English translation — ואתחנן ב

1.

About the order of laying tefillin the Gemara says¹

"The Tanna taught: When he lays, he lays the shel yad and then lays the shel rosh; when he removes, he removes the shel rosh and then removes the shel yad. Granted, when he lays, he lays the shel yad and then lays the shel rosh, as it is written²

And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and then they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. But when he removes, he removes the shel rosh and then removes the shel yad — from where do we derive this?

Said Rabbah: Rav Huna explained to me: The verse says, 'And they shall be as frontlets between your eyes' — as long as they are between your eyes, let there be two."

("'And they shall be' implies two — as long as they are between your eyes, let there be two; as long as those of the head are placed, those of the hand are also placed. Thus, the head [tefillin] is removed first" — Rashi's commentary).

In the Mechilta on the verse³

"And it shall be a sign for you on your hand"⁴

it stands: As long as the tefillin of the hand are on the hand, place the tefillin of the head on the head. From here they said: The mitzvah of tefillin — when he puts on, he puts on the shel yad and then puts on the shel rosh; and when he removes, he removes the shel rosh and then the shel yad.

one must understand:

a)

what is the reason that the Gemara derives the order of laying tefillin from the verse "And you shall bind them etc. And they shall be etc." in our parshah,

and not from the verse

(which appears <b>earlier</b>)

in Parshas Bo,

where the commandment of tefillin is stated for the first time⁵

- as in the Mechilta?

From the plain meaning of the Gemara it appears,

that one must arrive at <b>two</b> teachings — one teaching on the law "when he puts on, he puts on the hand [tefillin] and afterwards puts on the head [tefillin]",

and a separate teaching on the law "when he removes, he removes the head [tefillin] and afterwards removes the hand [tefillin]"; unlike according to the Mechilta, both laws are derived from the same teaching.

b)

2.

At first glance one could answer one question with another,

And by first explaining — according to the Mechilta — how one derives from the verse also the second detail "and when he removes, he removes the head [tefillin] and afterwards the hand [tefillin]"?

The explanation of this: the difference between the command "And it shall be for you a sign on your hand" in Parshat Kadesh,

and the command "And you shall bind them for a sign on your hand" in our parshah,

is: in our parshah the mitzvah is the making

(the binding that is on)

the person - "And you shall bind them for a sign on your hand"; in contrast, in the verse "And it shall be for you a sign on your hand" in Parshat Kadesh the command is "And it shall be" - that the tefillin should be "for a sign on your hand and for a memorial between your eyes"⁶.

In another style: the verse in our parshah speaks about "the person",

and in Parshat Kadesh "And it shall be for you a sign on your hand" - about "the object".

And since the Gemara speaks about the order of laying tefillin,

from the aspect

(the obligation)

of the person⁷

- "&lt;b&gt;When he lays &lt;/b&gt;he lays the shel yad and afterwards he lays the shel rosh" - the Gemara derives this from the verse where the mitzvah of the layer is: "&lt;b&gt;And you shall bind &lt;/b&gt;them as a sign on your hand and then they shall be as frontlets between your eyes."

And therefore one needs a separate teaching

("As long as they are between your eyes let them be two")

regarding the removal of tefillin,

which has no connection to the obligation and order of &lt;b&gt;laying &lt;/b&gt;tefillin.

In the Mechilta, however, it does not speak about the mitzvah of &lt;b&gt;placing &lt;/b&gt;tefillin from the perspective of the person,

but rather how the tefillin as an object &lt;b&gt;are &lt;/b&gt;"a sign upon your hand and a remembrance between your eyes,"

therefore the lesson from the verse "And it shall be for you a sign upon your hand,"

that "as long as the &lt;b&gt;tefillin of the hand are on the hand &lt;/b&gt;place the one of the head on the head,"

and consequently - "from here they said" - one knows from this also regarding the conduct of man in &lt;b&gt;both &lt;/b&gt;times: "When he puts on, he puts on the one of the hand and afterwards puts on the one of the head, and when he removes, he removes the one of the head and afterwards the one of the hand."

Because in this matter of "and it shall be" there is no difference between placing or removing tefillin.

3.

It is, however, difficult to learn it this way&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;,

because

because according to the above he should have said

(and in reverse order)

"&lt;b&gt;Let be &lt;/b&gt;the ones of the head on the head all the time etc." and the like - a language that speaks about the tefillin as they are placed on his body,

and not a language that speaks about their placement by the person - one finds that]

In the Sifri in our parshah it says the same language as in the Mechilta

("All the time that the one of the hand is on the hand place the one of the head on the head,

from here they said: when one puts on tefillin he puts the one of the hand first and afterwards the one of the head, and when he removes he removes the one of the head first and afterwards removes the one of the hand")

- nevertheless the Sifri derives it from the verse in our parshah: "&lt;b&gt;And you shall bind &lt;/b&gt;them as a sign on your hand and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes",

which speaks about the obligation and commandment of placing

(tefillin that are on)

the person.

