Bind Tefillin on the Arm
Verse: וקשרתם לאות על ידך
Command: Bind Tefillin on the Arm
Devarim 6:8
SMG
- [it is a positive Mitzvah] to tie Tefillin on the arm, as it says in the verse[i] וקשרתם לאות על ידך.
And with regard to the Tefillin of the arm we’ve also said if the container was pierced and the Tefillin can be seen, that is not worrisome, as we learnt in Gemara[ii] the question, ‘doesn’t the master[1] hold that the verse לך לאות teaches that it should be a sign for the wearer, not the observer [and with the container pierced, the parchment is open for viewing by the observers][2] why then does it say with regard to the Tefillin of the arm “לך – for you”?’ He answered him, that term is telling us where it should be placed[3].
[on making the parchment]
The leather / parchment on which the Parshas are written, and also from which the straps are made, as is the material from which the containers are made – must be from a kosher animal, domesticated or wild, as it says[iii] למען תהיה תורת ה’ בפיך from which we learn that the Tefillin must be made from [the type of material] permitted in the mouth – even if they be from dead carcasses [i.e., not slaughtered ritually] [α], as we learnt[4] in Gemara[iv] – and when being processed [from skin to parchment or leather] it needs to be processed with the intent of fulfilling the Mitzvah, which follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who said[v] they must be processed for the intent of the Mitzvah[5], like Rava explained that simply ordering it is not anything, and like Rav Avahu rules[vi].
[on writing the contents of the Tefillin]
[The Parshas in the Tefillin] must be written specifically for the holiness therein, and not simply in thought [meaning the intention must be expressed, and not just something known in the back of the mind of the scribe. Unlike a Sefer Torah, Tefillin need not be processed using gall [see also the discussion on positive Mitzvah 25]. Furthermore, the Gemara[vii] identifies the rules of the three (3) types of parchment[6], גויל, קלף, ודוכסוסטוס were explained there. Tefillin should only be written on the side of the interior – which is קלף. Our parchment[viii], since we write Tefillin on them, it must be they have the rules of קלף, and we write on the white side [β].
We write using ink[ix] and it is permitted to add ארמנט [γ] into the ink, since this is not the קנקנתום {chalcanthum} [γ] that the Gemara[x] argues about.
One must[xi] rule (indent lines into the parchment) the Tefillin [the equivalent amount of] four (4) lines [of writing] as a margin surrounding [the body of the text], but one does not need to rule [an additional line] between each line[7].
[While] a Sefer Torah may have suspended skipped [words][8], we do not do that for Tefillin and Mezuzos, as we learnt in the Yerushalmi[xii]. The reason being, as we learnt from the Mechilta[xiii] that if one wrote them [Tefillin and / or Mezuzos] out of order, they need to be buried.
It is forbidden for a person to dictate [what needs to be written] to the scribe, unless the scribe also reads out loud [from the source text] what he is writing before he writes it – in order to ensure he doesn’t err, as we learnt from the Gemara[xiv] where Hashem would say [the words to be written], and Moshe would say it [aloud] and write it[9]. [All] these rules will be explained in detail and at length in positive Mitzvah 25.
[on inserting the scrolls]
The Tefillin of the head need to be[xv] written on קלף parchment, on the white side and the four (4) Parshas should be written on four (4) [separate] pieces of קלף parchment. However, if [this wasn’t possible for some reason, and instead] it was written on one (1) long piece of קלף parchment [δ], each parsha on its own column, that fulfils the requirement. The Parshas should be placed in one (1) leather container, which has four (4) compartments – not in four (4) leather containers, each with its own compartment. The Tefillin of the hand should be written on a single קלף parchment, all four (4) Parshas in four (4) columns. However, if [this wasn’t possible for some reason, and instead] it was written on four (4) קלף parchments [each parsha on its own קלף parchment] that fulfills the obligation. It should be placed in a single leather container, based on the Gemara’s[xvi] suggestion regarding a person who [doesn’t have a complete set of Tefillin, and instead only] has two (2) Tefillin of the head – meaning they have never been worn on the head, and have not taken on the sanctity [ε] of the Tefillin of the head[10] – he should place one of them within a [single] leather container to cover over the separation between the compartments, and then it would be kosher to be placed on the hand. This implies that if [the Tefillin of the hand] were written on separate קלף parchments, it would still be kosher [ζ].
[on writing the letters]
The Tefillin must[xvii] be written with the right (dominant) hand.
Rabbi Nosson says, “… the verse[xviii] [compares] וקשרתם to וכתבתם just like one binds the Tefillin [onto the left arm] with the right hand, so too one writes the Tefillin with the right hand.”
Someone who is left-handed should write with his left hand, which is the ‘right’ (dominant) hand for him [η]. A person who is ambidextrous should write with the most common right hand [the actual right hand].
If a drop of ink fell into the space of a letter ב or ח or another letter, and now cannot be identified as its original shape, or if the left leg of the letter מ touched the base of the letter – which now makes it a ם, or if the letter ר became a letter ד (by a drop of ink falling on the top right corner of the letter) in such cases, it would not help to erase the drop and shave with a razor, because doing so would violate the rule[11] of חק תוכות [xix] [θ] – which would render Sefer Torahs, Tefillin and Mezuzos פסול. For a גט it would not help to pass over the quill, neither according to the opinion of[xx] the Rabbanan nor Rabbi Yehudah, because [even] if it would help on a letter which had been written unintentionally, [to pass over it with the quill and] make it equal to a letter written intentionally, it would not help to make it to be considered a letter.
[Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav] each letter must[xxi] be surrounded on all four (4) sides by empty space. If one letter touched its friend, fixing it helps, and that would not be considered חק תוכות. The Yerushalmi[xxii] however renders kosher a letter that touches another at their base [ι], but if it touches at the top then it is פסול – and if it touches in the middle, that is unresolved. If the parchment was pierced within the empty space inside the letter, even if the hole fills the entire space, it is still Kosher, as proven in our Gemara – however the Yerushalmi also requires the letter to retain its interior space.
One is required[xxiii] to leave a margin both above and below [κ] as much as the space of the [ν] אטבא of the scribes [κ] – which our Geonim have measured as half a nail. And on the right a little bit [κ], not enough to roll the surrounding. The lines should not be of varying lengths but should be uniform in length. And each parsha must be tied with the hair of a kosher animal, as we learnt in Gemara[xxiv] a Halaĉa transmitted directly from Moshe at Sinai, that the Tefillin are tied with hair, and sewn with sinew – meaning from a kosher animal just like they themselves [are made from]. It is good to use ox hair, as we learnt in the שימושא רבה to atone for the story with the [golden] calf[12]. There are those who tie each parsha separately with kosher קלף before placing them in the compartments. And it is good to tie with מטלית as we learnt from the Yerushalmi. Rabeinu Moshe writes[xxv] that each parsha should be tied with מטלית, which is the opposite of what the Yerushalmi said: The Halaĉa from Moshe at Sinai is that [Tefillin] should be written on skin (parchment), with ink, and מסרגלין with a reed, and tied with hair, and hung with מטלית, and glued with glue, and sewn with their sinew [λ]. Some people explain the requirement to use glue [λ] applies with a ripped Sefer Torah – which tore in the middle of the section, [and the requirement to sew with sinew] refers to sewing each section to the next. The world has become accustomed to sewing tears in the middle with silk.
[on the order of insertion]
The ruling on the order of how the Parshas should be placed in the compartments, according to Rabeinu Shlomo[xxvi] is [based on] from the right of the person [who would theoretically be] reading it[13] [μ] – the person standing opposite the one placing the Tefillin [an observer facing the wearer, from the observers right to his left] the parsha of[xxvii] קדש to the far right of the reader, followed by in the second compartment[xxviii] והיה כי יביאך, then afterwards in the third compartment[xxix] שמע ישראל and then afterwards [to the far left] in the fourth compartment[xxx] והיה אם שמע. [since the Tefillin are placed in the center of the head] the result is that the Parshas of קדש and והיה כי יביאך are on the right side of the reader, which is the left of the person wearing them, and the Parshas of שמע and והיה אם שמע are on the left side of the reader, which is the right of the person wearing them. This is also how we have learnt from the Beraissa, and this is how Rabeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides) explains it. And this is also what we learned in שימושא רבה – and this is the order as it is written in the Torah. This was also in the Mechilta, which states if they were written out of order, they should be buried. However, Rav Sherira Gaon, Rav Hai Gaon his son, and Rabeinu Yaakov explain that the third compartment [should contain והיה כי יביאך, and the fourth compartment [should contain] שמע – the mnemonic for this is that both Parshas starting with והיה should be next to each other. Another mnemonic is that the letters ש embossed on the outside should be next to the letters ש written on the inside – קדש on one side, and שמע on the other. Regardless, they must be written in the order in which they are written in the Torah[14] as we learnt from the Mechilta.
And in the Tefillin of the arm, which is written on a single קלף parchment in four (4) columns, after writing the parsha of והיה כי יביאך in the second column, a space should be left [of sufficient size for והיה אם שמע] and in the fourth column שמע should be written, followed by והיה אם שמע in the third column – which would follow the order in which it is written in the Torah. Rabeinu Tam derived from this from the phraseology of the Beraissa which says קדש והיה כי יביאך from the right, and שמע והיה אם שמע from the left – implying[15] that the two Parshas of והיה are together, and the parsha of קדש is at the beginning on the right, while the parsha of שמע is at the beginning on the left. We’ve said in Gemara[xxxi] any outer house which does not see the air is פסול. And so said Rav, if the outer was switched for the inner, or the inner to the outer, פסול. If so, the order of Rabeinu Shlomo is פסול according to the words of the Gaon, and the order of the Geonim is פסול according to the words of Rabeinu Shlomo. [therefore] one who fears heaven, and is worried about reciting a ברכה in vain – if he were only to put on [tefillin] like the words of one of these Geonim, should therefore place both, two on the arm, with one ברכה , and two on the head with one ברכה since there is room in both the head and the arm to place both Tefillin, as we learnt in the Gemara[xxxii]. And if he doesn’t know how to exactly calculate the place [where the Tefillin go] and place them simultaneously, then one should put on Tefillin according to one opinion, remove them and place the second type depending on the ברכה made on the first pair. Even though he had a separation between one set of Tefillin on the arm and the other with the ברכה for the Tefillin of the head, which is still better than leaving the Tefillin not worn at all [#]. Nevertheless, in the lands of the Edom and Yishmael (the arabs and muslims) the custom is to follow the words of Rabeinu Shlomo (Rashi) and Rabeinu Moshe (Rambam). They’ve also sent a letter than a platform that was on top of the gravesite of Yeĉezkel[16] fell down, and they found there very old Tefillin written in the order of the opinions of Rabeinu Moshe and Rashi.
That the straps must be black on the exterior is a Halaĉa from Moshe at Sinai, and perhaps [&] similarly the leather housing must be black. The leather housing may be made of קלף parchment worked for that purpose, and even though it would be very thin, it is still called leather, since we learnt in Gemara regarding writing[xxxiii] they should be written on four ‘skins’[17]. And it is possible to make קלף parchment from the skin of an embryo. And some say this is even better since it has never been involved in the gross act of sex. It is correctly termed skin since that would be no less worthy of the term than skin of a kosher bird, as we learnt in the Gemara[xxxiv] even though as far as Tum’ah it [the skin of a bird] is considered like meat – since the Gemara[xxxv] considers skin to be like meat.
[embossing the letter ש on the outside surface of Tefillin of the head]
Abaya said[xxxvi] the letter ש [on the outside of the Tefillin] is a Halaĉa from Moshe at Sinai [*]. [The letter ש] is made on the right of the reader, with protruding leather from the walls of the container. The ש is made on either side [on the right and left of the reader]; the one on the right has three (3) heads, and the one on the left has four (4) heads – meaning it should have two (2) letters י inside it[18], as we learnt in שימושא רבה.
[on other rules related to the Tefillin containers]
We learnt in Gemara[xxxvii] that the חריץ-indentation must reach the place of the sewing [which is the base of the container of the Tefillin] – meaning the outline of the Shin on the outside must be drawn down until it reaches the place of the sewing. But Rabeinu Shlomo explained that the חריץ is the separation between the compartments; the partition must reach all the way to the place where it is sewn. In the Beraissa there we also learnt that if the חריצין are not recognizable, then the container is פסול. Rav Ĉananel said in the name of Rav, תיתורא of Tefillin is a Halaĉa from Moshe at Sinai. Abaya said, the מעברתא of Tefillin is a Halaĉa from Moshe at Sinai. Rabeinu Shlomo explained [the מעברתא as] after the scrolls are inserted into the compartments, one is ends all the compartments, except for the leather of the fourth compartment, which is left long and folded over to cover the entrance of the compartments [ξ] – this is called the ‘House’ the place where all the compartments rest. תיתורא is from the term meaning bridge, and מעברתא is from the same leather which is folded over below, from which is made a protrusion doubled outside the containers into which the strap is inserted – which can then be pulled in either direction and it [the strap] passes through that folded over hole [which can be accessed] from either side, where there is no sewing. There are those who (form the Tefillin ‘house’ from two separate pieces of leather – one to hold the parchments, and one to hold the container holding the parchments as well as the strap, as we will explain here) seal up the leather along the entire bottom of the four (4) compartments, and they take other leather and they make inside its head like a pocket, and they insert the four (4) containers there, and the second side is folded over to make the תיתורא and the מעברתא, as I explained above. There are some who explain that מעברתא is the term for the process of placing a second piece of leather on the ‘house’ for the arm, from one side to the other.
We learnt there in the Gemara that the Halaĉa from Moshe at Sinai is that the Tefillin need to be square (cubed). Rav said, [this applies] to where they are sewn and in an אלכסון,[19] which, as explained [by Rashi], is the leather which is doubled over below – which is the תיתורא, is sewn together with the leather of the compartments all the way around to form the square. And there should also be corners of the sewing [meaning the sewing itself should follow a square pattern, with 90° angles]. The measurement to determine [if there is an אלכסון] is; כל אמתא בריבוע אמתא ותרי חומשי באלכסונה ולא ארכה יתר על רחבה – for every length when squared [when measuring the diagonal from one corner to the other, the measurement will be], the length of the diagonal will be [an additional] two-fifths of the length. With the length not being greater than the width [meaning, square and not rectangular].[20]
The sewing[xxxviii] must be done using sinews from a טהור animal, and the שימושא רבה writes that there should be twelve (12) stitches corresponding to the tribes of Yisroel. And if there are only ten (10) [stitches] that is kosher, since if you remove the tribe of royalty [ο] and the tribe of Kohanim – which are Yehudah and Levi[21] – there are ten (10) left. And if [one sewed] fourteen (14) stitches corresponding to the addition of Menashe and Ephraim[22], that is good – except where it goes in and out; meaning besides the three (3) places where the compartments separate [one from the other – in between each of the four (4) compartments is a separation] he should pass the sewing thread from one side to the other through the Ĉaritz. This is what the Gemara[xxxix] says that the drawing thread should be placed between each of them, and if the sewing ripped in those three (3) places they can’t be fixed – all the stitches have to be redone, as we learnt in Yerushalmi[xl] ‘Rabbi Yirmiyah[23] had a “גידא דרצועה” of his which broke. The first two times this happened, the sages [Rav Huna and Rav Ketina] permitted [its repair] [π] and continued use, but not based on what they had learnt.’ [The SMG notes] I have received a tradition that the ‘strap’ that broke which was referenced by the Yerushalmi was the sinews, which broke again and again and a third time, since for Rabbi Yirmiyah it broke twice besides the first time that it broke, and they permitted it. This is also borne out from the Gemara[xli] where [Rav Aĉa the son of Rav Yosef] asks [Rav Ashi], ‘what about sewing and inserting the stitch inside (so that it won’t be noticeable)?’ [the SMG notes] this question is referring to the straps, to which [Rav Ashi] answered, ‘go and look at what the people do.’ Which Rabeinu Yaakov explains is being more lenient than the Yerushalmi, unlike the explanation of Rabeinu Shlomo who took this Gemara as being stricter [than the Yerushalmi]. This is also proven from the use of the term רצועה-strap, since a קציצה-stitch is not called a strap.
[speaking of the straps]
The rule as to the length of the strap was said in Gemara[xlii] until the middle finger [ρ], which only applies to the Tefillin of the arm. Similarly, the שימושא רבה and Rav Alfas both note:
the right strap [of the Tefillin of the head] goes to the belly, and the left [strap of the Tefillin of the head] goes to the thigh, and the [strap of the Tefillin of the] arm goes until the middle finger – and it should be trebled three times: meaning it should be wrapped around the middle finger three (3) times. The width of the strap should be more [wide] than wheat and less wide than barley[24], but if it was wider or narrower than that, it makes no difference.
That is what is written there. The Rav, Rabbi Boruch wrote that if the strap tore and it is less than that measurement[25], it cannot be repaired, not to tie [the torn piece] nor to sew it on. However, according to the tradition I received that would be permitted, which is also implied from the words of the Rav Rabbi Eliezer or Mitz.
