The Four Pairs of Tefillin - Rabbi Isser Springer shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to the “Lema’an Yishme’u” podcast from Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 Today, with Hashem’s help, we’ll learn about the four pairs of tefillin. First, we should know that the expression “four pairs of tefillin” isn’t entirely precise, because there are six items. Among the “four pairs of tefillin,” there are three pairs—six items—as we’ll explain later. But they’re called the four pairs of tefillin. First, let’s get to know the figures behind the four opinions. Before we look at what they say, let’s see who they are: Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, whose opinions are well known, and two less familiar names in connection with tefillin, Shimusha Rabba and the Raavad. These are the four opinions, and we’ll talk a little about each of them. We know Rashi. In another eighteen years, in the year 5800, with Hashem’s help, it will be a thousand years since Rashi’s birth. Rashi was born in 4800, and in another eighteen years we will mark a thousand years since his birth. Over those thousand years—not quite from the moment he was born, of course, but from a relatively young age—Rashi has been the foremost commentator. He explains the Torah in a way that even a five-year-old beginning to learn Scripture can understand, yet a great Torah scholar still needs to toil to study his words, as we know from all the Rebbe’s sichos on Rashi. Rashi also wrote commentaries on the Prophets and Writings, on the Gemara, and other works, responsa, and commentaries. Rashi was blessed with something not everyone merited: a family of great Torah scholars. Sons-in-law. He had no sons, but his sons-in-law were great Torah scholars, as were his grandsons, great-grandsons, and so on. Rashi was blessed with a family that continued his path, developed it, and even disagreed with him. One of the most prominent members of that family represents the second opinion: Rabbeinu Tam. Incidentally, Rabbeinu Tam was not his given name; his name was Rabbi Yaakov. The main explanation for why he is called Rabbeinu Tam is the verse, “Yaakov was a

02:34 Speaker 2 simple man, dwelling in tents.” Several of the early sages around Rabbeinu Tam’s time—before him and after him—were given Biblical nicknames. Rabbeinu Tam’s older brother, Rabbeinu Shmuel, known as the Rashbam, is sometimes called “HaRamasi,” after Shmuel HaRamasi. One of the students of Rabbeinu Tam’s students, Rabbeinu Shimshon of Sens, the Rash of Sens, is sometimes called “the mighty one.” Because his name was Shimshon, he was given the name “Rabbeinu the Mighty” or “my master the mighty one.” Several other early sages received Biblical nicknames, but the most prominent is Rabbeinu Tam. Rabbeinu Tam was Rashi’s grandson, and nevertheless—perhaps because of that—he disagreed with him many times and discussed his words. One prominent example is Rabbeinu Tam tefillin, which differ from the tefillin of his great grandfather, Rashi. There are several other well-known halachic issues associated with Rabbeinu Tam. We’ll mention two now. One is Rabbeinu Tam’s view of sunset. His sunset is late. When it is completely dark for us—not just for us, for everyone—it is still daytime according to those who follow Rabbeinu Tam’s approach to sunset, and they can still daven Mincha. That is how the Alter Rebbe ruled in his Shulchan Aruch. Later, in his siddur, he changed his position and wrote emphatically against Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion, but in his Shulchan Aruch the Alter Rebbe ruled like Rabbeinu Tam. Another place where we often encounter Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion is the mezuzah. Unlike his grandfather Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam held that a mezuzah should be placed horizontally, not vertically. Rashi and the Rambam both hold that the mezuzah should be upright. Rabbeinu Tam holds that the mezuzah on the doorpost should lie horizontally. We combine the opinions and place the mezuzah at an angle. We do that to take into account both Rashi’s opinion, and that of others, that the mezuzah should be upright, and Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion that it should lie horizontally rather than stand upright. This disagreement has further complexities, but we won’t go into them

