Order of the Parshiyos

Letotafos (tefillin placed on the head) occurs three times in the Torah, twice without a “vav” and once without a “vav,” - four in all. This teaches us that four compartments are to be inserted in the (head) tefillin. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva, however, maintains that there is no need for that explanation, for the word totafos itself implies four, since it is composed of the word tot which means two in Caspi, and fos which means two in Afriki.

In both the shel rosh (head tefillin) and shel yad (arm tefillin), there are the same four passages written in them; the only difference between them is that in the shel rosh each bayis (compartment) contains one passage, while in the shel yad all four passages are written in the same bayis on one piece of parchment. (Orach Chaim 32:2). Furthermore, these four passages must be written in order as it appears in the Torah which is Kadesh, V’hayah ki yi’vi’achah, She’ma, V’hayah im shamo’a, and if they aren’t, the tefillin are invalid. (ibid 32:1).

There is a well known disagreement between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam as to what is the correct order of the passages: Rashi holds that it is Kadesh, V’hayah ki yi’vi’achah, She’ma, V’hayah im shamo’a, starting from left to right. Rabbeinu Tam maintains that V’hayah im shamo’a goes before She’ma. The Shulchan Aruch rules in accordance with Rashi (ibid. 34:1). The Mishnah Berurah points out that Rabbeinu Tam is not arguing on the order that it must be written, rather, only on the order that it needs to be placed in the compartments.

The Bach quotes the S’mag and Mordechai, who reported that a pair of tefillin were found in the grave of Yechezkel Hanavi, and the passages appeared in the order of Rashi. Some do not consider this as proof that the ancient tefillin were in fact made according to the opinion of Rashi, since it might have been buried precisely because it was out of order. The Bach rejects this answer, since they could have simply switched it back to the proper order, as we learned that it is only the placing out of order in the compartments that invalidates the tefillin.

Read more!

Tefillin; Sefer Torah

Tefillin as a Garb

The Gemora states: Tefillin are called possessions. This is proven from the following Mishna: If someone consecrates his possessions, his tefillin are evaluated (and he redeems the tefillin from hekdesh with money).

The Gemora inquires: What would be regarding a Sefer Torah? Do we say that since it is forbidden to be sold, it is not included in “possessions,” or perhaps, since it may be sold for the study of Torah or to marry a woman, it is regarded as his possession? The Gemora leaves this question unresolved.

The Rashbam explains: Perhaps there is a distinction between a Sefer Torah and tefillin. Since one wears tefillin on his body, perhaps it is considered as part of his garb, and that is why it is regarded as a “possession.”

The Maharsham in his responsa (1:148) was asked regarding someone who took a vow to donate money to clothe the naked; is he allowed to purchase a pair of tefillin for a pauper?

A proof is brought from a Tikunei Zohar, which states that when the Torah states (regarding Adam in the Garden of Eden): And Hashem made for Adam and for his wife shirts of skin, and He dressed them; this is referring to tefillin. This, the Gemora in Sotah (14a) explains to mean that you should go in His ways. Just as He clothes the naked, so too, you should clothe the naked. Accordingly, we can say that buying tefillin for a poor person is regarded as clothing him.

The Maharsham cites our Rashbam as a proof to this as well.

HALACHOS FROM THE DAF
Sefer Torah

The Gemora inquires: What would be regarding a Sefer Torah? Do we say that since it is forbidden to be sold, it is not included in “possessions,” or perhaps, since it may be sold for the study of Torah or to marry a woman, it is regarded as his possession? The Gemora leaves this question unresolved.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 270:1) writes that it is a mitzvah for every single man to write a Sefer Torah, even if he had inherited one. One may not sell a Sefer Torah even if he has many Sifrei Torah, and even in order to buy a newer and nicer one. However, one may sell a Sefer Torah in order to learn Torah or to get married, if he has nothing else to sell. The Re”ma adds that one may also sell a Sefer Torah in order to redeem captives.

The Shulchan Aruch in other places adds a few other cases where one may sell a Sefer Torah. Orach Chaim 153:6 states that it would be permitted in order to have money to support the students, and if money is needed to marry off orphans. The Chelkas Michokek (Even Ha'ezer 1:1) writes that this only applies to a yasom (an orphan boy) and not to a yesomah (an orphan girl). However, the Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim ibid) rules that it applies to a yesomah as well. Bais Shmuel and many others including Mishnah Berurah rule as the Magen Avraham.

