אורח חיים 1

לשמוע קול שופר, ברית שלומו לא תופר, ויזכה להכתב ולהחתם עם כל הכתוב לחיים בספר. ה"ה כבוד אהובי ש"ב ידידי הרב המאור הגדול המופלא ומופלג בתורה ומעלות כבוד מוהר"ר יצחק הכהן נר"ו, אב"ד ור"מ דק"ק בון:

Responsum One of the Noda B’Y’huda First Edition on Orakh Khayim⁶This is his first Responsa; not on O”H 1!
‘To hear the Ram’s Horn, may his peaceful life never be torn, In the book of life may he merit to be signed, sealed and borne!’⁷I know…I took liberties with the translation: The Ram’s horn is a reference to Rosh Hashana and its traditional mitzvot (hearing the Shofar) and prayers, as this missive was likely sent around this time of year. May his ‘covenant of peace not be voided may he be signed and sealed with all who are written in the book of life- a common theme in the prayers of Rosh Hashana. (to) The great scholar, my respected and beloved relative, my dear friend who is a great light and amazing and wonderful in all levels of Torah, and in all levels of honor, our teacher, the Rabbi Yitkhaq HaKohain- may the merciful one watch over him and redeem him- the chief of the Jewish court and head of the Academy of the holy congregation of Bonn. I saw his letter as a ‘flying scroll’⁸This is a reference to Zecharya 5:1-2 to the prophet’s vision of a flying scroll, to which the rabbis, in Talmud Bavli Gittin 60a-b imply to mean a scroll of Torah., as he is a Kohain - whose knowledge is beautiful and whose words are pure- concerning phylacteries that came to a certain scribe who wished to make outstandingly beautiful boxes⁹Lit. ‘houses’. This is an abbreviated version, as more details of the question will be elaborate later on. for them.

ראיתי מכתבו מגילה עפה כהן שדעתו יפה ואמרתו צרופה, על דבר התפילין שבא לשם סופר אחד ועושה הבתים נאים ומהודרים. אמנם מעשיהם ע"י טיח אשר מטיח טיחה עבה על עור הבתים ואח"כ באיזה שפירטוס ומתוך כך המה שחורים בתכליתה הידור מצהירים ומזהירים, ורום מע"ל מאריך לפסול. ובא על זה מכמה צדדים האחד הטיח הזה מכסה עור הבתים וא"כ אין בית החיצון רואה האויר, וגם מצד מוסיף שזה הטיח יתיר הוא ועובר על בל תוסיף, וגם משום שבשעה שעושה טיח הזה הוא עב ומכסה קוי השי"ן של תפילין רק הקוים ניכרים ויש בזה משום מוחק השם. וכתב עוד לחזק סברתו שפוסל משום מכסה העור דלא מהני אף שהוא לנאותן מדי דהוה ציפן זהב שפסול. וכבודו הרמה הרחיב בזה הדבור בפלפול וסברה:

Indeed, they are made with a plaster, which was plastered on with a thick coat on the leather boxes on which, afterwards, mineral spirits¹⁰These ‘spirits’ are the aromatic hydrocarbons like turpentine are applied, such that the boxes are a ‘brilliantly declared’ black- which his eminence plans to disqualify¹¹At this point, the relevant source for the production of the tfillin boxes are from Menachot 35 where the Talmud relates that many of the specific laws regarding Tefillin are halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai – an ‘ancient law of Mosaic tradition’. For example:
Rav Chananel quotes Rav as teaching that the need for a base for the square Tefillin, called the titura, is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai.
Abayye teaches that the hollow area through which the strap of the Tefillin is pulled, called the ma’abarta, is halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai
Similarly, Abayye teaches that the letter shin, formed in the leather or the Tefillin shel rosh – Tefillin worn on the head – is halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai.
Rabbi Yitzhak teaches that the rule requiring the leather straps of the Tefillin to be black is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai.
A baraita (extra-Mishnaic teaching) is quoted as teaching that the requirement that Tefillin must be square is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai.
Each tefillah, it must be remembered, is in the form of a square leather box upon a base, that of the hand consisting of one compartment and of the head of four compartments. In order to obtain the necessary shape (usually in the form of a cube) a mould or frame is used over which the skin whilst moist and pliable is tautly stretched. On being removed from the frame the skin is cut around to an equal length on three sides, whilst on the fourth side there is left a long strip of skin which, after allowing for a projection on this fourth side in order to provide a loop or a duct through which the straps are passed, is bent under the whole box so as to form the underside or the base of the tefillah. After inserting the necessary texts into the several compartments, the base is stitched carefully to the extremities of the box on three sides The stitching of the underside to the box must be done very carefully so that the box should remain a perfect square; thus the stitches should not be pulled too much for fear that the leather will become creased and so lose its correct shape [see appendix]..

והנה אני אומר להשיב על קצת מדברי מע"ל. וזה לשון מע"ל זכינו לדין דמסקנת המרדכי דעור בהמה טמאה וציפוי זהב על גבי הבית נמי פסול וכן פי' הבית יוסף והב"ח דברי הטור והרמב"ם ולא מצאתי שום חולק בזה, ע"כ דברי מע"ל:

He comes (to this conclusion) from several sides: Firstly, this plaster covers the leather of the [tfillin] boxes! If so, these boxes are not exposed to the outside. Also, from the aspect of ‘adding’, as this plaster is an extra, and one is violating ‘You shall not add [nor detract]’¹²Based on Deuteronomy 13:1 one may not add nor detract from the commandments – specifically the ritual ones- such as having 5 or 3 fringes of tzitzit instead of the mandated 4.