And one must be careful when putting on Tefillin that the strap shouldn’t flip over, as Rav Naĉman said, ‘the painted side should be on the outside’.[26]
[on tying the knot]
The knot of the Tefillin is a Halaĉa from Moshe at Sinai, meaning that the [letter] ש embossed on either side of the container for the Tefillin of the head, the letter ד [formed] in the knot of the [Tefillin of the] head, and the knot of the [Tefillin of the] hand has a bit of the strap passing through, and it appears like a [letter] י, and that is how the name [of G‑d Almighty] is made; שד-י. However, Rabeinu Yitzĉok does not agree with this, since there is nowhere [*] that is mentioned neither the ד nor the י, rather the knot is called the place of the ד.[27] [Elsewhere] in Gemara[xliii] it was proven that there are no letters in the straps with regard to someone who needs the straps [on Shabbos, where the Gemara notes] ‘there is no Torah there’ [ς], while before that the Gemara notes that the [letter] ש [embossed on the outside of the Tefillin container] is called a Torah. And if the [letters] names of ד and י were present in the straps, they would also be called a Torah.
[on the placement of Tefillin on the body]
How is the order in which they are put on? First the Tefillin of the arm is put on, as the verse says וקשרתם לאות על ידך, and one makes the ברכה of להניח תפילין. And then the [Tefillin] of the head is put on, and one makes the ברכה of על מצות תפילין, since after the positive Mitzvah of the [Tefillin of the] hand is written והיו לטטפת בין עיניך [meaning the order in the verse is the order in which the Tefillin are put on]. Our sages have said that so long as they are בין עיניך there should be two (2).[28] And therefore, when removing the Tefillin, one first removes the [Tefillin] of the head, and they are placed in their bag, and then the [Tefillin] of the hand is removed and placed on top of the [Tefillin] of the head inside the bag. And now, when you want to put them on, you will find that the [Tefillin] of the hand is ready [first] because if you were to place [the Tefillin of the hand] in the bag underneath the [Tefillin] of the head, you would need to pass over [the performance of] the Mitzvah[29] [of putting the Tefillin on the head] in order to put the Tefillin of the head on the side, until the [Tefillin] of the hand were in place. This is what was talked about in Gemara[xliv] עבורי דרעא אטוטפתא אסירא – meaning to precede [the placement of the Tefillin] of the arm in the bag to the [placement of the Tefillin of] the head is forbidden for the reason we have stated. The term עבורי means to pass-over similar to the verse[xlv] ויעבור את הכושי.[30]
[The Tefillin of the arm] are placed on the left hand, [based on] ידכה, [which means] the weak hand.[31] And also, it says וכתבתם and וקשרתם; just like the writing needs to be done with the right hand, so too the tying [of the Tefillin] needs to be done with the right hand. And if he is a lefty, he should place it on the right hand [from the rest of] the world’s perspective – which is his personal left hand. If he is ambidextrous, he should place it on the universal left hand.
The Tefillin is placed on the arm, in the place where the meat gathers [where the bicep muscle bunches up] where over there is the קיבורת, which is the term for the ‘gathering’ of the muscle like for example[xlvi] קיבורא דאהיני which Rashi explains is a bunch of dates. The Tosefta[xlvii] asks from where do we know that the arm-זרוע is also called יד [which is typically translated as ‘hand’] from the verse[xlviii] ותהיינה העבתים אשר על זרועותיו כפשתים אשר בערו באש וימסו אסוריו מעל ידיו.[32] The Tefillin should be intended to be opposite the heart, as it says[xlix] ושמתם את דברי אלה על לבבכם from which the Gemara[l] learns that [the Tefillin of the arm] needs to be placed opposite the heart. In the Mishna[li] also is proven that the זרוע is the bone which connects on one side to the shoulder and on the second head it is connected to the elbow[33], known as the קוד”א in the common tongue (French – coude). Which [placement] means it can literally be placed opposite the heart.
The Tefillin of the head – its place is where the brain [skull] if an infant is soft[34] [σ]. There is space there to place two Tefillin. In Gemara[lii] we learnt a comparison between the term בין עיניך [referencing the place where the Tefillin are placed] and the verse[liii] ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם [see negative Mitzvah 62]. Just like [the idolatrous practice is done] at the height of the head, so too here. The knot of the Tefillin should be stuck on the head above the back of the neck, but not on the neck, [symbolizing] that the Jews should be elevated – as stated in the Gemara. The width of the knot should be two (2) fingerbreadths wide as we stated in the שימושא רכה, but if it was more or less, that doesn’t matter.
[on reciting the ברכה for Tefillin]
The Gemara determines the time frame for when the ברכה should be made as being between when they are placed [on the arm] [τ] until they are tied – that is fixed into place when placing them, like[liv] the placenta tied to the fetus – since if it would be truly knotted each time the Tefillin were placed, than the Halaĉa which we learned in Gemara[lv] would not make sense; where we learnt that taking Tefillin outside on Shabbos is forbidden. The Gemara there implies that this [prohibition] is in relation to new Tefillin [υ], which when placing them for the first time on his head forms the permanent knot – since prior to that they hadn’t been knotted. But old Tefillin are permitted, implying that with old Tefillin they do not need to be knotted anew every day. Even with the Tefillin of the hand even though the Torah says וקשרתם, they do not need to be knotted every day, as is implied in the Mishna[lvi] [where it says] there are eight (8) knots which do not require that water enter them while immersing [in a Mikva], and included in the list is the knot of the Tefillin of the head, when it is fixed [tight][35], and the knot of the Tefillin of the arm, when it doesn’t ‘go up and down’ meaning it is fixed, and isn’t a slip knot like ours. Since it doesn’t need to be untied when being immersed, one can learn that it is a permanent knot. The meaning of the term ‘אוצא’ means compressed, as in tied tightly, like the term איצצא in Gemara.[lvii]
[reciting the ברכה]
We learnt there in the Gemara that if one did not speak between the Tefillin of the arm and that of the head, he makes one (1) ברכה, but if he spoke, he makes two (2). Rav Yehuda’I Gaon, Rav Amram Gaon, and Rabeinu Yaakov have explained that when one didn’t speak, the only ברכה that is made is for the Tefillin of the head. But if he spoke, then he makes two (2) on the head. I [the SMG] also saw this in the Tanĉuma, that even if they [the Tefillin] were placed one after the other without a break for talking that he should make the ברכה on the Tefillin of the hand להניח and on the Tefillin of the head על מצות תפילין and not like the commentaries who say that if he hasn’t spoken [between the two] that he only makes one (1) ברכה – meaning that with one (1) ברכה that he blessed for the Tefillin of the hand, he has fulfilled his obligation [to make a ברכה on the Tefillin of the head[36]]. Even though we find in the Yerushalmi[lviii] [that one ברכה is sufficient when there hasn’t been an interruption], our Gemara is the main one [that a ברכה for each is required]. Furthermore, it is possible to say [even if for Halaĉic purposes we didn’t determine that the Babylonian Talmud is the main one, here we can argue that] the Yerushalmi was written[37] before Rabba bar bar Ĉana sent a missive in the name of Rabbi Yoĉanan that two (2) blessings are required.
The [wearing of the] Tefillin of the head is not required [to satisfy the Mitzvah of putting on the Tefillin] of the arm, and vice versa. If a person only puts on one of them, he makes both Beraĉos. When taking them off, the ברכה of לשמור חוקיו should not be made, or anything else – even if taking them off close to nightfall. The Gemara[lix] notes that there were those in the west who would make such a ברכה – as explained by the Yerushalmi[lx] that they were of the opinion that the verse ושמרת את החוקה הזאת למועדה מימים ימימה was referring to Tefillin, and it was teaching us that Tefillin must only be worn by day [which is why they made the ברכה believing they were fulfilling the commandment to remove the Tefillin at night]. However, that is not the Halaĉa. The verse is referring to the laws of the Korban Pesaĉ [which must be brought in the springtime – see positive Mitzvah 47]. [as for whether Tefillin should be worn at night] Rav Ashi said[lxi] the Halaĉa is that nighttime is also a time when Tefillin applies, but we do not teach this, since perhaps a person will sleep while wearing Tefillin, or pass gas while wearing Tefillin.
[on when to don Tefillin]
The time when Tefillin should be put on is in the morning. [~] Abaya said[lxii] the rule for Tefillin follows Aĉayrim who said that once a person can recognize his friend from a distance of four (4) Amos [that is when Tefillin should be put on]. The Yerushalmi explained[lxiii] [the type of friend that needs to be recognizable is] ‘one who is familiar but not familiar, like a person who goes to a guest house and comes and goes occasionally’. Meaning when you can recognize your friend that one isn’t accustomed to seeing often like a person who occasionally goes to a hotel.[38]
A person who has to wake early[lxiv] to travel and is concerned that the Tefillin will be lost (if he has to carry them in his luggage), he may put them on [before he sets out traveling] and once the time period arrives [as noted before, when it gets light enough] he fiddles with the Tefillin and makes the ברכה. Rabeinu Shimshon derived from this that when a person is going to go traveling before daybreak, and he is wearing Tzitzis [φ], he does not need to remove the Tallis once the day becomes light enough, in order to put them back on to make the ברכה – since he is touching them he can make the ברכה. [Rabeinu Shimshon issued this ruling] even though there is a difference between the Mitzvah of Tefillin and Tzitzis, where it is part of the Mitzvah of Tefillin to be touching them to make oneself aware of them, nevertheless, from a Halaĉic standpoint this isn’t enough of a difference[39] since later on the Gemara[lxv] will make a comparison between Tefillin and Tzitzis for the point of fiddling with them and making the ברכה.
We learnt in the Gemara[lxvi] that we do not put on Tefillin on Shabbos or Yom Tov since they are in themselves a Sign. On the mundane days of the holiday (Chol HaMoed) [χ] of Pesaĉ and Sukkos, there are those who say we still do not wear Tefillin since there is still the Sign – on Pesaĉ there is Matza and on Sukkos there is the Sukkah and the Lulav. However, the Yerushalmi[lxvii] implies that we do put them on [during those days], since there was this man who lost his Tefillin. He went to Rav Ĉananel, who sent him to Rabba bar bar Ĉana, who told his scribe, ‘Go give him your Tefillin, and write for yourself others.’ Since we learnt that a person could write [on Chol HaMoed] Tefillin for himself, but not for others[40]. [Presumably, this person did not want someone else’s Tefillin, so] he went before Rav who told his scribe, ‘Go write Tefillin for him.’ [Rav’s ruling seems to] explicitly contradict the Mishna, however, he can answer that the Mishna is referring to a prohibition against a scribe writing Tefillin for future use, not for immediate use. This is also how Rabbi Shimshon ben Avraham rules, and Rabeinu Yitzĉok bar Rabbi Boruch. As for the Sign on Pesaĉ and Sukkos, [the Sign] is that one is forbidden to do work – however since, as we explained there, work is permitted by the Torah during Chol HaMoed… [therefore there isn’t a pre-existing Sign, and one may indeed wear Tefillin][41].
[while wearing Tefillin]
[As noted previously] one must always be handling the Tefillin periodically while they are placed in his head and on his arm, in order that one’s attention not be diverted from them. This is derived from a fortiori with regard to the ציץ, in which there is only one (1) mention of G‑d Almighty’s name, still the Torah says[lxviii] והיה על מצחו תמיד – Tefillin which mentions many times G‑d Almighty’s name (22 to be precise) how much more so that they must be handled periodically. In the Gemara[lxix] we learnt Mar Zutra said, I’ve seen Rav Pappa that whenever he would put on Tefillin, he would make a ברכה. The Rabbis of the Yeshiva of Rav Ashi said, ‘whenever he would touch them, he would make a ברכה.’
[on the composition of the Parshas]
The scribe must be careful with regard to the Parshas[42] not to make a closed one into an open one or an open one into a closed one, which would render the Tefillin פסול. The first three (3) פרשיות are all open, while the fourth – which is והיה אם שמע is closed.[43] If a word was written with an extra letter, the Tefillin are פסול until the letter is removed. If a word was written missing a letter, then it is פסול and cannot be fixed[44].
This is the list of words which are lacking a letter, or have an extra letter, according to Rabeinu Moshe (the Rambam) – based on the original Sefer which was in Egypt, and it had twenty-four (24) books, and it was (temporarily) in Yerushalayim to allow scribes to check their work against it, and on this Sefer we rely since it was checked by Ben Asher who carefully edited it over many years, and checked it many times.
Rabeinu Moshe wrote that one must be careful in writing the serifs of the letters, which are like (small) letters ז standing on top of the letters which have serifs, as they are written in the Sefer Torah which was checked. If the crowns were not correctly added, or there were too many or too few, that does not render the Tefillin פסול.
In the laws of the Sefer Torah [see positive Mitzvah 25] it will be explained that the ending corner of the letter י [on the bottom] as well as the requirement that its head be bent [and not on a 45° angle on the top right] and also the physical attributes of the other letters will be explained there. We will also explain the rules if a letter gets punctured, or otherwise ruined in its body or legs. Everything will be explained there.
[on checking Tefillin]
[The Gemara[lxx] rules] one who buys Tefillin from a person who isn’t an expert [scribe], needs to have them checked. Once they have been checked and returned to their leather [compartments], or if they were purchased from an expert and haven’t been checked – they do not need to be checked further even for many years – so long as their seal remains complete, they are established to be kosher and we are not concerned that a letter might have become erased or puncture, as we learnt in the Mechilta, and as we learnt from the Yerushalmi[lxxi] that Hillel the Elder said, ‘these are the Tefillin of my maternal grandfather.’
The sages taught in the Gemara[lxxii] that Tefillin may be checked, meaning a person can check them to see if they are accurately written to contain the extra letters and to leave out the missing letters. Tefillin should not be purchased from any other than a professional, meaning preferably, because a decree was enacted that perhaps the buyer will wear them before they have been checked since it is difficult to remove the sewing and then sew them up again. A Sefer Torah and Mezuzos may also be checked and can be purchased from anyone since it is normal [and easy] to have them checked. We aren’t concerned at all that they might have been made improperly since everyone knows how to do this[45]. That is how the RY explained it.
[who must wear Tefillin]
We’ve determined in the Gemara[lxxiii] that one who is exempt from the obligation to recite שמע [see positive Mitzvah 18] is also exempt from the obligation to wear Tefillin[46]. Elsewhere in Gemara[lxxiv] we’ve stated that a child, once he is responsible enough to take care of his Tefillin, should have a set purchased for him by his father. We’ve also learned in the Gemara[lxxv] that person suffering from sickness in his abdomen is exempt from Tefillin.
[on the hygiene required]
Tefillin require a clean body, like Elisha of the Wings[47], as explained in the Gemara[lxxvi] that one may not sleep or pass gas while wearing them. Therefore, it is forbidden to sleep or even nap if they are resting in his hands, as explained in the Gemara[lxxvii], but if they are placed on his head, but his clothing is covering them, then he may temporarily nap for the length of time it takes to walk one hundred (100) Amos[48]. One may not eat with them a meal, but one may snack. If[lxxviii] one needs to use the restroom, even to urinate, one has to remove the Tefillin outside the four (4) Amos near the restroom and give them to a friend [to hold for him]. If there isn’t any friend nearby, or he is afraid someone will take them if he leaves them outside, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled the Halaĉa is they may be rolled up like a Sefer Torah, and health in the right hand near his heart [and then he can enter with them and do his business]. There are those who explain, [when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to roll them, he meant] they should be rolled up in his garment, which is implied from the Gemara where Rav Naĉman qualifies this by saying that there may not be a strap sticking out from his hand as much as a Tefaĉ. Here there is a slight implication [from Rav Naĉman] that they can be held in his hand without a garment [which would mean the Tefillin were miniscule if they can be completely enclosed by his hand.]
My teacher [the SMG’s teacher] Rabeinu Yehudah wrote that when there is no set place [i.e., a bathroom] to relieve oneself – it is permissible to urinate while the Tefillin remain on the head, because there is no reason to be concerned that perhaps he will defecate as well [in the open].[49]
If one forgot[lxxix] and entered the restroom while wearing Tefillin, he should place his [right] hand on them [to cover them] until he is finished the first pillar [of feces] because it is dangerous to attempt to stop in the middle. Elsewhere in Gemara[lxxx] we learned if he forgot [that he was wearing Tefillin] and had sex while wearing them[50] he should not touch them at all until he washes his hands. Nor should one walk in a cemetery while wearing Tefillin on his head within four (4) Amos of the dead or within four (4) Amos of a grave, as we learnt in the Gemara[lxxxi].
A house which has Tefillin or a Sefer Torah inside, it is forbidden to have sex there, unless they are removed or placed in a container – which container must be placed into another container which is not designated for that purpose. But if the second container was also designated [to hold the Tefillin or the Sefer Torah], then even have ten containers, one within the other would be considered as if it was a single container.[51] Once they are in a container within [a non-designated] container, then they can [even] be placed under his head between the pillow and blanket [underneath], but not directly under the head in order to guard them. [This can be done] even if his wife is sleeping with him in the same bed [and presumably there is the assumption that they will engage in sex]. The main discussion of these laws is in the Gemara[lxxxii].