Further, it is questionable in the Gemara itself: After the Gemara derives from "and they shall be" that "as long as they are between your eyes, they should be two",

then just as for this reason one understands that "when he removes, he removes the head-tefillin first and then removes the hand-tefillin"

(as the Gemara says),

one also knows that "when he puts on, he puts on the hand-tefillin first and then puts on the head-tefillin"

Why does the Gemara need the teaching from the order of the commandments: "And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes"?

4.

And superficially one could say,

that indeed, according to the conclusion one actually derives both laws — both "when he puts on, he puts on the hand-tefillin first and then puts on the head-tefillin" and "when he removes, he removes the head-tefillin first and then removes the hand-tefillin" — from that which "the verse said 'and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes: as long as they are between your eyes, they should be two'",

and as one finds in several poskim,

and then this also aligns with the exposition of the Sifri mentioned above.

But according to this, the aforementioned question becomes even more difficult: since the Gemara ultimately derives both laws from one teaching

("והיו"),

like the Mechilta — then why does the Gemara derive it

(and the Sifri)

not from the preceding verse in Parshat Kadesh

(according to the exposition of the Mechilta).

(like the exposition of the Mechilta)?

Also, a logical inquiry arises regarding the two methods of derivation — whether the difference between them is only a matter of interpretive nuance,

or is there a practical halachic difference from which verse one derives it?

Also one finds differences between the languages in the Mechilta and in the Sifri: a)

In the Mechilta the language is "from here they said <b>the commandment of tefillin</b> etc." and in the Sifri "from here they said <b>when one puts on tefillin</b> etc."

b)

In the Sifri he adds "when one puts on tefillin he puts on the shel yad <b>first</b> etc. and when he removes he removes the shel rosh <b>first</b> etc."; but not so in the Mechilta.

5.

And the explanation of this:

That which the tefillin of the hand must be preceded before the laying of the tefillin of the head,

even though they are two commandments and do not impede each other¹⁰,

one can learn in several ways¹¹

a)

This is a law regarding the tefillin of the head: the <b>completeness</b> of the commandment of the tefillin of the head is only at the time when on the arm there is the one of the hand,

and therefore he must, before laying the tefillin of the head, lay the tefillin of the hand.

2)

There is a law in the order of how the person must lay the tefillin — first he must lay tefillin shel yad and afterwards tefillin shel rosh.

This does not pertain to the mitzvah of tefillin sh”r¹²

(and also not to the tefillin shel yad)

but rather a law in the order of their placement by the person who lays them¹³.

One of the simple differences between the two ways is — if*¹³

he laid them both at once: according to the first way,

that this pertains only to the completeness of the mitzvah of tefillin shel rosh,

he also in that case fulfills the mitzvah in its completeness; but according to the second way,

that this is a law in the order of the person's placement,

that first he must lay tefillin shel yad and afterwards tefillin shel rosh,

one could say,

that this order is lacking then when he lays them at once¹⁴.

Another way: g)

One can learn,

that this is a law in "the commandment of tefillin".

d.

d.

e.

e.

That the order of their placement - the obligation of precedence of the placement of shel yad - is a part of the commandment of tefillin shel yad and shel rosh

(when one is obligated in both).

And the practical halachic difference¹⁵,

one could say: When someone placed the tefillin shel rosh before he placed the shel yad - whether he is obligated to remove the tefillin and put them on again in their proper order

(first tefillin shel yad and then shel rosh),

or it is sufficient that he will afterwards put on the tefillin shel yad,

And as known, the dispute among the poskim and acharonim about this¹⁶.

According to the first approach,

that it is a law in the completeness of the mitzvah of tefillin shel rosh,

in that they are placed on his head,

he does not need to remove the shel rosh and it is sufficient that he will immediately put on the tefillin shel yad,

and thereby the completeness of the mitzvah of shel rosh is already achieved.

According to the third¹⁷

way, however,

that this is a law in the mitzvah of tefillin¹⁸,

it is understood,

that he must remove the tefillin of the head and put them on in their proper order.

6.

And this is the difference between the teaching "As long as they are between your eyes, let them be two" which the Gemara derives,

and the teaching in the Mechilta "From here they said: The mitzvah of tefillin—when he puts on, he puts on the shel yad and afterwards puts on the shel rosh, and when he removes, etc.":

The teaching "as long as there are two between your eyes" means,

that this is a law in tefillin: that which one must precede the tefillin of the hand

("there shall be two")

pertains to the completeness of the mitzvah of tefillin of the head

(between your eyes)¹⁹.