ואני אומר לא מצאתי בכל הפוסקים הקדמונים מי שפירש דברי הגמ' ציפן זהב או שטלה עליהן עור בהמה טמאה שפירושו הוא שציפה זהב על הבית, ומאור עינינו הרב הבית יוסף לא דק בזה כל הצורך. והנה מקור הדברים במס' מנחות דף מ"ב ע"ב כתנאי ציפן זהב או שטלה עליהן עור בהמה טמאה פסולים עור בהמה טהורה כשרים ואעפ"י שלא עיבדן לשמן רשב"ג אומר אף בהמה טהורה פסולים עד שיעבדן לשמן. רש"י ציפן זהב לתפלין. פסולים בתים דתיק של עור בעינן דאפילו קשירתן אינו אלא רצועות במינו כדאמרינן בהקומץ. או שטלה עליהן. שעושה בתים של עור בהמה טמאה פסולים כדאמרינן בפ' שמונה שרצים למען תהי' תורת ה' בפיך מן המותר בפיך עכ"ל רש"י. והנה אין ספק בכוונת רש"י שמה שכתב ציפן זהב לתפילין היינו שעשה הבתים עצמן של זהב וציפה הפרשות בזהב והפרשות קורא רש"י כאן תפילין ויגיד עליו ריעו בטלה עליהן עור בהמה טמאה פירש"י שעשה בתים של עור בהמה טמאה וא"כ הה"ד ציפן זהב היינו שעשה גוף הבתים זהב. ועוד דהרי רש"י פירש פסולים בתים דתיק של עור בעינן דאפילו קשירתן אינו אלא רצועות במינו כדאמרינן בהקומץ. וכוונתו למה דאמרינן בדף ל"ה ע"א תפילין אין קושרין אותן אלא במינן וכו'. והנה אי ס"ד בעשה בתים של עור ואח"כ ציפן זהב איך יליף מרצועות ששם גוף הקשירה היא וברצועות גופייהו מנ"ל למפסל אם עשה רצועות שחורים ושוב ציפה עליהן זהב. ואם נימא שטעה הפסול הוא משום שאין עור הבית נראה מבחוץ א"כ לא נזכר טעם זה ברש"י ולמה שביק רש"י עיקר הטעם ונקט ק"ו מרצועות וערבך ערבא צריך. ועוד דהא פירש"י פסולים הבתים ובוודאי כוונת רש"י למימר שאין התפילין עצמן דהיינו פרשות פסולות שהרי יכול להוציאם ולתת אותם בבתים אחרים. ואי ס"ד דמיירי שעשה בתים של עור ואח"כ ציפה עליהן זהב א"כ גם הבתים אינם פסולים שהרי יכול להסיר ציפויין וישארו בתים של עור כתיקנן וא"כ ממ"נ קודם שמסיר הזהב הכל פסול וכשמסיר הזהב גם הבתים כשרים ולמה פי' רש"י פסולים הבתים ה"ל לרש"י לפרש פסולים התפילין אלא וודאי בלי ספק שרש"י פירש ברייתא זו ציפן זהב לתפילין הכוונה שציפה הפרשות בבתים של זהב שעשה גוף הבתים של זהב אבל אם עשה בתים של עור בהמה טהורה ואח"כ ציפה עליהן דבר אחר לא נזכר בברייתא זו כלל. ורבינו הגדול הרמב"ם בפ"ג מהל' תפילין כתב וזה לשונו שם בהלכה ט"ו, העור שמחפין בו התפילין ושעושין ממנו הרצועות הוא עור של בהמה חיה ועוף הטהורין וכו' ואם עשה בעור טמאה או שציפה התפילין בזהב פסולים. והנה גם בלשונו אין ספק שמה שכ' העור שמחפין בו התפילין היינו עור הבתים גופייהו דהרי לא נזכר בדברי הרמב"ם בשום מקום שיחפה עור אחר עוד על עור הבתים, הן אמת שדעת הרמב"ם שצריך שיכרוך מטלית על הפרשות קודם שיתנם בבתים כמבואר בדבריו בפ"ג הלכה א' והל' ח' ע"ש. אבל שיהי' צריך לחפות עור מבחוץ על הבתים זה לא שמענו בדבריו כלל. וז"ל בריש הל' תפילין ארבע פרשיות אלו שהן קדש וכו' הן שכותבין בפני עצמן ומחפין אותן בעור ונקראים תפילין וכו'. וא"כ מה דקאמר כאן העור שמחפין בו התפילין בה"א הידיעה על עור זה שהזכיר בריש הלכות הללו כיון שמחפה הפרשות בעור והיינו עור הבתים עצמם. ועל זה קאמר אם עשה בעור בהמה טמאה פסול. וא"כ מה דקאמר העור שמחפין בו התפילין היינו עור הבתים הרי שהפרשיות קורא כאן תפילין ולפ"ז בציפן זהב דקאמר או שצפה התפילין בזהב תפילין הם הפרשיות וציפן זהב היינו שעשה הבתים מזהב אבל לא שעשה הבתים מעור ואח"כ ציפן זהב ולא נזכר דין זה ברמב"ם לפי שגם בברייתא מיירי שגוף הבתים הם זהב או עור בהמה טמאה כפירוש רש"י. ולכן אני תמה על הבית יוסף בא"ח סי' ל"ב שכתב שמדברי הרמב"ם משמע בטולה עור אחר על הבתים לא שעשה הבתים עצמה מעור טמאה וכו'. ונהפוך הוא שדברי הרמב"ם מפורשים להיפוך. והרא"ש בהלק"ט כתב ת"ר ציפן זהב וכו' רשבג"א אף עור בהמה טהורה פסולים עד שיעבדן לשמן ובהל' ס"ת כתבתי דהלכה כרשב"ג דבעי עבוד לשמן הילכך הקלף והרצועות והבתים כולהו צריכין עיבוד לשמן עכ"ל הרא"ש. ומדחשב שה הרא"ש בסוף דבריו הקלף. והרצועות והבתים ושביק לעור שעל הבתים דג"כ פסול אם הוא מעובד שלא לשמו מכלל דגם הוא מפרש הברייתא זו על גוף הבתים ולא מיירי בריש דבריו מעור שעל הבתים כלל:

Additionally, when this plaster was plastered on thickly, it covered the corners of the letter shin on the tfillin box sides, as only the edges are noticed and there may be an aspect of erasing Hashem’s name.

ואמנם זה יש לדחות דבסוף דבריו חושב רק זה שהוא מוכרח להיות בתפילין אבל עור שעל הבתים אף שאם חיפה הבתים בעור שאינו מעובד לשמו פסולים כרשב"ג מ"מ אינו חיוב להיות כלל עור על הבתים ולכך לא חשבו. ואמנם אח"כ גבי מעברתא של תפילין הלמ"מ כתב הרא"ש ויש מפרשים מעברתא היא רצועה קטנה שמעבירין למעלה על תפילין של יד וכו' ואפילו אין הפירוש של מעברתא רצועה קטנה מ"מ אין התפילין פסולין משום בית החיצון שאינו רואה את האויר בכה"ג אלא א"כ חבר להם בית אחר וטעמא דציפן זהב פסולין משום דבעינן שיהיו מצופין בעור בהמה טהורה דומיא דטלה עליהן עור בהמה טמאה עכ"ל הרא"ש. ולכאורה איך מביא הרא"ש ראיה לציפן זהב אין הטעם משום שאין הבית רואה את האויר מטלה עליהן עור בהמה טמאה וערבך ערבא צריך ודלמא גם טלה עליהן עור בהמה טמאה ג"כ פסול משום שאין בית החיצון רואה את האויר ומיירי שלמטה עשה בתים מעור טהורה. ונראה משום דלפי הסברה החיצונה אין טעם לפסול בעשה גוף הבתים של זהב והיכן נזכר בתורה שיעשה הבתים מעור, ורש"י כאן במנחות באמת נתקשה בזה והוצרך ללמוד מק"ו מרצועות שצריך של עור מטעם שקושרין בהם התפילין ק"ו בתים עצמן. ובפרק נגמר הדין פי' רש"י שהוא הלמ"מ. אבל באמת לא מצינו בשום מקום מפורש בש"ס שהבתים צריך להיות של עור בשלמא עור בהמה טמאה ודאי פסול דבעינן למלאכת שמיה מן המותר בפיך. אבל דבר שאינו אסור אף שאינו עור לא מצינו מפורש שהוא פסול רק בברייתא זו דציפן זהב פסול. ולכן יותר טוב לפרש דברייתא זו לא מיירי שעשה גוף הבתים של זהב אלא שעשה בתים של עור או של איזה מין שיהיה מן המותר ואח"כ ציפן זהב מיירי הברייתא והפסול משום שאין הבית רואה את האויר וא"כ מוכח שיש פסול באינו רואה האויר. וע"ז קאמר הרא"ש שאינו כן אלא מיירי בעשה גוף הבתים זהב דומיא דעור בהמה טמאה שבודאי בעשה גוף הבתים מטמאה ודאי פסול דהרי בעינן מן המותר בפיך הכי נמי בציפן זהב בעשה גוף הבתים של זהב פסול דבעינן עור כפירש"י וא"כ שוב אין לנו הכרח לפרש הברייתא בעשה בתים של עור וציפה עליהן זהב ולומר דבעינן בית רואה האויר שהרי הברייתא מתפרשת כפשוטה דעשה גוף הבתים זהב:

He also wrote to support his reasoning that they are disqualified because the leather is covered, which would not be beneficial¹³From the point of view of ‘beautifying’ one’s mitzvot. The context of this matter as to whether it affects the performance of ritual, will be analyzed., as it is akin to covering them with gold, which disqualifies [the boxes].

ודע שלכאורה דברי הרא"ש תמוהין שלאיזה צורך הוצרך לכתוב דהך ציפן זהב אין הטעם משום שאין הבית רואה את האויר דהרי קאמר שם בברייתא דעור בהמה טהורה כשירה ואי משום שאין הבית רואה את האויר אם כן גם בעור בהמה טהורה גם כן יהי'. פסול. וצריך לומר דבציפה בעור בהמה טהורה לא איכפת לן באינו רואה האויר אם כן ממילא במעברתא אין הפסד ברצועה קטנה ההיא שהרי הך רצועה עור טהורה היא וצ"ל בשלמא בצפוי עור בהמה טהורה א"כ ציפה כל הבית מכל הצדדין וא"כ זה החיפוי עצמו נעשה בית החיצון והרי הוא רואה האויר ומתכשר ע"י החיפוי לא ע"י הפנימי. אבל זו הרצועה קטנה היא רק לרוחב היד כמבואר בטור בסי' ל"ב אבל לא מכל צדדי הבית וא"כ אי אפשר לחשוב הרצועה קטנה ההיא לבית וצריך אתה לחשוב הבית הפנימי שתחת הרצועה לבית וא"כ ה"א שמיפסל משום שאינו רואה האויר והוצרך הרא"ש לומר שבציפה זהב אין הטעם משום רואה האויר רק הטעם דבעינן שיהי' מחופה עור בהמה טהורה. והנה אכתי יש מקום לפרש דברי הרא"ש שגם הוא מפרש הברייתא ציפן זהב או שטלה עליהן עור טמאה וכו' מיירי שלמטה עשה גוף הבתים מעור טהורה ולמעלה על הבתים ציפה זהב או עור טמאה אלא שהרא"ש קאמר דדוקא זהב שאינו ראוי לעשות ממנו בית להכי פוסל גם בחיפה למעלה אבל עור בהמה טהורה שהוא ראוי לבית גם בחיפהו למעלה אפילו דומיא דרצועה דמעברתא שאינו מקיף מכל הצדדים שיהי' יכול ליחשב בית אפ"ה אינו פוסל הבית שתחתיו. ועיין במרדכי מה שכתב בשם ר"י:

His most elevated eminence expanded on this issue with casuistry and reasoning¹⁴The entire text of this missive is not available, see note 4, ans as an example, see note 196.