In the שאלתות it says one should not give Tefillin to someone when going to the restroom, since the Gemara[lxxxiii] relates that Rabba bar bar Ĉana said concerning when he was following Rabbi Yoĉanan, and Rava said concerning when he was following Rav Naĉman, when they would go to the restroom, if they were holding a book of Aggadata they would give that to them [for safekeeping, and to be kept out of the restroom], but they would not give them the Tefillin to hold. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, one must place a separating wall in a house with a Sefer Torah, with a height of at least ten (10) Tefaĉim, without which it is forbidden to have sex in that house – and it is not sufficient to place it in a vessel within a vessel.
Above [see positive Mitzvah 3] I provided beautiful reasons regarding Tefillin that I expounded upon in public. Anyone who wears Tefillin extends their life, as it says in the verse[lxxxiv] ה’ עליהם יחיו.[52]
[1] Rav Ashi was studying by Amaymar who had a wound on his chest. In order not to chafe at the wound, Amaymar’s shirt was ripped, and it was possible to see the Tefillin on his arm.
[2] This is why the hand Tefillin have a separate box which remains covering the Tefillin even while it was worn. My teacher, Reb Volf Greenglass, would even go so far as to pull the arm sleeve down over his entire arm. If I remember correctly, when I asked him about it, he indicated it was for reasons of Tznius (as noted below), in addition to conforming to the above teaching. The Lubavitcher Rebbe though, wore short sleeves to my recollection, and thus the use of the sleeve to cover the entire arm was not an option.
[3] Under the terms of the rules of צניעות (which apply to men as well), the arm is supposed to be covered up until the elbow. Accordingly, placing something on the arm above the elbow will automatically be covered (by the shirt sleeve) and will not be for the observer, but only for the wearer.
The Gemara there also notes the opinion of Rabbi Yitzchok who derived the requirement as to the proper placement of the Tefillin of the hand from the verse ושמתם את דברי אלה על לבבכם… וקשרתם – that the Tefillin need to be affixed ‘on the heart’ meaning opposite the heart, which is far up the arm. This verse can also indicate that the Tefillin be covered, as words which are kept ‘on the heart’ would refer to secrets, which are not known / shown to others.
[4] See footnote comments on positive Mitzva 28.
[5] Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is quoted here with regard to the case of parents who, in their grief, were throwing items onto the bier of their child who was being buried. He ruled in that case that so long as the items haven’t come into contact with the bier, they may be saved and retrieved by bystanders. The Gemara there [Ula] continues that this ruling is issued with regard to a bier that is being buried with the body, not simply a means of transporting the body.
This seems to imply that the intent of the person in the processing does not matter – in the case of the grieving parents, their intent is to bury the items with their son. Why then does the SMG state that the requirement to process Tefillin with the proper intent follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel – especially since the Gemara there states explicitly that the Halaĉa follows Rava who stated that ordering a bag for the purpose of using it for Tefillin is insufficient to designate it for Tefillin and must first be used for that purpose before being considered designated. Why then wouldn’t the SMG state that the requirement for intent follows Rava.
It is mildly possible that the reason is as follows. In establishing the Halaĉa according to Rava, the Gemara first states the following: דרש מרימר הלכתא כוותיה דאביי ורבנן אמרי הלכתא כוותיה דרבא and then the Gemara concludes והלכתא כוותיה דרבא, which most commentators translate as ‘Ma’Raymar taught the Halaĉa follows Abaya, while the sages stated the Halaĉa follows Rava – and the Halaĉa follows Raba.’ I would argue that this interpretation of the text is not possible for two reasons: first, that would render Ma’Raymar a ‘rebel sage – זקן ממרא’ for issuing a ruling contrary to the accepted Halaĉa, and there is no indication that this was the case.
Secondly, the term ‘דרש’ is unusual. Normally the Gemara would write אמר – as it does within the very same sentence – ורבנן אמרי. Typically, דרש is used when the meaning provided is not readily apparent within the basic text, and analysis must be employed to arrive at the conclusion.
Therefore, I believe the meaning of the Gemara is that Ma’Raymar derived that the Halaĉa actually follows Abaya, that intent is significant, but that Ma’Raymar was stating the Halaĉa in practicality follows both opinions – the intent, when stated, is significant, but not as meaningful as intent determined by actions. An example of the practical application of that ruling is as quoted [by the SMG below] in the Gemara with Rav Avahu (regarding the case of the scribe who stated he failed to deliberately process the parchment with the correct intent – even though the action of writing the Sefer Torah indicated differently). However, the sages stated the Halaĉa is according to Rava since intent alone generally cannot be discerned (possibly not even by the one with the intent) the action is what tells us what the intent is. And this is in fact the Halaĉa; lacking any discernable action, intent is not taken into account. And when the action is performed then we can know what the intent was.
This explains why the SMG quotes the source of the ruling from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. When the grieving parents are throwing articles in the grave, it is possibly just an expression of grief, and not an intent to bury those items. Therefore, so long as the items aren’t in contact with the bier, we can say that the throwing aim of the parents was deliberately off, and the intent was not to bury the items with their son. Intention, while it is significant, is generally insufficient without concrete action to identify the intent.
[6] Parchment is made by processing the skin and removing much of it until only a thin layer remains. The skin itself can be divided in half. Once done, the side which on the back had the hair is one type of parchment, while the side on the back of which was connected to the interior of the animal is another type of parchment. The third type is one in which the skin is not split but rather sanded down from the exterior. There are different opinions as to which is which. We will follow the SMG and leave the discussion of that to where he himself brings it up – in positive Mitzva 25.
[7] The parchment was indented in a ruler straight line to ensure that when writing, the words would all line up and not zig zag or tilt. This is only done above where the letters will be, and not below as is typical now done with ruled paper in which both above and below the letters there is a line to ensure the size of the letter is also governed in addition to having the letters lined up in a straight fashion. Since each letter includes rules as to how large it should normally be, there is no concern about varying sizes – and thus only one ruled line was required.
[8] In the unlikely event that a word is skipped in writing a Sefer Torah, it can be later added, either by inserting it above the line, or extending the line out past the edge of the column. This is possible because unlike Tefillin and Mezuzos, a Sefer Torah can be written piecemeal in any order, so long as it is put together correctly at the end.
However, with regard to Tefillin and Mezuzos, the Gemara learns from the term והיו – that they must be written ‘as is’. Any missing, added or incorrectly formed letters or words renders the entirety invalid. And since they are written with the intent to sanctify them for the Mitzva, even though they were invalidated, the holiness is still imbued – and accordingly they must be buried as opposed to treated like garbage.
[9] The discussion in the Gemara is with regard to the final verses of the Torah, which talks of Moshe’s passing. Rabbi Yehuda (and some say it was Rabbi Nechemya) stated that Yehoshua wrote the final eight (8) verses in the Torah. Rabbi Shimon responded, is it possible that the Torah [that Moshe wrote] was missing even a single letter? The verse [Devarim 31:26] states לקח את ספר התורה הזה. [Meaning Moshe would not have been able to fulfill that command had the Torah he wrote been missing the final verses.] Rather, Hashem would dictate, and Moshe would say and write the verses. But the final verses, Moshe wrote using tears, as was later stated in the verse [Yirmiyahu 36:18] ויאמר להם ברוך, מפיו יקרא אלי את הדברים האלה, ואני כותב על הספר בדיו.
[10] The Tefillin of the head are considered to have a greater level of sanctity than the Tefillin of the arm. And due to the rule of ‘we do not decrease holiness’, once the Tefillin have been used for the head, they can no longer be used for the arm. See SMG on positive Mitzva 26.
[11] The rule regarding the writing is that the letters must be written and not produced in some other fashion. The term חק תוכות means to engrave the interior i.e., to carve out the extraneous ink from an unfashioned blob, leaving behind a letter. This is the rule which prevents the printing of such objects. The rule is derived from the word וכתבתם – which the Gemara learns is a compound word made up of וכתב תם, which teaches us that the writing has to be complete – which excludes engraving where the writing part of placing the block of ink requires a secondary action, the carving of the letter, in order to complete it. Printing does not use the same process, but nevertheless, since it is not complete writing [which is why it has a different term other than writing], it would be excluded.
[12] Why would Tefillin atone for the golden calf.
When the Jews waited for Moshe Rabeinu to come down from Mount Sinai the first time, they miscalculated the date when Moshe was to return and some of them decided that they would not wait any further. Instead, they demanded that Aharon make for them a leader to replace Moshe. Aharon, fearing they would add the sin of murder and kill him, told them to bring to him all their gold, and he would do so. They did, and Aharon cast the gold into the fire ‘and the calf came forth’. The verse implies it automatically did so, and the commentators note that among the pieces of gold which were cast into the fire was a tablet which contained the name of G‑d Almighty – and the phrase עלה שור-come forth ox.
The history of that tablet was; when it came time for the Jews to leave Egypt, Moshe Rabeinu searched for Yosef’s grave, so he could fulfill the promise that the Jews had made to remove Yosef’s coffin from Egypt to be buried in Israel [he was buried in Sh’ĉem, which the arabs have renamed using the Romanized name of Nablus]. But he was unable to find it, because the Egyptians, who knew of this promise, had sunk the coffin into the Nile River, to prevent the Jews from leaving. Moshe asked the only living Jew who recalled that event, Search daughter of Asher, where in the river this occurred, and went there. He then wrote on this tablet the name of G‑d Almighty, and the phrase ‘עלה שור-come forth ox’ and tossed the tablet into the Nile. The tablet sunk and in exchange, the coffin floated, and Moshe was able to retrieve it and bring it with him.
There was a young man who was watching the proceedings, and after Moshe retrieved the coffin, he dove into the water and retrieved the tablet. This tablet was what was tossed into the fire, and with the power of G‑d Almighty’s name – and the injunction to bring forth an ox – caused the golden calf to come forth.
I asked my teacher, Reb Volf Greenglass, which name of G‑d Almighty had been engraved into the tablet. He responded:
the name which was engraved was a component of the seventy-two (72) letter name of G‑d, which is derived from the three (3) verses in Shemos 14:19-21 ויסע, ויבא, ויט in which each verse contains seventy-two (72) letters. Combined these verses have a total of two hundred and sixteen (216) letters which equates to גבורה and אריה and represents G‑d Almighty’s overwhelming power to perform kindness. In arranging the letters of the three (3) verses, the name is divided into seventy-two (72) groups of three (3) letters each and arranged thus: the first letter of the first verse, last letter of the second verse, and first letter of the third verse – spelling והו. Then, the second letter of the first verse, the second to last letter of the second verse, and the second letter of the third verse – spelling ילי. And so on.
The second grouping of the seventy-two (72) letter name is ילי, which is an abbreviation of the words ישראל לא ידע from Yeshayahu 1:3. The remainder of the verse is עמי לא התבונן, which forms the abbreviation of עלה. This then was what Moshe engraved: ילי עלה.
As the verse talks about the ox recognizing his master, and as Yosef was compared to an ox [Devarim 33:17, and Rashi on Shemos 1:19], the Midrash [as was common in those days to conceal various teachings of Kabbalah] writes the abbreviated verse עלה שור instead of the actual engraving.
The verse talks about how the ox recognizes his master, but the Jewish people had rebelled instead, by not meditating on their relationship with G‑d. This rebellion, where they requested a replacement leader instead of Moshe Rabeinu who would be the one to bring them the Torah, can be countered and rectified by the Jewish people deliberately submitting to G‑d Almighty, subjugating their minds and hearts to the G‑d of their fathers – using the very same materials of the ox (leather) as the sin was perpetrated with – the [golden] calf.
This is also hinted at in the words in which G‑d Almighty’s name ילי is derived from: ויסע, הלילה, ויט – which can be taken to mean ‘as they traveled through the night (of exile), they bent themselves (to G‑d Almighty)’.
[13] Rashi thus follows the opinion that the Tefillin are worn so that an observer reader would be able to read the Parshas in the order in which they appear in the Torah.
[14] For the Tefillin of Rabeinu Tam, this is satisfied because the reader reads from outer compartment to the inner compartment – regardless which letter ש he starts from – which renders the Parshas in order.
[15] The words used in the Beraissa is מימין and משמאל “from the right” and “from the left” which implies the order in which the Parshas are generated – instead of בימין and בשמאל, which would have implied the location where the Parshas are housed.
[16] The gravesite of Yeĉezkel who passed away during the Babylonian exile is located in modern day Iraq, in a place locally called Al Kifi. He passed away before the second Base Hamikdash could be rebuilt appx 2,400 years ago. The Jewish community erected a monument there. About 900 years ago (about 1,500 years after he passed away), the muslims decided to appropriate Yeĉezkel and claim him as a prophet of their religion. About 160 years ago, the muslims decided to attempt to wrest control of the location away from the Jews, who had been going there (especially during the holidays) for over 2,000 years. The British intervened, as did the government from Constantinople. However, with the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the government reverted to muslim control who set about building a mosque on the site and removing two millennium of the history of Jewish presence there. May G‑d Almighty wreak vengeance on them.
[17] Since the Tefillin are written on parchment, the use of the term ‘skin’ here implies that parchment is also called leather.
[18] There is a footnote in the SMG edition which provides the following: The two (2) letters ש on the Tefillin correspond to the two (2) types of writing of the Torah – the Luĉos were written in the airspace inside the tablets, while the Sefer Torah is written with ink on a parchment. Since the letters of the Luĉos were made up of the stone surrounding the letters – as it says in Shemos 32:16 והמכתב מכתב אלקים הוא חרות על הלוחות, it turns out that for the letter ש there are four (4) heads to the letter in order that for the space inside would be a standard three (3) headed ש. In which case, if the two (2) interior heads were in the shape of the letter י then the airspace generated would not have been in the shape of a [recognizable] ש, since the middle head needs to reach the edges of the other two (2) in the Sephardic script. (It is interesting that the author assumes the Luĉos were written using Sephardic script.)
The second corresponds to the writing of the Sefer Torah which is made from ink the parchment [which protrudes from the surface]. Therefore, the ש with four (4) heads comes first [and is placed on the right of the reader] since it corresponds to the Luĉos which came before the writing of the Sefer Torah. And also, because it represents the writing of the Creator, it deserves to be first. This is the tradition I received. Nevertheless, the placing of which ש on the right or left sides is not critical, and if it was switched, this would not render the Tefillin פסול.
[19] א לכסון which means the diagonal is a transliterated word from the Greek λοξόν.
[20] The exact mathematical formula is ‘d= √2a’ where d is the diagonal, and a is the side. Using the formula results in an appx 1.41×10ⁿ where the to-the-power-of is determined by the measurement of the side. One & two-fifths (1.4) is easier, and the difference is di minimus.
[21] Even though the sovereignty applies only to a single family in the tribe of Yehudah – that of David, the rest of the tribe was given supremacy over the other tribes, as Yaakov blessed them in Beraishis 49:8 יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך, which was fulfilled starting in the time of the Babylonian exile where all the people of Yisroel were called Jews, from the term Judah, as it says in Ester 2:5 איש יהודי היה… איש ימיני.
Even though the Kehuna applies only to a single family in the tribe of Levi – that of Aharon, the rest of the tribe was given and dedicated to Aharon and the Kohanim, as it says in Bamidbar 8:19 ואתנה את הלוים נתונים לאהרן ולבניו.
[22] The addition of Ephraim and Menashe without excluding Yosef. Otherwise, the result would be thirteen (13), not (14). In fact, Yosef’s other children were intended to be their own separate tribe – but for the purposes of inheriting the land of Israel, they were to be included with Ephraim and Menashe, as it says in Beraishis 48:6 ומולדתך אשר הולדת אחריהם לך יהיו על שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם. However, in practice we do not find the other children of Yosef to be explicitly named – regardless of whether talking about inheriting the land or for any other reason. But there are possible hints to their existence and inclusion with the tribes of Menashe and Ephraim.
In Divrei Hayamim, the verse first lists the children of Menashe in I 7:14-19, then the children of Ephraim in I 7:20-28. And the verse I 7:29 states ועל ידי בני מנשה בית שאן ובנתיה תענך ובנתיה מגדו ובנתיה דור ובנתיה באלה ישבו בני יוסף בן ישראל. Besides the departure from the context of discussing either the children of Menashe or Ephraim – to the more inclusive term of the children of Yosef – בני יוסף בן ישראל, Rashi notes on the words ועל ידי בני מנשה בית שאן that ‘its meaning is next to the children of Menashe, like the verse [Bamidbar 2:17] איש על ידו לדגליהם’. Which implies there were people who were living next to the descendants of Menashe who were the children of Yosef. It can’t be referring to the people of the tribe of Ephraim, since each tribe had their own lands – which implies there are other children of Yosef who were living with the tribe of Menashe.
And again, when it came time to crown David, the verse Divrei Hayamim I 12:30-31 changes the language when it comes to Ephraim and Menashe as compared to all the other tribes, referencing the terms used in the counting and genealogical tracing of Bamidbar 1:17-18 – לבית אבותם & נקבו בשמות.
[23] In our version this is Rabbi Ze’ira. Rabbi Yirmiya’s strap broke.
[24] Appx. between 2.275 millimeters and 2 centimeters.
