At the end of Hilchos Mezuzah, the Shulchan Aruch rules that when one leaves the home that they are renting, they should not take down the Mezuzos.
This ruling is based on a Braisa in Mesechta Bava Metzia. The Braisa concludes with an account of someone who removed their Mezuzos when they left their home and their wife and children passed away prematurely R”L. The Rif quotes the Braisa in full as Halacha, including the story. It is understood that the story is teaching that removing Mezuzos is a matter of Sakanah.
Some explain that the reason the Mezuzos should not be taken down was due to a concern that the second tenant may be lax in putting up Mezuzos. It is questionable why this reason would result in such serious repercussions.
The Poskim write that one may not take the Mezuzos down, even if they stipulated that they intended to do so at the time they put the Mezuzos up. One may also not ask a non-Jew or child to take down the Mezuzos.
What if they will be put up elsewhere?
Some of the Geonim, including Rav Hai and Rav Acha, are of the opinion that if the Mezuzos will be immediately placed on a new dwelling, they may be removed without concern. This is also the opinion of one answer in Tosfos. In their view, the issue is that removing the Mezuzah is disrespectful to the Mezuzah. If it will be placed on another door, the concern will no longer apply.
Their view is not generally followed, since it pertains to a matter of Sakanah and we follow the opinion that the Mezuos may not be taken down even if they will be put up elsewhere immediately.
The Nimukei Yosef quoting Ritva, explains why this is different to Tzitzis, which may be untied from one garment and placed in another garment. The Mezuzah causes the Shechina to rest in the house and therefore it should not be removed. Tosfos, in the second answer, writes that the Mezuzah is different because it protects from Mazikin – harmful forces.
If the new tenant is a non-Jew
If one is renting from a non-Jew, they should remove the Mezuzos when leaving the house. This applies even if in most cases the house will be leased to another Jew.
Similarly, even if the house is owned by a Jew, if the new tenant is not Jewish, the Mezuzos should be taken down. If the owner is Jewish and one knows that the new tenant will be Jewish, they must leave the Mezuzos up.
The reason for this is because the Mezuzos may come to be mistreated and disrespected in the hands of a non-Jew. Alternatively, seeing the Mezuzah on the door may lead a Jew to think that the owner is a Jew and this may bring them to harm. In these cases the Sakanah does not apply.
What if the non-Jew asks that the Mezuzos be left up and it will cause Eivah (ire) if we do not comply? There is a dispute as to whether one may give a Mezuzah to a non-Jew (who is trusted to respect it). The Mahari”l rules that they may not be given a Mezuzah even if there will be Eivah. The Ram”o rules leniently.
The Birkei Yosef takes a middle position. Whilst one may not actively give a Mezuzah to a non-Jew to avoid Eivah, the Mezuzos that are already up may be left in place to avoid Eivah, as this would be a passive manner (שב ואל תעשה).
One may remove Mezuzos to have them checked.
The Birkei Yosef rules that in a Shaas Hadechak, where one will be moving into a new dwelling and will be unable to procure Mezuzos in any other way, the opinion of the Geonim may be relied upon.
Where the new tenant is ready to put up their own Mezuzos immediately, the Birkei Yosef writes that the concerns would not apply. Since they will go up immediately as the old ones are removed, there is no concern of Mazikin entering the house and there is no concern of the house being left without Mezuzos. Nonetheless, he concludes that we apply the dictum Lo Pelug and are stringent even if the reasons do not apply.
Does the new tenant have to pay?
Chochmas Manoach writes that since this is the established Halacha and practise, it is as though it was stipulated that the first tenant would leave the Mezuzos in place. Therefore, the second tenant is not obligated to pay for them.
The Ram”o writes that if one is Makpid on the value of the Mezuzos, the new tenant is required to pay for them. Based on the reason that the Mezuzos are left up to protect the new tenant, it would be logical that they should pay for the Mezuzos.
If one has expensive, Mehudar Mezuzos, most Poskim allow one to substitute them with less Mehudar Mezuzos which they will leave up when moving out. A minority of Poskim object to this as it is a Haarama (trick) and especially as there is an issue of Sakana.
The concern only applies to the Mezuzah scroll itself. One may switch the Mezuzah cases without concern in order to put it up elsewhere.
If the new tenant wants to put up their own Mezuzos, they may certainly take down the original Mezuzos and return the old Mezuzos to the previous tenant.
If the new tenant is a non-Jew If one is renting from a non-Jew, they should remove the Mezuzos when leaving the house. This applies even if in most cases the house will be leased to another Jew.
Similarly, even if the house is owned by a Jew, if the new tenant is not Jewish, the Mezuzos should be taken down. If the owner is Jewish and one knows that the new tenant will be Jewish, they must leave the Mezuzos up.
The reason for this is because the Mezuzos may come to be mistreated and disrespected in the hands of a non-Jew. Alternatively, seeing the Mezuzah on the door may lead a Jew to think that the owner is a Jew and this may bring them to harm. In these cases the Sakanah does not apply.
What if the non-Jew asks that the Mezuzos be left up and it will cause Eivah (ire) if we do not comply? There is a dispute as to whether one may give a Mezuzah to a non-Jew (who is trusted to respect it). The Mahari”l rules that they may not be given a Mezuzah even if there will be Eivah. The Ram”o rules leniently.
The Birkei Yosef takes a middle position. Whilst one may not actively give a Mezuzah to a non-Jew to avoid Eivah, the Mezuzos that are already up may be left in place to avoid Eivah, as this would be a passive manner (שב ואל תעשה).
One may remove Mezuzos to have them checked.
The Birkei Yosef rules that in a Shaas Hadechak, where one will be moving into a new dwelling and will be unable to procure Mezuzos in any other way, the opinion of the Geonim may be relied upon.
Where the new tenant is ready to put up their own Mezuzos immediately, the Birkei Yosef writes that the concerns would not apply. Since they will go up immediately as the old ones are removed, there is no concern of Mazikin entering the house and there is no concern of the house being left without Mezuzos. Nonetheless, he concludes that we apply the dictum Lo Pelug and are stringent even if the reasons do not apply.
Chochmas Manoach writes that since this is the established Halacha and practise, it is as though it was stipulated that the first tenant would leave the Mezuzos in place. Therefore, the second tenant is not obligated to pay for them.
The Ram”o writes that if one is Makpid on the value of the Mezuzos, the new tenant is required to pay for them. Based on the reason that the Mezuzos are left up to protect the new tenant, it would be logical that they should pay for the Mezuzos.
If one has expensive, Mehudar Mezuzos, most Poskim allow one to substitute them with less Mehudar Mezuzos which they will leave up when moving out. A minority of Poskim object to this as it is a Haarama (trick) and especially as there is an issue of Sakana.
The concern only applies to the Mezuzah scroll itself. One may switch the Mezuzah cases without concern in order to put it up elsewhere.
If the new tenant wants to put up their own Mezuzos, they may certainly take down the original Mezuzos and return the old Mezuzos to the previous tenant.
