Daf Ditty 95: Women donning Tefillin

1

2

MISHNA: One who finds phylacteries outside the city on , where they are in danger of becoming lost or damaged, brings them in to his house pair by pair by donning them in the manner in which they are typically donned for the mitzva. Rabban Gamliel says: He brings them in two pairs by two pairs. In what case is this statement that one is permitted to carry phylacteries

3 inside said? It is with regard to old phylacteries, which have already been used and are designated for the mitzva. However, with regard to new ones, as it is unclear whether they are phylacteries or merely amulets in the form of phylacteries, he is exempt from performing the task.

If one finds phylacteries tied in bundles or in wrapped piles, in which case he is unable to carry them in pairs, he sits there and waits with them until dark, guarding them until the conclusion of Shabbat, and then brings them in to his house.

And in a time of danger, when it is dangerous to tarry outside town, he covers the phylacteries and proceeds on his way.

Rabbi Shimon says that there is an alternative method of transferring the phylacteries: One gives them to another who is less than four cubits from him, and the other passes them to another, until the phylacteries reach the outermost courtyard of the city. Since carrying less than four cubits in a public domain is not prohibited by Torah law, in this case, the Sages permitted carrying in that manner due to the sanctity of the phylacteries.

And similarly, with regard to one’s son who was born in a field and may not be carried on Shabbat, since that is akin to carrying a burden in the public domain: One gives him to another, and the other passes him to another, even if it requires a hundred people. Rabbi Yehuda says: A person

4 may even give a barrel to another, and the other may pass it to another, and in that way even take it beyond the Shabbat limit, provided that no one person carries it more than four cubits. They said to him: This barrel may not go a greater distance than the feet of its owner, i.e., it may not be carried any farther than its owner may walk.

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that a person who finds phylacteries in a field may carry them by pairs, indicating that one pair, yes, it may be carried; however, more than one pair, no, they may not be carried. The Gemara asks: Let us say that we learned the unattributed mishna not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, despite the principle that an unattributed mishna usually reflects Rabbi Meir’s opinion.

As, if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn’t Rabbi Meir say: In order to rescue items from a fire, one is permitted to remove items from his house by wearing them, and he dons all the clothes that he can wear, and wraps himself in all items in which he can wrap himself. As we learned in a mishna: And one removes all the utensils to the courtyard adjacent to the fire, and dons all the garments that he can wear, and wraps himself in all the items in which he can wrap himself in order to rescue his property.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we know that this unattributed mishna with regard to Shabbat is a reflection of the opinion of Rabbi Meir? As it teaches with regard to that mishna: If there are many garments there, one dons garments, and takes them out to a safe place, and removes them there, and returns to the fire, and dons other garments, and takes them out and removes them. And he may do so even all day long; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Apparently, according to Rabbi Meir, one may don many garments at once.

5

the between אנת אמק and בר ן לאילמג :summarizes with five possible explanations of the ףד The is not based פת י ל י ן to wear the רתיה If so, the . פת י ל י ן ז מ ן אל ו תבש Machlokes -1- First - They both hold However, they disagree in on room actually . ישכת ט nonetheless being a פת י ל י ן but on the , צמ ו ה on the אמק ת נ א The . פת י ל י ן a person’s body for two pairs of םוקמ שי שארב נהל חי יתש יליפת ן - is there Whether גוז ,Therefore . ישכת ט holds there is no room for two pairs - and only one pair can be considered a and both - פת י ל י ן holds there IS room for two pairs of לאילמג ןבר .only one pair at a time - גוז ןסינכמ גוז . ישכת ט He may wear even two pairs as a - נש י ם נש י ם ,Therefore. ישכת ט can be considered a

In answer to the question, Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, there is a distinction between the cases. There, if he dons the clothes in the manner that he typically wears them, the Sages rendered the legal status of wearing garments on Shabbat like the status of wearing garments during the week and permitted him to remove clothes from his house by wearing them in that manner. And here, too, if he dons phylacteries in the manner that he typically dons them, the Sages rendered the legal status of donning phylacteries on Shabbat like the status of donning phylacteries during the week.

6

Consequently, there, where during the week he may wear as many clothes as he wishes, with regard to rescue from a fire the Sages likewise permitted him to wear as many clothes as he wishes. However, here, in the case of phylacteries, even during the week, donning one pair, yes, one may do so, but donning more than one pair, no, he may not do so. Therefore, with regard to rescue as well, the Sages said: Donning one pair, yes, one may do so; however, donning more than one pair, no, he may not.

We learned in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: He brings the phylacteries in two pairs by two pairs. The Gemara asks: What does he hold? What is the rationale for this halakha? If he holds that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries, and one is permitted or even obligated to don phylacteries on Shabbat, then the ruling should be: Donning one pair, yes, this is permitted; donning more, no, it is prohibited. It should be prohibited to wear more than one pair as there is room to don only one set of phylacteries on one’s head.

7

he would, פת י ל י ן ז מ ן תבש briefly suggests that they all agree, that if we would hold ארמג Finally - the Therefore, we must say that רובעל םושמ לב ףיסות אל יעב וכ ו הנ - not be able to wear two pairs, because רובעל אלש נמזב ו אל יעב וכ ו הנ - holds even אמק ת נ א However, the בש ת ל א ו ז מ ן ת פ י ל י ן . they both agree which, צמ ו ה a קמ י י ם if one does, he’s, בש ת on פת י ל י ן Even though there is no obligation to wear .therefore, he may only wear one pair - ףיסות לב on רבוע is enough to be אמק ת נ א according to the יא ן ןאכ זמר - ;as Rashi writes - בש ת on פת י ל י ן If one wears רובעל אלש נמזב ו יעב וכ ו הנ - בר ן למג י לא holds .therefore, he may wear even two pairs , ףיסות לב at all - if so, there is no צמ ו ה a קמ י י ם He’s not צמ ו ה הוצ . צמ ו ה a קמ י י ם to be וכ ו הנ only if he specifically has נמזב ו אלש even ףיסות לב on רבוע One would be

And if he holds that Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries, and it was only due to the fact that rescue was permitted only in the manner that one typically wears clothing that the Sages permitted him to don phylacteries, he should likewise be permitted to don even more than two pairs. He should be permitted to don as many pairs of phylacteries as possible, not only two.

8

The Gemara answers: Actually, he holds that Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries, and when the Sages permitted one to don phylacteries for the purpose of rescue, it was only by donning them in the manner that one typically wears clothing, i.e., in the appropriate place for phylacteries. He may not don them anywhere else on his body, as in that case he is considered to be carrying, not wearing them.