[25] Less than the distance needed to reach; the belly, the thigh, and the middle finger [wrapped around the middle finger three (3) times].
[26] The context of the Gemara was talking about the straps for the Tefillin on the head, which is possibly the source for the common custom to be careful that even the straps of the head that hang down in front of the body should always have their painted side visible. Some even go to the extent of tucking the ends of the straps into their belts to ensure they don’t temporarily flip over.
[27] No explanation is given as to why the knot is ‘the place of the ד.’ Perhaps this is a reference to the continuation of the Gemara, where the Gemara comments on the verse in Shemos 33:23 והסרותי את כפי וראית את אחורי – Rav Ĉana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Ĉasida ‘this teaches us that G‑d Almighty showed Moshe the knot of the Tefillin’ [the only knot of the Tefillin which is worn in the back is that of the Tefillin of the head.]
The letter ד when spelled out can be spelled דלית, which means (in Aramaic) ‘that it lacks’. Therefore, the verse could be explained that G‑d Almighty showed to Moshe the place that lacks the visage of G‑d Almighty, which is what Moshe asked to see, but he couldn’t as no human can. Instead of what he asked for, G‑d Almighty only showed him where his face wasn’t (so to speak).
From there it is not a far leap to ascribe the letter ד in association with the Tefillin knot on the back of the head, which the SMG implies is what happened.
[28] meaning that so long as the Tefillin of the head are in position, the Tefillin of the arm should also be worn, which is why the verse uses the plural והיו with regard to the Tefillin of the head.
[29] Since putting on the Tefillin of the hand and putting on the Tefillin of the head are separate positive Mitzvos, it would be inappropriate to put one Mitzva aside in favor of the other simply for the purpose of following the custom of being careful to have the Tefillin of the hand already on, while the Tefillin of the head is in place.
[30] To prevent this problem, modern day Tefillin bags are typically made wider than tall – to allow the placement of both Tefillin side by side in the bag, so that one might not accidentally put away the Tefillin of the head on top of the Tefillin of the arm. This is also presumably the reasoning as to why people are careful to place the Tefillin of the hand in the right-hand side of the bag since the Tefillin are taken out with the right hand to be placed on the left arm, they do not want to pass over [from right to left] the Tefillin of the head in reaching for the Tefillin of the arm. Similarly, for those who wear Rashi and Rabeinu Tam, the Rashi’s would go on the right so that one would not pass over the Tefillin of Rabeinu Tam to get to the Rashi’s. And of course, for those who wear all four Tefillin, the שימושי רבה would go behind Rashi, and the ראב”ד would go behind Rabeinu Tam, so that one would take out the bag for Rashi, place those on for Davening, replace the Tefillin of the head, and then without putting the bag away, take out the שימושי רבה. When completing Tehillim, the שימושי רבה would be replaced, followed by the Tefillin of the hand for Rashi, followed by replacing the bag of Rashi. Then the same procedure would be done with Rabeinu Tam and the ראב”ד.
Tosefos asks a question though, why is it required to derive this order in how the Tefillin are placed in the bag from the prohibition against passing over a Mitzva? Since we have determined that the proper method of putting on Tefillin is that the arm goes first, then one should organize the Tefillin in the way to fulfill that requirement. Rabeinu Tam answered in the name of Rabeinu Ĉananel in the name of Rav Hai Gaon that the Gemara is indicating the order in which the Tefillin should be removed, not the order in which it should be placed in the bag. That one should not remove the Tefillin of the arm first, and place them in the bag, and then be forced to place the Tefillin of the head on top of the Tefillin of the arm in the bag – which would then lead one the next morning into being forced to put aside the Tefillin of the head in favor of the Tefillin of the arm sitting underneath them.
Tosefos then adds that according to Rabeinu Eliyahu [I was unable to find any reference to such a person amongst the בעלי תוספות or the גאונים – I can only assume this to refer to the prophet] that this is referring to the handling required while wearing them – as one is required to handle the Tefillin periodically as we learnt a fortiori from the ציץ [which required constant awareness of the Kohen Gadol, because the ציץ had one (1) name of Hashem engraved on it. How much more so this applies to Tefillin which have twenty-two (22) times the name of Hashem written in each one.] Since the Tefillin of the arm are reached first (with the other hand), one must touch them first and not pass over them to touch the Tefillin of the head first.
As to why this verse was chosen when the word ויעבר and its variant spellings is a relatively common word: Here the context is about the need for אחימעץ to be faster than the כושי and pass him so that אחימעץ will get to the king first with news. Unlike other instances of where the word ויעבר is not necessarily related to who would be first but instead is used to express that one passed the other.
[31] The proper spelling for ‘your hand’ is ידך. The Torah changes the spelling by changing the letter כ and adding the letter ה to imply that this word ידכה is an amalgamation of יד and כהה, which means the weakened hand – or the non-dominant hand.
[32] the verse uses זרועו and ידיו interchangeably to describe where the Philistines bound Shimshon.
[33] See Book 1 Appendix 1 re the humerus.
[34] Dr. Moshe Naftali Moss pointed out to me that within the brain, that space where the Tefillin are placed on the head is where the optic chasm occurs, and where the knot is placed on the back of the skull is where the primary visual cortex is located, and the straps follow the pathways of the optic nerves. Thus, Tefillin of the head are literally placed בין עיניך between the eyes – at least from the perspective of looking down at the person from above.
[35] Our edition of the Mishna includes the term חוצה, not אוצה \ אוצא. The מלאכת שלמה on this Mishna notes that Tosefos on the Gemara Menaĉos translates חוצה like אוצה as in a ring that is tight on a finger. He also notes that the ערוך on the entry חץ translates חוצה as in a partition that blocks water from entering. Thus, the מלאכת שלמה concludes the SMG derived the allowance for loose knots from the Tosefos in the Gemara, which translates the word in the Mishna as meaning tight – which therefore specifies that only tight Tefillin knots are exempt from having the water flow through them. Which means that loose knots are a possibility.
However, the SMG does not quote Tosefos. Instead, he quotes the Gemara in Bava Metziya. The Gemara there is talking about the settling that occurs with dry contents (or according to Rashi, the compression that occurs when expanding contents are contained in a limited space) which after a while decrease in volume due to being packed more tightly. In other words, the SMG translates the Mishna as being more closely related to the word ‘compressed’ vs the word ‘tight’. Reviewing the Mishna under that light, it comes out that knots which have settled into their permanent form or have been compressed over time to the point where water will not flow into them – do not have to be loosened, which implies that there is a time when those knots are not so tightly bound.
The difference is nuanced, but also practical. According to the מלאכת שלמה it would seem that the SMG allows loose knots as a possibility, while I believe the SMG does not. Knots need to be firmly completed, to the point that over time they will compress or become otherwise closely bound enough that water will not enter. Similarly, with the knot for the Tefillin of the arm, the ability for the strap to pass through without too much friction does not negate the requirement for the slipknot itself to be firmly bound.
[36] The concern of the SMG here is that there are two (2) Mitzvos being performed. Accordingly, two (2) blessings should be required, regardless of if one spoke between them or not.
[37] The Gemara Yerushalmi was compiled primarily by Rabbi Yoĉanan during the period when the Roman government was relatively passive in their persecution of the Jewish people in Israel – when Emperor Julian renounced Christianity – appx 1,645 years ago. About 150 years later during the final decades of Persian control of Babylon before the arabs conquered Persia, Rav and Rav Ashi (primarily) compiled the Gemara Bavli. As noted in the introduction, when establishing Halacha, primacy is given to the later scholars of the same era since it is assumed they had access to the writings and teachings of those prior, which cannot be said in reverse. Accordingly, those who compiled the Gemara Bavli were aware of and had access to the Gemara Yerushalmi – while Rabbi Yoĉanan did not have access to the opinions of the final generations of Amora’im. Therefore, Halaĉa is primarily established according to the Gemara Bavli whenever there is a conflict. Here there is an additional reason to do so, since Rabba bar bar Ĉana said in the name of Rabbi Yoĉanan himself that two (2) blessings are required – which presumably represents a change of opinion in Rabbi Yoĉanan from after he compiled the Yerushalmi.
[38] Meaning the ability to recognize the friend will not be tied into the human capacity for pattern recognition, (for example, the way they walk, their silhouette, hair style etc.) since the friend is not commonly met. Instead, it will be tied to the ability to see the person.
[39] The SMG could have also pointed out that technically, the Mitzva of Tefillin applies by night, even though we don’t rule overtly like that, while there might not be a Mitzva of Tzitzis at night. He didn’t do so, either because as he notes momentarily the Gemara compares the two regardless of any disparity, and also because, as we explained concerning the Mitzva of Tzitzis [see positive Mitzva 26] it is probable that the Mitzva of Tzitzis does apply by night depending on the garment’s purpose.
[40] Out of concern that the Scribes will engage in their everyday business and not celebrate the holiday properly.
[41] See the Public Address by the SMG in 4,996 in Book 1 in which the SMG addresses the concept of the number of Signs, and the reason why a minimum number of Signs are required.
[42] Unlike with regard to English grammar, the Torah paragraphs – called פרשיות, from the word פרש, which means separation – are distinguished in two different formats. In English, each paragraph is preceded by the remainder of the line of the last paragraph being empty, and perhaps even an indentation for the starting words on the first line of the next paragraph. In Hebrew, there are two paragraph formats depending on how they start.
Some פרשיות are called פתוחה – open, in that at the end of the preceding paragraph, the scribe leaves the remainder of the line blank. If there is insufficient room on the line to be recognizable as a blank space, then the scribe will skip a line to denote that the paragraph ends openly. Then the scribe starts the next paragraph flush with the right margin.
The other type of פרשה is called סתומה, as in closed. At the end of the preceding paragraph, the scribe leaves a space of a minimum of nine (9) letters before beginning the next paragraph. In the event sufficient space is unavailable on that line equivalent to nine (9) letters, then the scribe continues the spacing by indenting the first line of the next paragraph.
In the modern Ĉumashim, the different פרשיות are designated by either פפפ denoting an open paragraph, or ססס denoting a closed one.
[43] As noted previously, the identity of closed vs open is primarily based on how the paragraph starts. Accordingly, each of the first three (3) would start flush with the right margin. For the fourth one, והיה אם שמע, that parsha starts as a closed paragraph. To start it closed, which depends on continuing on the same line as the line in which the preceding paragraph ended – when the prior paragraph is not transcribed on the Tefillin – that can only be done by leaving the indentation of the first line, which is as noted previously what needs to happen when there isn’t enough space on the prior line to designate the Parsha as being closed.
To clarify; the designation as to whether a specific parsha is open or closed is in relation to how it would be written in the Torah in its proper place and is not a function of the order in which it appears in the Tefillin.
[44] Tefillin must be written in order. Accordingly, if there was something missing, one can’t go back and fill in the blank – since that would render anything written after that inserted letter to be written out of order. It is possible to erase everything going backwards from the end and then fill in the missing (and erased) letters, but that only works to a point. Since the name of G‑d Almighty cannot be erased, it only works for anything written after the final name of G‑d Almighty in the Tefillin.
[45] It is difficult to imagine the mental capacity that prior generations took for granted.
[46] The SMG chose the Gemara Bavli as the source for this rather than the Yerushalmi [Beraĉos 2:3] which learns as follows:
The verse [Devarim 11:19] states ולמדתם אתם את בניכם – the sons, not the daughters, and those who are obligated in the study of Torah are obligated in the Mitzva of Tefillin. Since women are not obligated to study Torah, they are not obligated in Tefillin.
The Yerushalmi asks, what about Miĉal the daughter of the Kushi (a reference to king Shaul, whom king Dovid named the Kushi in Tehillim 7:1) she wore Tefillin.
Rabbi Ĉizkiya in the name of Rabbi Avahu stated the sages protested against her practice.
Presumably, the reason the SMG chose the Gem. Bavli’s comparison of Tefillin to שמע rather than the Yerushalmi’s comparison to the obligation of learning Torah is because, as noted previously, women are obligated to learn Torah, so they would not be excluded by this comparison.
The Gemara Bavli [Eiruvin 96a] also notes that Miĉal would wear Tefillin and uses this to support the argument that while certain Mitzvos may not apply to an individual for some reason, they can still perform the Mitzva voluntarily. The Gemara Bavli also does not quote Rabbi Ĉizkiya that the sages protested – which provides a second reason not to base the Halaĉa on this section of the Gemara, whether from the Yerushalmi or Bavli.
However, this doesn’t answer the fundamental questions that are raised. If, as the Bavli notes, a Mitzva may still be performed voluntarily – even when not obligated – why would the sages protest against Miĉal for wearing Tefillin. As a woman who wished to perform the Mitzva voluntarily, shouldn’t she have been allowed to do so? And if the Mitzva is obligatory on women – since they too are obligated in learning Torah – then not only do we have a question as to why the sages protested, but we also have a question as to why women don’t wear Tefillin. And we can’t say that there were other women who also did so, as the only example brought by the Gemara was Miĉal, which makes her the exception, and not the rule.
The answer is, as the SMG will note momentarily, the wearing of Tefillin requires a clean body. Women are susceptible at all times for the possibility that they might begin menstruating and therefore cannot be certain that they will maintain the level of body cleanliness required for the wearing of Tefillin. Miĉal though was a lady who did not have children her whole life – we can easily assume her lack of children came with the lack of a menstrual cycle, as it sometimes happens with barren women (the medical term for this is amenorrhea). Accordingly, as an individual, she was capable of maintaining the level of body cleanliness required for the wearing of Tefillin, and so she did. The sages though protested (not forbade) her action because as a princess (daughter of king Shaul) and queen (wife of king Dovid) of the Jewish people, her actions as Jewish royalty were those of a role model to all Jewish women, and the sages were presumably concerned that other women would follow her example, not knowing why Michal specifically could wear Tefillin.
This also explains why the Yerushalmi calls her Miĉal the daughter of the Kushi, rather than the daughter of Shaul or the wife of Dovid. Rashi on the verse notes that the reason king Shaul was named Kush was because just like the Kushi (Ethiopians) have unusually colored skin, so too king Shaul had unusual (great) deeds. In donning Tefillin, Miĉal was taking after her father and performing deeds worthy of royalty, which are not like those of the common folk. Accordingly, she was named the daughter of the Kushi.
This also explains why the Bavli does not note that the sages protested – since such protest was not against a woman voluntarily performing a Mitzva which she was not obligated, but a protest against royalty doing something publicly which commoners might assume sets a precedent for everyone. This protest therefore is not relevant to the discussion in the Bavli.
In conclusion, women are generally not obligated in the wearing of Tefillin. Even if they desire to perform this Mitzva, they must do so privately so as to not encourage those who do not know how to perform the donning of Tefillin properly. Furthermore, they should not do so when there is the potential for vaginal discharge (either seminal or menstrual), as that would violate the requirement to maintain a clean body. Additionally, to don the Tefillin of the head, women would have to have a very short haircut as hair which is bunched up forms a barrier between the Tefillin and the head preventing the wearing of the Tefillin on the head. When the above criteria are fulfilled, women can wear Tefillin, privately, and they recite the ברכה when doing so.
Nor is the donning of Tefillin by women a violation of the negative Mitzva of לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה [negative Mitzva 59] since although generally the wearing of Tefillin is done exclusively by men, in this case the woman donning Tefillin is not doing so to join with the men, but rather out of a desire to perform an additional Mitzva. Furthermore, if she is capable of doing so while maintaining all the obligations inherent in the Mitzva, then she is in fact performing a Mitzva, which is categorically not included in the prohibition of לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה.
Women who don Tefillin, in protest to their perception that Judaism isn’t fair to women, are apostates and need to be taught that this is not the case, and that their liberal values are not necessarily in line with what G-d wants from women.
[47] So named because the Romans at one time forbade the wearing of Tefillin. Elisha refused to abide by that law and went around publicly with Tefillin. Once someone saw him who wished to punish him for doing so. Elisha ran into an alley and quickly took off his Tefillin and concealed them in his cupped hands. When the Romans caught up to him, they demanded he show them what was in his hands. However, when he opened his hands, the Tefillin had changed to wings of doves and thus Elisha escaped punishment. He was therefore named Elisha of the Wings in remembrance of that miracle.
I do not know if this was an illusion and the Tefillin later changed back, or if the change was permanent and Elisha needed to go get another pair of Tefillin.
[48] Appx one full minute walking mildly quickly.
[49] As a reminder; the hygiene standards of today in most places are not the same as they were, and no practical Halachic ruling should be derived from this.
[50] Presumably this was done at night, so it was too dark for his wife to notice and tell him – which indicates as noted before that wearing Tefillin at night is within the timeframe of the Mitzva, but we do not rule like that when asked – for this very reason.
[51] This would appear to be the source of the custom of adding additional non holy items to the Tefillin bag (for example a pushka, or money for charity) to ensure that it is not designated only for Tefillin, and accordingly need not be removed from the house.
[52] Which could be taken to mean ה’ עליהם – that anyone who wears the name of G‑d Almighty [i.e., Tefillin which contains the name of G‑d Almighty and is worn], יחיו – shall live.