As for the answer to the Gemora’s inquiry, the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 248:11) rules that the halachah is in doubt whether it is included or not (because the Gemora did not answer the question), and we will only know once Eliyahu Hanavi comes, and he will resolve this question for us. Therefore, if the recipient has already taken the Sefer Torah, the shechiv mei’ra cannot take it back.

This concept is elucidated by the Drishah, with a fascinating halachic distinction. In cases where the Gemora has a teiku and the halachah is not clear due to the logic that can go both ways, and we will only know once Eliyahu Hanavi comes, then, we say that if the other party grabbed it, we cannot take it away from him, since the halachah may very well be in his favor. However, in cases where the Gemora isn't clear what the halachah is due to a question of what an average person had in mind, then we won't know the answer when Eliyahu Hanavi comes, since some people think like this and some like that. Therefore in our case where the question is due to the logic that can equally be heard both ways, and we will know how to rule when Eliyahu Hanavi comes, the halachah is that if the recipient grabbed it, we cannot take it away from him.

Read more!

Taking Care of Tefillin

by: Rabbi Yechezkel Khayyat

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Gemora discusses the parameters of what may be on one’s head at the same time as tefillin. The Gemora cited three statements:
1. A braisa that states that if one has a burden on his head, which presses down on the tefillin, it is prohibited. The braisa clarifies that a burden of four kavs or more is prohibited. (This is the measure which the Beis Medrash of Rabbi Yannai referred to.)
2. Rabbi Chiya’s braisa, which said that if one is carrying refuse on his head, he must remove the tefillin and keep them respectfully on his arm.
3. Rabbi Shila’s students said that even the bag of the tefillin may not be placed on the head. Abaye explains that this is very light.

Rabbi Chiya’s statement need not contradict either statement, since Rabbi Chiya was limited to a case of refuse, which is qualitatively a disgrace to place next to tefillin, regardless of the burden’s size.

However, at first glance, Rabbi Shila’s position is at odds with the first braisa. In fact, the Rambam (Tefillin 4:23) rules like Rabbi Shila, permitting nothing aside from a usual head covering.

The Gr”a explains that the Rambam allowed normal head coverings, since the Gemora refers to Dovid Hamelech wearing a crown together with tefillin (Avoda Zara 44a), and the Kohen Gadol wearing the mitznefes together with the tefillin (Zevachim 14a-b).

However, the Rif (Brachos 14b) and the Rosh (Brachos 3:31) cite all three statements, without ruling like any one in particular.

To explain this position, the Rishonim and Acharonim suggest various distinctions between the statements to reconcile the seeming contradiction:
1. Rabbi Shila is stating that optimally one should not place anything on his head with tefillin, while the braisa is stating that if one placed the burden on, he may leave it there unless it is four kavs or heavier. [Bais Yosef (OH 41) in the name of Mahari Abuhav]
2. The braisa is referring to one who is carrying a load for his work, and therefore is more lenient. [Bais Yosef in the name of Mahari Abuhav]
3. The braisa is referring to one who is first carrying the burden, and then wants to put on tefillin, while Rabbi Shila is referring to one who is first wearing tefillin, and wants to place the burden on his head. When the burden was there first, it need not be removed unless it is four kavs or heavier. [Bais Yosef]
4. The braisa is referring to a burden that is on one’s head, but not on the tefillin. Since a burden of four kavs is likely to be heavy enough to crush tefillin, the Sages prohibited one from putting such a burden on his head. Rabbi Shila is referring to a burden on the tefillin itself, which is prohibited at any size. [Bais Yosef]
5. Rabbi Shila is referring to a burden not usually placed on the head, which is never allowed, since it is a disgrace to the tefillin. The braisa is referring to a normal head covering (e.g., hat), which is only prohibited when it is heavy enough to crush the tefillin. [Rama] (See MB 41:4, who rules that one should not place a hat on the tefillin if it rests heavily on it).
6. Rabbi Shila is referring to someone wearing tefillin at home, who has no need to put anything on his head, while the braisa is referring to someone outside who is transporting the burden. [Aruch Hashulchan]
See Taz and Prisha for more details.

Read more!

Women and Slaves Wearing Tefillin

Rabbah bar Rav Shila (Daf Yomi: Gittin 40a) explains that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is dealing with a case where the master himself placed the tefillin on the slave. Only then, is it an indicator that the slave was previously freed.