פת י ל י ן ז מ ן holds אמק ת נ א agree both They - Second- 2- However, the קמ ו ם שי שארב נהל י ח יתש פת י ל י ן . צמ ו ה is based on the פת י ל י ן to bring in the רתיה and the, בש ת on פת י ל י ן to wear צמ ו ה there is a – בש תב לב Rashi adds, that wearing the second pair would be an . פת י ל י ן which requires only one pair of, בש ת ל א ו – no is there צמ ו ה of פת י ל י ן on בש ת - the בר ן למג י לא ה י רת holds . אשמ ו י making it a , רוסיא ףיסות He may wear even two pairs קמ ו ם שי שארב הל נ י ח יתש פת י ל י ן - and since , ישכת ט is based on ןמז יליפת ן ןיית מ because it’s not being worn for the , ףיסות לב רוסיא Rashi adds, that there is no . ישכת ט as a פת י ל י ן of is צמ ו ה when the צמ ו ה applies only while performing the ףיסות לב רוסיא but to save them. The , צמ ו הוצ applicable

9

The Gemara comments: The school of Menashe taught the following. The verse states:

And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they 8 ח קוּ שְׁ רַ תְּ םָ ,תוֹאְ ל לַ ﬠ - ;ֶדָי וּיָהְו וּיָהְו ;ֶדָי .shall be for frontlets between thine eyes ,תֹפָטֹטְל ןיֵבּ .יֶניֵﬠ ןיֵבּ ,תֹפָטֹטְל

Deut 6:8

“And you shall bind them for a sign on your arm, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes” “On your arm,” this is the biceps muscle of the arm; “between your eyes,” this is the crown of the head. The Gemara asks: Where exactly on the crown of the head? The school of Rabbi Yannai say: Phylacteries are placed on the spot where a baby’s head is soft after birth.

RASHI

Otzar Laazei Rashi

JASTROW

10

TOSAFOS

תופסות ה"ד ךדי ז ו תרוביק ו ז ךדי ה"ד תופסות

Tosfos explains that this is the bulge on the upper arm.

אוה תצובק רשב עורזבש יבש ן קפרמה ירוקש ן אדוק 'עלב ' ז יבו ן ףתכה תרוביקו ומכ תרוביק יהאד נ י אלו ימכיכאו יניא רבק מ רבק ףכ ןיו ז''ל דק רק פמ ןישערב ש צב ןכ( הארנ )היגהל שרפמש )היגהל הארנ ןכ(

This is the collection of flesh on the arm between the elbow and the shoulder, like Kibura d'Ahini (a cluster of dates). This is unlike the one who explains that...

תירוביק אוה תציבק רשב יבש ן תסיפ דיה קפרמל ךומס קפרמל ךומס קפרמל דיה תסיפ ן יבש רשב תציבק אוה תירוביק

Kibores is the collection of flesh between the hand and the elbow, near the elbow.

לכבד םוקמ עמשמ יליפתד ן ןה עורזב תכסמבו תולהא 'פ( א' הנשמ )ח עמשמ עורזד אוה יב ן קפרמה ףתכלו קרה באהערדעש ) נמא פ תלאתסב ערב ה לפדעש ומלב

Everywhere, it connotes that Tefilin is on the Zero'a, and in Ohalos (1:8) it connotes that Zero'a is between the elbow and the shoulder;

רמאקד םישלש תסיפב די וכ ' נש םי הנקב נשו םי קפרמב דחא עורזב עבראו ףתכב עבראו עורזב דחא קפרמב םי נשו הנקב םי נש ' וכ די תסיפב םישלש רמאקד

It says that there are 30 [bones] in the hand... two in the Kaneh (lower arm), two in the elbow, one in the Zero'a, and four in the shoulder.

11 ץמוקהבו הבר תוחנמ( 'ד ):זל ימנ ירמא ' יעבד ןנ אהתש המיש דגנכ :בלה דגנכ המיש אהתש ןנ יעבד ' ירמא ימנ ):זל 'ד תוחנמ( הבר ץמוקהבו

Also, in Menachos (37b) we say that we require putting [Tefilin] next to the heart.

THE PLACEMENT OF THE TEFILLIN SHEL ROSH

Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon writes:1

The Rambam (Hilkhot Tefillin 4:1) rules that tefillin must be centered on the head, widthwise, and so rules the Shulchan Arukh. How careful must one be about this?

Our Daf teaches that there is room enough on the head for two tefillin. However, the gemara does not make clear whether it refers to two side-by-side or one on top of the other.

תופסות ה"ד םוקמ שי שארב וארש י נהל חי וב 'ב יליפת ןיית ב בח ה אששר י ומהדתפו Tosfos discusses the size of Tefilin.

סמ ו קפ ה י ה 'ר ' י הזיא רועיש שי בחורב ןיליפת שיד ןישוע םילודג םיבחרו ןכ( הארנ ,היגהל ןכו אוה תופסותב תופסותב אוה ןכו ,היגהל הארנ ןכ( םיבחרו םילודג ןישוע שיד ןיליפת בחורב שי רועיש הזיא י ' 'ר )ש"ארה ו שי ישועש ן א ו םת טק נ י ם ב י ו רת ק ם שע יו )"ר

The Ri was unsure what is the Shi'ur for the width of Tefilin. Some make them big and wide, and some make them very thin.

רמאקדמו מ םוק שי שארב נהל חי 'ב יליפת ן עמשמ רועישד ובחר אלמתיש םוקמ םינשה םוקמ אלמתיש ובחר רועישד עמשמ ן יליפת 'ב חי נהל שארב שי םוק

Since [the Gemara] said that there is room on the head for two Tefilin, this implies that the Shi'ur of the width fills the place of the two.

ו 'רוא ' י אצמד שרדמב ןרועישד 'בכ תועבצא ךמסו רבדל ד ץיצ ובחור 'ב תועבצא רמאדכ 'פב אמק הכוסד 'ד( .ה ) ה ד הודאק פ מד ובא ב בו י

A Midrash says that their Shi'ur is two fingers. A support is the Tzitz, which was two fingers wide, like it says in Sukah (5a).2

ו ירמא ' 'פב ק' ןיכרעד ףד( ):ג ורעש היה הארנ ןיב ץיצ תפנצמל םשש נמ חי ןיליפת המודו ץיצד היה םוקמב םוקמב היה ץיצד המודו ןיליפת ארה ו י הל נ י ח פת י ל י ן ת חינה ר

We say in Erchin (3b) that his hair was seen between the Tzitz and the Mitznefes, and there he wore Tefilin, and it seems that the Tzitz was in a place proper to wear Tefilin. (Rosh, Hilchos Tefilin - presumably, just like the Tzitz was two fingers wide, so was the place of Tefilin);

1 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/simanim-276-11-if-one-left-handed 2 Yefei Einayim - the Rosh brings this from Shimusha Raba, an old treatise collection of Hilchos Tefilin. The text of Tosfos should say "Shimusha Raba", in place of "Midrash". Alternatively, he calls Shimusha Raba a Midrash.