[i] Devarim 6:8
[ii] Gem. Menaĉos 37b
[iii] Shemos 13:9
[iv] Gem. Shabbos 108a
[v] Gem. Sanhedrin 48b
[vi] Gem. Gittin 54b
[vii] Gem. Menaĉos 31b
[viii] Gem. Shabbos 79b Tosefos קלף
[ix] See Tosefos קנקנתום in both Gem. Eiruvin 13a and Gittin 19a
[x] Gem. Eiruvin 13a-b
[xi] Gem. Menaĉos 32b Tosefos הא
[xii] Yer. Megillah 1:9
[xiii] End of Parshas בא
[xiv] Gem. Bava Basra 15a
[xv] Gem. Menaĉos 32a-b
[xvi] Rabbi Yosi (even according to Rabbi Yehuda) Gem. Menaĉos 34b
[xvii] Gem. Menaĉos 37a
[xviii] Devarim 6:8-9
[xix] Gem. Gittin 20a
[xx] Gem. Shabbos 104b & Gittin 54b
[xxi] Gem. Menaĉos 29a
[xxii] Yer. Megillah 1:9
[xxiii] Gem. Menaĉos 32a-b
[xxiv] Gem. Shabbos 28b
[xxv] Mishna Torah – Tefillin 3:8
[xxvi] Gem. Menaĉos 34b והקורא
[xxvii] Shemos 13:1-10
[xxviii] Shemos 13:11-16
[xxix] Devarim 6:4-9
[xxx] Devarim 11:13-21
[xxxi] Gem. Menaĉos 35a
[xxxii] Gem. Eiruvin 95b
[xxxiii] Gem. Menaĉos 34b
[xxxiv] Gem. Shabbos 108b
[xxxv] Gem. Ĉulin 122a
[xxxvi] Gem. Menaĉos 35a & Shabbos 62a
[xxxvii] Gem. Menaĉos 35a
[xxxviii] Gem. Shabbos 28a
[xxxix] Gem. Menaĉos 34b
[xl] Yer. Megillah 1:9
[xli] Gem. Menaĉos 35b
[xlii] Gem. Menaĉos 35b
[xliii] Gemara Shabbos 28b
[xliv] Gem Yoma 33b
[xlv] Shmuel II 18:23
[xlvi] Gem. Sanhedrin 26b & Bava Basra 5a
[xlvii] Tosefta Shabbos 9:15
[xlviii] Shoftim 15:14
[xlix] Devarim 11:18
[l] Gem. Menaĉos 37b
[li] Mishna Ohalos 1:8
[lii] Gem. Menaĉos 37b
[liii] Devarim 14:1
[liv] Gem. Ĉulin 77a
[lv] Gem Eiruvin 97a
[lvi] Mishna Mikvaos 10:3
[lvii] Gem. Bava Metzia 40a
[lviii] Yer. Beraĉos 2:3
[lix] Gem. Niddah 51b & Beraĉos 44b
[lx] Yer. Beraĉos 2:3
[lxi] Gem. Menaĉos 36b
[lxii] Gem. Beraĉos 9b
[lxiii] Yer. Beraĉos 1:5
[lxiv] Gem. Menaĉos 36a
[lxv] Gem. Menaĉos 43a
[lxvi] Gem Menaĉos 36b
[lxvii] Yer. Moed Kattan 3:4
[lxviii] Shemos 28:38
[lxix] Gem. Sukkah 46a
[lxx] Gem. Eiruvin 97a
[lxxi] Yer. Eiruvin 10:1
[lxxii] Gem. Menaĉos 42b
[lxxiii] Gem. Beraĉos 17b
[lxxiv] Gem. Sukkah 42a
[lxxv] Gem. Ĉulin 110a
[lxxvi] Gem. Shabbos 49a
[lxxvii] Gem. Sukkah 26a
[lxxviii] Gem. Beraĉos 23a
[lxxix] Gem. Beraĉos 25a
[lxxx] Gem. Sukkah 26b
[lxxxi] Gem. Beraĉos 18a
[lxxxii] Gem. Beraĉos 23-25
[lxxxiii] Ibid
[lxxxiv] Yeshayahu 38:16
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] There in the Gemara they said this is like a parable of two people who were sentenced for capital crimes against the kingdom, one of them the king killed, and one the אספקלטור – meaning the rotisseur. Which is better, I would say [the better one] is the one killed by the king[1].
[β] The white side is the meat side. [As for the SMG’s statement, that it must be that our parchment follows the rules of קלף], that means, don’t wonder that our parchment might be considered דוכסוסטוס. Later [with regard to the laws of writing a Sefer Torah – positive Mitzvah 25], with G‑d Almighty’s help[2], I [Maharshal] will explain properly – and it is easy to understand.
[γ] [Here Maharshal provides Yiddish translations]: ארמנט in French is שוסטיר שווערץ in Yiddish[3]. קנקנתום is קופפיר וואשיר in Yiddish[4].
[δ] Meaning the parchment was not cut at all, and all the Parshas remain on a single piece of parchment.
[ε] So that one would not be decreasing the sanctity of the Tefillin container, since we only ascend in holiness, and never descend.
[ζ] It would still be kosher, and we would not wonder about the statement by the sages concerning the Tefillin of the head, ‘that it is possible to use the Tefillin designed for the arm for the purpose of wearing it on the head, but not the reverse’. Similarly, previously the SMG stated that if the Parshas for the head were written on a single length of parchment, that would be kosher.
It is possible to answer [the apparent contradiction to the statement of our sages] that it is obvious that if the four (4) Parshas were in four (4) containers, what difference does it make if they were cut into four (4) pieces of parchment or are all on one piece of parchment [Which is theoretically possible by mean of careful folding.] But when there are four (4) separate pieces, and he wants those placed into a single container, you might think that is not acceptable – that is why the SMG brings a proof that even in this case it would be permitted (so long as the Tefillin had never previously been worn on the head). This is easy to understand.
[η] meaning the right hand is the one that must write. This presents a little difficulty.
[θ] The primary example of חק תוכו is if he started off with a drop of ink, and then carved into the ink until the shape of the letter was formed. This is easy to understand.
[ι] My custom is that even if it touches on the bottom of the letter, that is invalid, and certainly if it touches the middle of the letter.
[κ] אטבא סופרים – is[5] that which we call in Yiddish לא צוואנגליך.
The Sefer Mitzvos Katan (SMK) wrote that the Ashiri argues concerning Tefillin, and states the minimum space is only enough for the height of the letter ל [above the letters], and enough for the length of the letters ך and ן [below the letters]. But with regard to writing a Mezuzah, he also admits [that the margin can be lower than that.
The margin on the right is only a little bit, while the one on the left is as long as the circumference of the rolled parchment.
[λ] The sinews used must be of a kosher animal like the parchment. This can be determined from the SMG’s use of the word בגידן – with their [possessive] sinews, as opposed to בגידין – with [unspecified] sinews. This is easily understood.
[The requirement to use glue is to] exclude using some other kind of cement or sinews – if so, then it turns out that the Yerushalmi argues on our Gemara, since, as we said before, it is sewed up with sinews. In which case, there would be no contradiction with Rabeinu Moshe [as he would simply follow one or the other of the Gemara’s]. The answer to this apparent contradiction of Gemara is that one of the cases is talking about where the parchment itself was torn and needs to be repaired – which can only refer to a Sefer Torah [and therefore there is no contradiction, since one Gemara is talking about a Sefer Torah, and one about Tefillin]. This is easy to understand. And as the SMG continues, the custom has developed to use silk, unlike the conclusion in the Yerushalmi, in which case there is no contradiction, even according to Rabeinu Moshe, since Rabeinu Moshe [himself] also follows custom and does not contradict the Gemara. This is a little bit difficult.
[μ] Why does the SMG [and Rabeinu Shlomo] refer to the directions based on the one ‘reading’ the Parshas [facing the person wearing it] instead of basing the directions on the person wearing them. It appears to me [Maharshal] that the reason [this point of perspective was chosen is] to teach us the answer to a potential question as to why if the Parsha of קדש is first, why is it on the left. He forestalls this question by flipping the logic – since it is first, that is why it is on the left, so that from the reader’s perspective it will be on the right[6].
[Having established that,] Why is the right of the reader [relevant]. Because everything is conditional on others [seeing the Tefillin] – as it says in the verse וראו כל עמי הארץ.
[There are those who read the words of the SMG] ‘this is not the right of the person reading it, but the right of the person donning it’. The person who placed the vowels made a mistake in the words of the author, and contemplated, why mention previously the right of the person reading – why not simply state from this or that side [meaning why is it important that the orientation be from the right, whether from the reader or wearer]. We have to say that the lesson derived from here is that the letter ש should be first before the letter ש [with four (4) heads] and placed on the right of the reader.
The lesson being, that any time the SMG writes ‘the right of the reader’, he is identifying some novelty, but whenever he writes ‘the right’ without a reference point – he is referring to the right of the wearer. And the author has the same opinion as the Nakdan, but the Nakdan made a mistake in asking the question.
[ν] [Maharshal spells this as two words] אעא טבא – meaning a cedar wood ruler by which distance is measured.
[ξ] The Tur though implies that it is cut at an angle, as we actually do – in order that it should be made square.
[ο] Meaning they aren’t a part of the tribes. Also, they have the crown on them. Understand this[7].
[π] In another edition of the Gemara, the phrase used is ‘they permitted him to sew it up’. This appears to me [Maharshal] [to be the correct version] – even though we now understand [based on the SMG’s tradition from his teachers] that it was the sinews that snapped, and not the straps – therefore, it appears to me [Maharshal] that the only reason it was permitted, was because he resewed it – and did not leave the house unsewn. Because if we do not say this is the case, how did the SMG prove from the Yerushalmi that [when the stitches tear in three (3) places] he may not resew it. Maybe it would be permitted, and as for what they said ‘but not based on what they had learnt’ – that would mean that they were advising him that if it happened a third time, he may not depend on the prior ruling and simply resew it.[8]
[As for the statement itself ‘but not based on what they had learnt’] – ולא מן אולפנן – this is its meaning; the term אולפנן means a precedent. [here the sages stated this is not a precedent.] The Ashiri however explained this as being outside the rules, which is why he explained the case as referring to straps which had torn, and like the language used by the SMG in relating the tradition he had received, [the Ashiri] notes that technically, it is not permissible to sew the straps after they had torn, but the first time this occurs, it would be permissible. This is what the Rosh proved explicitly. Even according to this tradition, that it refers to the straps tearing, it would only be permitted to sew them three (3) times, and no more. Therefore, it would be appropriate to be stringent, and should they [the sinews] tear, even the first time, it should not be sewn up. This is the main thrust of the ruling – that the case refers to the straps – as explained in Rashi [ad loc].[9]
[ρ] Tosefos [וכמה שיעורייהו] explains this is the finger closer to the thumb, which is why the term אצבע צרדה is used, as it is a conjunction of the words צרה דא של גודל, the finger that is ‘harassing[10]’ the thumb.
Tosefos says as follows regarding the Gemara’s question what is the length of the straps – Rami bar Ĉama said in the name of Reish Lakish, until the אצבע צרדה: Theoretically we are talking about the [straps of] the Tefillin of the head, since the Gemara talks about one of the sages which would leave them straight behind his back, and one would hang them from the shoulders [down his front].
The Aroĉ though explains אצבע צרדה in the Parsha of בא אל פרעה that the length of the strap [for the Tefillin of the hand] is up to the [end of the] middle finger – which is the long finger. Proof for this was brought by the Aroĉ from the Tosefta which explains that אצבע צרדה is the ‘big finger on the right’.
Rashi explained this as the finger closest to the thumb. Rabbi Elazar of Clear[11] established the ruling like the Aroĉ at the end of Parshas Shekalim, where the dirt is removed with a finger, based on the verse[i] וכל בשלש עפר הארץ – that the third finger[12] is the one associated with the dirt. Similarly, when it came time to wake up the Kohen Gadol, they would snap their fingers[ii] – and it is known that it isn’t possible to make a noise unless the middle finger kits [the palm of the hand].
There are some who explain the ‘requirement to reach the middle finger’ that one needed to make the strap long enough to stretch from where they are placed on the upper arm long enough to reach until the middle finger, and around which it would need to be wrapped[13] – this would establish the minimum length of the strap for the Tefillin of the hand.
See the opinion of the Tur.
[ς] This is the language of the Gemara:
Rav Yosef taught; the only things kosher for holy works is leather from a Tahor animal. The Gemara asks, what Halaĉa does this teach us. Tefillin [that the leather used in making Tefillin must be from a kosher species.]
The Gemara asks; Tefillin we know from the explicit verse, as it says[iii] למען תהיה תורת ה’ בפיך- which teaches you that Tefillin must be made from things which are permitted in your mouth [here the Gemara is talking about the parchment in the interior].
It must be that Rav Yosef is providing us with the ruling related to the leather containers. The Gemara asks, didn’t Abaya teach us that the letter ש on the Tefillin is a Halaĉa from Moshe at Mt Sinai [meaning, the details of their manufacture is not the result of a rule which Rav Yosef quoted, but is a result of its own intrinsic requirements].
The Gemara offers perhaps the requirement to tie the parchment scrolls with hair and to sew up the containers with sinew [might the rule which is referred to by Rav Yosef]. The Gemara refutes this possibility with the same logic, that those requirements are also laws derived from Moshe at Mt Sinai.
The Gemara therefore concludes that Rav Yosef’s rule applies to the makeup of the leather straps – which must be from leather from a kosher animal.
Since the Gemara accepts this conclusion, we can determine that there is no specific Halaĉa from Moshe at Mt Sinai related to the composition of the straps, and therefore, without the rule from Rav Yosef, we could conclude they could be made from any type of leather.[14]
[σ] In my teacher’s opinion, this doesn’t mean actually on the soft spot, but rather from the edge of the hairline near the forehead[15] up until the place where the skull is soft.
[τ] The main point [with regard to the timeframe as to when the ברכה should be said] is; for the Tefillin of the hand, even if they have not yet been placed and have only been picked up in one’s hand [for the purpose of placing them], one may already make the ברכה, and one does not need to extend [the concentration, enunciation and pronunciation of the ברכה]. However, [with regard to the ברכה for the Tefillin of the head], one does need to extend [the concentration, enunciation and pronunciation of the ברכה] throughout the placement of the Tefillin on the head. This is easy to understand.[16]
[υ] That is the conclusion in the Gemara that the new Tefillin have the straps within it, but have not been knotted, and therefore it is forbidden because of the knot. But Tefillin that are old (that have already been worn) the straps are within it and knotted. The Gemara [reverses the order and] first mentions old Tefillin, and only thereafter new Tefillin. But the SMG is deliberately reversing the order, since he is teaching us the law based on the Gemara’s statements about new Tefillin.
This then implies that ‘old’ Tefillin by a regular person does not require knotting – which means that since the Gemara noted that new Tefillin are [only] forbidden because of knotting, and if the Tefillin needed to be knotted every day then this knot would not be considered a permanent knot since it would need to be loosened [daily – and therefore would not be forbidden on Shabbos, since only permanent knots are forbidden]. That is why [the SMG] writes that this is [only] implied from the Gemara since this is not a definitive proof – as it is possible that the knot could be permanent, in the case where the Tefillin were only used once [and the knot would therefore never be loosened before putting it on], as [the case is where] he has his own Tefillin and these Tefillin were found, and he is guarding the lost object here until the owner comes to claim it. And [the case here is where] he has found many boxes of Tefillin.
The Rosh though did not follow along the reasoning of the SMG as he derives from the Gemara – since it permits older Tefillin, that means that one need not remove them and loosen the knots daily, because if this were a requirement, what difference would it make if they were old or new Tefillin. So, we must say that when the loosening is performed when the Tefillin are removed and the next day, when being placed, the knot is tightened. Because if you want to say that when placing the Tefillin one first loosens and then tightens them that would constitute an intermission between placing the Tefillin of the arm and tying them in order to loosen the Tefillin[17]. Rather we must say that surely one only loosens the Tefillin when they are being removed. But then [Maharshal asks] what difference does it make if the Tefillin are old or new? According to [the Rosh’s] explanation, it is difficult to understand the Gemara which seems to talk about a case where the old Tefillin are tied.
This is why [the SMG] changed the order and first talked about the new Tefillin and then the old Tefillin, while the Gemara itself presents the case in the opposite order.
Another question [can be asked on the Rosh] why bring at all the case about the new Tefillin. And furthermore, that which he is careful to note that the case in the Gemara is where the Tefillin are loosened when removed, since otherwise it would be an intermission, that is actually contrary to the final conclusion of the Gemara [that loosening and then tightening the knot is not an intermission].
But the way I [Maharshal] have explained it, all doubts have been removed. And this is easy to understand.
As to the old Tefillin being permitted – since we are talking about a case where the Tefillin were already knotted as is implied in the Gemara – in that case, when placing the Tefillin everyone would need to loosen and tighten the knot again and then place them – according to Rabbi Eliyahu who requires that they be tied every day. But then he is creating an intermission between the placing of the Tefillin on the arm and that of the head in order to loosen the Tefillin without need.