In Shulchan Aruch (O”C 38:3) it is written that women and slaves are exempt from the mitzvah of wearing tefillin. The Rama adds that if a woman wishes to act stringently upon herself and don tefillin, you should protest the matter. The Magen Avraham explains that this is because it is difficult for women to be cautious regarding the cleanliness of their body.

The Yerushalmi in Brochos relates that Michal the daughter of Shaul HaMelech wore tefillin, and the sages of that time protested. The Gemora in Eruvin (96a), however, states that the sages did not protest.

The Peri Megadim rules that although slaves are permitted to wear tefillin, they should not be encouraged to, and one should object if they do don tefillin. The Mishna Berurah rules that it should not be frowned upon.

Read more!

Minor Writing a Get

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Gittin 22b) had stated: Everyone is qualified to write a get, even a mute, one who is insane, or a minor.

Tosfos asks: Since a minor in not a “bar kerisus,” he is incapable of divorcing his own wife, he therefore should be disqualified from writing a get for someone else!?

Tosfos answers: Since he will eventually grow into an adult, he is not regarded as someone who is incapable of divorcing his wife, and therefore, he is still eligible to write a get.

The Noda b’Yehudah (O”C §1) asks: Why is the halacha of writing a get different than the halacha of writing tefillin? A minor is excluded from writing tefillin, since he is not a “bar keshirah,” he is not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin. Why don’t we say that since he will be obligated in the mitzvah when he becomes an adult, he should be eligible to write tefillin?

Reb Elchonon Wasserman answers: That which we say that someone who is not a “bar kerisus” cannot write a get is only if he is excluded inherently from the subject of divorce. A minor, however, cannot issue a divorce, not because he is excluded, but rather, it is because he is incapable of marrying. He, therefore, can still be regarded as a “bar kerisus,” and can therefore be eligible to write a get. However, with respect of tefillin, a minor is excluded from the obligation of tefillin, and therefore, he is not considered a “bar keshirah,” and is therefore not disqualified from writing tefillin.

Read more!

Benefit of Techeiles

The Gemora (Daf Yomi: Sotah 17a) asks: It is understandable that Tefilin straps were a reward (for this world as well), as the verse states, “And all of the nations of the land will see that the name of Hashem is upon you and they will fear you.” The braisa quotes Rabbi Elazar the Great as saying that this refers to the Tefilin that we wear on our heads. However, what (earthly) reward do we have from Techeiles?

The Gemora answers this question from a braisa. Rabbi Meir taught: Why was Techeiles singled out from all colors (to be used in tzitzis)? This is because Techeiles is a similar color to that of the ocean, which is similar to that of the sky, which is similar to that of the Throne of Glory. This is as the verse states, “And they saw the G-d of Israel, and under His feet was like something made out of a brick of sapphire, and like the purity of the sky.” The verse also states, “like the appearance of a sapphire stone is that of the Throne of Glory. [The Gemora’s answer seems to be that this merit benefits us in this world as well.]

Rashi explains that anyone who fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzis is regarded as if he received the Divine Presence. This is obviously beneficial to the person.

Rashi in Chulin (89a) explains differently. He says that when Hashem looks at His Throne of Glory, He is reminded of the mitzvah of Techeiles that is being performed by the Jewish people. And because of this, Hashem has compassion on Klal Yisroel.

Read more!

TEFILLIN ON CHOL HAMOED
by Rabbi Howard Jachter

Kol torah

Introduction

There are three prevalent customs regarding wearing Tefillin during Chol Hamoed. Some do not wear Tefillin, others wear Tefillin and recite the Beracha (albeit quietly), and others compromise and wear Tefillin but do not recite the Beracha. In this issue, we will explain the basis for each of these practices.

Why We Should Not Wear Tefillin on Shabbat and Yom Tov

The Gemara (Menachot 36) presents a dispute whether one should wear Tefillin on Shabbat and Yom Tov. The accepted opinion is that we do not wear Tefillin on Shabbat and Yom Tov. The Gemara presents two Braitot that present reasons why we should not wear Tefillin on these days.

The first Braita cites a Pasuk (Shemot 13:10), which states that one should wear Tefillin Miyamim. Literally, this means “from among the days.” The Braita explains that this means that on some days we wear Tefillin and on others we do not. Shabbat and Yom Tov are days that we do not wear Tefillin.

