Perhaps the most surprising aspect of tefillin is that it is two mitsvot, a fact Rambam spends most of his discussion of Mitsvah 13 (Mitsvah 12 is very brief) proving. The prime nafka mina, situation where this distinction matters in practical terms, is where one can only don one of the two (for example, where only one of the two is available). Were they to be seen as one mitsvah, we would either see no value in donning the available tefillah, or see the mitvah observance as somewhat incomplete (as will be true of tsitsit, next week’s mitsvah). This week, we will assemble some facts about these mitsvot, perhaps enabling us next week to discuss why the Torah would separate them.

Before we can discuss such a broad aspect of the mitsvah, however, we need to gather some more detailed knowledge of these two mitsvot. A first important issue is that women are exempt from this mitsvah; it is important not only for that fact (perhaps another piece of information in our continuing study of how Judaism is meant to differ for the different sexes), but also because of what the source of that exemption tells us about the mitsvah. Rambam reminds us that Kiddushin 35a exempts women based on the verse (Shmot 13;9) that says that we wear tefillin le-ma`an tihyeh Torah Hashem be-fikha, so that the Torah of God should be in our mouths. Since women (as discussed previously) are exempt from the obligation of Talmud Torah, this verse informs us that they are similarly exempt from tefillin. Tefillin are thus in some way an adjunct to the mitsvah of talmud Torah.

Perhaps the great number of halakhot le-Moshe mi-Sinai we find in the context of tefillin are connected to this point. An halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai is a rule not registered in the Torah, but specifically transmitted to Moshe Rabbenu on Sinai. Halakhically, it is not quite the same as a de-oraita, but is much closer to being Torah-ordained than to halakhot de-rabanan, laws promulgated by Hazal. As Rambam notes at the beginning of Hilkhot Tefillin, there are ten such halakhot regarding the preparation of tefillin, each of which are me`akev, meaning they are absolutely necessary for the kashrut of tefillin.

We might suggest, in keeping with tefillin as being a way to keep Torah in our minds, that Hashem set up the mitsvah with a strong halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai component to remind us that Torah consists not only of the written words, but of sizable amounts of material not specifically recorded in writing. (I was once told that the Rov ztllh"h made a similar point regarding Shavuot, whose date is not written is not written in the Torah, but must be derived in a way guided by the Oral Law).

Related to the question of tefillin as physical emblem of Torah, the gemara notes a special connection between tefillin and the recitation of Shema. Since in the course of that recitation one will mention the obligation to wear tefillin twice, the gemara (Berakhot 14b) strongly objects to a person reciting the Shema without wearing tefillin. In the gemara’s terms, such a person testifies falsely about himself (since he verbally accepts upon himself an obligation that he blatantly does not observe).

Other elements of the mitsvah point towards tefillin as aimed at increasing (or making more consistent) our awareness of God in general. The gemara (see Shabbat 12a) requires that we regularly touch/ feel our tefillin while wearing them, to insure maintaining focus. In a similar vein, inappropriate bodily actions (such as expelling air) or thoughts are particularly problematic while wearing tefillin, to such an extent that it is preferable to abstain from wearing tefillin rather than defiling them with such thoughts or bodily excrescences.

Seeing tefillin as a vehicle for awareness of God (or Torah) explains why, ideally, the mitsvah was not limited to the time of prayer, our current practice. As far as the gemara was concerned, a Jew was supposed to wear tefillin all day, except for when sleeping, using the facilities, or engaging in other activities particularly inappropriate to tefillin. We no longer follow that practice, probably because most of us cannot maintain the proper focus on our tefillin during the course of our day. Even for those who could, problems of yuhara, of publicly declaring oneself to be at a higher spiritual level than ordinary Jews militate in favor of not doing so.

As we consider the theoretical parameters of the mitsvah, however, thinking of Jews—ordinary Jews-- walking around wearing tefillin adds yet another aspect to the experience. Imagine if, among the mosaic of ethnic practices we see in New York, we would see Jews regularly wearing tefillin—during business deals, at restaurants, or simply when out on the town. Envisioning that scenario helps us understand the gemara’s (Berakhot 6a,) relating another verse to tefillin.

When the Torah says (Devarim 28;10), ve-rau kol amei ha’aretz ki shem Hashem nikra alekhah, all the nations of the world will see that God’s Name is upon you, the context of the preceding verses would have suggested that when Jews keep the mitsvot and receive the promised reward, other nations will note our good fortune and know that God is with us. Instead, the gemara says that it refers to tefillin; in seeing a Jew wearing tefillin, in the gemara’s conception, non-Jews will know that we are a people who bear God’s Name upon us.

These are some important facts about tefillin. Next week, be-ezrat Hashem, we will return to the theoretical questions we raised as well as discuss the next mitsvah, tsitsit. Shabbat Shalom.