04:51 Speaker 2 here. We’ve spoken about the figures behind the two main, familiar opinions, Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. Let’s move on to the less familiar ones, Shimusha Rabba and the Raavad. Shimusha Rabba is actually the earliest. It is a short work on the laws of tefillin from the Geonic period. It discusses several matters relating to those laws. One is its position in the disagreement that we’ll discuss at greater length shortly. Another point in that very short work—only two pages long—is the size of the tefillin. According to our custom, tefillin measure two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths. The source for that is Shimusha Rabba, this small work. In his rulings on Tractate Menachos, the Rosh reproduces this work, small in size but rich in content. Who wrote Shimusha Rabba? Shimusha Rabba is the name of the work, but who was its author? It was known to be from the Geonic period, which preceded the early sages, but for generations the author’s identity was unknown. The first source I know of that names the author of Shimusha Rabba is Pri Eitz Chaim, among the writings of the Arizal. There it says that the author was Rav Sher Shalom Gaon. One of the Geonim named Sher Shalom is the source of Shimusha Rabba. He is the source of the third opinion in the major disagreement we will learn about today, with Hashem’s help. The fourth opinion belongs to the Raavad. We know the Raavad from his sharp critical glosses on the Rambam—sometimes sharper, sometimes less so. The Raavad challenges the Rambam, and we’ll say a few words about him. The Raavad we know is called the third Raavad. There were three Raavads at roughly the same time. The first was Rabbi Avraham ibn Daud. “Daud” was an Arabic form of his father’s name, David. He wrote extensively about history and the transmission of the Torah up to his day. He is also the source of the story of the four captives. We won’t go into his work now, but he is the source—the first Raavad, Rabbi Avraham ibn Daud. The second Raavad was the father-in-law of the well-known Raavad. His name was Rabbi Avraham ben Yitzchak. The title Raavad comes from his position as av beis din: Rabbeinu Avraham Av Beis Din. The third Raavad is the author of the critical glosses. He lived in the Rambam’s generation and was somewhat older than him. In one place he writes, “He is a young man and we are old men.” He describes the Rambam as still a young man while he, the Raavad, is elderly. In any case, the Raavad devoted much attention to the Rambam’s work and wrote his famous glosses. He also wrote a number of other works and responsa. His fiercest opponent in debate was not the Rambam; that dispute was less intense. His fiercest opponent was Rabbi Zerachiah Halevi, author of HaMaor. In their disagreements, he really did use sharp language. So we’ve had a very brief overview of the four opinions in the major disagreement we’re about to study. Now that we know a little about Rashi, his grandson Rabbeinu Tam, Shimusha Rabba and Rav Sher Shalom, who preceded them both by a considerable time, and the Raavad, who, incidentally, lived in Rabbeinu Tam’s generation, we can get into the subject itself. Before looking at the sources, we’ll briefly learn what the disagreement is. The four opinions are really two opinions, each of which divides in two: two that become four. What is the disagreement? The Torah says four times that we must put on tefillin. Two of those four passages are in the book of Shemos. At the end of Parshas Bo are the passages “Kadesh li kol bechor” and “Vehayah ki yevi’acha.” These are two passages that mention tefillin—not two parshas, but two sections of the Torah. In addition to those two places, there are another two passages in the book of Devarim that mention the obligation to

07:23 Speaker 2 About him, but he is the source—the first Raavad, Rabbi Avraham ibn Daud. The second Raavad was the father-in-law of the well-known Raavad. His name was Rabbi Avraham ben Yitzchak. The title “Raavad” came from his position as av beis din, head of the rabbinical court: Rabbeinu Avraham Av Beis Din. The third Raavad is the Raavad known for his critical notes. He lived in the Rambam’s generation and was somewhat older than him. In one place he writes, “He is a youth, and we are elders,” referring to the Rambam as still a youth while he, the Raavad, was already an elder. In any case, the Raavad dealt extensively with the Rambam’s work and wrote his famous critical notes. He also wrote a number of other books and responsa. But his fiercest opponent in debate was not the Rambam; the disputes with the Rambam were on a lesser level. His fiercest opponent was Rabbi Zerachiah Halevi, author of HaMaor. In their disputes, he really did use sharp language. So we’ve had a very brief overview of the four opinions in the major dispute we’re going to study. Now that we know a little about Rashi, his grandson Rabbeinu Tam, Shimusha Rabba, Rav Sher Shalom—who preceded both of them by a considerable time—and the Raavad, who, incidentally, lived in Rabbeinu Tam’s generation, we can get into the issue itself. Before we look at the sources, let’s briefly explain the dispute. The dispute among these four opinions is really between two views, each of which splits in two: two that are four. What is the dispute? The Torah says four times that one must put on tefillin. Two of those four passages are in the Book of Shemos. At the end of Parshas Bo, there are the passages of “Kadesh Li Kol Bechor” and “Vehayah Ki Yeviacha.” Both passages mention tefillin. They are not two parshas, but two passages—two sections of the Torah that mention tefillin. In addition to those two places, there are another two passages in the Book of Devarim that say one must

