Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 35

1) HALACHAH: THE ORDER OF THE "PARSHIYOS" IN TEFILIN

OPINIONS: The Beraisa earlier (end of 34b) describes the order of the placement of the four Parshiyos of the Tefilin. The Beraisa says that "Kadesh Li" and "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha" are on the right side, and that "Shema" and "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a" are on the left. Another Beraisa, however, says that the order is the opposite. The Gemara answers that one Beraisa is referring to the order of the Parshiyos from the perspective of a person facing opposite the person wearing the Tefilin, and the other Beraisa is referring to the order from the perspective of the person wearing the Tefilin.

There are four basic opinions among the Rishonim regarding the order of the Parshiyos in Tefilin.

(a) RASHI maintains that, starting from the left side of the person wearing the Tefilin, the four Parshiyos are placed into the four compartments in the order in which they appear in the Torah:

1. "Kadesh Li" (Shemos 13:1-10)
2. "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha" (Shemos 13:11-16)
3. "Shema" (Devarim 6:4-9)
4. "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a" (Devarim 11:13-21)

(b) RABEINU TAM questions Rashi's opinion from the Beraisa here which organizes the four Parshiyos into two groups, saying that two Parshiyos are on the right side, and two are on the left. According to Rashi's ruling, the Parshiyos are not organized into two groups, but rather there is one sequence based on their location in the Torah. Why, according to Rashi, does the Beraisa organize the Parshiyos into two groups? (See the following Insight for a possible answer to this question.)

Rabeinu Tam therefore learns that the two Parshiyos on the left side (of the one wearing the Tefilin) are "Kadesh Li" and "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha" (like Rashi), placed in the order in which they appear in the Torah for one who begins reading them "from the right side" (that is, of one *facing* the person wearing them), and the Parshiyos on the right side (of the one wearing the Tefilin) are "Shema" and "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a", placing them in the order in which they appear in the Torah for one who begins reading them "from the left side" (that is, when one *facing* the person wearing them starts to read the Parshiyos from the far left side). Hence, the order, starting from the left side of the one wearing the Tefilin is:

1. "Kadesh Li"
2. "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha"
3. "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a"
4. "Shema"

The KEREN ORAH explains that Rabeinu Tam learns that the order starts from the outer sides of the Tefilin. Therefore, starting from the wearer's left side, "Kadesh Li" should be placed before "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha," and, starting from the wearer's right side, "Shema" should be placed before "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a."

(c) The SHIMUSHA RABA maintains that the order begins from the right side of the one wearing the Tefilin. Therefore, the order is the opposite of Rashi's, and, beginning from the left side of the one wearing the Tefilin, is:

1. "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a" (Devarim 11:13-21)
2. "Shema" (Devarim 6:4-9)
3. "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha" (Shemos 13:11-16)
4. "Kadesh Li" (Shemos 13:1-10)

(d) The RA'AVAD also maintains that the sequence begins from the right side of the one wearing Tefilin, like the Shimusha Raba. However, he also agrees with Rabeinu Tam and maintains that the order of each pair of Parshiyos begins with the outer side of the Tefilin. Accordingly, his order is the opposite of the order of Rabeinu Tam:

1. "Shema"
2. "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a"
3. "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha"
4. "Kadesh Li"

HALACHAH: The Halachah follows the view of RASHI, but the SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 34:1) writes that a G-d-fearing person should also wear Tefilin that conform with the view of RABEINU TAM.

(With regard to why there is no custom to wear the Tefilin of the other opinions, that of the SHIMUSHA RABA and that of the RA'AVAD, see following Insight.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: Rava says that each Parshah must be situated in a specific place -- one on the far right side, one on the far left side, one on the left inner side, and one on the right inner side, and if the Parshiyos are put in the wrong place, the Tefilin are not valid. In order words, Rava rules that any change in the order of the Parshiyos will disqualify the Tefilin.

Rava's words need explanation. We know that there is a specific order in which the Parshiyos must be placed, as the Gemara taught earlier (end of 34b). Why does Rava not simply say that the order of the Parshiyos is "Me'akev"?