12

א 'ע ' ג יבגד ץיצ ביתכ תומש( )חכ וחצמ ימגרתמו נ ן יב ן יע נ יהו ע ב מרמ חמ ח וש בת י יג ג''

Regarding the Tzitz it is written "his forehead", and the Targum is "between his eyes" (which is not a Kosher place for Tefilin)!

יבג יליפת ן ימנ ביתכ םירבד( )אי יב ן יע נ םכי ןנישרדו הבוגב שארבש הבוגב ןנישרדו םכי נ יע ן יב )אי םירבד( ביתכ ימנ ן יליפת יבג

Also regarding Tefilin, it says "between your eyes", and we expound on the height of the head.

Tosfot above (s.v. Makom) imply that it is the latter. However, the Beit Yosef raises doubts about the opinion of the Rambam.

The difference (or nafka mina) manifests itself in the question of how careful one must be to center his tefillin. See M.B. 27:36 who rules stringently. (The Divrei Chayim in his responsa is lenient, explaining the gemara as referring to side-by-side tefillin and therefore dismissing those who use a mirror, and so writes the Tzitz Eliezer.)3

R. Shmuel bar R’ Yitzchok states that a person has room on his head for two tefillin.4 Poskim analyze this statement to determine the precise placement of one’s shel-rosh and whether it is permitted to use a mirror to confirm that one’s shel-rosh is properly situated.

Teshuvas Divrei Chaim wrote that it is foolish for one to look in a mirror to confirm that his shel rosh is precisely in the middle of his head. It is valid even if it is not precisely in the middle of one’s head as our Gemara teaches that there is room for two tefillin on one’s head, and this means that there is room for two tefillin placed one in front of the other as well as two tefillin side by side. Some Poskim challenge this interpretation.

If there is room for two tefillin that are aligned one in front of the other as well as two placed side by side, there is actually room for four tefillin on one’s head. Why then would R’ Shmuel bar R’ Yitzchok mention that there is room for only two tefillin?

Teshuvas Mechzeh Avrohom answers that in truth there is room for four tefillin on one’s head but since four tefillin would not tighten on one’s head properly R’ Shmuel bar R’ Yitzchok only mentioned two tefillin.

3 See also the Rosh, Hilkhot Tefillin 4, and the addenda to Shulchan Arukh Ha-rav p. 156, for an additional reason which indicates that one should after all be exact in the centering of his tefillin.

4 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin%20095.pdf

13

Teshuvas Radvaz , however, writes that one who is accustomed to wear Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin simultaneously should wear them one in front of the other since there is room for two tefillin when placed one in front of the other.

One should not wear them side by side since by doing so one will not fulfill the mitzvah with either one since neither one will be precisely between one’s eyes. It is clear from his statement that there is room for two tefillin when measuring front to back but not when measuring side by side.

Summary

The begins with guidelines for the permitted method of transporting abandoned tefillin on Shabbos.

The Mishnah then proceeds to discuss other circumstances when these leniencies could be applied.

Identifying the author of the first opinion in the Mishnah

The Gemara assumes that the first opinion in our Mishnah is inconsistent with another anonymous ruling that is identified as R’ Meir’s opinion. Rava reconciles the two rulings.

Clarifying R’ Gamliel’s ruling

The Gemara explains that R’ Gamliel’s rationale is that Shabbos is not a time for the mitzvah of Tefillin and Chazal were lenient for the purpose of saving the Tefillin. The reason two pairs may be saved at a time is that there is room for two pairs of Tefillin on a person’s body.

A Baraisa is quoted that teaches the proper placement of Tefillin. The Gemara suggests that Tanna Kamma and R’ Gamliel dispute whether there is room for two pairs of Tefillin on a person’s body.

This suggestion is rejected, and two alternative explanations are presented.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:5

If a person finds tefillin in the public domain on Shabbos, there is an argument in the Mishna regarding how he can bring them to safety. The first opinion in the Mishna is that he should wear them one set at a time into the city. [In other words, he should put the shel rosh on his head and the shel yad on his arm, and in this fashion carry them to safety. This is not considered carrying, but rather as if he is wearing them.]

5 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Eiruvin_95.pdf

14

Rabban Gamliel holds that he may do so while wearing two pairs at a time. This applies to old ones, but in the case of new ones, he is exempt (from bringing them to safety). [This is because they might be amulets and not tefillin; the Rabbis therefore did not want to take the risk that the finder will desecrate the Shabbos by wearing them in a public domain.]

If he found them arranged in pairs or tied up in bundles, he shall wait with them until it is dark, and then bring them in. In a time of danger, however, he shall cover them and proceed on his way.

Rabbi Shimon said: He shall pass them to his fellow and his fellow shall pass them to his fellow, and so on, until the outermost courtyard (of the city) is reached. The same procedure is to be followed in the case of a child of his (who was born in a field), he passes him to his fellow and his fellow passes him to his fellow, and so on, even though they are as many as a hundred men.

Rabbi Yehudah ruled: A man may pass a barrel to his fellow and his fellow may pass it to his fellow even beyond the Shabbos limit. They, however, said to him: This must not go further than the feet of its owner.

Our Daf asks: Only one pair at a time, but not more!? Must it then be assumed that we learned here an anonymous Mishna that is not in agreement with Rabbi Meir? For if it were to be maintained that it was in agreement with Rabbi Meir, it can be asked: Didn’t he say that a man may put on all the clothes that he can put on and he may wrap himself in all things that he can wrap around himself? For we learned in a Mishna: And to there (to a courtyard near the burning fire), he may carry out all the utensils he is in the habit of using, and he may put on all the clothes that he is able to put on and he may wrap himself in all things that he can wrap around himself.

The Gemora cites a proof that that anonymous Mishna represents the view of Rabbi Meir, since in connection with that it was stated in a braisa: He may put on clothes and carry them out, and there remove them, and then he may again put on clothes and carry them out and remove them, and so on, even all day long; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rava replied: It may be said to be in agreement even with Rabbi Meir, for there the Rabbis have allowed a procedure similar to one’s habit of dressing on a weekday and here as well they have allowed a procedure similar to one’s way of wearing tefillin on a weekday. There, where on a weekday a man can wear as many clothes as he desires, the Rabbis have permitted him to do so also for the purpose of saving; but here, where even on a weekday a man may wear only one pair but no more, he was for the purpose of saving he was also permitted to wear only one pair but no more.