09:45 Speaker 2 to put on tefillin. These are the passages familiar to us: the passage of Shema in Parshas Vaeschanan and the passage of Vehayah Im Shamoa in Parshas Eikev. All told, the Torah speaks of putting on tefillin four times: twice in the Book of Shemos, in two adjacent passages, and twice in the Book of Devarim, in two passages that are not adjacent. Everyone agrees that the tefillin we put on must contain these four passages. Both the arm tefillin and the head tefillin contain the same thing: the four passages that mention putting on tefillin. Where these four opinions disagree is over the order in which the passages should be placed inside the tefillin. According to Rashi, the four passages are placed in their order. What does “in their order” mean? Kadesh Li, Vehayah Ki Yeviacha from the Book of Shemos, then Shema and Vehayah Im Shamoa. That is their order. How are they placed? So that the person reading them reads them in order. In other words, you watching the video and looking at me can read from right to left: Kadesh, Vehayah Ki Yeviacha, Shema, Vehayah Im Shamoa. That is Rashi’s opinion: the four passages are in order from the reader’s point of view, from the viewer’s point of view, not from the point of view of the person wearing the tefillin. His grandson Rabbeinu Tam held differently. We will soon get into the reasoning and sources behind the disagreement, but the essence of Rabbeinu Tam’s view is that the passages are not arranged in their order in the Torah. First comes Kadesh, as Rashi said, and then Vehayah Ki Yeviacha, also as Rashi said. But the third passage differs from Rashi’s view. Instead of continuing in order with Shema and then Vehayah Im Shamoa, Rabbeinu Tam reverses them: Vehayah Im Shamoa, then Shema. Two memory aids have been given for Rabbeinu Tam’s view. The first is that the passages with a shin are next to the shins. On the outside of the tefillin housing there is a shin with three heads and a shin with four heads. The passage of Kadesh, which has a shin, and the passage of Shema

12:36 Speaker 2 which has a shin, are at the two ends. According to Rashi, the passage of Shema is not at the end. According to Rabbeinu Tam, Shema is at the end, and that gives us a memory aid: the passages with a shin, Kadesh and Shema, are next to the two shins inscribed on the outside of the housing. Another way to remember Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion is that the two Vehayah passages are in the middle. According to Rashi, the two passages that begin with the word Vehayah are not next to each other. They are separated, because Rashi’s order is Kadesh, Vehayah Ki Yeviacha, Shema, Vehayah Im Shamoa. Vehayah Ki and Vehayah Im are separated by the passage of Shema. But according to Rabbeinu Tam, the two Vehayah passages are in the middle. Those are the two well-known opinions, the two according to which we conduct ourselves, as the Rebbe urged in 5722, if I’m not mistaken: every person, from bar mitzvah age and even before bar mitzvah, should begin putting on Rabbeinu Tam tefillin in addition to Rashi tefillin during the two months before his bar mitzvah. Now we move to the other two opinions: Shimusha Rabba and the Raavad. Shimusha Rabba agrees with Rashi to a certain extent, and the Raavad agrees with Rabbeinu Tam. So where is the disagreement? Shimusha Rabba agrees with Rashi that the passages are in order, but disagrees with him on a key point. They are in order not from the reader’s point of view, not from your point of view as the viewer, but from the point of view of the person wearing them. Shimusha Rabba says the order is Kadesh, Vehayah Ki, Shema, Vehayah Im. Like Rashi, he says they must be in order, but unlike Rashi, he views them from the perspective of the wearer rather than the outside reader. For Shimusha Rabba, then, they are indeed in order, but the reader will see them in reverse order. The Raavad joins Shimusha Rabba and joins Rabbeinu Tam. He, too, agrees that the passages are not arranged in their order in the Torah but, as Rabbeinu Tam said, the two Vehayah passages

15:09 Speaker 2 are in the middle. Kadesh and Shema are at the ends, next to the shins on the housing, the external shins. But Rabbeinu Tam—rather, the Raavad says: I agree with Rabbeinu Tam, but in reverse. I agree with Rabbeinu Tam from the point of view of the person wearing the tefillin, unlike Rabbeinu Tam, who holds that we go by the reader’s point of view. So here we have two disputes that produce four opinions. One dispute is over whose perspective we follow. Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam say we follow the reader, the viewer. Shimusha Rabba and the Raavad say no, the wearer is the one who matters here. And within each group there is a further split. There is another way to describe these two disputes that produce four opinions. Rashi and Shimusha Rabba agree that the passages should be in their order, while Rabbeinu Tam and the Raavad agree that they should not follow that order; rather, the two Vehayah passages should be in the middle. The passages with a shin should be on the two sides. But within each position there is a disagreement about which side we read from. So far, we have gone through two main stages. We have become acquainted, at least a little, with the figures who disagree, and we have learned the point of disagreement. Now we will move to the next stage and study the source of the disagreement in the Gemara. The Gemara we are discussing is in Tractate Menachos, page 34b. Incidentally, in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, as well as in the works of the halachic authorities before and after him, beginning with the Tur, section 34 is the section that deals with the order of the passages in tefillin and the disagreement between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. The Gemara says—and we will read this passage and see how Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam, Shimusha Rabba and the Raavad each understand it differently, and how the disagreement arose from their understanding of the Gemara: “The Rabbis taught: What is their order?” According to Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, one could read this as “How does one arrange them?” But let’s begin with “What is their order?” “The Rabbis taught: What is their order? Kadesh Li and Vehayah Ki Yeviacha on the right; Shema and Vehayah Im Shamoa on the left.”

