Daf Ditty Eruvin 95: Women donning Tefillin

1
2
MISHNA: One who finds phylacteries outside the city on Shabbat, 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 ‫ דף‬summarizes with five possible explanations of the: ‫ רבן גמליאל‬and ‫ תנא קמא‬the between
Machlokes -1- First - They both hold ‫תפילין זמן לאו שבת‬. If so, the ‫ היתר‬to wear the ‫ תפילין‬is not based
on the ‫מצוה‬, but on the ‫ תפילין‬nonetheless being a ‫תכשיט‬. However, they disagree in on room actually
is there Whether - ‫מקום יש בראש להניח שתי תפילין‬a person’s body for two pairs of ‫תפילין‬. The ‫קמא תנא‬
holds there is no room for two pairs - and only one pair can be considered a ‫תכשיט‬. Therefore, ‫זוג‬
‫ זוג מכניסן‬- only one pair at a time. ‫ גמליאל רבן‬holds there IS room for two pairs of ‫ תפילין‬- and both
can be considered a ‫ תכשיט‬.Therefore, ‫ שנים שנים‬- He may wear even two pairs as a ‫תכשיט‬.

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
Finally - the ‫ גמרא‬briefly suggests that they all agree, that if we would hold ‫ תפילין זמן שבת‬,he would
not be able to wear two pairs, because - ‫לעבור משום בל תוסיף לא בעי כוונה‬Therefore, we must say that
they both agree . ‫שבת לאו זמן תפילין‬However, the ‫ קמא תנא‬holds even - ‫לעבור שלא בזמנו לא בעי כוונה‬
Even though there is no obligation to wear ‫ תפילין‬on ‫ שבת‬,if one does, he’s ‫ מקיים‬a ‫ מצוה‬,which
according to the ‫ קמא תנא‬is enough to be ‫ עובר‬on ‫ תוסיף בל‬- therefore, he may only wear one pair.
holds ‫רבן גמליאל‬- ‫לעבור שלא בזמנו בעי כוונה‬If one wears ‫ תפילין‬on ‫ שבת‬- as Rashi writes; - ‫אין כאן רמז‬
‫מצוה‬He’s not ‫ מקיים‬a ‫ מצוה‬at all - if so, there is no ‫תוסיף בל‬, therefore, he may wear even two pairs.
One would be ‫ עובר‬on ‫ תוסיף בל‬even ‫ בזמנו שלא‬only if he specifically has ‫ כוונה‬to be ‫ מקיים‬a ‫מצוה‬.

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.

.‫ מקום יש בראש להניח שתי תפילין‬agree both They - Second- 2- However, the ‫ קמא תנא‬holds ‫תפילין זמן‬
‫ – שבת‬there is a ‫ מצוה‬to wear ‫ תפילין‬on ‫ שבת‬,and the ‫ היתר‬to bring in the ‫ תפילין‬is based on the ‫מצוה‬
,which requires only one pair of ‫תפילין‬. Rashi adds, that wearing the second pair would be an ‫בל‬
‫איסור תוסיף‬, making it a ‫משאוי‬. holds ‫ רבן גמליאל היתר‬the - ‫ שבת‬on ‫ תפילין‬of ‫ מצוה‬no is there – ‫שבת לאו‬
‫זמן תפילין‬is based on ‫תכשיט‬, and since - ‫מקום יש בראש להניח שתי תפילין‬He may wear even two pairs
of ‫ תפילין‬as a ‫תכשיט‬. Rashi adds, that there is no ‫תוסיף בל איסור‬, because it’s not being worn for the
‫מצוה‬, but to save them. The ‫ תוסיף בל איסור‬applies only while performing the ‫מצוה‬when the ‫ מצוה‬is
applicable

9
The Gemara comments: The school of Menashe taught the following. The verse states:

‫ָיֶד^; ְוָהיוּ‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ ח וְּקַשׁ ְרָתּם ְלאוֹת‬8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they
.^‫ ֵבּין ֵﬠיֶני‬,‫ְלֹטָטֹפת‬ shall be for frontlets between thine eyes.