The Mishna had stated: Rabban Gamliel holds that he may do so while wearing two pairs at a time.

The Gemora asks: What is the view he upholds: If he holds that Shabbos is a time for wearing tefillin, a man should be permitted to wear only one pair but no more; and if he holds that Shabbos is not a time for tefillin, but that for the purpose of saving them the Rabbis have permitted him to wear them in the manner of an attire, why shouldn’t he be permitted to wear even more than one pair?

15

The Gemora answers: The fact is that he holds that Shabbos is not a time for the wearing of tefillin, but when the Rabbis have permitted to wear them in the manner of an attire for the purpose of saving, they limited that to the spot prescribed for the position of the tefillin. The

Gemora asks: If so, shouldn’t one pair only be allowed, but not more? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak says: There is enough area on the head for two pairs of tefillin.

The Gemora asks: This is a satisfactory explanation regarding those of the head; what explanation, however, can be given in respect of those of the hand? The Gemora answers: The same as that which Rav Huna gave, for Rav Huna explained: Sometimes a man comes from the field with his bundle on his head when he removes them from his head and binds them on his arm. The Gemora asks: It might still be contended that Rav Huna only intended that they should not be treated with disrespect; did he, however, say that it was the proper manner of wearing them like that?

The Gemora answers: The explanation rather is this: Just as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak stated that there is room enough on the head for laying two tefillin, so we may here also submit that there is room enough on the hand for laying two tefillin.

A braisa was taught in Menashe’s Academy: On your arm refers to the biceps muscle (this is where the arm tefillin shall be placed). Between your eyes refers to the kadkod (this is where the head tefillin shall be placed). In Rabbi Yannai’s Academy, they explained this to mean the pace where the skull of an infant is soft (the fontanel).

The Gemora asks: Must it be assumed that they differ on the principle of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, as the first Tanna (of the Mishna) disagrees with the view of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak (and therefore, he allows only one pair at a time), while Rabban Gamliel upholds it?

The Gemora answers: No, all may hold the view of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, but the point at issue between them is whether the Shabbos is a time for tefillin, as the first Tanna maintains that Shabbos is a time for tefillin, while Rabban Gamliel maintains that Shabbos is not a time for tefillin.

Our Mishnah deals with a case where tefillin are found on Shabbos in a place which is unacceptable for them to remain. The Gemara (Beitza 15a) explains that they are in a place where they might be chewed up by dogs. Accordingly, Abaye says that if the tefillin are in a place where there are no dogs, they should be left alone.

Ritva here explains that another scenario of an unstable situation is where the tefillin might be stolen. Shita Mikubetzes adds that in our days, when most thieves are non-Jews, we have to protect tefillin that they not be stolen, so that the gentiles do not snatch the tefillin and degrade them.

16 Therefore, even if the tefillin are in a place which is guarded against dogs, we must still respond, even on Shabbos, and save them.

The manner of saving the tefillin is by wearing them, and entering into the city with them donned. Sfas Emes notes that the Mishnah instructs that the tefillin be worn as a set—they must be brought ”.a set at a time - גוז גוז “ in

This implies that if we find a single component of tefillin, for example, just the shel-yad, it cannot be worn and carried into the city, because this is not the manner of how tefillin are worn. It would be even worse, for example, if one would find only the shel-rosh, because this is certainly not worn by itself, without the shel-yad having been put on first.

The Rishonim (Meiri, Rabbeinu Yehonasan) explain that this halachah of having to wear the tefillin is only in a case where it will be necessary to cross into the public domain to save the tefillin.

However, if they can simply be brought directly into a non- chatzer or mavoi, they may be carried in without being worn on the body. Minchas Shlomo (1:17) mentions that the solution of the Mishnah of bringing the tefillin into the city is only appropriate when the owner of the tefillin is in that city. It would not be allowed, however, to bring tefillin into a city where doing so would result in the tefillin being removed from the techum of their owner. In this manner, tefillin are no different than any other item, which is limited to being moved on Shabbos to the extent that its owner may travel, and no more.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:6

The rules and regulations of eiruvin that have been discussed throughout this tractate, are but one aspect of a much larger set of halakhot, that are referred to as shvut – Rabbinic ordinances whose purpose is to keep the individual from committing a more serious transgression or to guarantee an atmosphere of Shabbaton – of rest and tranquility – on Shabbat.

The final chapter of Massekhet Eiruvin, which begins on our daf , moves away from a discussion of eiruvin and deals with broader issues of such Rabbinic ordinances, although most of the issues discussed are in some way connected with carrying on Shabbat.

The first Mishna in this perek discusses someone who finds tefillin in a public domain on Shabbat and is interested in protecting them by bringing them into a protected area. How can they be carried on Shabbat? The agreed solution of the Mishna is that transporting them by wearing them is permitted. The Tanna Kamma (first) and Rabban Gamliel disagree as to whether only one pair can be worn at a time, or, perhaps, even two pairs can be worn.

6 https://steinsaltz.org/daf/eiruvin95/

17 The Gemara suggests a number of reasons for the difference of opinion between Rabban Gamliel and the Tanna Kamma. One suggestion is that they differ on whether the commandment of tefillin applies on Shabbat or not. According to the Tanna Kamma, the mitzva does apply, so wearing two pairs of tefillin simultaneously would be forbidden because of bal tosif – the commandment that forbids adding to a mitzva. According to Rabban Gamliel, who does not believe that the mitzva of tefillin applies on Shabbat, there is no concern that you are adding to the mitzva by wearing two pairs.

It should be noted that according to the conclusion of the Gemara, tefillin should not be worn on Shabbat. Nevertheless, in our case, where we are concerned lest the holiness of the tefillin will be desecrated if they are left in the public domain, there is general agreement that we permit them to be worn for the purpose of moving them to a safer place.

A member of the Women of the Wall prays at the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City.

Women and Tefillin

18

It is a general principle that women are exempt from certain mitzvahs (specifically, time-bound positive commands). An example of this is the mitzvah of tefillin, which men are required to wear.