17:49 Speaker 2 That follows their order in the Torah: Kadesh Li and Vehayah Ki Yeviacha on the right. These two passages are in the Book of Shemos, in Parshas Bo. Shema and Vehayah Im Shamoa, the Gemara says, are on the left. The Gemara asks: “But wasn’t the opposite taught?” In another beraisa we learned the reverse. What did that other beraisa say? Presumably, Kadesh Li and Vehayah Ki Yeviacha on the left, and Shema and Vehayah Im Shamoa on the right. The Gemara does not say exactly what the opposite beraisa says, but there is an opposite beraisa. Abaye, one of the great Amoraim, answers: “There is no difficulty. This refers to the reader’s right, and that refers to the wearer’s right.” So we know that there is a way to arrange them according to the reader’s perspective, which appears reversed from the wearer’s perspective. But what do we do? Whose perspective determines the order—the reader’s or the wearer’s? The Gemara ends with another three words: “And the reader reads them in their order.” The plain meaning of the Gemara—the view of Rashi—seems to emerge as you read it. Rashi says that the reader reads them in their order. In other words, we do not follow the wearer—sorry, yes, we do not follow the wearer, but the reader. The person looking at the tefillin is the one who is supposed to see the passages in order. Accordingly, we understand that the first beraisa, which says Kadesh Li and Vehayah Ki Yeviacha are on the right and Shema and Vehayah Im Shamoa are on the left, speaks from the reader’s, the viewer’s, point of view. The beraisa that says the opposite—the beraisa that teaches the reverse—is speaking from the wearer’s perspective, from which the order is reversed. Starting at his right, he has Vehayah Im Shamoa, Shema, Vehayah Ki Yeviacha, Kadesh. That is Rashi’s opinion. Then Rabbeinu Tam comes and disagrees with Rashi. He brings proof for his position, but we will not go into that proof here. You can open the Gemara there, Menachos 34b, where Tosafos brings the proof and the commentators discuss it—the Bach and others discuss it.

20:10 Speaker 2 as proof. But Rabbeinu Tam says—let’s just notice an interesting detail in the wording of the Gemara. The Gemara says, “Kadesh Li and Vehayah Ki Yeviacha on the right; Shema and Vehayah Im Shamoa on the left.” Rabbeinu Tam says it should have said, “Kadesh Li and Vehayah Ki Yeviacha, Shema on the right; Vehayah Im Shamoa on the left.” Rabbeinu Tam says that the plain meaning of the Gemara points to a particular distinction: “Kadesh Li and Vehayah Ki Yeviacha on the right”—you start from the right—“Shema and Vehayah Im Shamoa on the left.” The plain meaning implies that just as “Kadesh Li and Vehayah Ki Yeviacha on the right” means Kadesh first and then Vehayah Ki Yeviacha, so too “Shema and Vehayah Im Shamoa on the left” means Shema first and then Vehayah Im Shamoa. So Rabbeinu Tam analyzes the Gemara’s wording closely, and he also proves his point from what the Gemara says later about the menorah in the Beis Hamikdash. But we won’t go into Rabbeinu Tam’s proof now. We’ll just pause over an interesting point raised in the sefer Chassan Sofer. Chassan Sofer is a sefer by a member of the family of the Chasam Sofer, Rabbeinu Moshe Sofer, the leader of Hungarian Jewry in his generation. He was a remarkable man, accomplished in many fields, and, like Rashi, he merited generations of Torah teachers who came from his family. Just as he called his sefer Chasam Sofer, after his family name, Sofer, his descendants wrote sefarim called Ksav Sofer, Daas Sofer, Shevet Sofer, and Eitz Sofer. One of them, his grandson, called his sefer Chassan Sofer. He was a grandson through his daughter, so his surname wasn’t Sofer, but he was the Chasam Sofer’s grandson, and he called his sefer Chassan Sofer. He asks Rabbeinu Tam: All right, you have a close reading of the Gemara’s wording, and you also have a proof from the menorah in the Beis Hamikdash. But the basic logic is that we should follow the order: Kadesh Li, Vehayah Ki Yeviacha, Shema, Vehayah Im Shamoa. Why change the Torah’s order? According to you, that’s what the Gemara decided to do.