ואמנם בין לפי' הראשון בדברי הרא"ש ובין לפרושי הזה. קשה למה הוצרך הרא"ש להביא ראיה לזהב מטמאה הרי ממקומו הוא מוכרע שזהב עצמו אינו ראוי לעשות ממנו עצמו הבית דאי היה ראוי א"כ מה בין ציפהו זהב ובין חפהו עור טהורה ולמה זה פסול וזה כשר. ואמנם הרא"ש לא רצה להאריך והביא ראיה ממה דסמיך ליה דהיינו בהמה טמאה. ועוד דהב"י כתב דהרמב"ם מפרש סיפא דברייתא עור בהמה טהורה על הפרשיות והרצועה לא על הבתים. ואף שהרא"ש לא ס"ל כן מ"מ לא רצה לסמוך ראייתו על זה. ואמנם מפשטן של דבריו של הרא"ש שכתב שאין התפילין נפסלין משום אין הבית רואה האויר אלא א"כ חבר להם בית אחר משמע דוקא בכה"ג נפסלי ולא באופן אחר כלל וציפן זהב היינו גוף הבתים עשה זהב. והסמ"ג לא ראיתי שהעתיק ברייתא זו כלל. ולפי הנראה השמיטה לגמרי ולא הביאה בספרו. א"כ מכלל שהוא מפרש ג"כ שעשה בתים עצמן מזהב או מעור בהמה טמאה ולכך לא הוצרך להביאה כיון שכבר כתב בריש הלכות תפילין הקלף שכותבים בהם הפרשיות וגם הרצועות וגם עור הבתים צריך להיות מבהמה או חיה טהורה וכו' גם צריכין עבוד לשמן עיין שם. וא"כ הרי כבר מיעט כל דבר שאינו עור בהמה טהורה והיינו ממש כברייתא זו וכרשב"ג. אבל אם היה מפרש הברייתא שציפה הבתים זהב או עור טמאה היה לו להביאה. והטור ח"ח סי' ל"ב בסכינא חריפא פסקיה להך ברייתא ולא רישא סיפא ולא סיפא רישא. וז"ל הטור. ואם ציפה הבתים זהב או שעשאה מעור בהמה טמאם פסולה. הרי דבזהב לא קאמר שעשה הבתים מזהב רק קאמר ציפה הבתים זהב דמשמע שלמטה עשה בתים של עור כהוגן ועליהם ציפה זהב ובעור טמאה כתב שעשאם מעור בהמה טמאה דמשמע שהגוף הבתים עשה מעור בהמה טמאה. והב"י ג"כ כתב שכן נראה מלשון הטור שאם עשה הבתים מעור טהורה ושוב טלה עליהן עור טמאה אינן פסולים אלא שצריך טעם למה ציפן זהב פסול דמה גריעותא דזהב טפי מעור בהמה טמאה. ואי לאו שהטור מדויל ידיו משתלים היה בידי לתרץ קושית הב"י וטעמא דציפן זהב פסולים היינו משום דבעינן שיהיו הבתים שחורים מבחוץ דומיא דרצועות שחורים ואם ציפן זהב אינן שחורים ולכך פסול. אבל טלה עליהן עור טמאה הרי אפשר שאותו עור יהיה גם כן שחור ולכך אינו פוסל אלא א"כ עשה הבתים עצמן מעור טמאה משום דבעינן מותר בפיך. וטעם זה איני אומר מלבי כי זה שאני אומר שהבתים צריכין להיות שחורים זה הוא דעת התוספות במסכת שבת דף כ"ח ע"ב סוף ד"ה תפילין בהדיא וכו' שכתבו בזה הלשון וכיון דמצריך שיהיו הרצועות שחורים כמו הקציצה וכו' הרי מפורש בדבריהם שהקציצה תהיה שחורה. והמרדכי כתב בהדיא בשם ר"ת שהבתים צריכין להיות שחורין והביא ראיה מלשון הנ"ל. ומה שאני אומר שבשביל זה פסול אם ציפן זהב. לענ"ד זה מבואר בירושלמי במסכת מגילה בפרק הקורא עומד שעל המשנה דתנן שם העושה תפלתו עגולה סכנה וכו' ציפה זהב כו' קאמר שם בירושלמי תני ר' יוסי בן ביבי תפילין מרובעות שחורים הלמ"מ. ולדעתי קשה לפרש שחורים על הרצועות שלא נזכרו הרצועות שם כלל. ועוד שהרי כללן יחד מרובעות שחורים וכשם שמרובעות קאי על הבתים כן שחורים ובא הירושלמי לתת טעם על מה שאמרה המשנה עגולה סכנה ואין בה מצוה. וכן על מה שאמרה ציפה זהב הרי זו דרך החיצונים ונתן טעם על שני דינין הללו משום דמרובעים ושחורים הלמ"מ. ומעתה כבר מוצל הטור מקושית הב"י. אבל אעפ"כ הטור מדויל ידיו משתלים שהרי הטור עצמו בסי' ל"ב פסק שהבתים רק מצוה לעשותן שחורים ואם עשאם מצבע אחר כשר:

It is here that I will respond on a few of the comments of my esteemed interlocutor. These are the words of his eminence: We merited this legal decision based on the conclusions of the Mordechai¹⁶Mordechai ben Hillel HaKohen (c. 1250–1298), also known as The Mordechai, was a 13th-century German rabbi and posek. His chief legal commentary on the Talmud, referred to as The Mordechai, is one of the sources of the Shulchan Aruch. He was killed in the Rintfleisch massacres in 1298., that the use of leather from non-kosher animals or coating the boxes in gold, also disqualify [the tfillin].