Conclusion:
The Gemara makes a difference between the ‘new’ and ‘old’ Tefillin, which only makes sense if the old Tefillin are knotted permanently, but the new Tefillin are not. Which means that there is no requirement to loosen the knot of the Tefillin while placing them on, or while removing them – and in fact, loosening them when there is no requirement to do so could[18] constitute an unacceptable intermission.
[φ] Meaning, that Rabeinu Shimshon holds, like some of the commentaries, that night is not the time frame for Tzitzis – but that is not the case, except with regard to clothing specific for nighttime (pajamas / lingerie – see discussion on positive Mitzvah 26).
[χ] I [Maharshal] found a source for putting on Tefillin during the intermediate days, as it says in the verse[iv] כי שם ה’ נקרא וגו’ – which is referring to the Tefillin (which impression can be perceived by the enemies of the Jews – which causes them to fear the Jews), specifically to the letter ש on the Tefillin. [the gematria of the letter] ש [is three hundred (300)] which is equivalent to the number of days in a year in which the Tefillin are worn, since when you remove fifty-two (52) days of Shabbos and thirteen (13) holidays[19] from a three hundred and sixty five (365) day year[20], one is left with the other three hundred (300) days [during which Tefillin are worn]. This is what I [Maharshal] have found.
[1] Meaning, properly slaughtered hide is better than carcass hide.
[2] Maharshal uses an unusual abbreviation here [if it is not a misprint] בע”ג. Perhaps it means ‘with great assistance’ or ‘the assistance of the great’.
[3] The Meiri on Gem. Gittin 18b defines קנקנתום as ‘soot of the leather worker’. Accordingly, we can translate Maharshal’s rendering of שוסטיר שווערץ as ‘black shoe [polish]’. Maharshal will discuss this further in positive Mitzva 25.
[4] Copper Water – or Copper Sulfate with the chemical composition of CuSO4. This compound dissolves in water and provides a blueish tint to the liquid – typically called Vitriol of Copper.
[5] The word אטבא is a shortened form of א טבע[ת] א, which is the root word for ‘ring’ surrounded on each side with a letter א. This represents the margin required for the gutter of the book, leaving enough space on the interior of the leaves to be pierced and held together by rings. This is my opinion.
See Maharshal’s note [ν], where he explains it as being a conjunction of two words: אעא which means ‘wood’ in Aramaic, and טבא which means ‘proper’ in Aramaic. As in a piece of wood that makes things proper – or a ruler for measuring.
[6] If one is taking into account the reader’s perspective, and that the purpose is to engender fear in the ‘nations of the world’ who see the Jewish people wearing Tefillin – it might be worthwhile to note that the idea of reading from right to left is not common in most language. Hebrew and Arabic [and other languages of the arabic peoples in that part of the world] share that trait. Thus the ‘nations of the world’ who read from right to left – to whom the verse applies that they should see the Tefillin and fear the Jewish people – would be the Arabs.
[7] If the reason for the number of stitches is to represent the tribes of Israel, and Yehudah and Levi are not part of the regular tribes, why would the SMG start of stating that twelve stitches are used? And if they are sufficiently a part of the tribes of Israel, then why would it be ok if only ten (10) stitches were used – excluding those tribes?
Possibly, Maharshal answers this as follows: The number of tribes are being represented by the number of stitches. There are twelve (12) tribes, so there are twelve (12) stitches. If the scribe decided to only use ten (10) stitches to represent the ‘regular’ tribes, that is ok since he is still symbolizing all twelve (12) by noting that there are only ten (10) regular tribes – for which there are stitches, and two (2) special ones – for which there aren’t. As for how the two (2) missing tribes are represented if there aren’t any stitches for them – those two (2) tribes were crowned with Royalty and Kehunah. The Tefillin house itself – the crown of the Tefillin – thus functions as their symbol [possibly with each letter ש representing one of them – possibly the three (3) headed ש representing the tribe of Levi, as that tribe was divided into three (3); גרשון, קהת, ומררי – and also the Kehunah line was divided into three (3) אלעזר, איתמר, פנחס. While the royalty was divided into four (4); the dynasty of Shaul, the dynasty of Dovid, the various dynastic kingdoms of the northern Kingdom of Yisroel, and the dynasty of the Ĉashmonaeans].
[8] The Tefillin base and house are sewn shut with a single thread of sinew. When that thread broke the first couple of times, the sages permitted a stitch in the broken area, without requiring a complete replacement of the single thread of sinew. Maharshal is focused here on this assumption, rather than entertaining the possibility that the sages might have permitted the Tefillin to remain unsealed. Because if the sages did allow such a thing, then why would the Yerushalmi have a problem when the third breach occurred? Obviously, we are talking about temporary fixes to the stitching.
[9] And presumably, this is why the SMG stresses that his teaching of this case as referring to the stitches and not the straps, results from a specific tradition – not that the SMG disagrees with the other methods of learning the Gemara’s case. This would therefore mean that the SMG wrote ולא מן אולפנן as a double entendre – that one may only patch the sinews a couple of times, and this is an exception to the rule, and not how Tefillin should be sealed. And that one should not follow the precedent as laid out by the SMG, since that is the tradition, he received from a minority opinion. Had Maharshal not implied this, I would not dare suggest it.
[10] We find a similarity with the prohibition against marrying two sisters, where the second one is called a צרה, as she harasses her sister-wife by her mere existence. See negative Mitzva 35.
[11] The Aroĉ provides a strange reason as to why he was called that. Quoting the verse [Shemos 24:11] the Aroĉ quotes the Midrash [Vayikra Rabba beginning of Parshas אחרי מות], did they bring cake with them to Mt Sinai – the Aroĉ explains that there are places where a cake is called a kl’r. This is also why Rabbi Elazar was called the Clear, because he ate a cake in which there was an amulet and became smart. In Greek, a cookie is a κουλουράκι.
[12] The assumption that this refers to a finger is because the phrase immediately prior is ושמים בזרת תכן – which is one of the fingers. In fact, the verse contains five (5) descriptions of things being measured, and if the methodology of the Aroĉ is to be followed, each of the expressions refers to a different finger.
- מי מדד בשעלו מים – [possible the ring finger, as the word (שעל) refers to the hollow of the cupped hand, and this finger was the bottom of the cupped hand as used in the קמיצה method of holding flour.]
- ושמים בזרת תכן – Pinky
- וכל בשלש עפר הארץ – Middle finger [Rashi agrees with this, but also offers that the world is divided into three habitats, ocean, wilderness, and inhabited areas]
- ושקל בפלס הרים – [possible the pointer, which is how one charts (פלס) things]
- וגבעות במאזנים – [possibly the thumb which is higher than the other fingers]
However, it is beyond me to be able to figure out which finger is referenced by which phrase, nor what the connection to the phrase is.
[13] Since Tosefos includes the requirement to wrap the strap around the finger, it would make sense that this is the same finger upon which Tefillin is normally wrapped, and here is used to establish the minimum length since the wrapping of the finger (as opposed to the forearm) is a critical component of wrapping Tefillin on the hand.
This contradicts the explanation of the Aroĉ that the finger referenced here is the pointer finger.
[14] The conclusion drawn by Maharshal in explaining the Gemara as discussing the composition of the straps does not contradict the conclusion of the SMG who concludes that there are no letters engraved or written or made up by the straps – because if there were such letters would have been the subject of a Halacha from Moshe at Mt Sinai, which would undermine the need for Rav Yosef to provide his rule.
Notwithstanding the conclusion of the Gemara and the SMG, it is common custom (although I have seen pairs of Tefillin in which the knot is shaped light a square instead of the letter) to call the knot of the Tefillin of the head by the letter ד, and the knot of the Tefillin of the arm by the letter י which together with the letters ש embossed on the outside of the Tefillin of the head forms G‑d Almighty’s name.
[15] Perhaps Maharshal adds the additional identifying characteristic to ensure that people understand that even if the hairline recedes, the spot for the Tefillin does not.
[16] Meaning, the ברכה for the Tefillin of the arm is said prior to fastening the Tefillin, while the ברכה for the Tefillin of the head is said throughout the donning on the head.
[17] Which would be problematic since we recite the ברכה of להניח תפילין and not לקשור תפילין.
[18] In defense of the Chabad custom of forming the knot at the outset as a slipknot, this allows the tightening and loosening of the knot without causing an intermission, and thus we are able to follow all opinions on the matter.
[19] Following the opinion that Maharshal found, which we don’t, that Tefillin are worn on Chol HaMoed, the thirteen (13) holidays during which Tefillin are not worn are probably:
- Rosh Hashana
- Rosh Hashana (2nd Day)
- Yom Kippur
- Sukkos
- Sukkos (2nd Day)
- Sh’mini Atzeres
- Simchas Torah
- Pesaĉ
- Pesaĉ (2nd Day)
- Sh’vi’I Shel Pesaĉ
- Acharon Shel Pesaĉ
- Shavuos
- Shavuos (2nd Day)
[20] The Jewish calendar isn’t calibrated for a solar year. The Jewish year by which holidays are established has either three hundred and fifty-five days in a normal year or three hundred and eighty-five days in a leap year. [There is also the extra day(s) which may or may not be added to the months of Cheshvan and Kislev]. Accordingly, in any three hundred and sixty-five (365) day period you will have either more than or fewer than [when during a leap year] the thirteen (13) Jewish holidays mentioned in which Tefillin are not worn – even according to this opinion.
It is also unclear as to what the quoted verse has to do with the fact that the letter Shin on the Tefillin which, according to this opinion, represents the number of days in a year in which Tefillin are worn.
[i] Yeshayahu 40:12
[ii] Mishna Yoma 1:7
[iii] Shemos 13:9
[iv] Devarim 28:10
RASHI
Rashi’s commentary on the four Parshas in which the requirement to put on Tefillin is listed is as follows:
Parsha of קדש לי
- והיה לך לאות – the exodus from Egypt will be the sign. (Meaning the Exodus will be a sign that the Jewish people must obey the commands in this Parsha).
- על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך – That you write these Parshas and tie them on your head and arm.
- על ידך – on the left hand (arm) which is why in the second Parsha it (the word ידך) is written in full, to teach you that [the placement of the Tefillin is] on the hand which is weaker.
- מימים ימימה – from year to year. [Unlike the opinion which derives from here that the Tefillin are only worn by day, Rashi determines this verse is referring to the previous concepts in the Parsha – namely Pesaĉ.]
Parsha of והיה כי יביאך
- ולטוטפת – Tefillin. And since they are four (4) containers, they are called טטפת; טט in Coptic is two (2), and פת in Afriki is two (2). Menachem though compiled it [along the lines of the verse[i]] והטף אל דרום and [the verse[ii]] אל תטיפו – which are terms of speech [“talk about”], similar to the word ולזכרון since the one who sees them fastened between the eyes will recall the miracle and talk about it.
Parsha of שמע
- וקשרתם לאות על ידך – These are the Tefillin in the arm.
(Unlike the previous Parsha which could be learned to establish the time when Tefillin were commanded, here there is no association with the occurrences of Pesaĉ – and it is thus from here that the Mitzvah is derived according to the פשט.)
- והיו לטטפת בין עיניך – these are the Tefillin in the head, and based on the number of Parshas [in the Tefillin] they are called טטפת, [since] טט in Coptic is two (2), and פת in Afriki is two (2).
Parsha of והיה אם שמוע
- ושמתם את דברי – even in exile, be identified by the Mitzvos: put on Tefillin, make Mezuzos, so that it won’t be new to you when you return. As the Possuk says[iii] הַצִּיבִי לָךְ צִיֻּנִים (which implies all the Mitzvos should be practiced, even when impossible to fulfill in full).
—
In addition to his direct commentary on the verses within the Parshas, there are also other mentions by Rashi related to Tefillin:
- When Avrohom is requiring his servant Eliezer to conform to his requests to obtain Rivka as a wife for Yitzchok, he administers an oath to Eliezer and requires him to take hold of an object which has been made holy by the performance of a Mitzvah – at which point only the Mitzvah of circumcision had been given, and thus Eliezer was made to swear while holding that body part. This follows the opinion of Rava unlike Rav Papa.[iv]
- The Halaĉa derives from the verse[v] למען תהיה תורת ה’ בפיך that the material used in the making of Tefillin must be from a Kosher animal. Rashi though does not comment on those words, leading me to believe that this conclusion cannot be derived from the פשט and must instead be a tradition to which the sages noted a corollary to the words. Furthermore, it seems that Rashi’s commentary precludes this meaning as he defines the prior half of the verse as a reference to the exodus being a sign – which the verse continues to talk about by stating that the events of the exodus and the teachings of that story must be “in your mouth” meaning there is an obligation to relate the happenings.
- In entreating G‑d Almighty to forgive the Jews; Moshe asks to be able to perceive G‑dliness, to which G‑d Almighty responds[vi] וראית את אחרי – on which Rashi comments that G‑d Almighty showed him the knot of the Tefillin. Presumably, this is derived from the Gemara[vii]: Rav Ĉana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon the Ĉosid, ‘[this verse] teaches us that G‑d Almighty showed Moshe the knot of the Tefillin.’ Rashi comments there that ‘this was from behind’ – which must mean that according to Rashi the knot being shown was the knot of the Tefillin of the head.[1]
- During the curses-turned-to-blessings of Bill’am, he notes[viii] that the Jewish people are הן עם כלביא יקום on which Rashi notes that the Jewish people are compared to a waking lion since they arise in the morning and snap up the Mitzvos; they don a Tallis, read the שמע and place Tefillin. (Which could imply that Rashi holds nighttime is not the time for Tallis or Tefillin.)
[1] This could be the source, according to Rashi, that the knot of the Tefillin of the arm – and indeed the entire container of the Tefillin of the arm is supposed to remain concealed.
As to what it means to perceive the knot of the Tefillin of G‑d Almighty, that is beyond the scope of this work.
[i] Yeĉezkel 21:2
[ii] Micha 2:6
[iii] Yer. 31:20
[iv] Rashi Beraishis 24:2, & Gem. Shavuos 38b.
[v] Shemos 13:9
[vi] Shemos 33:23
[vii] Gem. Beraĉos 7a
[viii] Bamidbar 23:24
Discussion by SMS
Rashi’s commentary on the four Parshas in which the requirement to put on Tefillin is listed is as follows:
Parsha of קדש לי
- והיה לך לאות – the exodus from Egypt will be the sign. (Meaning the Exodus will be a sign that the Jewish people must obey the commands in this Parsha).
- על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך – That you write these Parshas and tie them on your head and arm.
- על ידך – on the left hand (arm) which is why in the second Parsha it (the word ידך) is written in full, to teach you that [the placement of the Tefillin is] on the hand which is weaker.
- מימים ימימה – from year to year. [Unlike the opinion which derives from here that the Tefillin are only worn by day, Rashi determines this verse is referring to the previous concepts in the Parsha – namely Pesaĉ.]
Parsha of והיה כי יביאך
- ולטוטפת – Tefillin. And since they are four (4) containers, they are called טטפת; טט in Coptic is two (2), and פת in Afriki is two (2). Menachem though compiled it [along the lines of the verse[i]] והטף אל דרום and [the verse[ii]] אל תטיפו – which are terms of speech [“talk about”], similar to the word ולזכרון since the one who sees them fastened between the eyes will recall the miracle and talk about it.
Parsha of שמע
- וקשרתם לאות על ידך – These are the Tefillin in the arm.
(Unlike the previous Parsha which could be learned to establish the time when Tefillin were commanded, here there is no association with the occurrences of Pesaĉ – and it is thus from here that the Mitzvah is derived according to the פשט.)
- והיו לטטפת בין עיניך – these are the Tefillin in the head, and based on the number of Parshas [in the Tefillin] they are called טטפת, [since] טט in Coptic is two (2), and פת in Afriki is two (2).
Parsha of והיה אם שמוע
- ושמתם את דברי – even in exile, be identified by the Mitzvos: put on Tefillin, make Mezuzos, so that it won’t be new to you when you return. As the Possuk says[iii] הַצִּיבִי לָךְ צִיֻּנִים (which implies all the Mitzvos should be practiced, even when impossible to fulfill in full).
—
In addition to his direct commentary on the verses within the Parshas, there are also other mentions by Rashi related to Tefillin:
- When Avrohom is requiring his servant Eliezer to conform to his requests to obtain Rivka as a wife for Yitzchok, he administers an oath to Eliezer and requires him to take hold of an object which has been made holy by the performance of a Mitzvah – at which point only the Mitzvah of circumcision had been given, and thus Eliezer was made to swear while holding that body part. This follows the opinion of Rava unlike Rav Papa.[iv]
- The Halaĉa derives from the verse[v] למען תהיה תורת ה’ בפיך that the material used in the making of Tefillin must be from a Kosher animal. Rashi though does not comment on those words, leading me to believe that this conclusion cannot be derived from the פשט and must instead be a tradition to which the sages noted a corollary to the words. Furthermore, it seems that Rashi’s commentary precludes this meaning as he defines the prior half of the verse as a reference to the exodus being a sign – which the verse continues to talk about by stating that the events of the exodus and the teachings of that story must be “in your mouth” meaning there is an obligation to relate the happenings.