22:26 Speaker 2 All right, then let’s ask about the Gemara: Why did it decide to change the Torah’s order? And the Chasam—the Chasam Sofer gives an interesting answer. The Mishnah in Berachos asks a question we all know: “Why does the passage of Shema precede Vehayah Im Shamoa?” And it answers: Why does Shema come before Vehayah Im Shamoa? So that a person first accepts the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and afterward accepts the yoke of the mitzvos. Tosafos there in tractate Berachos asks: What kind of question is the Mishnah asking? Why does the passage of Shema come before Vehayah Im Shamoa in the Shema we recite every day? In the Torah, Shema comes before Vehayah Im Shamoa. As we said earlier, Shema is in Parshas Vaeschanan, while Vehayah Im Shamoa is in Parshas Eikev. So of course we recite them in the Torah’s order. Why change it? Tosafos answers: There is a reason to change it, because Shema is phrased in the singular, while Vehayah Im Shamoa—“you shall listen to My commandments which I command you”—is phrased in the plural. A passage phrased in the plural has greater importance than a passage phrased—than a passage phrased in the singular. The Gemara answers that one does indeed need to accept the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven first. But, says the Chasam Sofer, that applies to what a person recites. When a person recites the passages himself, he must first accept the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven and only afterward accept the yoke of the mitzvos. But in terms of their inherent importance, when it is not a matter of what a person recites, there is room to put Vehayah Im Shamoa before Shema. That is how the Chasam Sofer explains the reasoning behind Rabbeinu Tam’s view: we put Vehayah Im Shamoa, which is phrased in the plural, before Shema, which is phrased in the singular. So far, that is the source in the Gemara for the first two opinions. What will the other two opinions, the Shimusha Rabba and the Raavad, do? After all, the Gemara says explicitly, “And the reader reads them in their order.” In other words, the Gemara says explicitly

24:41 Speaker 2 that we follow the reader’s point of view, not the wearer’s. For the answer to this question, we jump to Italy, to the words of the Rama of Fano, Rabbi Menachem Azariah. By the way, the initials of Rama don’t stand only for Rabbi Menachem Azariah. He himself writes that they have two other meanings. Once, people sharply attacked something he had said. He was asked, “How do you respond to those who attacked you so sharply?” He said, “This is my name: one who overlooks wrongdoing.” The M and A of my name, Menachem Azariah, are also the initials of maavir avon, “one who overlooks wrongdoing,” “and this is how I am remembered: one who forgives an insult.” That is a conclusive answer to everything that has been written and everything that will be written. I’m not going to respond, I’m not going to take offense, and I’m not going to feel hurt. “This is my name: one who overlooks wrongdoing; and this is how I am remembered: one who forgives an insult.” That was Rabbi Menachem Azariah’s response to what was said about him. Rabbi Menachem Azariah explains at length in his responsa, the responsa of the Rama of Fano, the four possible ways of arranging the passages in tefillin. He says that the versions of the Gemara used by the Raavad and the Shimusha Rabba differed from ours in two details. He says that the words “and the reader reads them in their order” are not part of the original Gemara. Someone who held like Rashi added them in the margin, and they made their way into the text—or someone wrote them in. They are not part of the original. Rabbi Menachem Azariah, the Rama of Fano, adds another point: At the beginning of the passage in the Gemara, according to Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, the wording is “How are they ordered?”—meaning, what is the order of the four passages inside the tefillin? But the Rama learned that the Gemara has an extra vav, so it should be read “How does one arrange them?” rather than “How are they ordered?” And when it says “How does one arrange them?” it is clearly from the wearer’s point of view, because who is the one arranging them? Who is supposed to arrange them? Clearly it is the wearer who arranges them, the wearer and not the reader. The wearer

27:11 Speaker 2 is the owner; he is the one responsible, the one who arranges them. So we have seen how all four opinions fit with the Gemara. Before we move on to the next stages—fascinating historical stages—let’s say one more word about Rabbi Menachem Azariah, the Rama of Fano. The Rama of Fano is known for his scholarship in both the revealed and hidden dimensions of Torah. He was among the students—among the students of the Arizal’s disciples. The Rama lived in Italy, which was then a major center of printing. Today you can print countless Shabbos newsletters without any trouble, but printing used to be harder, and much of it was done in Italy, where the leading printing experts were. The Rama lived in Italy, and he was also wealthy. Great Torah scholars living in Eretz Yisroel sent him their sefarim so that he could print them and oversee their printing. Among the well-known works is a sefer by Rabbi Yosef Karo. Rabbi Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch, sent him the Kesef Mishneh, his well-known commentary on the Rambam. The Ramak, Rabbeinu Moshe Cordovero, who was also from Tzfas, sent him Pardes Rimonim, the Ramak’s well-known sefer on Kabbalah, to print in Italy. That was the Rama of Fano. And now let’s mention some historical episodes connected with the four pairs of tefillin. First, the Shimusha Rabba: as we said earlier, its approach is like Rashi’s, with the passages in their order, but reversed. Rashi says the passages are in order from the reader’s point of view: the reader reads them in their order. The Shimusha Rabba, by contrast, says they are in order from the wearer’s point of view. This is an approach that the Rama of Fano not only explains but, in a sense, introduces. In other words, until the Rama of Fano, it was not accepted that the Shimusha Rabba held a distinct opinion on this detail. Some argued that the text of the Shimusha Rabba needed to be corrected and that he could not possibly have said this. And in practice, on this subject—those who addressed it, as we have seen, said to change the wording. But in practice, we have not seen anyone