The Torah forbids women to wear garments that are made specifically for a man, as it is written, "A man's garment shall not be worn by a woman." (Deut. 22:5) The Talmudic Sage, Yonatan Ben Uziel, in his Aramaic translation and explanation of the Torah, states that this verse refers to tefillin and tzitzit. Therefore, if a woman wore tefillin and tzitzit which are men's garments, she would be breaking a Torah law.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan explains women already have the mitzvah of tefillin incorporated into their spiritual makeup, and thus don't need to wear it.

The reason for the commandments is to establish a link with God. The most profound way to do this is to resemble Him. There is one unique way that women resemble God in a way that no man could ever hope to. Only a woman can create within her body. Only a woman can bear a child. In this sense, a woman partakes of God's attributes more intimately than any man.

The Kabbalists teach that the hand tefillin represents the feminine element. The single box (that contains the parchment) can be said to represent the womb, and the leather straps wrapped around the arm, the umbilical cord. What men partakes of with an object, women partake of with her body.

There are two basic elements in , the home and the synagogue. Unlike other religions where the church is primary, Judaism treats the home and synagogue as being co-equal. Some of our most important rituals belong exclusively to the home, such as the Seder, the , the Shabbat table, and the Chanukah menorah. The continuity of Judaism rests on the home more than anything else. The Hebrew word for home is "bayit."

The box of Tefillin is called a bayit - literally a house. The woman also has her bayit - the home in which she raises a family.

Further, the Mishnah Berurah 38:3 explains that tefillin should not be worn on a voluntary basis because they must be worn while maintaining a pure mind and pure body. For this reason, one may not forget that they are on him and may not sleep or pass wind while wearing them. (In fact, if men were not obligated to wear tefillin, they also would not risk doing so!)

19

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:7

In Talmudic times, it was common for one to wear tefillin all day long. As the Torah does not limit its observance in any way, there would seem to be no reason to limit time spent wearing them to a few minutes a day. Even the exemption from wearing tefillin at night and on Shabbat is subject to much Talmudic dispute, with many asserting that Shabbat z’man tefillin hu (“Shabbat is a time for [the wearing] of tefillin”).

Our Daf at one point goes so far as to claim that kulei alma, “the entire world”, agrees that one must wear tefillin on Shabbat. One of the proofs brought for this view is from the fact that “Michal the daughter of Shaul wore tefillin, and the Sages did not protest about it” (96a). As women are exempt from positive mitzvoth that are time-dependent, the fact that Michal wore tefillin must demonstrate that there must be an obligation to wear tefillin at all times, including Shabbat.

The underlying assumption of the Gemara is a most fascinating one; namely, that one who is exempt from a mitzvah is forbidden to perform it. One must either wear tefillin on Shabbat, and women, too, are obligated in this mitzvah; or one should not wear tefillin on Shabbat, turning it into a time-bound mitzvah, exempting women and—at this stage in the Talmudic discussion—forbidding its performance. While it may sound strange to forbid the voluntary performance of mitzvoth—and, in fact, this view is rejected—it is an honour, a privilege, and a great responsibility to perform mitzvoth. If God does not obligate us to perform a mitzvah, perhaps it is a chutzpah to do so. Torah is compared to fire, and one plays with fire at his own risk.

Lest one think that this applies to tefillin only, the statement about the Sages’ acquiescence to Michal wearing tefillin is immediately followed by, “and the wife of Yonah [the prophet] would go on aliyah leregel and the Sages did not protest”. While there is seemingly no reason to prohibit women from going to Jerusalem for the three pilgrim festivals, if not for the fact that the Sages considered it obligatory for women to do so, it would have been just that.

The rejects this line of reasoning; while Shabbat may not be a time that one is obligated to wear tefillin, thus exempting women, Michal wore tefillin voluntarily. The Talmud notes that this must be

7 https://www.torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/eiruvin-95b-tefillin-women

20 so, as the mitzvah of aliyah leregel is undoubtedly time-bound and nevertheless, the rabbis did not protest when Yonah’s wife did so.

Jewish tradition in general encourages one to perform mitzvoth voluntarily. The Tosafot (c.v. v’d’lima – please correct reference c.v. is dibbur hamatchil) quote Rabbeinu Tam’s position that not only can women perform mitzvoth for which they are not obligated, they should recite the blessing “asher kidshanu b’mitzvotav”, thanking The One who commanded us in mitzvoth even though they themselves are not commanded in this particular mitzvah. His proof is from Michal who, Rabbeinu Tam assumes, not only wore tefillin but made a bracha on them.

Ironically, the one exception for women who volunteer to do mitzvoth today is that of tefillin. Because tefillin requires great concentration (a clean body is how our Sages describe it), something almost all of us lack, we have greatly limited even the wearing of tefillin for men to the few minutes it takes to daven shacharit. To wear tefillin all day is considered yuhara, religious arrogance. It’s almost as if the rabbis would prefer that the men of today not wear tefillin at all—but what can they do? It’s a Torah requirement! —leading the rabbis to limit it to a few minutes a day. Thus, we strongly advise that women, who are exempt, do not volunteer for this particular mitzvah.

Performing mitzvoth is the raison d’etre of the Jew. We should seek out as many opportunities as we can to perform mitzvoth; and do so only with the desire to get closer to God.

The Struggle of Modern Orthodoxy with women and Tefillin is reflected in the Lincoln Square Synagogue:

Women and Tefillin: Halachic Theory and Practice8

Laying tefillin is a ‘mitzvat aseh shehazman ’, a positive, time bound commandment, and as such women are exempt. The question is whether women may perform this mitzvah, even though they are not commanded to do so. The general consensus of Rishonim is that women may perform mitzvot in which they are not commanded, such as Sukkah and Lulav. Ashkenazi women make a blessing before doing the mitzvah. Are tefillin an exception to this rule? Many Rishonim who discuss women’s performance of what for them are optional mitzvot do not single out tefillin as a separate category.

The Talmud, Eruvin (96a) says that Michal, the daughter of King Saul, wore tefillin and the Sages did not disapprove, and on this basis the Rambam writes (Laws of Tzitzit 3:9):

ןכו ראש תוצמ השע םישנהש תורוטפ ןהמ םא וצר תושעל ןתוא אלב מ רב הכ א י ן חממ י ן ב י דיב ןיחמ ןיא ה And so, to other mitzvot that women are exempt from, if they wish to perform them, we do not stop them

8 This Shiur was presented on Shabbat, February 1, 2014 https://www.lss.org/lss-blog.html?post_id=29823

21 Sefer HaChinuch (positive mitzvah 421) writes explicitly that women may lay tefillin:

The mitzvah [of tefillin] is applicable in all locations and all time periods, to men, but not to women, for it is a positive mitzvah which is time related. Nevertheless, if they wish to lay tefillin, we do not object, and they receive reward. But not like the reward of a man, for the reward of one who is commanded and performs [that mitzvah] cannot be compared to the reward of one who is not commanded and performs [that mitzvah anyway.] And in Tractate Eruvin...the Sages of Blessed Memory said that Michal the daughter of Kushi would lay tefillin, and the Sages did not object. And there they said that the wife of Jonah would go up to Jerusalem [wearing tefillin] and the Sages did not object.