- In entreating G‑d Almighty to forgive the Jews; Moshe asks to be able to perceive G‑dliness, to which G‑d Almighty responds[vi] וראית את אחרי – on which Rashi comments that G‑d Almighty showed him the knot of the Tefillin. Presumably, this is derived from the Gemara[vii]: Rav Ĉana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon the Ĉosid, ‘[this verse] teaches us that G‑d Almighty showed Moshe the knot of the Tefillin.’ Rashi comments there that ‘this was from behind’ – which must mean that according to Rashi the knot being shown was the knot of the Tefillin of the head.[1]
- During the curses-turned-to-blessings of Bill’am, he notes[viii] that the Jewish people are הן עם כלביא יקום on which Rashi notes that the Jewish people are compared to a waking lion since they arise in the morning and snap up the Mitzvos; they don a Tallis, read the שמע and place Tefillin. (Which could imply that Rashi holds nighttime is not the time for Tallis or Tefillin.)
Discussion
On the order of the Tefillin, whether we follow Rashi or Rabeinu Tam (or the variations of the שימושי רבה & the ראב”ד) [@] the question commonly asked to me is, which order is correct? If only one can be kosher, how can we use the other. If either can be kosher, why can’t we say a ברכה on those which are not Rashi’s. If we don’t have the accurate tradition, why can’t we look into our father’s Tefillin, and if we did have the accurate tradition, how is that suddenly in the time of the Rishonim a difference of opinion arose, to the point where the different types of Tefillin are named after them?
In the book שאלות ותשובות מן השמים – questions asked and answered from heaven – this question was asked of heaven, and here is both the question and answer:
Question 3: Concerning the order of the Parshas in the Tefillin, this was my question: ‘Please great king, awesome, hidden wise one, revealer of secrets, guardian of the covenant and kindness, cause your kindness to grow with us today, and command your holy angels to let me know that which I am unsure of regarding the Parshas of the Tefillin. Because there are some sages who say the Parshas starting with והיה should be in the middle, and if the order was switched, the Tefillin are פסול. And now, king of kings, command your holy angels to let me know who the Halaĉa follows, and whose opinion is precious to you?’
Answer: ‘Each of these[ix] are the words of the living G‑d Almighty[2], and as the argument is below, so it is above; G‑d Almighty says the Parshas starting with והיה should be in the middle, and all of the heavenly court says the Parsha’s starting with והיה should be in their order. [x]“הוא אשר דבר ה’ לאמר בקרבי אקדש ועל פני כל העם אכבד”. And this is his [G‑d Almighty’s] honor, when the parsha of sovereignty in the beginning.’
As is common with answers from heaven, there is very little said, but what is said is compounded of meaning within meaning. Without going into a word-by-word analysis of the response, we can see derive the following conclusion from the response:
- There isn’t a single Halaĉic conclusion as to the ‘correct’ order – this remains an open question even thousands of years after the Mitzvah was commanded. In fact, with other scenarios in which there was a dispute between G‑d Almighty and the heavenly court, the only way to solve the dispute was to query a sage down here to make the decision[3]. Since the sages here have decided not to resolve it, but to leave this an open question, then it would seem that there is no resolution per se, and that this remains an open-ended Mitzvah in which there are multiple variations on how it can be fulfilled.
Having established that, it is worthy to analyze the response at least a little bit: The quote by heaven at the end of the response of the verse בקרבי אקדש could be read as “this is what G‑d Almighty said, in the interior I will place קדש, but facing the people will be my honor”. Interior and exterior can be euphemisms for front and back, and as explained in the answer, the [parsha of] sovereignty is in the beginning – meaning this would follow the opinion of the ראב”ד – where שמע / sovereignty faces the people, while at the back / interior is the parsha of קדש.
However, the opinion of G‑d Almighty, is that from the wearer’s perspective, or is he the reader? Based on the Midrash which says that G‑d Almighty’s Tefillin have different verses than ours (תפילין דמארי עלמא מה כתיב בהו? ומי כעמיך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ) we can assume that G‑d Almighty here is the reader of the Tefillin…
As to [#] whether a ברכה should be made on both the Tefillin of the arm – להניח תפילין as well as a ברכה on the Tefillin of the head – על מצות תפילין, this too was asked of heaven as follows:
Question 2:
Are they really two (2) Mitzvos? If so, why do some only say one (1) ברכה? If they are two (2) Mitzvos, how can one (1) ברכה suffice.
If they are one (1) Mitzvah, then it makes sense why an interruption calls for a repeat ברכה – even if the phraseology is different. But then, if they are only one (1) composite Mitzvah – how can they not be requiring each other.
It would also seem that the Kohen Gadol, who would wear the Tefillin on his head, but not his arm, since the arm had to be free of anything separating while performing the Mitzvah, provides an indication that each is a Mitzvah in itself.
Further Discussions
[*] with regard to Rabeinu Yitzĉok who states that nowhere is mentioned neither the letter Daled nor Yud – the SMG himself quoted Abaya previously regarding the Shin embossed on the house of the Tefillin of the head being a Halaĉa transmitted to Moshe at Mt Sinai, and there the Gemara[xi] quotes Abaya further as both the Daled formed of the knot on the back of the head and the letter Yud formed with the knot securing the Tefillin of the hand, are both also Halaĉa transmitted to Moshe at Sinai. Considering they are all stated in the same Gemara, from the same author, who quotes that they are all a Halaĉa transmitted to Moshe at Mt Sinai, I find it very hard to believe that this would not be considered a viable source according to Rabeinu Yitzĉok. I find it even more shocking that Maharshal does not address this. Especially since the Gemara quotes Abaya for the very purpose of explaining why Tefillin must be taken off before entering a bathroom – because of the letters of Hashem’s name incorporated into them.
This can perhaps be explained by noting that Tosefos states, the correct version of the Gemara does not contain Abaya’s statements concerning the letters of Hashem’s name being incorporated into the Tefillin straps. For proof Tosefos offers the fact that previously[xii] where Rav Yosef posits a rule that when making something holy, only kosher materials may be used, the Gemara there concludes this rule is necessary to teach us that the straps of the Tefillin must be made from a kosher animal. The Gemara does not offer a counter that this rule is not necessary since the straps form the letters of Hashem’s name, as it previously countered with regard to the container of the Tefillin. Accordingly, Tosefos concludes this counter is not offered because the version of the text where the straps are tied into the shapes of those letters does not exist.
The RAN also seems to follow Tosefos, as does Rabeinu Ĉananel. Rashi as well does not comment on that part of the Gemara, which means it is possible he didn’t have that version, but Rashi does comment with regard to Abaya’s statement that the letter Shin embossed into the Tefillin of the head is a Halaĉa transmitted to Moshe at Mt Sinai.
Rashi states: the Letter Shin which is made from the outer leather itself protrudes like three lines which are something like the letter Shin from Hashem’s name ש-די. The Daled and Yud are made in the knot which has one head to the north (which is to the left of the person facing east) and one head to the east [meaning facing in the direction the person is facing, at a 90 degree angle from the other head], like a Daled. And (on the strap for the hand Tefillin) there is a very small strap hanging on it and it doesn’t have much of an incline, just like a Yud. It is folded while the leather is still wet, and it remains bent forever.
So, it seems that while Rashi also does not necessarily have the version with the other two letters being established as Halaĉa to Moshe from Sinai, nevertheless, Rashi comes to the [obvious] conclusion that those letters are in fact incorporated into the knots of the Tefillin. I believe this conclusion stems from two reasons: 1) the knots look like those letters, and more importantly, 2) Abaya’s comment that the Shin of the Tefillin, which is a Halaĉa to Moshe from Sinai – and which is universally accepted to refer to the letter Shin of Hashem name, for otherwise why would its presence be a reason to avoid going to the bathroom with the letter exposed – can only make sense if the letter was a component of the full name. A single Hebrew letter, regardless which one it is, does not contain the holiness to bar it from being in a bathroom. And even if the intent of the engraver was that the letter should represent the first letter of Hashem’s name, not having completed the name would mean it did not become imbued with holiness. Besides, how would that intent work if the person knew that the remainder of the name would not be engraved or represented in any way.
So, the simple understanding of the Gemara requires that all three letters be present in the Tefillin. As to why only the Shin was quoted, that can be explained because it is the only letter of the three which is exposed. The Daled is covered by the tallis over the head, and the Yud is covered by the shirt.
As to the proof offered by Tosefos concerning the discussion of Rav Yosef’s rule, that proof seems to be lacking. The Gemara quoted is actually part of a larger section which goes as follows:
Rabbi Elazar asked, can the skin of a non-kosher animal render a person Tamay [by means of it functioning as a tent over both the person and a dead body]. The Gemara asked, what was bothering him.
Rav Ada bar Ahava answered, the question relates to the Taĉash which was used in the times of Moshe [as one of the tent coverings of the Mishkan], was it the skin of a kosher or non-kosher animal. [depending on the answer, that would drive the answer to his other question as to whether such a skin can be considered a tent for the purposes of conveying Tum’ah]. Rav Yosef said, why is this a question, we learnt ‘the only things which were ok to be used for the purposes of heavenly service were the hides of kosher animals.’
[On this rule quoted by Rav Yosef] Rabbi Abba asked a question. According to Rabbi Yehuda, there were two coverings [in the Mishkan], one of red ram’s leather, and one of Taĉash hide. Rabbi Neĉemya argued [with Rabbi Yehuda] and said there was only one covering, and it appeared like a Tela Ilan (a tree sheep?). But Tela Ilan is a non-kosher animal. [which contradicts the rule by Rav Yosef.]
The Gemara explains Rabbi Neĉemya and states that he meant it was like a Tela Ilan in that it had multiple colors, but it wasn’t a Tela Ilan, because that is not kosher, and the Taĉash was kosher. Rav Yosef commented, that is why the Aramaic translation [of the Taĉash] is שוש גוונא Sus-Gavna – in that it is happy, sus, with its many colors, Gavna.
Rava said, furthermore [we can answer the original question from Rabbi Elazar that] leather from a non-kosher animal does convey Tum’ah as a tent can be derived from here, as we learnt the verse[xiii] says או בעור when it could have said עור. [The extra word או] includes leather from a non-kosher animal, as well as leather which became stricken with Tzara’as while in the hand of the Kohen. If a person cut pieces of these and formed a single covering with those pieces, how do we know it conveys Tum’ah when it forms a tent, based on the verse או בכל מלאכת עור. However, that reasoning can be refuted because [Tzara’as is different] in that it can become Tamay even if only the warp or the woof became afflicted. [unlike a tent which can’t be a tent with only the warp or the woof].
Rather, we can derive [the idea that leather from a non-kosher animal is capable of conveying the Tum’ah by means of a tent] from the Sheratzim [ / Tzara’as], where we learnt the verse says עור, which [might] only mean a hide form a kosher animal, how do we know the hide from a non-kosher animal [can also convey Tum’ah], that is why the verse says או בעור. One can counter that by stating that Sheratzim are different since they render Tamay even as small as a lentil.
So Tzara’as will prove it, and the argument continues. Neither case is exactly like the other. The common denominator is that leather is Tamay, and the Torah made non-kosher hides just like kosher hides. So too with regard to a tent structure made from non-kosher hide, it conveys Tum’ah just like a kosher hide.
[accordingly, it would seem we do not need Rav Yosef’s rule, however, the Gemara does not accept this common denominator, since] Rava from Barnish asked Rav Ashi, the underlying cases [of Tzara’as and Sheratzim] of the common denominators both convey Tum’ah even at levels less than a Kazayis, while the Tum’ah transmitted by a dead body under a tent requires the size of larger than a Kazayis.
Rava of Barnish offered an alternative, that we can derive the answer to Rav Elazar’s question from a fortiori applied to goats’ hair, which does not become Tamay from Tzara’as, but still does convey Tum’ah when used as a tent over a dead body. Leather from a non-kosher animal, which can become Tamay from Tzara’as can certainly convey Tum’ah when used as a tent over a dead body.
[the Gemara accepts this fortiori and turns back to Rav Yosef’s original answer which involved the quote of a rule which has no purpose.]
The Gemara answers, this rule is used for Tefillin. The Gemara asks, what component of the Tefillin can the rule be used for – the Tefillin itself must be made from a kosher animal based on the verse[xiv] למען תהיה תורת ה’ בפיך – from that which is permitted in your mouth.[4]
It must be [the rule is needed] with regard to the leather. But didn’t Abaya state that the Shin of the Tefillin is a Halaĉa to Moshe at Sinai [which means there is no need for Rav Yosef’s rule.]
[Rashi here notes once again that the straps formed all three letters]
It must be for the material used to tie them – with the hair – and the sinews needed to sew up [the containers]. Those too are Halaĉa to Moshe from Sinai, as we know they must be square, which includes tying up the parchment, and sealing up the containers.
It must be for the straps. But didn’t Rabbi Yitzĉok state that the straps must be black, based on a Halaĉa to Moshe from Sinai. True we have a tradition that they must be black, but we do not have a tradition that they must be made from a kosher animal.
[it is here that Tosefos states the version where Abaya notes the straps form those letters should have been added to refute the need for Rav Yosef’s rule.]
The Gemara asked, since Rav Yosef’s rule is meant to apply to the straps of the Tefillin, what about the Taĉash, was it kosher or not. The Gemara then goes on to conclude that since the Taĉash was a unicorn, it was a kosher animal. As to whether it was domesticated or wild, the Gemara does not come to a conclusion since it might be light a Keresh which is a wild animal and also has a single horn.
—
A quick look at the Gemara according to Tosefos will leave us with two problems. 1) Tosefos is stating that the inability of using the Halaĉa to Moshe from Sinai quoted by Rabbi Yitzĉok with regards to straps being black only relates to their coloration and not their makeup. And since the Gemara did not offer the other Halaĉa to Moshe from Sinai that the straps form letters of Hashem’s name when tied, it must be that version of the Gemara was not in existence.
But, as the Gemara refuted Rabbi Yitzĉok’s Halaĉa to Moshe from Sinai with the statement that the tradition was not comprehensive as it did not include instruction as to the material that had to be made black, what makes Tosefos think that the tradition regarding the letters formed by the knot was comprehensive and included instructions as to the material. The Gemara could easily ask the same question, and having already asked that question, determined that this was the need for Rav Yosef’s rule.
On the other hand, if the Halaĉa to Moshe at Sinai can be parsed as to only include what was actually transmitted, the Gemara could probably have asked that question regarding the letter Shin as well, that the tradition of the Shin exists, but no tradition exists with regard the makeup of the material.
As to why the question can be asked of the coloration, that is because the coloration is an additive, and not a component of the Tefillin. Which implies that the question Tosefos posed could be asked but wasn’t asked because the version doesn’t exist.
But then if the tradition about the black coloration did not also include a material component, why did the Gemara offer that as a refutation of the need for Rav Yosef’s rule.
We can chase our tails all night going back and forth between the Hava Amina and the Maskana. The bottom line though is that the Gemara accepts the rule quoted by Rav Yosef even though the verse says Tefillin must be made from that which is kosher! Accepting that the verse is limiting itself to only the parchment and ink seems obvious, since the verse is actually talking about Toras Hashem, which we stretch to include Tefillin which have four (4) Parsha’s in them. But the then why would the Gemara assume that it covers the whole Tefillin. And again, the ring-around between Hava Amina and Maskana.
Looking at it from Tosefos’s perspective results in a question as to why the Halaĉa to Moshe at Sinai requiring the straps be tied into those particular shapes was not introduced into this Gemara – that’s true – but it doesn’t answer a more fundamental question – is there in fact such a requirement transmitted to Moshe at Sinai? It seems there is, as we find in Gemara Eiruvin[xv] Rav Yehuda the son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilas said in the name of Rav that the knot of the Tefillin is a Halaĉa transmitted to Moshe at Sinai.
Rashi there follows the logic he presents here, but Tosefos quotes the same logic as mentioned above, and states that the Halaĉa transmitted to Moshe at Sinai with regard to the knot of the Tefillin in fact only refers to the letter Shin! We do not have a knot in the shape of the letter Shin.
Some have proposed that the wrappings either around the hand or around the forearm can be formed into a letter Shin, and perhaps that indeed is the source as to why it is wrapped that way – but this does not answer two very simple problems. Tosefos states the Shin it forms is the same as the one quoted by Abaya – the one embossed into the container of the Tefillin, and 2) The Gemara in Eiruvin states that the knot is the one for which we have the Halaĉa to Moshe from Sinai.
If the shape of the knot is not what was transmitted, then what was?
2) The second problem is looking at it from Tosefos’s perspective is that of Rashi. Tosefos does not address Rashi’s comments. He doesn’t always do so when arguing with Rashi, but as I noted previously, stating that the letter Shin on the Tefillin compartment is a letter from Hashem’s name would not make sense if the remainder of the name was not represented.
Furthermore, both Tosefos and the SMG note that there is no source for the requirement of the knot to be in a certain shape.
I believe the answer to all this is as follows:
According to Rashi, he takes the simple approach that the shapes of all three letters are present in the Tefillin and that explains the Gemara’s.