29:28 Speaker 2 who clearly wore tefillin according to the Shimusha Rabba. The Arizal is said to have worn Shimusha Rabba tefillin, but what does that mean? He wore large tefillin, two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths, as prescribed by the Shimusha Rabba. But to follow the Shimusha Rabba as a distinct view concerning the order of the passages in the tefillin—not to say there is a mistake here, or to overlook it altogether—that begins only with the Rema MiPano. Only a little after the start of the period of the later authorities did the Rema MiPano write that the Shimusha Rabba is a view in its own right, a fourth view. So although the Shimusha Rabba is the earliest of the four opinions—it belongs to the period of the Geonim, before the Rishonim, while the other three opinions belong to the period of the Rishonim, and not even to its very beginning—nevertheless, it was the last opinion to be clarified and defined as a view in its own right. Now let’s approach the big question that has been hanging over this entire discussion like a cloud: How could there be a disagreement at all between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam? How could Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam disagree? Couldn’t they check what tefillin were like before Rashi? There was Rashi’s father, Rabbi Yitzchak; there were Rashi’s teachers, Rabbi Yaakov bar Yakar, Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yehudah, Rabbi Yitzchak Halevi; and generations earlier, Rabbeinu Gershom. There were great Torah scholars throughout the generations. How did a disagreement suddenly arise? How did a disagreement suddenly arise? So first, let’s get to the root of the matter. The Rebbe explains that the views of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam go back to very ancient times. That is, according to everyone, as we’ll soon see, Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam did not invent this debate. Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam developed and established the two positions, and they came to be named after them because they disagreed quite directly. But neither of them invented his position. The Rebbe says that the disagreement did not

31:46 Speaker 2 merely precede Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam; it is almost as old as the world, as old as the Torah. That is, the Rebbe says, when Moshe Rabbeinu received the Torah, he received the law of tefillin in general, without the precise details. And already in Moshe Rabbeinu’s time, there were two opinions about how to arrange the passages in the tefillin. Already in Moshe Rabbeinu’s time. The Rebbe says the Torah was not given with one opinion being correct and confusion developing over the generations. That is not what happened. Rather, from the time the Torah was given, it left room for both opinions. We find a fascinating source for the Rebbe’s position in She’eilos Uteshuvos Min Hashamayim. She’eilos Uteshuvos Min Hashamayim is a book by one of the Tosafists, Rabbi Yaakov of Marvege. Unlike ordinary books of responsa, where people ask a rabbi questions and the rabbi answers, here the questions were asked differently. There are countless books of responsa—every generation has its authorities and its scholars. Especially in our generation, when printing is inexpensive, there are countless responsa books addressing current questions, taking into account new technology or particular cases, examining the details, and compiling material on the subject. She’eilos Uteshuvos Min Hashamayim is unique: he directs his questions to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. He asks them through a dream inquiry. By the way, as an aside, the Rebbe refers several times to She’eilos Uteshuvos Min Hashamayim in connection with 19 Kislev. The only complete date mentioned in the entire book is 19 Kislev, and it says there that 19 Kislev is a day of good tidings. The Rebbe asks: What good tidings were there on 19 Kislev? We have not heard of any special event. The Rebbe says we must conclude that already when Rabbi Yaakov of Marvege made his dream inquiry, he was told from Heaven that 19 Kislev would be a day of good tidings, referring to the celebration of the Alter Rebbe’s liberation. That celebration would come only hundreds of years later,