On the other hand, a number of Rishonim write that women should not perform this Mitzvah. Tosafot (Eruvin 96a) quotes an alternative tradition that the sages did indeed rebuke Michal for wearing Tefillin, and write that the reason is because:

הארנו שרפל אמעטד ד"מל אלד יוה תושר םושמ ןיליפתד ןיכירצ ףוג יקנ םישנו ןיא תוזירז רהזיל תוזירז ןיא םישנו יקנ ףוג ןיכירצ ןיליפתד םושמ תושר יוה אלד ד"מל אמעטד שרפל הארנו Tefillin require ‘guf naki’ a ‘clean body’ – something not defined here by Tosafot. I don’t think the assumption is that women have less personal hygiene than men – perhaps it refers to menstruation, or to the argument that since women are not commanded to wear tefillin, they are not accustomed to being as aware of this issue as men might be.

Other reasons have been suggested as the basis of a prohibition for women to wear Tefillin – one is that they are ‘beged ish’ - male garments – although this reason does not seem to be found in the Rishonim. Another argument is about the force of tradition. The Levush writes, regarding tzitzit:

[It is legally permitted for women to wear tzitzit] but it is still foolish and arrogant to do so. Despite the fact that with other time bound positive commandments women have been accustomed to observing them and reciting the blessing, what they are used to doing, they do; what they are not used to doing, they do not do. And with tzitzit, we do not find it, except for one in a thousand, like Michal the daughter of Saul and others; therefore, the should not wear tzitzit.

Similarly the Shiltei Giborim writes:

רוסא םישנל נהל חי ילפת ן יפא ' אלב ,הכרב נפמ י הארנש ךרדכ וציחה נ םי םירבועש לע ירבד ,םימכח יאו נ ן םיצור ... שורדל תוארקמה תומכ תאקה וד

22 It is forbidden for women to don tefillin, even without making a blessing, because it looks like the manner of the sects who disregarded the words of the Sages and disputed their traditions. Therefore, while many authorities implicitly or explicitly allow women to wear tefillin, others did not allow it.

In terms of practical halacha, the Shulchan Aruch (OH 38:3) notes that women are exempt from the Mitzvah, but does not mention if they may perform the mitzvah if they wish to. The Rema however decides according to the view of Tosafot, and Rabbi Meir of Rotenberg, that:

םאו םישנה יצור ן רימחהל לע ןמצע יחומ ן ןדיב

If women want to be strict [and put on tefillin], we object It has become the accepted practice that women do not put on tefillin. I don’t believe the halacha is something that needs overturned or reformed. When women have come to Lincoln Square and worn tefillin, neither the Rabbi or any congregant has said anything negative to them or asked them to desist. On one occasion a woman called me and asked if she may wear tefillin at LSS. I answered her that I could guarantee that nobody would do or say anything to make her in the slightest bit uncomfortable, but the minhag in our shul follows the Rema, and I would prefer that she didn’t wear tefillin. However, although I believe that the normative halacha follows the Rema, and that women should not wear tefillin, I also believe that SAR, Ramaz and other schools that permit girls to wear tefillin may be doing the right thing in their situation, and I want to mention two approaches that I believe address the question.

1. 1. Room for Diversity? One is the approach of the very well respected Israeli Rav and posek Rav Eliezer Melamed who writes that if a women strongly desires to wear tefillin, since there are many views in the halachic literature that it is permitted, we should not prevent her from doing so. ,השעמל הארוהה אלש נת ,חי םיברו ובתכ שיש תוחמל דיב תוצורה נהל ,חי כ"כו א"מרה ב"מו ,חל י ג , ח"הכו ,חל ח "כ ח "ו "ר "ו ,ינלתצר י ומ י ות יר ח תאשהרה ,שמ ,ט דועו .םיבר אלא יפכש יתבתכש , הצורל נהל חי שי לע המ מסל ו ך , ךכש תעד תוחרואה םייח תלועו ,דימת ףאו ףאו ,דימת תלועו םייח תוחרואה תעד ךכש , יסמ םו ירבד ש"הורע ראובמ יאש ן תוחמל ימב תמסרופמש .תקדצכ ןכלו השעמל יא ן תוחמל .הדיב יאנתבוינב .דבתחל אהעל כו תדכתסומ יבתחל א אב "וע רדם ס דיפקתש אלש נת חי תעשב .התסו ןכו דיפקת נהל חי ,הענצב יכ קר ךכ היהי רורב התחנהש םשל ימש ,םי דועו דועו ,םי ימש םשל התחנהש רורב היהי ךכ קר יכ ,הענצב חי נהל דיפקת ןכו .התסו תעשב חי נת אלש דיפקתש . ךירצש נצהל עי תא נמז י הרהטה טהו האמו

He advises the women in question to wear tefillin in private not public. This is because he understands the requirement of guf naki to be connected with menstruation, and it would be forbidden for a woman to wear tefillin during her monthly period. Wearing them in public for most of the month and then discontinuing the practice on certain days would draw undue attention to this.

23 It seems to me that one of the questions raised by the SAR issue is how much room there is for flexibility within the halachic framework in our schools. Halacha is not monolithic. Every student of halacha knows that sometimes lenient or minority opinions may be relied upon. The question is not necessarily ‘should all women should wear tefillin” but how do we treat individual women who strongly desire to wear tefillin? Rav Melamed permitted them to do so. Over the centuries, a small number of women have worn tefillin.

The question that every institution has to deal with is, do we give space for people who wish to deviate from what is considered the norm. Teenage years are obviously a time of experimentation and change. Do schools ensure maximum compliance with the norms of the community or give space to people for whom those norms are difficult? There is not one size fits all answer to that question, but from this perspective SAR’s decision to allow girls to wear tefillin in an all-girls setting is not unreasonable.

Women, Tefillin, and Double Standards

Avigayil Halpern writes:9

I am a person who puts on, or “lays,” tefillin (phylacteries). I happen to be female. While my gender, to my mind, does not affect the nature of my performance of this mitzvah, it inevitably adds a layer of complexity to others’ perception of it. I constantly smack up against the tremendous double standard that is applied to women who perform mitzvot that are seen as “male,” both in my day-to-day life and in the communal discourse.