And consequently,

when one preceded tefillin of the head to tefillin of the hand, it is sufficient to place the tefillin of the hand afterwards, and thereby he already fulfills from now onward the obligation of "as long as there are two between your eyes"²⁰.

According to the Mechilta, however,

the teaching is,

that "

(from here they said)

<b>The mitzvah of tefillin </b>

(the definition of the mitzvah of tefillin is in the manner that)

when he places, he places the hand [tefillin] and afterwards he places the head [tefillin]",

that preceding the hand [tefillin] in the order of their placement is a law in the mitzvah of tefillin²¹

; and consequently when he preceded the head [tefillin], the law of "the mitzvah of tefillin" is lacking²²,

and he must remove them and put them on in their proper order.

7.

According to the second manner mentioned above,

that this is a law only in the order of laying tefillin by the person,

there is room to think - whether this is only a condition and detail in the order of the laying of the person and this has no connection to the mitzvah of tefillin,

and as a condition

(like most conditions of the mitzvah)

this is possibly not indispensable*²²

- and consequently,

if he placed the shel rosh first, it is sufficient that he should then lay the shel yad and thereby fulfill the mitzvah of tefillin properly;

Or one could say,

that the law in the <b>order </b>of their laying extends also further,

that what the tefillin are afterwards placed upon him is a continuation of a laying of shel rosh <b>without </b>the precedence of shel yad²³,

and consequently he must remove the shel rosh and lay them in their proper order.

And one could say,

that with that which the Gemara says that "Rav Huna <b>explained </b>to me

(that the precedence of the removal of the head [tefillin] I learn out from that which)

the verse said: "And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes" — all the time that they are between your eyes they shall be two",

the Gemara explains that the first teaching regarding the order of placement

("When he places, he places the hand [tefillin] and afterwards he places the head [tefillin] ..

as it is written: "And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand" and then "And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes")

is only a condition in the act of placement of the person and not in the law of the mitzvah of tefillin itself; to the <b>mitzvah </b>of tefillin only the detail that "all the time that they are between your eyes they shall be two" is relevant.

And upon this comes the addition in the Sifri

(which we also learn out from "And you shall bind them etc.")

"All the time that the hand [tefillin] is on the hand <b>place the head </b>[tefillin] on the head; from here they said: When one puts on tefillin, he puts on the hand [tefillin] first and afterwards the head [tefillin]": according to the Gemara only that they should be placed on his head <b>all the time </b>that they are between your eyes they shall be two is relevant; that is

to say,

the precedence of the shel yad is only in order that there should be two all the time that they are between your eyes;

But according to the Sifri,

it pertains to the mitzvah of tefillin of the head

(not only that the tefillin of the head should be placed when also the tefillin of the hand are placed,

but)

also the <b>order</b> and manner of “<b>place the head [tefillin]</b> on the head”,

and therefore “he places the hand [tefillin] <b>first</b>”,

so that the “place the head [tefillin] on the head” can be properly [fulfilled].

8.

According to the above, it is also understood what the Mechilta derives from the first verse in the portion of Kadesh “And it shall be for you a sign upon your hand etc.”

(and also not from the verse “And it shall be for a sign upon your hand” in the portion of Vehaya Ki Yevi’acha at the end of the portion of Bo)

: according to the Mechilta,

since the order of their placement is a law in the “mitzvah of tefillin”,

not merely a law in the act of placement of the <b>person</b> or in the completeness of the mitzvah of tefillin of the head

because the obligation to precede the hand [tefillin] is not merely a condition so that afterwards there should be the “as long as between your eyes there are two” or a condition in the manner of “place the head [tefillin] on the head”,

but a law in the mitzvah of tefillin],

Therefore one learns this from the command regarding the mitzvah of tefillin for the first time²⁴,

from which one understands that together with the essence of the mitzvah the law of the essence of the mitzvah was stated.

And one should add that the source for this that this is "the mitzvah of tefillin",

a law in the mitzvah itself,

is not only from the order of the verse,

but from the language of the verse:

From the verse "And it shall be for you a sign on your hand and a remembrance between your eyes, and it is not said 'and they shall be for a remembrance between your eyes'" one learns

(In the early authorities²⁵)

"Both of them are considered one 'being' and 'doing'."²⁶

But according to the law

(Which is according to the opinion that one learns the order of laying tefillin from "And you shall bind them etc. and they shall be for frontlets etc.")

They are "considered one 'being' and 'doing'" only in the matter "that they must be placed one after the other without any interruption."²⁶

But according to the Mechilta, both placings are completely one "being and doing."²⁷

From this it is by way of automatic understanding,

that when he changed

(the order),

this is not the "one doing and making" of the verse,

and therefore he must put them on again in their order.