והנה גם הר"ן במסכת מגילה באותה משנה ציפה זהב הרי זה דרך חיצונים כתב הטעם דכתיב למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך מן המותר בפיך כלומר שתהיה כתובה במה שמותר בפיך ושי"ן של תפילין הלמ"מ הלכך בעינן שתכתב במה שמותר בפיך עכ"ל. הרי מבואר ג"כ מדבריו דציפה זהב היינו עור הבית עשה של זהב. ואמנם גוף דבריו שכתב לפסול זהב מטעם מותר בפיך. וכן כתב רש"י שם במשנה. הוא תמוה בעיני דאטו זהב אסור בפיך ועד כאן לא ממעטינן מבפיך אלא בהמה טמאה אבל זהב מאי איסור ומאי היתר שייך בו. ובאמת רש"י במנחות כתב טעם פסול זהב דאפילו קשירתן בעינן מינו ועור בעינן וגבי בהמה טמאה פירש הטעם משום מותר בפיך ובפ' נגמר הדין פירש"י שהוא הלמ"מ דזהב פסול. אבל עכ"פ מותר בפיך לא שייך בזהב ולקמן יתבאר יותר. אבל עכ"פ הוכחנו מדברי הר"ן דציפן זהב היינו הבתים עצמן המה זהב. והמרדכי בהלכות תפילין ז"ל כתב רבינו שמשון בש"ר מצריך לכרוך כל פרשה ופרשה ואין לפוסלן משום האי טעמא כדחזינן הכא שטולה עליו עור והשתא אין עור הבתים רואה האויר. ומיהו מצאתי שכתב ר"י ט"ע דלא מפסל משום ראית אויר אלא דוקא דראש אבל דיד לא דלא שייך בשל יד בית החיצון. ועוד דלא שייך חילוק דבסמוך גווייתא וכו' אלא בשל ראש אבל בשל יד הם בשל עור אחד הילכך אין ראיה מכאן להכשיר בשל ראש. ונראה דלית ראיה לא לפסול ולא להתיר. ומיהו כה"ג לא מיקרי יתיר אלא אי מייתר בית ה' כההיא דהנחנקין ודשמעתין החליף פרשיותיה אבל זה הקלף המכסה להגין בעלמא לא אשכחן בהו פסול מהא דתניא בפרק נגמר הדין ובהניזקין ציפן זהב או שטלה עליהן עור בהמה טמאה פסולה לאו משום ראיית אויר אלא כדפירש הקונטרס דהלמ"מ עור בהמה טהורה ובעור של גוף הבתים איירי. ומיהו קצת נראה הלשון שירצה לומר עור אחר טולה כדהכא טולה עליהם וכו' דבעי למימר עור ע"ג עור הבתים והכי אמרינן ת"ח אל יצא במנעלים המטולאים ומוקי לה בטלאי על גבי טלאי. ושוב נ"ל דאי אפשר לעשות כדפירש בש"ר דא"כ השי"ן דמסיק התה דהלמ"מ לכאורה לא היתה בעור העליון ופוק חזי מאי עמא דבר דהלכה רופפת בידי וכבר נהגו כש"ר ואין למחות בידם כ"א ע"פ ראיה ברורה, רבינו שמשון. ולכאורה דברי המרדכי תמוהין דאיך אפשר לסתור דעת הש"ר מהא דתניא ציפן זהב והרי אדרבא משם מוכח דשפיר דמי לעשות כש"ר שהרי בהדיא תניא שם עור בהמה טהורה כשרים. ועוד קשה למה הביא ברייתא מפרק נגמר הדין ומהנזקין ולמה לא הביא משנה ערוכה במגילה פרק הקורא עומד ציפה זהב הרי זה דרך חיצונים. וזה יש לתרץ לפי שרצה לומר אחר כך דלשון טולה רוצה לומר עור אחר ובמשנה לא נזכר רק ציפן זהב. ועוד קשה מה דמסיק ושוב נ"ל דא"א לעשות כדפירש בש"ר דא"כ השי"ן כו' לא היתה בעור העליון וכו'. והדבר יפלא דהרי בתפילין דשימושא רבא ודאי השי"ן היא בעור העליון דאטו בקלף שכורך בו הפרשיות עושה השי"ן הא ודאי ליתא ופירושו של אנשי שם בזה אינו מתקבל על הדעת. ועוד דקאמר דאי אפשר לעשות כדפריש בש"ר וכו' איזה פירוש הזכיר בשם ש"ר והכי הו"ל למימר דאי אפשר לעשות כפסק הש"ר. ולכן נלע"ד דכלפי דמה דקאמר מתחלה שאין ראיה לא לאסור ולא להתיר קאמר אח"כ והא דתניא בפרק נגמר הדין ופרק הניזקין ציפן זהב וכו' ואי נימא שהפירוש שעל הבתים ציפה זהב א"כ גם הא דקאמר שם עור בהמה טהורה כשרים ג"כ הפירוש על עור הבתים טלה עוד עור בהמה טהורה. וא"כ שפיר יש ראיה להתיר ולכן דחה וקאמר דשם לא משום ראיית אויר ולא מיירי שם רק בגוף הבתים. אבל אם חפה על עור הבתים לא נזכר שם כלל לא למיסר בזהב וטמאה ולא להתיר בשל טהורה. ואמר אח"כ ומיהו קצת נראה הלשון שרצה לומר עור אחר וכו'. וא"כ שפיר לפי פירוש זה יש ראיה לשימושא רבא דהרי על זה קאמר עור בהמה טהורה כשרים ומסיק אח"כ דאי אפשר לעשות כפי' הש"ר פירוש דאי אפשר לומר הפירוש הנ"ל שהביא לראיה לשימושא רבא דהיינו שפירושו טולה עליהם עור אחר דא"כ איך קאמר עור טהורה כשריה והרי השי"ן דמסיק שהיא הלמ"מ לא היתה לכאורה בעור העליון. א"ו דשם מיירי בעשה גוף הבתים כן. וא"כ לא נזכר שם כלל דין ציפה זהב או עור בהמה טמאה או טהורה על הבתים. וממילא אין לנו ראיה כלל לא לאסור בזהב וטמאה ולא להתיר בטהורה וכיון שאין לנו ראיה שוב הכל מותר מצד הסברא דזה לא מיקרי יתיר כ"א בעושה בית חמישי וכן לא מיקרי אינו רואה אויר כ"א בעושה בית חמישי או מחליף ברייתא לגווייתא. כנלע"ד פירוש דברי המרדכי באופן שמסקנת המרדכי שציפן זהב היינו שעשה גוף הבתים זהב. ומעתה לא נשמע מאחד מהפוסקים הקדמונים שיפרש ציפן זהב כי אם על גוף הבתים שעשאן זהב וכן עור טמאה ומסקנת המרדכי ג"כ כן. והנה בתוספות במנחות דף ל"ה ע"א בשני הדיבורים ד"ה מעברתא וד"ה דשי"ן של תפילין וכו' דבריהם סתומין וחתומין והגירסא מוטעת ומשובשת ונלאו כל אנשי חיל לעמוד על כוונתן ואיך נקח מדבריהם איסור או היתר והמהרש"א והמורש"ק הגיה כל אחד לפי דרכו והמעיין בדבריהם יראה ששניהם נדחקו מאד וגירסת כל אחד מהם ופירושו רחוקים מהדעת:

‘…So too did the Beit Yosaif²¹Joseph ben Ephraim Karo, also spelled Yosef Caro, or Qaro (1488 – March 24, 1575),[1] was author of the last great codification of Jewish law, the Shulchan Aruch, which is still authoritative for all Jews pertaining to their respective communities. Beth Yosef (בית יוסף), a commentary on Arba'ah Turim, the current work of Jewish law in his days. In this commentary Karo shows an astounding mastery over the Talmud and the legalistic literature of the Middle Ages. Kesef Mishneh (כסף משנה) (Venice, 1574–75), a commentary of Mishneh Torah by Maimonides, Ba”kh²²Joel ben Samuel Sirkis also known as the Bach - בית חדש) ב"ח)—an abbreviation of his magnum opus, Bayit Chadash—was a prominent Jewish posek and halakhist. He lived in central Europe and held rabbinical positions in Belz, Brest-Litovsk and Kraków. He lived from 1561 to 1640, the words of the Tur²³Jacob ben Asher, also known as Ba'al ha-Turim as well as Rabbi Yaakov ben Raash (Rabbeinu Asher), was probably born in the Holy Roman Empire at Cologne about 1269 and probably died at Toledo, then in the Kingdom of Castile, about 1343. Also known as the Riv”A. and the Rambam,²⁴Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (מֹשֶׁה בֶּן־מַימוֹן‎} and also referred to by the acronym Rambam"Our Rabbi Moses son of Maimon"), was a medieval Sephardic Jewish philosopher who became one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars of the Middle Ages. In his time, he was also a preeminent astronomer and physician and I found none who disagree with this reasoning’- is the end of his eminence’s statements. [and] I say: I have not found in any of the earlier rabbinic decisors who implied that when the Talmud stated ‘If one coated them [tefillin boxes] with gold or hung upon them the hide of a non-kosher animal, they are disqualified [for use as phylacteries]’ to mean that it meant coating gold over the box. The illuminating²⁵Lit. ‘light of our eyes’ rabbi, the Beit Yosef²⁶Ibid. note 15 was not specific enough in this regard.