I was recently interviewed for a piece in the Times of Israel about high school girls who lay tefillin . The piece was, on the whole, interesting and balanced. In this article, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach articulates the two most flawed and problematic ideas surrounding the concept of women and tefillin and most other “men’s” mitzvot. He questions the “seriousness” and motivation of the women who take on these mitzvot.

“For those people who are troubled by women putting on tefillin,” Rabbi Boteach says, “the message needs to be, ‘Fair enough, put on tefillin, but accompanied with a serious embracing of Talmud .’” In all my years as a halakhically observant Jew, it is only when it comes to women wearing tefillin and tzitzit (fringes) that “seriousness” is made a qualification for the performance of a mitzvah. Is a person who does not often make the blessings on food told not to bother praying Minchah, the afternoon service? Is a person interrogated about how much Talmud they learn each day before they are encouraged to give to tzedakah (charity)? Since when does one have to meet a certain standard of observance, or “seriousness,” before one is given “permission” to perform mitzvot?

9 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/the-torch/women-tefillin-and-double-standards/

24 MIRIAM KRULE writes:10

In 2014, a Modern Orthodox Jewish high school in Riverdale, N.Y., started allowing two female students to put on tefillin, small black leather boxes containing verses from the Bible with leather straps meant for securing the box to the wearer’s head or arm. Putting on, or “laying,” tefillin is something the school’s male students are required to do during mandatory morning prayers, but letting the women don tefillin was something new. By most accounts, this is the first Modern Orthodox high school that has allowed women to do so during regular morning services—where men sit on one side of the room and women on another, often divided by a partition. This remained a local story until students at another Modern Orthodox high school, Shalhevet in Los Angeles, published an article on Jan. 16 about the Riverdale decision as it related to their own school, where the rabbi had recently told female students that if they wanted to wear tefillin and a tallit (a prayer shawl) for their morning prayers, they should pray at home. And now everyone in the Modern Orthodox world is talking about it.

This, in a nutshell, is the question that’s plaguing Modern Orthodox Judaism today: Where do passionate and committed women fit in a belief system that doesn’t treat them as equals? Or, from the reverse perspective, how does a religion maintain its tradition but not exclude half of its members from its basic rituals?

Tefillin is just one example of a mitzvah, or commandment, that not only is required of men, but is traditionally forbidden to women. There are myriad other examples of similar roadblocks that no amount of leaning in seems to fix. In a post for the Times of Israel, Rabbi Ethan Tucker deftly delves into the history of gender and tefillin and what exactly led to this moment. He quotes the verse from Exodus 13:9 that states that one should have a reminder upon their arm and between their eyes so that God’s teachings are in their mouth. For various reasons that Tucker expounds on, this commandment is therefore attached to the commandment to study God’s texts, and studying God’s texts is something women were traditionally not only exempt from doing, but not permitted to do. But I don’t want to debate whether Jewish law does or does not permit women to don these leather boxes. (Tucker does a wonderful job for those who are looking for a more in- depth analysis of this.) As an observant Jewish woman who does not want to wrap tefillin or wear a tallit, I believe unequivocally that women should be able to. And there are many other women like me. Which is why Jewish law, while of prime importance to those wishing to take this step forward and those hoping to prevent it, is not the most interesting part of this debate. It’s secondary to the question of whether Modern Orthodoxy has a future if it continues to alienate so many women.

If this story sounds vaguely familiar, you probably read my colleague Dahlia Lithwick’s article about the Women of the Wall, the group of women who attempt to pray with tefillin and tallitot (the plural of tallit) at the Western Wall in Jerusalem at the beginning of each month. But while the Women of the Wall are mostly Reform and Conservative women who are fighting from outside the system, these high school tefillin-wearers are trying to work within a system to carve out a niche for themselves. They are, essentially, law-abiding citizens in a country where laws can’t change, but loopholes are constantly, and some would say conveniently,

10 https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/02/laying-tefillin-while-female-modern-orthodox-judaism-will-not-survive-if-it-keeps- alienating-women.html

25 discovered. They don’t want a revolution; they just want one loophole to work in their favor so that they can join the rest of their fellow citizens in their right to pray. Yet, despite this difference, the tefillin-wearers share a key struggle with the Women of the Wall, summed up nicely by a man Lithwick quotes in her piece as he yells over the prayer partition in Hebrew: “These women are our worst enemies; not the Arabs.” The sentiment that women who want to pray, who want to be a part of the tradition, are the enemies of the male gatekeepers is as prevalent in many Modern Orthodox institutions as it is at the Wall.

While I was a student at the Manhattan Modern Orthodox high school Ramaz in the early 2000s, there were two women who put on tefillin daily—they weren’t permitted to so during regular services, but the rabbi allowed them to pray with tefillin once a week, during a women-only service, and on the other days they prayed elsewhere. Reflecting back on the experience in light of the recent hoopla, one of those women, Eliana Fishman, wrote in Forward, “In many ways, the organized Jewish community—particularly the Orthodox community—still feels like an antagonistic body, because I know its power to ostracize, bully and exclude.” She writes:

The reactions we got from the student body and the faculty were mixed. Not surprisingly, some students and faculty — particularly rabbinic faculty — reacted with belligerence. It became normal to refer to the two women who lay tefillin as women who wanted to be men, or as lesbians. And:

Most students assumed that laying tefillin was a feminist statement, and feminism was certainly a bad word at Ramaz. No one entertained the possibility that tefillin was about making prayer, a hard experience in and of itself, easier. No one considered that laying tefillin was an attempt to remind ourselves of the yoke of heaven. What’s too often missing from this conversation is the simple fact that these women don’t necessarily want to be activists and have no desire to antagonize anyone. They just want to pray. It’s easy for men to find their place in different Jewish denominations because their access, their entry point, is always the same. If a man decides to attend Orthodox services, Reform services, Reconstructionist services, he’s welcomed as an equal. It’s only for women that a change in denomination changes her identity to its core. How long will educated, committed women want to be a part of the community that doesn’t want them?11

Rashi’s Daughters put on Tefillin:?

What’s the Truth About…Rashi’s Daughters?

11 Update, Feb. 4, 2014: This post has been updated to clarify that Ramaz high school did not require the female students who wrapped tefillin to pray in a specific location when not in school.

