10

If there is a general purpose room (like a bedroom) wherein a child's soiled diapers are often disposed of, does that room take on the status of tashmish she'aino shel kavod - a room who's use is not dignified (Yoreh Deah 286:4), and therefore becomes exempt from mezuzah?

Improve this question
3
  • 2
    +1 for an interesting question! I imagine that you would want to differentiate between a room in which such diapers are habitually disposed of and one set aside for that purpose... Otherwise, would this not be similar to having a mezuzah on the door of a child's bedroom, when the child habitually soils the bed?
    – Shimon bM
    May 20, 2013 at 14:29
  • 2
    @ShimonbM to clarify, my understanding is that there is no mezuzah on a bathroom because that room is designated for 'non-kavod' activities. I'm asking about a room where a child is normally changed and where the diapers are regularly disposed of before being taken out of the house. I want to know if a room like that has the same status l'gabei mezuzah. As far as I know there is no room designated for children to soil themselves.
    – user2110
    May 20, 2013 at 14:49
  • I don't have a source right now, but baby diapers are not the same category as non-baby excrement.
    – avi
    Dec 9, 2013 at 18:18

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

The Ben Ish Chai sefer 2 Parshas Ki Tovah halacha 20 says that if one goes in and out and uses the place like a cattle room (as long as it is not disgusting) then it has a status of a room. A room where women wash themselves it would seem they don't need a mezuzah but if there is a door and it is locked during use then one is obligated in mezuzah from the outside.

A bathroom, or bathhouse, tannery, or mikvah are not a dwelling of honor and are patur (exempt).

It seems that there is an in-between type case which if one uses the place in an kovadik (honorable) way sometimes it is fine, but if it is always dirty then it is patur.

This is all speculation, please read it inside. I brought this as source because it seems to answer your question, but it can be debated.

Improve this answer
3
  • I'm going to review the source. I wasn't clear from your answer how this resolves the questions directly.
    – user2110
    May 21, 2013 at 13:57
  • See Aruch Hashulchan 286:5,6,7 for more info.
    – sam
    May 21, 2013 at 16:53
  • 1
    Sam, I found a relevant entry in the aruch hashulchan 286:11. Would you like to incorporate into your answer? Otherwise I will post it separately as an answer
    – user2110
    May 24, 2013 at 13:06

You must log in to answer this question.