The Halachic Validity of Extra-Long Mezuzahs: Must the Klaf and Text Remain Within the Upper Third of the Doorframe?

Question:

I have observed that many wealthy individuals and mosdos (institutions) display very large Mezuzahs, sometimes so large that the actual klaf extends below the upper third of the doorway, and in some cases, even beneath the halfway point. What is the halachic status of such extra-long Mezuzahs—does the mitzvah require that the entire klaf remain within the upper third, or are these Mezuzahs still valid even when part of the klaf falls below this section? In one instance, when I observed this and promptly asked the Shul administrator as to how they can have such a long Mezuzah, the response was that only the words have to be within the top third and not the actual parchment.

Answer:

This is certainly not to be done initially; one should be careful to ensure that the entire klaf, and not just the words written on it, is placed within the upper third of the doorway from the outset. Doing otherwise is contrary to the ruling of the Achronim and possibly invalidates the Mitzvah according to many Poskim, even though arguments regarding partial validity after the fact may be presented. This however excludes the case of the mezuzah which may be past the one third mark so long as the parchment is above it. With regards to Bedieved, if the door is actually obligated in a mezuzah [as opposed to the door of the main sanctuary of a Shul which is not] then it is to be replaced with a blessing with a smaller size mezuzah. Large mezuzahs of such nature should be reserved for use for very tall entrance doors, in which case we follow the shoulder height of the doorpost as the ideal area of it being placed and not the exact top third.

Background:

To properly tackle the above question we need to first give some necessary background to the entire concept of placing the Mezuzah on the top third of the doorpost:

The Gemara in Menachos 33a records a dispute in the Braisa and Gemara regarding the exact location that the mezuzah should be placed on a doorpost. The position of the Tana Rebbe Yehuda and the Amora Rav Huna is that the entire doorpost is valid with exception to the top and bottom Tefach. [This means that according to this opinion, that a person can place the mezuzah even by the bottom of the doorpost so long as it is an 8 cm distance from the floor!] However, the position of the Tana Rebbe Yossi and the Amora Shmuel is that it is a mitzvah for the mezuzah to be placed from the top third of the doorpost. This opinion is derived from a juxtaposition of the words “Ukishartem Uchisavtem” which teaches us that just as the tefillin are tied on the head, so too the mezuzah is to be placed on the top of the doorpost. Now, several discussions have ensued regarding this debate including: 1) Which opinion do we rule like? 2) According to the opinion of Shmuel is it valid to place the mezuzah within the top 8 cm of the doorpost [which is negated according to the opinion of Rav Huna]? 3) According to the opinion of Shmuel is it valid at least after the fact, if placed below the top third mark? 4) According to Shmuel’s opinion, should placement begin precisely at the one-third mark? Let us address each of these points individually.

• Which opinion do we rule like? Yossi,inal ruling follows the opinion of Shmuel, which is based on the rule that whenever we have a dispute between Rebbe Yehuda and Rebbe Yossi we rule like the opinion of Rebbe Yossi, and so is the recorded ruling in the Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch.
• According to the opinion of Shmuel is it valid to place the mezuzah within the top 8 cm of the doorpost? This matter is debated amongst the Rishonim and Poskim. The Rosh explains that according to the opinion of Shmuel, the Mezuzah may be placed anywhere on the top third even within 8 cm from the top. However, according to the Rambam, it must be placed at least an 8 cm distance from the top, just as ruled Rav Huna and Rebbe Yehuda. The Tur records both opinions, although seemingly siding more with the opinion of his father the Rosh. Practically, the final ruling in Shulchan Aruch on this matter follows the opinion of the Rambam. Accordingly, one may not place the mezuzah within 8 cm from the top of the doorpost and if he does so, then according to many Achronim it is invalid even Bedieved and must be replaced. The Achronim further clarify that no part of the mezuzah is to be placed within the 8 cm space from the top. However, since some Poskim are of the opinion that it remains valid Bedieved if placed within the top 8 cm of the doorpost, hence practically, although for certain it is to be replaced, nonetheless, it should be replaced without a blessing.
• According to the opinion of Shmuel is it valid at least after the fact, if placed below the top third mark? This matter is debated amongst Rishonim and Poskim. Practically, the final ruling is that it is invalid, although considering the lenient opinion, the mezuzah is to be replaced above the one third mark without a blessing. [To note, all this applies by a normal doorpost height, however by a very tall doorpost, the vast majority of Poskim record to follow the shoulder height for the placement of the mezuzah and not to follow the top third, and so is the custom. It is beyond the scope of this article further elaborate on this separate subject.]
• According to Shmuel’s opinion, should placement begin precisely at the one-third mark? This matter is debated between the Rosh and Rambam as recorded in the Tur, and the final ruling in Shulchan Aruch on this matter follows the opinion of the Rambam that it should initially be placed starting precisely from the bottom of the top third mark of the doorpost. So is likewise the ruling of Kabbalah. However, Bedieved it certainly remains valid if it is placed in the middle of the top third area and not precisely by its bottom starting point so long as it is placed one Tefach distance from the top of the doorpost. Furthermore, some Poskim record that the custom of the world is even initially to place the Mezuzah in the middle of the top third, and they defend this practice based on that majority of Rishonim negate this requirement of the Rambam. Practically, it is best to place it starting from the precise bottom area of the top third of the doorpost, although Bedieved, after the fact, there is no need to remove the mezuzah and replace it, even though some suggest doing so.