26

Rabbi Dr. Zivotofksy writes:12

Rashi had four daughters and no sons. The two daughters about whom some information is known are Miriam and Yocheved. Both of them married great Torah scholars and bore and raised the undisputed leaders of Ashkenazic Jewry. Yocheved married Rabbi Meir ben Shmuel, one of Rashi’s star pupils, and they had four famous sons: Yitzchak (“Rivam”), Shmuel (“Rashbam”), Shlomo the grammarian, and the youngest and most famous, Yaakov (“Rabbeinu Tam”). Miriam married Yehudah ben Nathan (“Rivan”) who finished Rashi’s commentary to .13 Rashi appears to have had another daughter, Rachel, and a fourth daughter who died young.

While there is no evidence that any of Rashi’s daughters wore tefillin, this myth persists and is found in various printed sources. In her book, Life on the Fringes: A Feminist Journey Toward Traditional Rabbinic Ordination, Dr. Haviva Ner-David cites Rashi’s daughters’ “tradition” of wearing tefillin as setting a precedent. Similarly, an article that appeared in the Journal of Jewish Music and Liturgy14 mentions that Rashi’s daughters wore tefillin.

The halachah makes it clear that women are exempt from wearing tefillin (Mishnah Berachot 3:3; 33b-34a; SA, OC 38:3). Whether women are allowed to don tefillin is the subject of great debate. The Rema (OC 38:3) rules that it should be discouraged, and the Gra (comments to OC 38:3) contends that women are prohibited from wearing them.

Ironically, some scholars argue that during the early medieval period there was actually a general laxity among men or even outright neglect of the mitzvah of donning tefillin. Rabbi Moshe Couchi, in the introduction to Halachot Gedolot, states that he preached in France about the importance of

12 https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats_the_truth_about-rashis_daughters/ 13 Shoshana Pantel Zolty, And All Your Children Shall Be Learned: Women and the Study of Torah in Jewish Law and History (Northvale, NJ, 1993), 179.

14 Leon Katz, “Halakhic Aspects of Bar-Mitzvah and Bat-Mitzvah,” vol. 9 (1986-7): 27.

27 putting on tefillin daily and that, as a result, people were more conscientious about putting on tefillin.15

The question of women wearing tefillin is particularly interesting because in general, Ashkenazim, based on the opinion of Rashi’s grandson Rabbeinu Tam, maintain that women may take upon themselves time-bound mitzvot from which they are exempt and recite a berachah. Ashkenazic women make a berachah, for example, upon hearing the shofar on , and shaking a lulav and sitting in a sukkah on Sukkot. There is no problem with women performing these mitzvot, and they are actually encouraged to do so. The mitzvah of donning tefillin appears to be a notable exception. A variety of reasons has been suggested.

A remarkable source is Rabbi Avigdor Tzarfati, one of the ba’alei Tosafot, in his Sefer Perushim Upesakim al haTorah leRabbeinu Avigdor Tzarfati, where he states that some of the righteous women in his time had the practice of putting on tefillin and reciting a berachah.16

The earliest source on the topic of women donning tefillin is found in Targum Yonatan to Devarim 22:5. When discussing the prohibition of a woman wearing male garments, the commentary mentions that women are not permitted to don tzitzit and tefillin.

Dr. Aliza Berger, who carried out an exhaustive study of the topic, notes that “Until the current generation, there have been only isolated instances attested of women wearing tefillin.”17 In a footnote (2), she concludes: “There is no proof for the popular legend that Rashi’s daughters wore tefillin. However, it is interesting to speculate on why this association arose; it probably has to do with the fact that Rashi’s daughters were known to be exceptional in that they were educated.”18

A similar baseless claim developed around the first wife of the Ohr HaChaim. She was the daughter of a famous rabbi, and some claim that she wore wore tallit and tefillin. There is no historic evidence of that.

15 Rabbi Dr. Ephraim Kanarfogel, “Not Just Another Contemporary Jewish Problem: A Historical Discussion of Phylacteries,” Gesher 5:1 (1976):106-121. See also, Kanarfogel, “Rabbinic Attitudes Toward Non-observance in the Medieval Period,” edited by Jacob J. Schacter, Jewish Tradition and theNontraditional Jew (Northvale, NJ, 1992), 7-14. 16 I thank noted Israeli historian and Rashi expert Professor Avraham Grossman of Hebrew University for this source. Professor Grossman also stated in a personal e-mail that the legend about Rashi’s daughters wearing tefillin has no historical basis. 17 “Wrapped Attention: May Women Wear Tefillin?” in Jewish Legal Writings by Women, edited by Micah D. Halpern and Chana Safrai (Jerusalem, 1998), 75-118. A recent book by Rabbi Aharon Feldman (The Eye of the Storm: A Calm View of Raging Issues [Jerusalem, 2009]), using Berger’s article as a springboard, criticizes the suggestion that women may wear tefillin. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, in reviewing the book (Jewish Action, [spring 2010], 18-21), while not advocating women wear tefillin, took exception with Rabbi Feldman’s tone and methodology and presented a variety of positions on the topic. Ner-David in her book also reviews much of the literature regarding women wearing tefillin but gives scant weight to those who prohibit it. For an interesting modern source that discusses women and tefillin, see Ohr Sameach, Hilchot Talmud Torah, near the end of the long commentary to 1:2. 18 Rabbi Aryeh Frimer, a recognized expert on women’s halachic issues, reports having thoroughly studied the subject and finding no source for this myth. Professor David Golinkin (“May Women wear Tefillin?,” Conservative Judaism [Fall 1997]: 3-18) wrote, “There is a widespread story that Rashi’s daughters wore tefillin, but I have been unable to find any written proof of this assertion.” Cf Idem, “Ha’im Mutar Lenashim Lehani’ach Tefillin? Asufot 11 (5758): 183-196.

28 The Talmud19 (tomorrow’s daf) reports that Michal bat King Saul, wife of King David, wore tefillin, though there are conflicting reports in the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi about how her contemporaries viewed this.

There is documentation indicating that Hannah Rachel Webermacher, the famed “Maiden of Ludmir,” who was a nineteenth-century Polish Chassidic leader, wore tefillin.

If women are indeed forbidden to wear tefillin, how could Michal bat Saul wear tefillin? The Kaf HaChaim (OC 38:9) quotes a creative suggestion by the Yafe l’lev. He suggests that Michal knew that she possessed a reincarnated “male soul.” He proposes that this also explains her barrenness.

Regarding Rashi’s daughters, one can argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, because the notion of Rashi’s daughters wearing tefillin appears only in late twentieth- century writings, and does not seem to appear anywhere before that, this would indicate that it is, in fact, a myth.

19 Eruvin 96a-b; Yerushalmi, Berachot 2:3 and Eruvin 10:1; see Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 33a, s.v. haRebbi

29