9.

All matters of the revealed aspect of Torah are present as they express themselves in the inner dimension of Torah

(and on the contrary,

the matters in the revealed aspect become descended*²⁷

from how they are in the inner dimension).

And so too in our matter:

It is said that the entire Torah is compared to tefillin²⁸.

Just as in tefillin there are tefillin shel yad and tefillin shel rosh,

so too in the service of Torah and mitzvos there are the two aspects of tefillin: shel yad,

which is placed on the <b>arm</b> opposite the <b>heart</b>,

indicates the service of the heart,

fear of Hashem and acceptance of the yoke; and shel rosh,

whose placement is opposite the brain,

indicates the service of the intellect,

understanding and comprehension.

that the fulfillment of the <b>mitzvah of tefillin</b> is — „<b>to lay them</b>²⁹

on the arm opposite the heart and on the head opposite the brain,

so that we remember the miracles and wonders that He did with us, which indicate His unity and that to Him belong power and dominion etc. <b>and subjugate</b>³⁰

to the Holy One, blessed be He, the soul that is <b>in the brain</b> and also <b>the desires</b> and thoughts <b>of his heart</b> to His service, may He be exalted.

And through the laying of tefillin <b>he will remember</b>³¹

the Creator, blessed be He, <b>and diminish his pleasures</b>”].

Which in general are the two matters: feeling,

emotional attributes,

commandment - tefillin of the hand,

and Torah - tefillin of the head.

Yud.

And on this there are two directives: "When he dons, he dons the shel yad and afterwards dons the shel rosh, as it is written etc." - that "fear of sin" must be "prior to his wisdom"³².

Fear is "the entrance ..

to wisdom"³³.

And as he explains at length in Tanya³⁴,

that "the beginning of divine service and its essence and its root" is "to first arouse the natural fear that is hidden in the heart of every Jew, not to rebel against the King of the Universe, the Holy One, blessed be He, etc.'"

Afterwards comes the second, higher instruction: "All the time that is between your eyes shall be two",

that the service of fear is required not only as a <b>preparation</b> for the study of Torah,

but that also during and together with the study of Torah

(the service that is in intellect and understanding and comprehension in Divinity),

there must also be the service of fear,

and then "his wisdom endures"³²

(than that which comes as a <b>preparation</b> for Torah)

to which one comes through Torah and about which it is said "If there is no wisdom, there is no fear"³⁵

And as it is written³⁶

"And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear",

which is the level of sublime fear,

which is drawn down specifically after the service of wisdom,

as explained at length in Chassidus³⁷].

11.

And upon this one adds,

that that which the laying of tefillin shel yad must be before the laying of tefillin shel rosh,

his fear of Heaven precedes his wisdom,

is not only because thus must be the order in the conduct of man,

that in order to arrive at the perfection of tefillin shel rosh

(wisdom),

of Torah,

one must have the <b>introduction</b> of fear of Heaven and acceptance of the yoke,

so that it should be "his wisdom endures" - "all the time that they are between your eyes they should be two"

But the order itself is a matter of "the commandment of tefillin".

4.

5.

That which one first puts on tefillin shel yad is because

(also)

this is a primary thing and there is in it a virtue³⁸

: since acceptance of the yoke of Heaven

(fear),

even lower fear,

its essence is self-nullification,

the opposite of selfhood,

it has a connection³⁹

to the essential self-nullification of the essence of the soul,

the aspect of yechidah in the soul - which is higher than the service of tefillin shel rosh⁴⁰.

And as the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov⁴¹

regarding the laying of tefillin of the Holy One, blessed be He,

(first tefillah shel yad and afterwards tefillah shel rosh)

In the tefillin above⁴²

the "shel yad" alludes to

(the service of)

simple people,

and the "shel rosh" -

(the service of)

masters of Torah; and in the <b>laying </b>of tefillin above, the service of acceptance of the yoke of simple people comes first,

higher than the service of those with intellect in knowledge and comprehension of the Torah.

And through all this the "mitzvah of tefillin" is opened up in its completeness,

it becomes "Havayah and Asiyah <b>one</b>": through that which in the level of tefillin shel yad the concept of "echad" is heard,

aspect of yechidah⁴³,

this effects the "echad" also in tefillin shel rosh,

in the service of the baalei mochin,

in knowledge and comprehension of the Torah.

And through the service of "echad" — one draws down into the world "echad" — "as it is said⁴⁴

Tefillin de-mari alma mah katav beh ..

And who is like Your people Israel, one nation <b>one</b> in the land",

Jews draw down the Havayah <b>one</b> "in the land"⁴¹.

(From the talk of Yud Shevat 5737)