ANSWER: As we discussed earlier (see previous Insight), there are four basic opinions among the Rishonim regarding the order of the Parshiyos of Tefilin. The Halachah follows the view of RASHI, but the SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 34:1) writes that a G-d-fearing person should also wear Tefilin that conform with the view of RABEINU TAM. Why, though, is there no custom to wear the Tefilin of the other opinions, that of the SHIMUSHA RABA and that of the RA'AVAD?

RABEINU CHAIM HA'LEVI answers as follows. We find that the Shulchan Aruch (OC 27:3) writes that the custom ("Minhag") is that the Ma'avarta (the area of the base of the Tefilin through which the strap passes) of the Tefilin Shel Yad should be facing upwards, while the Ketzitzah (the actual square housing of the Tefilin) should be facing downwards. When worn in this way, the Parshiyos are organized in their specific order. However, it is clear from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch that this is only a "Minhag," and that it is not "Me'akev" -- if one wears the Tefilin Shel Yad with the Ma'avarta on the bottom and the Ketzitzah on the top, he fulfills the Mitzvah as well (see MISHNAH BERURAH OC 27:12). (While the Shulchan Aruch is referring to the Tefilin Shel Yad, Rabeinu Chaim understands that the same applies to the Tefilin Shel Rosh.)

This raises a question, though. If there is a specific order of the Parshiyos, then that means that the Parshiyos must be arranged in the proper sequence from left to right. If the Tefilin are worn upside down -- with the Ma'avarta on the bottom and the Ketzitzah on top, then the order of the Parshiyos is reversed! How can the Tefilin be valid when worn in such a manner?

Rabeinu Chaim understands from here that the correct order of the Parshiyos serves two purposes. First, the order determines how the Tefilin are supposed to be worn, l'Chatchilah. That is, if the Parshiyos are placed into the Tefilin in the proper order, but the Tefilin are not worn with the Parshiyos in their right order (that is, they are worn upside down, such that the order is right-to-left instead of left-to-right), one nevertheless fulfills the Mitzvah of Tefilin, b'Di'eved. Second, the order in which the Parshiyos are placed into the Tefilin determines whether the Tefilin themselves are valid or not. If the Parshiyos are arranged in the Tefilin in such a way that no matter how they are worn the correct order is not achieved, then the Tefilin themselves are invalid.

This explains why it is not necessary to wear Tefilin containing Parshiyos in the order of the Shimusha Raba. The order of Parshiyos according to the Shimusha Raba is the exact opposite of the order according to Rashi. If one wears the "Rashi" Tefilin upside down (or backwards), the Parshiyos indeed are in the order of the Shimusha Raba. Hence, the Tefilin are valid Tefilin according to the Shimusha Raba. When the Tefilin are worn in the proper manner (such that the order of the Parshiyos is Rashi's order), it is as if the Shimusha Raba's Tefilin are merely being worn in a manner which is not l'Chatchilah, and the person still fulfills the Mitzvah, even according to the Shimusha Raba, b'Di'eved.

However, these Tefilin, with the order of Parshiyos of Rashi (or, when worn in the wrong manner, the order of the Shimusha Raba), cannot fulfill the Mitzvah according to Rabeinu Tam. The Parshiyos are in the wrong order, according to Rabeinu Tam, regardless of how one wears the Tefilin, and thus the Tefilin are not valid. Therefore, there is a custom to wear "Rabeinu Tam" Tefilin in order to fulfill the Mitzvah according to his view. However, there is no custom to wear "Ra'avad" Tefilin (that is, with the order of Parshiyos according to the Ra'avad), because the Ra'avad's order is the same as Rabeinu Tam's, but inverted. Hence, when one wears "Rabeinu Tam" Tefilin, according to the Ra'avad he is wearing valid Tefilin but in the wrong manner, and thus he still fulfills the Mitzvah (b'Di'eved).

With this novel approach of Rabeinu Chaim, we can explain Rava's words in our Gemara. Rava does not say simply that if the Parshiyos are not in the proper order, the Tefilin are Pasul, because the improper sequence of Parshiyos would not necessarily make the Tefilin Pasul! It would merely make the manner of wearing the Tefilin an improper manner l'Chatchilah. Rather, what does invalidate the Tefilin is an order of Parshiyos which cannot, in any way, be construed to be the proper order, no matter how the Tefilin are worn. Rava expresses this point by showing where each Parshah needs to be placed. One must be on the outer right side, one on the outer left side, one on the inner right side, and one on the inner left side. This order constitutes valid Tefilin. Any Tefilin that cannot be set up with this order (even by turning the Tefilin around or upside down) are not valid Tefilin. However, if the order can be achieved by turning the Tefilin around and wearing them in a different manner, then the Tefilin are valid even if they are worn in the proper manner, because the manner of wearing them is not Me'akev.