Now that we have clarified the above, let us address the main question of this article, which is what is the law if the mezuzah was placed partially below the top one third area of the doorpost, with some of that being within the one third and some of it being below.

So, while this matter is not directly discussed in any of the above Rishonim and Poskim, the simple implication of their words is that no part of the Mezuzah may be placed below the above said areas, and so explicitly rule several Achronim. This would include both the words written on the parchment and the parchment itself, as we do not have a source to differentiate between the two. [This follows a similar ruling regarding the head Tefillin by which we rule that no part of it, even the Titura, may go below the hairline of the forehead, towards which Mezuzah is compared to in the Gemara [Ukishartem Ukisavtem] regarding this very matter!]

Rav Moshe Weiner Shlita agreed with this conclusion, and there are no known sources presenting an opposing view.

The one leniency that we do find recorded is regarding the case of the Mezuzah, that the case itself may reach below the top third area, although the entire parchment must be above the 1/3 top area.

A further proof for the above ruling of invalidation is regarding the discussion in Achronim regarding if part of the mezuzah may enter within 8 cm from the top of the doorpost. Some Achronim bring that the custom by long mezuzah’s is to allow it to partially enter into the top third of the doorpost, and while some completely negate this practice, some defend it saying that if majority of the mezuzah is within the correct area then it is valid. Now, even in their opinion this defense of validation is only with regards to the top Tefach, by which some rule that even initially the mezuzah may be placed there, as explained earlier, and even Bedieved many hold that it is valid. However, for it to enter even partially below the top third would be invalid according to most Poskim, including those who rule that it is valid Bedieved when placed within the top Tefach. It is exactly for this reason that the individuals were accustomed to place the very long mezuzahs within the top Tefach and not below it in a way that it will reach even partially below the top third.

Accordingly, doorways of a normal height may not have very large Mezuzos placed on them if even part of the parchment will reach below the top third area or within the top Tefach area. Being mihader in such a big beautiful mezuzah compromises on the validity of its fulfillment, and hence certainly is not a Hiddur. Such mezuzahs should only be used for doorways that are to begin with not obligated in having a Mezuzah, such as the doors of the main sanctuary of a synagogue, or by doorways which are very tall in which case we follow the shoulder height and not the top third.

Now, all this is Lechatchila, however Bedieved, those who do so should not be quick to be told that it is invalid, as even if the entire mezuzah was placed below the one third mark there are Poskim who are lenient as we explained above, and certainly here where it is only partially below the one third mark by which we can perhaps apply the rule of Rubo Kekulo and the like. However, even they should be told that since it is very possible that the mezuzah is invalid even Bedieved, therefore they are to remove it and place a normal size mezuzah by the doorpost [with a blessing], and perhaps donate the large Mezuzah to the entrance of the main sanctuary of a Shul.