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

‫תוספות ד"ה ידך זו קיבורת‬

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

‫הוא קבוצת בשר שבזרוע שבין המרפק שקורין קודא בלע''ז ובין הכתף וקיבורת כמו קיבורת דאהיני ולא כמי‬
‫)כן נראה להגיה( שמפרש‬

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...

‫קיבורית הוא קביצת בשר שבין פיסת היד למרפק סמוך למרפק‬

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

‫דבכל מקום משמע דתפילין הן בזרוע ובמסכת אהלות )פ''א משנה ח( משמע דזרוע הוא בין המרפק ולכתף‬

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;

‫דקאמר שלשים בפיסת יד כו' שנים בקנה ושנים במרפק אחד בזרוע וארבע בכתף‬

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
 :‫( נמי אמרי' דבעינן שתהא שימה כנגד הלב‬:‫ובהקומץ רבה )מנחות ד' לז‬

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.

‫תוספות ד"ה מקום יש בראש שראוי להניח בו ב' תפילין‬

Tosfos discusses the size of Tefilin.

‫ וכן הוא בתוספות‬,‫מסופק היה ר''י איזה שיעור יש ברוחב תפילין דיש עושין גדולים ורחבים )כן נראה להגיה‬
‫הרא"ש( ויש שעושין אותם קטנים ביותר‬

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.

‫ומדקאמר מקום יש בראש להניח ב' תפילין משמע דשיעור רחבו שיתמלא מקום השנים‬

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.

(.‫ואור''י דמצא במדרש דשיעורן כב' אצבעות וסמך לדבר דציץ רוחבו ב' אצבעות כדאמר בפ' קמא דסוכה )ד' ה‬

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

‫( שערו היה נראה בין ציץ למצנפת ששם מניח תפילין ודומה דציץ היה במקום‬:‫ואמרי' בפ''ק דערכין )דף ג‬
‫הראוי להניח תפילין‬

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
[Link]
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
 ‫אע''ג דגבי ציץ כתיב )שמות כח( מצחו ומתרגמינן בין עינוהי‬

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

‫גבי תפילין נמי כתיב )דברים יא( בין עיניכם ודרשינן בגובה שבראש‬

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
[Link]

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 Mishnah 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
[Link]

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
in “ ‫ זוג זוג‬- a set at a time.”

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-eruv 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
[Link]

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 Judaism, 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 Sukkah, 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 Talmud 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
[Link]

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 grama’, 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):

‫וכן שאר מצות עשה שהנשים פטורות מהן אם רצו לעשות אותן בלא מ ברכה אין ממחין ביד‬
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 [Link]

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:

‫ונראה לפרש דטעמא למ"ד דלא הוי רשות משום דתפילין צריכין גוף נקי ונשים אין זריזות ליזהר‬
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:

... ‫ ואינן רוצים‬,‫ מפני שנראה כדרך החיצונים שעוברים על דברי חכמים‬,‫אסור לנשים להניח תפלין אפי' בלא ברכה‬
‫לדרוש המקראות כמות‬

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:

‫ואם הנשים רוצין להחמיר על עצמן מוחין בידן‬

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.
,‫ וכה"ח לח‬,‫ יג‬,‫ וכ"כ הרמ"א ומ"ב לח‬,‫ ורבים כתבו שיש למחות ביד הרוצות להניח‬,‫ ההוראה שלא תניח‬,‫למעשה‬
‫ ואף‬,‫ שכך דעת האורחות חיים ועולת תמיד‬,‫ לרוצה להניח יש על מה לסמוך‬,‫ אלא שכפי שכתבתי‬.‫ ועוד רבים‬,‫ט‬
‫ ובתנאי‬.‫ ולכן למעשה אין למחות בידה‬.‫מסיום דברי ערוה"ש מבואר שאין למחות במי שמפורסמת כצדקת‬
‫ ועוד‬,‫ כי רק כך יהיה ברור שהנחתה לשם שמיים‬,‫ וכן תקפיד להניח בצנעה‬.‫שתקפיד שלא תניח בשעת וסתה‬
‫שצריך להצניע את זמני הטהרה והטומאה‬.

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
[Link]

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
[Link]
[Link]

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 Makkot.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;
Kiddushin 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
[Link]
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 Rosh Hashanah, 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