The second Braita notes that the Torah in a number of places writes that Tefillin serve as an Ote, a sign. The Braita explains that one wears Tefillin only on those days when one requires an Ote. One does not wear Tefillin on Shabbat and Yom Tov because Shabbat and Yom Tov constitute an Ote.

Next, we shall present the arguments regarding wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. We shall focus on the arguments that Tosafot (Moed Katan 19a s.v. Rabi Yosi) presents.

The Argument for Not Wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed

The Behag (cited by Tosafot Moed Katan 19a s.v. Rabbi Yosi) rules that we are forbidden to wear Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. Many Rishonim agree with the Behag’s assertion. These Rishonim include the Rambam (as interpreted by the Kesef Mishna to Hilchot Yom Tov 7:13), the Rashba (Teshuvot 1:690), and the Ri (cited by the Haghot Maimoniot Hilchot Tefillin 4:9). These authorities believe that if Yom Tov is excluded from wearing Tefillin, Chol Hamoed should also be excluded from wearing Tefillin. They believe that Chol Hamoed constitutes a Yom Tov, and therefore constitutes an Ote.

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (Shiurim L’zeicher Abba Mori Zal 1:118-120) further explains this opinion. The Rav notes that there are four components of the Kedushat Hayom (the holiness of the day) of a Yom Tov. These are the Korban Mussaf, the unique Mitzvot of the day (such as the Mitzva to eat in a Sukkah or to avoid Chametz), the obligation on individuals to bring the Korbanot of the Festivals (Re'iya, Chagiga, Shalmei Simcha), and the prohibition to engage in Melacha (forbidden labor). All four components pertain to Chol Hamoed. Although certain Melacha is permitted on Chol Hamoed, the Rav explains that fundamentally, the prohibition to perform Melacha applies to Chol Hamoed. However, the Gemara (Chagiga 18a) explains that the Torah permits us to engage in certain Melacha on Chol Hamoed. Hence, Chol Hamoed enjoys the full status of Yom Tov. The Rav cites Rav Chaim Soloveitchik’s assertion that Chol Hamoed is as holy as any Yom Tov. There merely exists permission to engage in certain Melacha on Chol Hamoed.

The Argument for Wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed

Many Rishonim, on the other hand, believe that one must wear Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. These authorities include the Rosh (Hilchot Tefillin 16), Or Zarua (1:589), and the Maharam of Rothenberg (cited by the Mordechai). They argue that Chol Hamoed does not constitute an Ote, since we are permitted to perform certain Melacha on Chol Hamoed. This argument is particularly cogent according to the Rishonim who believe that on a Torah level all Melacha is permited on Chol Hamoed and the restrictions that exist in regard to performing Melacha on Chol Hamoed were instituted by Chazal.

Moreover, they argue that the word in the Torah Miyamim excludes only Shabbat and Yom Tov where the prohibition to engage in Melacha profoundly distinguishes these days from all other days. A ramification of the permission to perform certain labor on Chol Hamoed is that the difference between Chol Hamoed and other days is not pronounced.

These Rishonim cite as proof to their position the fact that the Gemara permits writing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. They argue that Chazal would not have permitted writing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed had there been no use for the Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The other group of Rishonim argues that this passage in the Gemara represents the rejected opinions that believe that one may wear Tefillin on Shabbat and Yom Tov.

The Compromise View — Tefillin and No Beracha

Both sides of the arguments presented by the Rishonim are compelling. Thus, we already find Rishonim that advocate adopting a compromise view — to wear Tefillin but to refrain from reciting the Beracha. The Tur (Orach Chaim 31) notes that there are a number of Rishonim who are uncertain whether one must wear Tefillin on Chol Hamoed and therefore advocate wearing Tefillin but refraining from reciting a Beracha. These authorities include the Ritva (Eruvin 96a), the Smak (153), and the Meiri (Moed Katan 18b). The advantage of this compromise is that one avoids violating very serious transgressions. Chazal write that not wearing Tefillin (see Rosh Hashana 17a and Tosafot ad. loc. s.v. Karkafta) and reciting an unnecessary Beracha (see Berachot 33a and Shavuot 39a) are very serious violations of Torah Law. It is possible that the potential prohibition to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed is more severe than a potential prohibition to wear Tefillin on Chol Hamoed.