Sources: See Michaber Y.D. 289:2; Tur 289:2; Shaareiy Mezuzah 289:19-20; Not to place any part of the Mezuzah parchment below the 1/3 mark: See Daas Kedoshim 285; Mezuzas Melachim 289 Halacha Lemoshe 54; Yabia Omer 2 Y.D. 21; Pischei Mezuzos Chazan 289:24; Pi Kohen p. 342; Divrei Shalom Y.D. 126; Aryeh Shaeg Kuf and Daas Noteh 448 in name of Rav Kanievsky that the case may be below the 1/3 mark; Shaareiy Mezuzah 289 footnote 34 Dispute between Shmuel and Rav Huna: Menachos 33a; Beis Yosef 289:2; Bach on Tur 289:4; Ruling like Rebbe Yossi and Shmuel that must place within top third: Eruvin 46b; Rambam Mezuzah 6:12; Tur 289:2; Michaber 289:2; Placing within Tefach of top of doorpost: See Shaareiy Mezuzah 289 footnote 36; Not allowed: Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid; Bach ibid; Taz ibid; Shelah 2 Misehech Chulin; Chayeh Adam 15:17; Derech Hachaim; Kitzuer SHU”A ibid; All Poskim in Bedieved!  Allowed: Tur 289:2 in  name of Rosh; Rosh Hilchos Mezuzah 10; Pasul Bedieved: Michaber ibid; Bach 289:4; Sefer Haeshkol 2:76; Kitzur SHU”A 11:5; Yabia Omer 2 Y.D. 21 Kosher Bedieved: Taz 289:3 in name of Beis Yosef; Tur ibid as explained in Beis Yosef ibid; Biur Hagr”a 289:7; Aruch Hashulchan 289:10; Ben Ish Chaiy Savo 2:7 Replace without Bracha: Ben Ish Chaiy Savo 2:7; Kitzur SHU”A 11:5; Placing partially within top Tefach: See Shaareiy Mezuzah 289:21; Mutar: Sdei Chemed Kelalim Mareches Mem Kelal 125; Poskim in Shaareiy Mezuzah ibid footnote 37; Assur: Mezuzas Melachim ibid; Yabia Omer ibid; Poskim in Shaareiy Mezuzah ibid footnote 37;  Placed below the top third: See Shaareiy Mezuzah 289 footnote 34; Pasul Bedieved: Shach 289:4; Taz 289:3; Bach 289:4; Beis Yosef 289:2 in implication of Rambam and Menachos ibid in negation of Rabbeinu Manoach [writes this twice!]; Darkei Moshe Haruch 289:6; Derech Hachaim 2; Maharsham 3:219 Kosher Bedieved: Tur ibid as explained in Beis Yosef ibid; Rabbeinu Manoach, brought and negated in Beis Yosef ibid; Minchas Pitim; Ben Ish Chaiy Savo 2:7 that may rely on this opinion if Dochek Gadol Replace without Bracha: Ben Ish Chaiy Savo 2:7; Chayeh Adam 15:17; Yabia Omer 2 Y.D. 21; Replace with a Bracha: Kitzur SHU”A 11:5;  Placing by shoulder height by very tall doorpost: Taz 289:3; Shach 289:4; Levush 289; Beis Yosef 289; Mordechai Remez 561; Shaareiy Mezuzah 289:22;  Placing precisely at the one-third mark: Required initially: Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid; Arizal in Taamei Hamitzvos Vaeschanon; Birkeiy Yosef 289; Shelah Ner Mitzvah 36; Derech Hachaim; Yad Haketana 3:11; Mikdash me’at 289:12; Ben Ish Chaiy Savo 2:7 Yabia Omer 2 Y.D. 21;  Not required even initially: Shach in Nekudos Hakesef 289:2; Teshuvah Meahava 3; Yad Shaul 289:4; Exemption of Shul from mezuzah: See Michaber and Rama 286:3; Shach 286:2; See regarding that no part of the Tefillin may be below the hairline even bedieved: Admur 27:14; Taz 27:10 as understood by some Poskim; Beis Yaakov 131; Elya Raba 27:10; Divrei Yosef 63; Yad Ahron on Hagahos Hatur; Soles Belula 27:3; Shalmei Tzibur p. 37; Birkeiy Yosef 27 Shiyurei Bracha 1; Kesher Guda 3:10; Siddur Beis Oved; Mamar Mordechai 27:8; P”M 27 M”Z 10; Shaareiy Teshuva 27:15; Kitzur SHU”A 10:3; M”B 27:33; Kaf Hachaim 27:38; Divrei Chaim 2:6; Likkutei Maharich; Os Chaim Veshalom 27:15; Maharshag 1:7; Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that only the Ketzitza [Bayis] must be placed above the hairline while the Titura may be placed below the hairline. [Taz 27:10 as understood by Beis Yaakov 131, although argues on the Taz; Gan Hamelech 153; Olas Tamid 27:8; Implication of Elya Raba 27:10, brought in P”M and Kaf Hachaim ibid; Daas Kedoshim 27] Other Poskim rule that if majority of the Tefillin is above the hairline, it is valid. [Birchas Habayis 38:18; Devar Yehoshua 4:11 that so was custom of some Tzadikim; Ashel Avraham Butchach 27 in his initial suggestion, although does not conclude this way] See Os Chaim Veshalom and other Poskim ibid who completely negate this approach

Summary:

Placement of the Mezuzah Klaf: Ideally, the entire mezuzah parchment (klaf), not just the written words, must be placed within the upper third of the doorway. Placing any part of the parchment below this area is against the ruling of many halachic authorities and may invalidate the mitzvah.

Large Mezuzahs on Normal Doorways: Thus, extra-long mezuzahs should not be used on standard-height doors if any part of the parchment extends below the upper third. This practice is not considered a hiddur (enhancement) and may compromise the mitzvah’s validity.

Placement for Tall Doorways: On very tall doorways, the correct placement is at shoulder height, not strictly within the upper third. In such cases, larger mezuzahs are appropriate.

Initial vs. After-the-Fact Placement: Lechatchila (initially), the mezuzah must be placed properly. If placed incorrectly (e.g., below the upper third), it should be replaced, without a blessing, if the door is obligated in a mezuzah. Some authorities allow leniency after the fact (bedieved), but the mezuzah should still be replaced.

Mezuzah Case (Nartic): The mezuzah case may extend below the upper third, but the parchment itself must remain within the required area.

Minimum Distance from Top of Doorpost: According to some authorities (Rambam, Shulchan Aruch), the mezuzah should not be placed within 8 cm of the top of the doorpost. If placed there, it is invalid according to many, but some are lenient after the fact, recommending replacement without a blessing.

Precise Placement at One-Third Mark: Ideally, placement should begin precisely at the bottom of the upper third. Some customs allow placement in the middle of the upper third, and this is considered valid after the fact.