sheyikadesh Atzmo 32:6; Ashel Avraham Butchach 240 leaves this matter in doubt.

[10] Birkeiy Yosef 154 in Shiyurei Bracha; Chesed Le’alafim 240:8; Kaf Hachaim 40:14 rules to be lenient with all printed Sefarim of today; Taharas Yisrael 240:56 Yad Eliyahu footnote 263 in name of Da’as Kedoshim and Ashel Avraham that they leave this matter in doubt