33:51 Speaker 2 but even then he was told that 19 Kislev was called a day of good tidings. The Rebbe discusses this at length, bringing additional sources for other events to which the Torah alluded long beforehand. We won’t go into that; we’ll just note that in Igros Kodesh, “day of good tidings” is often used as another name for 19 Kislev: “Thank you for the farbrengen on the day of good tidings.” Many times in Igros Kodesh, that is the name used for 19 Kislev, and its source is She’eilos Uteshuvos Min Hashamayim. Back to our subject: the author of She’eilos Uteshuvos Min Hashamayim asks the following question. I’m quoting what is written: “I also asked about the order of the passages in tefillin, and this was my question: Please, great, mighty, and awesome King, command Your holy angels to inform me about what has left us in doubt concerning the order of the passages in tefillin. For some sages say that the passages beginning ‘Vehayah’ belong in the middle—this is the view of Rabbeinu Tam and the Raavad—and that if one changes the order, the tefillin are invalid. Other sages say that the passages beginning ‘Vehayah’ follow the order in which they appear in the Torah—the view of Rashi and the Shimusha Rabba—and that if one changes the order, the tefillin are invalid. You, King of Kings, command Your holy angels to tell me whose view is the halachah and whose words You favor.” That is the question Rabbi Yaakov of Marvege asks through a dream inquiry, and he receives an answer from Heaven. The answer is surprising and shows us that there is indeed room for both opinions, not just one. This is what he was told from Heaven: “Both these and those are the words of the living G-d, and just as there is a disagreement below, so there is a disagreement above. Hakadosh Boruch Hu says the passages beginning ‘Vehayah’ belong in the middle, and the entire heavenly court says they follow their order.” So we see that the disagreement is not only between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. At its very root, even in the higher worlds, the disagreement exists, so to speak. So to speak, Hakadosh Boruch Hu agrees with Rabbeinu Tam and the Raavad, while the heavenly court agrees with Rashi and the Shimusha Rabba. Of course, “the Torah is not in Heaven,” and we do not rule entirely according to what he was told—we would otherwise have to rule that one should wear only Rabbeinu Tam tefillin. We do not rule according to his words, but we can learn from them that Rabbeinu Tam tefillin have a very lofty holiness. How did people wear tefillin over the generations? There were, in fact, various practices. In a number of sources from the Geonim, in the Genizah, and among tefillin found at the tomb of the prophet Yechezkel—we find tefillin made according to various opinions in different places. To conclude the historical part, I want to discuss a very interesting episode: what the Rambam wrote.

35:57 Speaker 2 In his Mishneh Torah, in the laws of tefillin, the Rambam writes that the passages should be placed in the order in which they appear in the Torah, as read by the person wearing them. Which opinion does the Rambam follow? Right, the Rambam follows Rashi’s view. Well done—you’re listening carefully. The Rambam follows Rashi’s view: the passages go in their order in the Torah, from the wearer’s right to left. But the Rambam receives a surprising question. The sages of Lunel, a town in Provence, a region that is part of France today, greatly admired the Rambam, and they send him a question. What do the sages of Provence ask him? The sages of Lunel write: “You say in your book that the passages in tefillin are placed in their order, but we know,” they say, “that the passages are not placed in their order. Rather, they are placed…” They do not write “according to Rabbeinu Tam.” They write, “Our practice has been to place the passages beginning ‘Vehayah’ in the middle.” Let’s quote their words: “We, your students, received from our teachers, who received from the Geonim, with Rabbeinu Hai foremost among them”—Rabbeinu Hai Gaon was the last of the Geonim, but one of the most prominent and important of them—“that the passages beginning ‘Vehayah’ must be in the middle.” In other words, they say to the Rambam: How can you write that they follow the order in the Torah? We have received a tradition passed down through generations to wear tefillin with the passages beginning “Vehayah” in the middle. The question is surprising. Very surprising. They took it for granted that the passages beginning “Vehayah” had to be in the middle. And however much the question surprises us, the answer will surprise us even more.

38:33 Speaker 2 The Rambam answers them: “What you thought about the order of the passages was what I, too, thought at first. The tefillin I had in the West”—meaning Spain, where the Rambam was born and lived initially—“the tefillin my father bought me for my bar mitzvah, were like yours. That was their order.” The Rambam writes which work had led him astray: “It misled me and misled all the people of the West before me,” and so on. But the Rambam says that many Geonim disagree, as do all the people of the East and all the people of the Land of Israel. He writes that when he reached the Land of Israel, they taught him that he needed to change his tefillin and switch to what we call Rashi tefillin, with the passages written in their order. The Rambam adds a proof: “The reader reads them in order.” In other words, the person looking at the tefillin must see the passages in order, says the Rambam. So we see that Rabbeinu Tam’s practice was not something he simply invented. The sages of Lunel regarded it as a long-standing practice in the name of Rav Hai Gaon. The Rambam himself wore tefillin like Rabbeinu Tam’s in his youth, and not because of Rabbeinu Tam. Rabbeinu Tam was in France, while the widespread practice in Spain, an independent center of Torah scholarship, was to wear tefillin with the Ve-hayah passages in the middle, as Rabbeinu Tam held. So this disagreement is not a new one. Rabbeinu Tam did not invent a new approach; we see that generations before him, people followed it in various places. And as we saw, the Rebbe offers a new insight: the Torah was given in a way that allows for either Rashi’s or Rabbeinu Tam’s interpretation. At the giving of the Torah, neither order was definitively required. Let’s turn to Chabad. In Chabad, we find sources concerning sons of the Tzemach Tzedek who wore four pairs of tefillin. That means accepting the view of the Rema of Fano, Rabbi Menachem Azariah of Fano, who holds that Shimusha Rabba is indeed a position in its own right. It is not a corruption or an error,