(With this understanding, we can answer Rabeinu Tam's question on Rashi's opinion. Rabeinu Tam asks that according to Rashi's opinion of the order of the Parshiyos, there was no reason for the Beraisa to divide the four Parshiyos into two distinct groups. We see from the Gemara here that the way to express a specific, necessary order of the Parshiyos in the Tefilin -- without which the Tefilin are not valid Tefilin -- is by designating a place for each Parshah. Those four places are designated as the outer right, outer left, inner right, and inner left. In order to designate those places, the Beraisa needs to divide the Parshiyos into two groups.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

35b

QUESTION: The Gemara differentiates between the Gardumin (remnants) of Tzitzis and of Ezov, and the Gardumin of the straps (Retzu'os) of Tefilin. The Gardumin of Tzitzis and of Ezov still constitute valid Tzitzis and Ezov, while the Gardumin of the straps of Tefilin do not constitute valid straps. The Gemara says that the difference is that Tzitzis and Ezov are Tashmishei Mitzvah, while the straps of Tefilin are Tashmishei Kedushah.

It is not clear, however, why this is a reason to differentiate between the two types of Gardumin. Why should the fact that Tzitzis and Ezov are Tashmishei Mitzvah, and straps of Tefilin are Tashmishei Kedushah, make a difference with regard to the Gardumin?

ANSWER: The HAGAHOS HA'RADAL asks another question, and he uses the answer to that question to explain the difference between Tashmishei Mitzvah and Tashmishei Kedushah. He asks that we find many other Tashmishei Mitzvah that, like Tzitzis, Ezov, and Retzu'os, have minimum requirements in their size, but which are *not* valid if they are cut short (that is, their Gardumin are not valid). For example, we find that Lulav has a minimum Shi'ur, but we do not find that it remains a valid Lulav when some of it breaks off. Similarly, Shofar has a minimum Shi'ur, and we do not find that that if part of it is cut off, it remains valid. What is different about the Tashmishei Mitzvah of Tzitzis and Ezov that their Gardumin are valid?

The Radal answers this question based on the words of the NIMUKEI YOSEF. The Nimukei Yosef says that when a minimum Shi'ur is required for Tzitzis, Ezov, and Retzu'os of Tefilin, it is because of "Hidur Mitzvah," the Mitzvah to beautify a Mitzvah, as derived from the verse, "Zeh Keli v'Anvehu" (Shemos 15:2). Consequently, if an object of Tashmishei Mitzvah was "Mehudar" at the outset, then it remains valid even after it loses its Hidur. Regarding Tashmishei Kedushah, however, we are more stringent and we require the minimum Shi'ur throughout the fulfillment of the Mitzvah.

The Radal explains the words of the Nimukei Yosef as follows. The Shi'ur of Tzitzis, Ezov, and Retzu'os of Tefilin is only mid'Rabanan, because of Hidur Mitzvah. With a Halachah d'Rabanan, we may be lenient and consider the item to be valid even when it loses its Shi'ur of Hidur. In this respect, however, we differentiate between Tashmishei Mitzvah, for which we are lenient, and Tashmishei Kedushah, for which we are not lenient, due to its status of Kedushah. This explains why our Gemara differentiates between Tashmishei Mitzvah of Tzitzis and Ezov, and Tashmishei Kedushah of Retzu'os of Tefilin.

The Radal answers the question from other Tashmishei Mitzvah, such as Lulav and Shofar, as follows. The Shi'urim of Lulav and Shofar are mid'Oraisa, and, therefore, it is not possible to be lenient with regard to their Shi'urim (and to say that their Gardumin is valid), even though they are Tashmishei Mitzvah. Only Tashmishei Mitzvah which have Shi'urim that are mid'Rabanan (because of Hidur) are valid when their Shi'urim are lessened and only Gardumin remain. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)