Shulchan Aruch and Commentaries

The Bait Yosef (O.C. 31 s.v. V’cholo) notes that all Sephardic Jews refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He cites at length from the Midrash Hane’elam to Shir Hashirim that presents a Kabbalistic explanation for refraining from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. In fact, the Zohar strongly advocates refraining from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. We should note that many Kabbalistic themes have been incorporated into the Halachot of Tefillin. For example, see Shulchan Aruch 25:2, 25:11, and 25:13.

Accordingly, Rav Yosef Karo rules in the Shulchan Aruch (O.C.31:2) that it is forbidden to wear Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Rama, however, records that the universally accepted practice among Ashkenazic Jews is to wear Tefillin on Chol Hamoed and to recite the Berachot. The Rama adds, though, that the custom is to recite the Berachot on Tefillin quietly on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura (31:8) writes that this is to avoid fighting since the issue of reciting the Berachot on Tefillin is embroiled in controversy. There might be Kabbalistic reasons for this practice as well.

The Taz (O.C. 31:2) encourages one to refrain from reciting the Berachot on Tefillin during Chol Hamoed in deference to the authorities who forbid wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Vilna Gaon (Biur HaGra O.C. 31:2 s.v. V’yesh Omrim) rules in accordance with the Rishonim who believe that one should refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed.

Late Codifiers and Current Practices
The Mishna Berura (31:8) and the Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 31:4) follow the recommendation of the Taz, to refrain from reciting the Berachot when wearing Tefillin during Chol Hamoed. The Aruch Hashulchan concludes, however, that one should follow the practice of his ancestors in this regard.

The Aruch Hashulchan notes that “recently” a practice among some Ashkenazic Jews has developed to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He is referring to the practice of Chassidim, which was also the practice at the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva (as recorded by the Rav, Shiurim L’zeicher Aba Mori Zal p.119). The Rav (ibid.) also records that Rav Chaim Soloveitchik did not wear Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. In Eretz Yisrael, the ruling of the Vilna Gaon to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed has been universally accepted. One who publicly dons Tefillin during Chol Hamoed in Eretz Yisrael is inviting a strong protest from his fellow worshippers.

Interestingly, both the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan rule that there should not be disparate practices regarding this matter in one prayer hall. They write that such a disparity violates the prohibition of Lo Titgodedu. This refers to the prohibition against allowing disparate ways of observing the Torah to coexist in one locale (see Yevamot 14a). Nevertheless, in many North American congregations on Chol Hamoed, some wear Tefillin and others do not wear Tefillin in one Minyan. Are all these congregations disregarding the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan?

One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent authorities. The Gemara (ibid.) states that the coexistence of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad — two distinct communities maintaining disparate practices in one community — does not violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:158 and 159) notes that in this country Jews have gathered from the various sections of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Rav Moshe asserts that American Jewry constitutes “a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad” and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan addressed a situation in Europe, which radically differs from the situation in North America, as explained by Rav Moshe. However, it appears that one violates Lo Titgodedu if he wears Tefillin in public in Israel on Chol Hamoed.

Conclusion

The Rishonim and Acharonim debate whether one should wear Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. This debate has not been resolved and the various practices regarding this issue persist. This author heard from the Rav that one should follow his father’s practice in this regard. Gerim and Baalei Teshuva should consult their Rav for guidance on which practice to adopt. Either he might advise wearing Tefillin without reciting the Berachot or he might advise following the dominant practice in the local community.

Read more!

Yoma 33 Touching your Tefillin

The Gemora on 33a cites Rish Lakish that one is not permitted to pass over a mitzvah and that is why the kohen cleans the mizbeach before the preparation of the menorah for the mizbeach is closer to the entrance of the heichal. Rava (33b) states that we can learn from here regarding tefillin that the shel yad should be before the shel rosh. Rashi says that this is referring to the putting on of the tefillin for the arm comes before the head. Rabeinu Tam disagrees and says that it is referring to the removing and placing in the bag, that the shel rosh should be placed first in order that the next day, one should come into contact with the shel yad first. Rabeinu Eliyohu learns that it is referring to the touching of the tefillin during davening. The Shemuas Chaim learns from here that it is not sufficient to touch the straps of the shel rosh, rather one is obligated to touch the bayis itself, for otherwise - one could touch the straps first and then touch the shel yad, for he is not passing over any mitzva.

Is there an inyon perhaps to touch the bayis of the shel yad itself and not merely the sleeve which is covering the shel yad?

Read more!