40:54 Speaker 2 but there really are four approaches. Our Rebbeim and leading chassidim wore them. The Rebbe spoke about how difficult it was for him personally to put on Shimusha Rabba and Raavad tefillin. He was apprehensive about their special holiness, until the Frierdiker Rebbe explicitly instructed him to put on Shimusha Rabba and Raavad tefillin as well, taking responsibility for it. With Hashem’s help, in the days of Moshiach, with the complete revelation that will come immediately, we will all merit to wear four pairs of tefillin, as the Rebbe says in a sicha. But there is something distinctive about the way the four pairs are named in Chabad. Sometimes, in the words of our Rebbeim, they are called Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam, Shimusha Rabba, and “Rabbeinu Tam’s Shimusha Rabba.” At times the Raavad tefillin are not called Raavad, but “Rabbeinu Tam’s Shimusha Rabba.” In Ashkavta DeRebbi, written by one of the Rebbe Rashab’s chassidim, Reb Moshe Dovber Rivkin, who was responsible for the [unclear] in the United States, he writes that he asked the Rebbe—our Rebbe—what “Rabbeinu Tam’s Shimusha Rabba” meant. The Rebbe explained that Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam actually agree on one point, as we discussed at the beginning: “The reader reads them in order.” That is, the order of the passages follows the perspective of the person looking at the one wearing the tefillin. Shimusha Rabba changes the perspective and says that we follow the order as seen by the wearer. So the Raavad is, in effect, Rabbeinu Tam’s Shimusha Rabba: you take Rabbeinu Tam’s approach, with the Ve-hayah passages in the middle, and Shimusha Rabba’s perspective, following the wearer’s order rather than the reader’s. This is actually alluded to in a verse in Tehillim. There is a verse in Tehillim that alludes to the four pairs of tefillin, but it seems to allude to only three. The verse says, “Guard the innocent and behold the upright, for there is a future for the man of peace.” “Guard the innocent”—tam—alludes to Rabbeinu Tam’s tefillin. “Behold the upright”—yashar—refers to Rashi. “For there is a future for the man of peace”—shalom—refers to the tefillin of Rav

43:04 Speaker 2 Sher Shalom. As we said earlier, Shimusha Rabba tefillin are based on a work written by Rav Sher Shalom. So where did the last possibility go? Where did the Raavad go? The answer is that Shimusha Rabba includes the Raavad as well. There is Shimusha Rabba within Rashi’s approach, changing the perspective while keeping Rashi’s order, and there is Rabbeinu Tam’s Shimusha Rabba, changing the perspective within Rabbeinu Tam’s approach. All of this mainly concerns the tefillin shel rosh. With the tefillin shel yad, the passages are not in four compartments but on one long parchment, so these differences have less bearing. That is why even someone who wears four pairs of tefillin does not wear eight separate pieces, but six. One puts on Rashi tefillin and then replaces only the tefillin shel rosh with Shimusha Rabba; the tefillin shel yad remains Rashi’s. That is because Shimusha Rabba agrees with Rashi’s basic order, and with the tefillin shel yad, since it is one long parchment, there is no way to change the perspective on the order. The same applies to Rabbeinu Tam and the Raavad: one puts on Rabbeinu Tam tefillin and then replaces Rabbeinu Tam’s tefillin shel rosh with the Raavad’s. So we have surveyed this major question spanning many generations. First, we saw the four figures behind the approaches, and we saw what the four approaches are. We studied the source in the Gemara. We traced the historical development from the giving of the Torah, through the era of the Rishonim, to the Chabad practice throughout the generations, including the distinctive name for the tefillin and the Rebbe’s words on the subject. And we saw that the disagreement primarily concerns the tefillin shel rosh, less so the tefillin shel yad. In practice, the tefillin shel yad is not changed when switching from Rashi to Shimusha Rabba or from Rabbeinu Tam to the Raavad. With Hashem’s help, may we soon merit to fulfill

45:12 Speaker 2 the mitzvah of tefillin as You truly desire, in the true and complete Geulah, when every Jew—even ordinary chassidim, not only the leading chassidim and our Rebbeim—will wear all four pairs of tefillin. Much success, and Moshiach now, immediately!