Tosefos position though can be explained as follows: With regard to the knot, as explained in Eiruvin, we are talking about a slipknot, one which is not fixed, except for the fact that it isn’t taken apart. If those were representatives of the letters of G‑d Almighty’s name, we would not be able to untie them, not just because of the issue of the knot being untied on Shabbos, but because of the issue of erasing – and this question would apply during the weekday as well! Which the Gemara makes no mentioned of.
Furthermore, if the knots formed the complete name of Hashem, certainly they would not be able to be worn within a bathroom! There would be no question in the Gemara.
The key here is as Rashi says, the letter Shin embossed was only similar to a letter Shin. Unlike the technology available to us now, the embossing in the Tefillin of the old days were barely recognizable as a letter Shin. And in fact, the requirement was that it only have to be somewhat similar to a shin in that it had three lines meeting at the center. The same logic applies to the knots, they certainly didn’t form the letter, as a letter Daled requires a Yud to stick out at the back on the right (southern) side – which not even Rashi states existed. In fact, had such a letter been written in the Torah it would have been deemed a malformed letter Reish, not a Daled.
So, there is no Halaĉa transmitted from Moshe at Sinai regarding the requirement to incorporate Hashem’s name ש-די into the Tefillin in this manner. There is however the hint of it – Rashi says that hint is borne out with all three letters, while Tosefos says it is only borne out with the one letter. Which explains according to both of them why the Gemara would be unsure as to whether one can enter the bathroom with a hint of G‑d Almighty’s name being worn.
As for the Gemara Eiruvin, Tosefos can answer that this Halaĉa transmitted from Moshe at Sinai refers to the knot being a slipknot as opposed to a regular knot. And such a knot is being discussed in the Gemara as to whether it is a sufficient knot or not. It’s shape as hinting at a specific letter has no bearing on the conversation. Rashi doesn’t disagree with that, but neither does he feel this excludes the possibility that the HMS reflects the shape of the knot in addition to its type.
—
[~] With regard to when the Tefillin must be worn, and whether a ברכה must be recited to remove them. There is a quote in the Yerushalmi[xvi] of Rabbi Zraykon in the name of Rabbi Yaakov son of Rabbi Idi that when removing the Tefillin, one recites the ברכה of אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לשמור חוקיו. The basis for this is the verse[xvii] ושמרת את החוקה הזאת למועדה, מימים ימימה. According to Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili, this verse is referring to the Mitzvah of Tefillin, which means the verse establishes the time frame for Tefillin being only by day – and therefore a ברכה is recited in line with the language of the verse when removing the Tefillin to conform with the verse. In the Gemara[xviii] Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili further derives from the verse that Tefillin are not worn on Shabbos or Yom Tov from the prefix of מ-from on the word מימים which means literally ‘from the days’ – in other words, not all days are days which have the Mitzvah of Tefillin. Rabbi Akiva argues and learns the verse as applying to the Mitzvos associated with Pesaĉ and not Tefillin – as that is the contents of the verses immediately preceding this one.
Following the opinion of Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili, Rabbi Avahu in the name of Rabbi Elazar noted that one who wears Tefillin violates the positive Mitzvah – based on the same verse. The Yerushalmi asks, but he himself used to have Tefillin on at night while learning. The Yerushalmi answers they weren’t being worn for the Mitzvah and were pushed to the side.
—
[&] The phrase used by the SMG is: “ושמא כמו כן עור הבתים צריך להיות שחור – perhaps similarly the leather of the housing must be black.” Why does the SMG state “perhaps”? Can we make Tefillin out of any color leather?
The edition of the SMG I am using contains the following associated footnote: see Tosefos[xix] and the Tur[xx]. I will review the actual Halaĉa first.
The Tur writes in the name of the Rambam[xxi]:
if he does not make the compartments black, he may make the straps the color of the compartments.
The Rambam actually writes as follows:
The outer surface of the straps of both the head and the arm Tefillin must be black. This is a Halaĉa transmitted to Moshe at Sinai. Unlike the inner surface, since it faces the inside, it is acceptable if it is green or white. One should not make this [side of the straps] red, since it will be embarrassing for him[5] if they become overturned. The back of the straps should be the same color as the compartment; if it is green, they should be green; if it is white, they should be white. It is attractive for Tefillin to be entirely black, the compartments and the entire strap.
Normally, Halaĉa is not ruled based on the Rambam, however, in this case, the Tur quotes the Rambam with regard to the lack of requirement that the compartments be black. As the Rambam stated ‘it is attractive that the Tefillin be entirely black’ which means that this is not a required color, but just something that makes the Tefillin nicer.
This ruling by the Tur based on the Rambam follows Tosefos noted above on the Gemara. The Gemara states as follows:
Rabbi Yitzĉok said that the straps are black is a Halaĉa transmitted to Moshe at Sinai.
The Gemara asks, [there is a Beraissa which states] we do not strap the Tefillin with anything other than its type [of material – leather], whether yellow-green, black or white. They should not be red because it is embarrassing and for another reason.[6]
Rabbi Yehuda said, there was a story about a student of Rabbi Akiva who would tie his Tefillin with straps of sky-blue [wool], and Rabbi Akiva never said anything. Is it possible that this Tzaddik would see his student [doing this] and wouldn’t protest. The Gemara answers [exactly] he didn’t see his student. Had he seen this occur, he [Rabbi Akiva] would not have allowed this.
There is a story of Hurkenos, the son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkenos, who was tying his Tefillin with straps of purple-dyed [wool], and he [his father] didn’t say anything. Is it possible that this Tzaddik saw his son [doing this] and didn’t protest. The Gemara answers [exactly], he did not see. Had he seen, he [Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkenos] would not have allowed this.
The Gemara notes, the Beraissa stated that the straps may be ‘yellow-green, black or white’. [Which counters Rabbi Yitzĉok’s statement.]
The Gemara answers, this is not a contradiction. Here [the Beraissa] is referring to [to color on] the inside, and there [Rabbi Yitzĉok’s statement] is referring to [the color] on the outside.
The Gemara asks, if [the application of the Beraissa is only for] the inside of the straps, then what embarrassment is there [if the inside was red. That part of the strap isn’t visible]. The Gemara answers, sometimes the straps can flip over [and the red side would be visible].
Tosefos comments on Rabbi Yitzĉok’s statement and states:
There are those who make the compartments of the Tefillin from white leather; since, the only thing that needs to be black is the straps.
It thus seems clear that the Halaĉa does not actually require black compartments, just that the straps are to be black.
This explains why the SMG hesitates to rule that the compartments must be black, even if this would mean they are a different color than the straps.
Sadly, I did not comment on this quirk in the SMG’s writing as it seemed irrelevant. Had I been blessed with Ruach Hakodesh, this would not have been passed over in my first edition. When oh when will G‑d openly rest his spirit on us again? It has been too long. After the first edition of this book was published, I was made aware of a study[7] that made the news as follows (the italicization of the conclusion is a change to the format that I added):
ABSTRACT: Tefillin are Jewish ritual artifacts consisting of leather cases, containing inscribed slips, which are affixed with leather straps to the body of the tefillin practitioner. According to current Jewish ritual law, the tefillin cases and straps are to be colored black. The present study examines seventeen ancient tefillin cases discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls in caves in the Judean Desert. All seventeen cases display grain surfaces with a very dark, nearly black appearance. We start with a hypothesis that the cases were intentionally colored black in antiquity using either a carbon-based or iron-gall-based paint or dye. The aim of this study is to test this hypothesis by subjecting these tefillin cases to a battery of examinations to assess the presence of carbon and iron used as pigments, and of organic materials which may have been used as binding agents in a paint. The tests deployed are: (1) macroscopic and microscopic analyses; (2) multispectral imaging using infrared wavelengths; (3) Raman spectroscopy; (4) Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); and (5) scanning electron microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy. The results of these tests found no traces of carbon-based or iron-gall-based pigments, nor of organic compounds which may have served as binders in a paint. These results suggest that our posited hypothesis is unlikely. Instead, results of the SEM examination suggest it more likely that the black color on the surfaces of the tefillin cases is the result of natural degradation of the leather through gelatinization. The Judean Desert tefillin likely represent tefillin practices prior to when the rabbinic prescription on blackening tefillin was widely practiced. Our study suggests that the kind of non-blackened tefillin which the later rabbis rejected in their own times may well have been quite common in earlier times.
While the study is important, it does not contradict Halaĉa. It is unfortunate that scientists such as these have been unable to get past their biases as to how they treat Rabbinic Halaĉa. Halaĉa is not generally invented by the later Rabbis, instead it was codified and committed to writing in later generations. Not because it didn’t exist prior, but because the oral transmission was sufficient. This is especially true for the Mitzvos which are Halaĉos transmitted to Moshe at Sinai – as is the case with the requirement for the straps to be black.
The scientific study examined specific sets of Tefillin and concluded that with these sets there were no blackening agents employed. Taking their scientific methods at face value, this still does not provide any information about the timeline for when the requirement to blacken the straps of the Tefillin was made known to the Jewish people. And yet, not satisfied with their scientific study, the scientists saw fit to draw a conclusion from outside the frame of their study. I will not cast further aspersions on their character for doing so. Pointing out the discrepancy is sufficient.
Unfortunately, this unscientific conclusion was accepted by news outlets[8] who irresponsibly [and perhaps gleefully] reported an apparent contradiction to Halaĉa.
Again, this study does not contradict the Halaĉa, for the following reasons:
- The study appears to have been done on the compartments of the Tefillin. No mention is made as to whether the study was done on the straps. As noted, the compartments need not be black.
- Even if the study was done on the straps, anyone who has worn Tefillin will know how easily the coloration wears off, even when only wearing the Tefillin during morning Davening. Certainly, when worn all day, as was common in those days, the coloration on the straps would wear off very quickly.
- The presence of the Tefillin in the Geniza is indicative usually of there being something wrong with the Tefillin, which is why they are buried. Thus, no conclusion can be drawn from those regarding Kosher Tefillin.
- The Dead Sea Scrolls contain many documents and fragments of documents which indicate these belonged to a sect[1] of the Jewish People who did not follow Torah True (based on the oral tradition) Judaism. So, it is not surprising that they would choose to make their Tefillin different than the Halaĉa as transmitted to Moshe at Sinai.
- As noted by the Gemara from both the story about the student of Rabbi Akiva, and the son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkenos, blackened straps were not always available to them. And considering that this Halaĉa is strictly an oral tradition, those who were still studying may not have had that tradition imparted, at least not while the story had occurred. In fact, the presence of the story itself indicates that straps such as those were unusual among those who followed Torah True Judaism during the times of the Mishna.
[1] Commonly thought to be the Essenes group. Perhaps the same as those noted in the Gemara as the Perushim.
[1] This could be the source, according to Rashi, that the knot of the Tefillin of the arm – and indeed the entire container of the Tefillin of the arm is supposed to remain concealed.
As to what it means to perceive the knot of the Tefillin of G‑d Almighty, that is beyond the scope of this work.
[2] The same response given from Heaven when the Jewish people were looking to determine whether the Halacha should follow Base Shamay or Base Hillel. Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel this argument raged for three (3) years until heaven intervened. In the end, the Halacha was determined to follow Base Hillel.
[3] [Gem. Bava Metzia 86a] Rav Kahana related that Rav Ĉama, son of the daughter of Ĉasa told him that Rabba bar Naĉmayni passed away due to religious persecution.
His enemies accused him of disloyalty by claiming that he ruled that twelve thousand Jews were not required to pay tax for two months out of the year, since during those two months, the men would go study in Yeshiva.
The government sent a bounty hunter, but Rabba bar Naĉmayni fled from place to place until eventually they caught up with him in an inn in Pumpedisa. But a miracle happened, and when the bounty hunter was given a drink by the innkeeper, his head twisted around [and presumably broke]. The innkeeper became scared, as this was an agent of the government, so Rabba bar bar Ĉana told them to give him another drink, and his head twisted back around the right way. Recognizing the miracle, the bounty hunter was sure that the sage was present somewhere and sent him a message ‘I will not leave this inn until I meet him. And I promise I will not reveal your whereabouts to the government unless I am tortured.’ With that promise, Rabba bar Naĉmayni was brought to the bounty hunter, who took him to a small room to closet him there. Rabba bar Naĉmayni prayed, and the outer wall of the room collapsed allowing him to escape to the nearby swamp where he hid.
While there, he was studying while sitting on a tree stump alone – and the heavenly court was having a debate regarding the verse [Vayikra 13:2] as to if there was a doubt as to whether the בהרת preceded the appearance of a white hair, would that person be טהור. G‑d said he would be considered טהור, while the heavenly academy held, he would be Tamay. To resolve the dispute, they decided to ask Rabba bar Naĉmayni, since he had once claimed preeminence in regard to his mastery of the laws of Tzara’as afflictions.
They sent a messenger to bring his soul to heaven, but the angel of death was unable to approach since Rabba bar Naĉmayni’s mouth did not cease from studying Torah. So, they caused a wind to blow and howl between the branches. Rabba bar Naĉmayni mistook the sound for an approaching battalion of government soldiers and decided he would prefer passing away rather than being captured by the Romans – so he let the angel of death take his soul. While passing away, his last words were טהור טהור. A voice from heaven was heard ‘happy are you Rabba bar Naĉmayni, whose body was טהור and whose soul left in טהור.’ And in Pumpedisa, a note fell from heaven in the Yeshiva notifying them that Rabba bar Naĉmayni had been summoned to heaven. Abaya and Rava and all the Rabbi’s went searching for the body but didn’t know where to look until they saw a cloud of birds hovering over the spot to provide shade to the body. They mourned and lamented him for three (3) days and would have left except another note fell from heaven warning against leaving, so they continued the lamentation until seven days after which a final note fell telling them they could go home in peace.
On the same day that Rabba bar Naĉmayni passed away, a tornado caught an Arab merchant and flung him from side to side across the Pappa River. He asked what was going on, and they told him that this was because Rabba bar Naĉmayni passed away. So, the Arab said to G‑d, ‘Master of the Universe, the whole world is yours, Rabba bar Naĉmayni is yours, you are Rabba’s and he is yours. Why are you destroying the world?’ so the tornado subsided.
[4] The same source is used to require scribes to write using feathers from a kosher bird. For example, one may not write with an eagle quill. My father asked me, what about using inanimate materials, such as metal or ceramic, to create a pen with quill-like properties. Since such materials are not non-kosher, would those be permitted?
I haven’t located a source for the answer, but I believe that from a practical point of view, such a pen would be forbidden for two reasons: 1) such materials were available to the ancient scribes, and should such materials have been allowed, presumably they would have been in use. There are many reeds, which can and are used in the making of pens in the far east – so such practices were well known. The absence of their use traditionally suggests that their use is not acceptable. 2) the requirement derived from the verse is a positive requirement – use things which are permitted in the mouth. Had the verse been written in the negative, ‘don’t use something forbidden’ I would say that a non-organic material fits that requirement. But here, even though the non-organic material is not forbidden, neither is it directly permitted – and therefore, such pens would not fit the requirement of the verse.
[5] As explained in the Gemara.
[6] Rashi explains that the embarrassment would be related to people thinking the straps are red due to blood from sores that he was scratching. [Sores which are the result of not engaging in proper hygiene.] As for the ‘other thing’ people will think he was wearing his Tefillin while engaging in sex with his wife while on her period [and blood got onto the straps].
This is pretty indicative of the ubiquitousness of Tefillin during the time of the Gemara as well as the poverty in which they lived. Tefillin were worn so commonly that the presumption was this person continued wearing them while having sex, with a menstruating woman, rather than he dyed the straps red.
[7] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38870129/ The study was published by Yonatan Adler, Ilit Cohen-Ofri, Yonah Maor, Theresa Emmerich Kamper, and Iddo Pinkas. Copyright: © 2024 Adler et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
[8] I’ve seen the following articles some do incorporate Halaĉic discussions:
- Times of Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/study-ancient-phylacteries-natural-leather-color-illustrates-evolution-of-jewish-law/
- The Jerusalem Post: https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/article-806176
- Arutz Sheva: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/366386
- Ha’aretz: https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2024-06-13/ty-article/researchers-deduce-true-color-of-ancient-tefillin-cases-in-second-temple-period/00000190-12f0-d621-abfa-5bf113810000
[i] Yeĉezkel 21:2
[ii] Miĉa 2:6
[iii] Yer. 31:20
[iv] Rashi Beraishis 24:2, & Gem. Shavuos 38b.
[v] Shemos 13:9
[vi] Shemos 33:23
[vii] Gem. Beraĉos 7a
[viii] Bamidbar 23:24
[ix] Gem. Eiruvin 13b
[x] Vayikra 10:3
[xi] Gem. Shabbos 62a
[xii] Gem. Shabbos 28b
[xiii] Vayikra 13:48
[xiv] Shemos 13:9
[xv] Gem. Eiruvin 97a
[xvi] Yer. Beraĉos 2:3
[xvii] Shemos 13:10
[xviii] Gem. Eiruvin 96a
[xix] Tosefos רצועות Gem. Menaĉos 35a
[xx] Tur Oreĉ Ĉaim 33
[xxi] Rambam Hilĉos Tefillin 3:14