ואני בעניי נלע"ד דכוונת דבריהם בד"ה השי"ן של תפילין ודאי דבור אחד הוא כדברי מוהרש"ק אבל לא כפירושו רק אדלעיל קאי שכתבו שאין לפסול הרצועה קטנה משום שאין רואה כל הבית את האויר חדא דלא שייך וכו' אלא בחיבר ביתא אחרינא תמן. ועוד דשמא דבית החיצון שאינו רואה את האויר פסול לא שייך אלא בראש ולא בשל יד כמו שיש בתשובת הגאונים וכו'. והנה סתמו דבריהם ולא פירשו הטעם למה יהיה בשל ראש שייך פסול רואה את האויר ולא בשל יד. והרא"ש בהלכות תפילין ג"כ כתב להכשיר הרצועה קטנה הנ"ל משום דלא שייך פסול בית החיצון שאינו רואה את האויר אלא א"כ חבר להם בית אחר וכו'. ועוד דאין רואה את האויר לא שייך אלא בתפילין של ראש שהן ד' בתים ושינה אחד מהבתים ממקומו אבל בשל יד שהן בית אחד לא. וכן נמצא בתשובת הגאונים עכ"ל הרא"ש. והנה הרא"ש יהיב טעם לסברת הגאונים דלהכי לא שייך אלא בשל ראש משום שיש בו ד' בתים ושינה אחד מהבתים ממקומו אבל בשל יד שאינו אלא בית אחד לא שייך. וכן המרדכי כתב דלא שייך רק בשל ראש ויהיב טעמא דלא שייך בשל יד בית החיצון והיינו ממש כוונת הרא"ש והוסיף עוד דלא שייך החליף גווייתא לברייתא אלא בשל ראש בכל בית יש פרשה אחרת וכשמחליף הבתים ממילא הפרשה שראויה להיות גווייתא היא ברייתא וכן להיפוך. אבל התוספת סתמו דבריהם ולא יהבי טעם למה שייך בשל ראש ולא בשל יד. ולכן נלע"ד דכאן שייך כל דבריהם מ"ש אח"כ בד"ה דשי"ן ורצונם להכי יש איסור בשל ראש באין בית החיצון רואה האויר דשי"ן של תפילין היא הלמ"מ והיא צריכה להיות מבחוץ והרי עבור השי"ן נאמר בשל ראש וראו כל עמי הארץ וגו'. ולהכי אם הוסיף דבר מבחוץ אין השי"ן נראית ולהכי פסיל בהנחנקין בהוסיף בית חמישי ואפילו אם יעשה גם בבית הנוסף מבחוץ שי"ן ע"ז סיימו והנותנה על שי"ן דינו להיות פוסלת דשי"ן שעושה בזה לאו כלום הוא כיון שאין דינו להיות שם שי"ן דנמצא שאין בית רואה את האויר היינו בית הראויה להיות השי"ן באמת עליו אינו רואה האויר. זה הנלע"ד בכונת התוספות ואף שג"כ אינו מבואר בדבריהם כל הצורך מ"מ לדעתי הוא יותר מכוון בדבריהם מפירוש המהרש"א ומוהרש"ק ז"ל. והב"י בסי' ל"ב הביא בהדיא בשם רב שרירא גאון דהא דבעינן בית חיצון רואה האויר הוא משום אויר השי"ן באופן שלפי פירושי בדברי התוספות מסקנת דבריהם שאין איסור רק בשל ראש משום השי"ן. אבל אם השי"ן ניכרת ליכא איסור כלל. ובין יהיה כוונת דבריהם כפי פירושי ובין לא עכ"פ דבריהם סתומים ביותר ולכן הרי דבריהם בזה כדברי הספר החתום ואין ללמוד לא לאיסור ולא להתיר:

The source of the matter here is in Tractate Menachot 42b: “This, however, is a matter of dispute between Tannaim, for it has been taught: If a man overlaid [the tefillin] with gold or covered them with the skin of an unclean animal, they are invalid²⁷That the law of the Lord may be in thy mouth (Ex. 13:9), the tefillin should be made from that which is permissible for food; if with the skin of a clean animal, they are valid, even though he did not prepare it for this specific purpose. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, even if he covered them with the skin of a clean animal they are invalid, unless it had been prepared for this specific purpose²⁸Similarly the first Tanna and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel would differ as to the necessity for weaving the threads specifically for the purpose of zizith “.

והנה הב"י בסי' ל"ב על מ"ש הטור ואם ציפה הבתים זהב וכו'. כתב הב"י וז"ל המרדכי בהלכות תפילין כתב דבעור של גוף הבתים מיירי ומשמע מדבריו שאם עשה הבתים מבהמה טהורה ואח"כ ציפן זהב או חיפן בעור בהמה טמאה כשרה. וכן נראה מל' רבינו גבי עור בהמה טמאה שכתב או שעשאן מעור בהמה טמאה אלא שצריך טעם למה ציפה הבתים זהב פסול דמאי גריעותא בזהב טפי מעור בהמה טמאה ואח"כ מסיק הב"י שהמרדכי אח"כ חזר וכתב ומיהו קצת נראה מהלשון שר"ל עור אחר טולה שר"ל עור ע"ג עור הבתים. וכן נראה מדברי בעל התרומה. וכן נראה מדברי הרמב"ם ז"ל וגם רבינו אפשר שכן דעתו אלא שלא דק עכ"ל הב"י. ולדעתי אין הדברים ברורים כי מ"ש שכן נראה מדברי הרמב"ם כבר ביררתי דעת הרמב"ם להיפוך ומ"ש שמסקנת המרדכי ר"ל עור ע"ג עור כבר ביררתי שמה שסיים המרדכי ושוב נ"ל שאי אפשר לעשות כפירוש השימושא רבא הוא לסתור הפירוש עור ע"ג עור אלא שבעור הבתים גופייהו מיירי וא"כ אדרבה מסקנת המרדכי להיפוך. ואמנם כבר ביררתי דמסקנת המרדכי דברייתא מיירי רק מעור הבתים אבל עור ע"ג עור לא מיירי לא לאיסור ולא להיתר. ובדעת הטור אם באנו לומר דהטור דק בלשונו ומחלק בין זהב לעור בהמה טמאה היה מקום אתי לומר דראוי לומר שהציפוי אפילו אם הוא מדבר הפסול אינו פוסל ובטל לגבי תפילין אף שלענין טומאה הוא להיפוך שהציפוי עיקר בין להקל ובין להחמיר כדמוכח בשלהי חגיגה היינו דומיא דשולחן ומזבחות שכל תשמישי השלחן והמזבח היה על הציפוי שהוא למעלה. וכן השלחן והדופלקי שמביא שם היינו כיון שלא נשתייר מקום כוסות ומקום חתיכות א"כ כל תשמישו הוא על הציפוי שלמעלה ולכך בטל השלחן. אבל בתפילין נהפוך הוא והתפילין עיקר תשמישן מצות תפילין והציפוי בטל. אבל זהב הוא דבר חשוב ולא בטל. וכדרך שסובר ריש לקיש שם לחלק בין כלי אכסלגיס לכלי מסמים ואף דהלכה כר' יוחנן שאין חילוק היינו שם שהשלחן מכוסה לגמרי ואינו נראה וגם כל התשמיש הוא על הציפוי ולכך בטל השלחן אפילו הוא כלי מסמים. אבל כאן הציפוי הוא מלמעלה אלא מתוך שהתפילין עיקר בטל הציפוי והיינו עור נגד עור דהיינו עור טמאה בטל גבי עור טהורה אבל זהב הוא חשוב ואינו בטל. כל זה היה מקום לומר בדעת הטור ויש לי לעשות אפילו סמוכות לדבר זה לחלק בין זהב לעור טמאה מן הברייתא דקשה למה הוצרכה למימר זהב ועור טמאה והו"ל להברייתא למכללינהו וכך הו"ל לסתום ציפן במה שאינו מינן פסולים בעור טהורה כשרים אע"פ שאינן מעובד לשמה והוה כולל כל מה שאינו עור בהמה טהורה שהוא מינן. וכמו שאמרו לענין רצועות בפרק הקומץ (מנחות דף ל"ה ע"א) תפילין אין קושרין אותן אלא במינן וכו' א"ו מדפרט הנהו דוקא מכלל דלא שוים נינהו וזהב פסול אפילו לענין ציפוי לפי שמחמת חשיבתו אינו בטל ועור טמאה אינו פוסל רק לבתים גופייהו. כך היה נלע"ד אלא שאני מבטל דעתי בזה מפני דעת הרא"ש ז"ל שכתב דציפה זהב הוא דומיא דעור טמאה. וא"כ אדרבה שניהן שווין לדינא. ויפה כתב הרב ב"י שהטור לא דק דודאי לא יחלוק הטור על הרא"ש מן הסתם אבל בהא אמינא דלא כב"י. שאחרי שאנחנו אומרים שהטור לא דק אני אומר שבראש דבריו לא דק במה שאמר ציפה הבתים זהב לא דק אלא כוונתו שציפה התפילין זהב דהיינו הבתים עצמן עשה זהב שהרי כבר הוכחתי שגם הרא"ש כוונתו כן. ומסתמא דעת הטור כדעת הרא"ש. והנה ע"כ דברינו בדברי הפוסקים ועכשיו נחזי אנן פירוש דברי הגמרא איך הוא הפירוש שציפן זהב. והנה במסכת שבת דף כ"ח ע"ב ואלא הא דתני ר' יוסף לא הוכשרו למלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד למאי הלכתא לתפילין וכו' אלא לעורן והאמר אביי שי"ן של תפילין הלמ"מ וכו'. ופירש רש"י וכיון דאות השם נכתב בו מותר בפיך בעינן וכו'. הנה קשיא ומה בכך דבעינן מותר בפיך ואטו אין שום דבר מותר רק בהמה טהורה וכמה כרכורים כרכר רש"י במנחות דף מ"ב דציפן זהב פסול שפירש רש"י שעשה הבתים זהב והוצרך הטעם משום דאפילו רצועות בעינן מינן. ובפ' נגמר הדין פירש"י שהוא הלמ"מ וא"כ מקרא דמותר בפיך לא ידעינן עור בהמה טהורה ודלמא יעשה אותן מזהב או שאר מינין והוצרך רב יוסף לאשמעינן דבעינן דוקא עור ואף דפירש"י שהוא הלמ"מ מ"מ זה לא שנינו בהדיא שהוא הלמ"מ שיקשה מזה על רב יוסף. וע"ש באר היטב בתוספות ד"ה תפילין וכו'. ובשלמא בתחלה דקאמר לתפילין והקשה תפילין בהדיא כתיב תורת ה' בפיך לא היה יכול לומר דאתי למעוטי דבר שאינו עור משום דמתניתין היא במסכת ידים פ"ד משנה ה' לעולם אינו מטמא את הידים עד שיכתבנו דיו אשורית על העור וכו'. ותנן במשנה במסכת מגילה פ"ק אין בין ספרים וכו' לתפילין וכו'. וא"כ שנינו במשנה שתפילין אין נכתבין אלא על העור ולא קמ"ל רב יוסף רק טהורות ושפיר הקשה מקרא דמותר בפיך. אבל כשמשני לעורן מאי הקשה משי"ן דאף דידעינן מותר בפיך אכתי אשמעינן רב יוסף דבעינן עור אלא ודאי דגם זה משנה ערוכה היא בפרק הקורא עומד ציפה זהב וכו'. וא"כ ע"כ זהב. היינו גוף הבתים דאי בציפוי שלמעלה א"כ קשה דלמא הפסול הוא משום דאין הבית רואה האויר ולעולם שלגוף הבית זהב כשר. וא"ת א"כ מ"ש ציפן זהב מציפן עור בהמה טהורה וכמו שהקשיתי לעיל על הרא"ש. הנה זה אינו דאטו זה שציפן עור טהורה כשרים מתניתין זה הוא ברייתא ועל ברייתא לא שייך להקשות על רב יוסף תנינא דהרי גם רב יוסף ברייתא נקט א"ו דציפה זהב היינו שעשה הבית עצמו זהב ואכתי קשה היא גופא מנ"ל להגמרא להקשות על רב יוסף ודלמא ציפה זהב היינו שציפה זהב על העור של הבתים אלא שסובר הגמרא שבזה אין שום טעם לפסול. באופי שלדעתי אין שום חשש אם ציפה על עור הבתים במה שירצה זולתי בשל ראש אם לא יהיו השיני"ן בולטין אבל כשהשיני"ן בולטין כשר:

Rashi, loc. cit.” ‘If a man overlaid [the tefillin] with gold’ The boxes containing the tfillin are disqualified, as leather boxes are a requirement, as even the straps that are wrapped (around the arm) must be from that material (lit. ‘species’ or ‘type’, meaning: leather), as was stated in the tractate ‘One (a priest) who takes a handful ‘³¹Menachot 35a see below note 32. ‘Or one placed upon them’: That if one makes the boxes from the hide of a ritually impure animal, they are disqualified, as was stated in the chapter ‘Eight Crawling Species³²Babylonian Tractate Shabbat 108a see below’: “So that the torah of Hashem will be in your mouth”- that which is permitted to be in your mouth. “- this is the end of Rashi’s text.

ועכשיו אמינא אפילו לו יהבינא דציפן זהב וטלה עור בהמה טמאה הוא על הבתים וכפסק הש"ע בסי' ל"ב סעיף מ"ח היינו בציפוי העומד בפני עצמו ואינו טפל להבית. אבל זה השחרות שאנו משחירין התפילין זה שייך לעור ובטל אליו ולא שייך כאן אין הבית רואה האויר. ואם באנו לפסול בזה איזה גבול תתן לדיו דמשחירין בו הבתים אם יהיה בו שום ממשות תפסלם זה הדבר שאין הדעת סובלתו ולא שערום אבותינו מעולם וכיון דגם עור הבתים בעינן שחורים אי לדעת מקצת הפוסקים הלמ"מ. ולדעתי גם דעת הירושלמי במגילה פרק הקורא עומד כן כמ"ש למעלה עכ"פ לשאר הפוסקים מצוה איכא שוב מה שעושה בצבע השחור שיהיה יותר שחור ויותר נאה הכל שייך למלאכת השחור ואין בזה לא משום יתיר שיהיה משום בל תוסיף ולא משום מכסה לעור שאינו רואה האויר וק"ו מתכלת של ציצית שהקפידה התורה עליו עד מאד וכמה החמירו בעשייתו ואפ"ה מביא סממנים בהדי דם חלזון כמבואר בפ' התכלת (מנחות דף מ"ב ע"ב) והתוספות שם בד"ה וסממנים באמת תמהו בזה וכתבו שמא עם הסממנים נקרא תכלת. ולדידי נראה כיון שאין דם חלזון תופס הצבע בצמר כל כך רק ע"י סממנים א"כ גם הסממנים שייכא לצבע זו. וכן מבואר ברמב"ם בפ"ב מציצית ה' ב' ונותנין הדם ליורה ונותנין עמו סממנין כמו קמוניא וכיוצא בו כדרך שהצבעין עושים וכו' עכ"ל הרמב"ם ורמז בזה שהטעם שנותנין עמו סממנין לפי שכן דרך הצובעין ומסתמא גם התורה אמרה כן. וכן אני אומר לגבי שחרות של התפילין כל מה שמעלי לשחורי שייך לזה והכל בטל לגבי הצבע השחור. וכן אני אומר בציפן זהב אפילו אם נימא דהיינו למעלה על עור הבתים אפ"ה אני אומר דוקא ציפן זהב שהציפוי הוא בפ"ע שקבע עליהם טס של זהב. אבל אם הזהיבם לעור הבתים כדרך שמזהיבים כלי כסף אינו פוסל לדעת הסוברת דהבתים א"צ להיות שחורות כיון שהוא נוי להעור בטל אליו. ודבר ידוע הוא שעור הבתים כיון שצריך להיות קשה כדי שיהיה רבוען קיים אינו קולט הצבע השחור אם יהיה הדיו שצובעין בו דק וקלוש וצריך להיות בדיו מעט ממש שתדבק בעור היטב: שוב ראיתי שגם מע"ל בעצמו נתקשה כיון שאין הבתים צריכין להיות שחורות עפ"י דין א"כ איך רשאי להשחירן והרי דיו יבש חוצץ כמבואר במסכת שבת דף ק"כ ע"ב. וא"כ הרי אין הבית רואה האויר שהדיו שהשחירן בו חוצץ בין הבית ובין האויר. וגם נתקשה במה שכתב המ"א בסי" ל"ג ס"ק ז' ברצועות שהשחירן נכרי אם חזר ישראל והשחירן לשמן כשר דהא אמרינן בגיטין דף כ' שאם כתב השם ולא קדשו מעביר עליו קולמוס ומקדשו ואפילו רבנן לא פליגי אלא דמחזי כמנומר הא לאו הכי שרי א"כ כאן שרי לכ"ע ועיין בא"ע סי' קל"א עכ"ל המג"א, נתקשה מע"ל מאי מועיל השחרה שנית הרי השחרה ראשונה שעל הרצועה מעכב השניה ומפסקת וחוצצת בינו לבין הרצועה. ועוד נתקשה מע"ל בדברי המג"א הנ"ל דמ"ש המג"א שאפילו לרבנן דוקא התם משום מנומר וכו' דזה הוא רק לרב אחא בגיטין שם. אבל לרב חסדא שם דאמר גבי גט שכתבו שלא לשמו והעביר עליו קולמוס לשמו באנו למחלוקת ר"י ורבנן וכו' ולר"ח אין הטעם משום מנומר וכיון דקיי"ל באה"ע כר"ח א"כ דברי המג"א תמוהין ע"כ דברי מע"ל:

It is apparent that Rashi unquestionably intended when he wrote ‘covered the t’fillin in gold’ meant that the boxes themselves were made of gold, and he coated the scriptural verses in gold. It is those verses which Rashi calls ‘tefillin’, which is identified in the companion³³Lit. ‘and his friend will say this about him’ (next) text which disqualifies the use of an impure animal. Rashi explained that it applies toone who made the phylactery boxes from an impure animal. If that is so, then when he (Rashi) states “coated in gold”, it means the actual boxes

והנה זה לי כמה שנים כתבתי בגליון המג"א שלי מ"ש המג"א ועיין באה"ע סי' קל"א. כתבתי הביא ראיה לסתור. ואמנם הנלע"ד דגם המג"א לא נעלם ממנו דלר"ח שם בגיטין זה פסול ולא בא המג"א לומר אלא דלרב אחאי זה כשר גם לרבנן. והנה לדעת רבינו חננאל שהוא היש אומרים שם באה"ע הוא ספיקא דדינא אם הלכה כר"ח או כר' אחאי וכיון דתפילין שהשחירן נכרי בלא"ה אין פסולן ברור אפילו ברצועות רק ספק כמבואר בב"י כאן. ולכן אם שוב השחירם ישראל הוה ספק ספיקא. זה הנלע"ד לתרץ דברי המג"א. אבל מ"מ למעשה דעתי להחמיר ובפרט שלהרמב"ם שהוא הדעה הראשונה שם באה"ע ודאי הלכה כרב חסדא עכ"ל בגליון המג"א שלי. ומה שרצה לומר דטעמייהו דרבנן בגיטין דף כ' ע"א בהעביר הקולמוס עליו לשמו שאין השם מן המובחר הוא משום דדיו של כתב התחתון הוא מפסיק בין דיו של כתב העליון לקלף ואין השם כתוב על הקלף וגם גבי גט הוא אומר טעם זה שכתב התחתון מפסיק ואין כתב העליון על הקלף או הנייר ואף דלא בעינן גט על ספר ונכתב על כל דבר מ"מ בעינן שיהיה נכתב על דבר המתקיים והאריך מע"ל בזה. ואני אומר לדבריו למה פליגי ר"י ורבנן בנכתב שלא לשמו אפילו נכתב לשמו והעביר עליו קולמוס להצהיר הכתב ג"כ יהיה פסול לרבנן שכתב התחתון אינו נראה דכתב העליון מכסה וכתב העליון אינו על הקלף ואם יאמר מע"ל אין ה"נ שפסול והא דנקט בכתבו שלא לשמו אורחא דמילתא נקט דאי לשמן למה יעביר עליו קולמוס. ועוד דנקט שלא לשמו להודיעך כרו דר"י אבל לרבנן אפילו לשמו פסול. אני אומר א"כ פוסל הוא רוב ספרי תורה ורוב תפילין ומזוזות דהרי כמה פעמים כאשר הכתב ישן מעבירין עליו קולמוס לחדשו והוא מצוי בכל יום והוא דין מפורש בש"ע א"ח סי' ל"ב סעיף כ"ו אותיות ותיבות שנמחקו קצת אם רשומן ניכר כל כך שתינוק וכו' מותר להעביר קולמוס עליו להטיב הכתב ולחדשו ולא הוי שלא כסדרן. ועיין במג"א ס"ק ל"ט ודין זה מבואר בתה"ד. ובתשובת מהרי"ל וכן מוכח בטור יורה דעה סוף סי' רע"ו יש בו דבק באותיות השם יש לו לגררו וא"צ אח"כ להעביר עליו קולמוס לקדשו וכו', ולשון זה עצמו הוא בתשובת הרא"ש כלל ג' סי' י"א ולשון זה מורה שא"צ להעביר עליו אבל אם רוצה להעביר עליו קולמוס רשאי ולדברי מע"ל מעביר גרע ופוסל לגמרי א"ו ליתא וכיון שעושה לנאותו אינו מבטל הכתב התחתון ובטל העליון לתחתון ונשאר הכתב התחתון כהלכתו. ולכך אפילו בתפילין כשר ולא הוי שלא כסדרן וכל לנאותו אינו חוצץ. והנה אין רצוני להאריך בזה. ועכ"פ גם מע"ל הרגיש איך מותר כלל להשחיר הבתים לסברתו ונימא שאין הבית רואה האויר א"ו שאין זה חוצץ. ומ"ש מע"ל שזה דוקא במשחיר בדיו ואין כאן רק צבע שחור ואין בו ממש ודימה למה שאמרו בהגוזל דף ק"א לענין יש שבח סממנין בצמר. במחילה מכבודו שם על החזותא קאי כי הסממנין עצמן אינן מעלים הצמר רק המראה. וכן ביורה דעה סי' רכ"א סעיף ח' בנותן טבלא לאומן לצייר שם ג"כ בנותן הבעה"ב הטבלא והסממנין משלו אלא שאומן היה מצייר. אבל הוא ודאי שאי אפשר לדיו שלא יהיה בו ממשות. ועוד מה ענין דיו לצבע דיו לא משכחת שלא יהיה בו ממש וצבע אין בו ממש כמבואר ביו"ד סי' קצ"ח ס"ק כ"א בש"ך ותדע דלא משכחת בדיו כלל שלא יהיה בו ממש דאל"כ מאי מקשה בשבת דף ק"ך ע"ב ותיפוק ליה משום דיו ודלמא מיירי שהשם היה כתוב על בשרו ולא היה רק צבע השחור בעלמא ולא היה בו ממש א"ו דלא משכחת שיהיה כתב ולא יהיה ממש ואפ"ה משחירין עור הבתים בדיו ואינו פוסל לא משום אין רואה האויר ולא משום יתיר משום דכל לנאותו בטל לעור הבתים ומש"כ מע"ל מאי שנא מנדה שטבלה בבגדיה שאם אדוקים חוצצים אף שהם לנאותה, אני תמה וכי בגדיה נשארים תמיד עליה הלא פושטתן ולובשתן ואיך נימא דכגופה דמי. ומזה נדחה מה שהקשה מיששכר איש כפר ברקאי דבשילהי מקום שנהגו. ועוד דהתם לאו לנאותו עביד כ"א להציל ידיו שלא יתלכלכו. ואולי דבזה יש לתרץ מה שהקשה מע"ל למה לא פירש רש"י הטעם משום יתיר בגד כו' דכיון שלא היה לנאותו וגם הוא שלא במקום בגדים ואולי לא היה בו שלש על שלש וכרך ידיו לאו כל היד הוא, ועי' בזבחים דף י"ט ואין כאן מקומו. וכיון שע"כ דיו שעל הבתים אינו מזיק אף שיש בו ממש. ושוב מה גבול תתן לו ואם יהיה הדיו מעט יותר עב נימא שהוא פסול ונתת דבריך לשיעורין ואין לדבר סוף. לכן הדבר פשוט דכל השייך להשחרות להשחיר טפי בכלל לנאותו הוא. ומה שכתב לענין מוחק השי"ן של שם אני תמה וממ"נ מה דעתו אם הוא סובר שגם הדל"ת ויו"ד שבקשר של ראש ושל יד שייכים להשם ויש כאן שם שי"ן דל"ת יו"ד בשלימות א"כ הגע בעצמך האיך לפעמים מתירים הקשר של ראש כשצריך ונימא שזה מוחק השם. ולדעת רבינו אליהו חיוב בכל יום לפתח הקשר ולעשותו מחדש כמבואר בתוספ' מנחות דף ל"ה ע"ב משעת וכו' ע"ש. א"ו כיון שלא קרב האותיות זה אל זה השי"ן היא בבית והדל"ת ברצועה שבראש והיו"ד בשל יד אין כאן איסור מוחק. ואם יאמר מע"ל שהדל"ת והיו"ד אין בהם קדושת השם רק השי"ן. וכדעת התוס' במנחות דף הנ"ל ד"ה אלו תפילין וכו'. )א"כ אין כאן שום אות רק השי"ן לבד פשיטא שאין כאן משום מוחק כמבואר ביו"ד סי' רע"ו סעיף יו"ד שד משדי או צב מצבאות נמחקים. ומה שהביא משלהי חגיגה דהכלי בטל לגבי הציפוי כבר כתבתי שמשם אין ראיה ששם הציפוי לשימוש הוא ועיקר התשמיש הוא על הציפוי אבל כאן הציפוי הוא רק לנוי ואין בציפוי התפילין שוה תשמיש לתפילין. וכן בשלחן של בית המקדש והמזבחות עיקר התשמיש היה על זהב שלמעלה ולהכי אי לאו דרחמנא קריא עץ לא בטל ציפויין. ואי נימא דציפוי השלחן והמזבחות היה לנוי, כבר כתבתי גם כן למעלה דשאני זהב שהוא חשוב ולא בטל והיה מקום בזה לברר ולתרץ כמה קושיית בסוגיא דחגיגה אלא שאין רצוני להאריך כי טרידנא ושיטה זו עמוקה וצריכה פנאי וישוב דעת הרבה. ומדברי הרמב"ם בפ"ד מהלכות כלים הלכה ד' שכתב וכן כלי עץ או עצם שיש בהם וכו' ג"כ אין ראיה ששם עיקר שימוש הכלי הוא על הציפוי. ואדרבא יש קצת ראיה להיפוך דאעפ"כ לא בטל הכלי ונקרא הציפוי רק חיפוי כלים ולא כלי. אבל ציפוי שאינו רק לנוי בטל לגבי כלים ופוק חזי כלי חרס המצופה בפנים כתב הסמ"ק לטבול בלא ברכה לפי שהוא לנוי ואף דעכ"פ בעי טבילה לחומרא היינו ג"כ לפי שהציפוי הוא בפנים ועיקר התשמיש הוא תוך ציפוי. ומה שמע"ל כתב ועוד אפילו תימא שהוא בטל לגבי דעור א"כ אוסיף מיא וקימחא והרי הוא כאילו עושה הבתים גופייהו ממה שאינו עור וכו'. אני אומר הבתים בעינן של עור אבל הנוי שלהם אף דבטל לגבייהו אינו צריך להיות עור והגע עצמך נויי סוכה הטעה דלא פסלי הסוכה הוא משום דבטלים לגבי הסוכה. וכן לשון הטור בסי' תרכ"ז ואפי' פרס סדין כו'. אבל אה הוא תוך ד' לגג בטל אצלו כיון שהוא לנוי עכ"ל הטור. ולדברי מע"ל נימא אדרבא כיון שהוא בטל לגבי הסכך הוה כמסכך בדבר שהוא פסול אלא ודאי דהא ליתא בטל הוא לגבי הסכך אבל אעפ"כ הסכך נשאר עיקרו כמו שהוא. וכן הכא גבי שחרות הבתים בטל הוא לעור הבית ונשאר עור כמו שהוא. בהא נחיתנא בהא סליקנא הני תפילין תפילין דמרי עלמא נינהו ויש בהם משום זה אלי ואנוהו. ואמנם בהא אפשר אסכים עמו שאעפ"כ לא יהיה הטיח זה יותר עב מעור הבתים שלא יהיה טפל יותר מן העיקר וגם זה לחומרא. אבל בהא שכתב מע"ל שאין עושים ריבוע הבתים רק ע"י טיח הזה בהא יפה דן ויפה הורה שהבתים צריכין להיות מרובעים בעצמם והבית של עור כמו שהוא צריך להיות מרובע. הגם שהתוס' נסתפקו אם הבתים צריכין להיות מרובעים דבגמרא לא אמרו רק בתפרן כו' מ"מ כבר הסכימו הפוסקים דצריך להיות הבתים מרובעים ובזה ודאי אינו מועיל מה שהטיחה מרובעת ויפה כתב מע"ל בזה. גם מה שמזכיר שנותנין תוך הטיח הזה עצם פיל שחוק גם בזה יפה הורה לאסור. לא מבעיא לדעת הפוסקים שגם הבתים שחורים הוא הלמ"מ פשיטא דבעינן מן המותר בפיך ויש לדון בזה כיון שאין בעין ונשאר רק חזותא אם שייך מותר בפיך ואעפ"כ יש להחמיר ואפילו לדעת הפוסקים שאין הבתים צריכים להיות שחורים רק משום נוי אפ"ה טוב להחמיר שלא ליקח לזה מבהמה טמאה. זולת זה לרוב טרדות שעלי לא יכולתי להאריך יותר, והיה זה שלום:

Additionally, when Rashi expounded on the disqualifications of tefillin boxes, it included the qualification of being made out of leather, as even the straps that are tied on must be made from a similar animal hide, as was explained in the chapter ‘One who takes a Handful’.³⁵See note 31 His (Rashi) intention was to that which was written on page 35a ‘that tefillin should not be tied with anything other than that (kosher) species.

Indeed, if one presumes that leather boxes were made and then coated with gold, what is the logical connection to the straps? The straps essence is to the tying (of the tefillin)? With regard to the straps, what is the reason they are disqualified?

If one made (the requisite) black straps and then coated them with gold; and if one would posit that the reason for the disqualification would be secondary to the leather box not being visible³⁶Because it is coated with gold, if that is so, the reason was not enumerated by Rashi! Why would Rashi abandon this basic explanation and employ an apriori reasoning to the straps instead? The concepts must be related.

Also, that which Rashi stated “The boxes are disqualified”, it is obvious that Rashi’s intent was not the the actual tefillin- meaning, the verses on the parchment- that are disqualified, as they made be taken out and placed into other boxes.

Should one presume that this involves making leather boxes which were then coated with gold, if so, then the boxes are not disqualified, as the coating can be removed, and will revert to their original state.

If it is so that in any case, prior to removing the gold coating it is entirely disqualified and when the coating is removed even the boxes are qualified; why then did Rashi write that the boxes are disqualified, Rashi should have explained that the tefillin were disqualified! Rather it is unquestionably obvious that Rashi explained that braitta of “One who coats the tefillin with gold” , means, that he coated the compartments with gold and made the boxes themselves out of gold. However, if he made the boxes from the hides of a kosher animal and then coated it with something else- that is not mention in this braitta [ruling].

Our great Rabbi, the Rambam³⁷See note 19. For a more complete quote, See the Appendix., in chapter 3 of Laws Pertaining to Tefillin, and these are his words in section 15: “The leather used to cover the tefillin and from which the straps are made should come from a kosher species of animal, beast, or fowl….If, however, leather from a non-kosher species was used or if they were covered with gold, they are not acceptable”. Indeed, in his (Maimonides) language there is no doubt that when he wrote “leather used to cover the tefillin ”meant the actual leather of the boxes. Indeed, there is no mention anywhere in the words of the Rambam regarding covering another leather on top of the original leather of the boxes.

It is true that according to the opinion of the Rambam, a cloth must be folded on to the compartments before they (the parchments) are placed in the boxes, as noted in Chapter 3:1 and 3:8.

However, that one would have to cover the leather boxes with leather on the outside- that was not understood (lit. ‘heard’) at all. These are his words in the beginning of Laws Pertaining to Phylacteries: “Four passages [of the Torah³⁹Which contain references to the mitzvah of tefillin, which are ‘Make unique to me’⁴⁰Exodus 13….are written on separate parchments and covered with leather, and are called tefillin (phylacteries)…” If that is so, then that which he specifies ‘and covered with leather’, specific to the word ‘leather’⁴¹In Hebrew that is designated by the designating letter ה- ‘hay’, meaning “THE leather”. There are other forms that the letter is used for, such as the ‘questioning’ hay., meaning the leather referred to in the initial wording of these laws, that when her states ‘covered with leather’, it means the leather of the actual boxes. It is to this that he refers to when he stated “If he made them from the hide of an impure animal, they are disqualified”.⁴²Chapter 3:15. See page 6 above.

If that is so, then that which he stated ‘the leather that covers the tefillin’ means the leather of the boxes. Indeed, he calls the scripture parchments ‘tefillin’, therefore, when he states ‘coated with gold’ or ‘coated the tefillin in gold’, ‘tefillin’ are the parchments and ‘coated with gold’ means, however, that the boxes were made of gold, and not that they were made of leather and coated with gold⁴³I found the syntax here a little difficult and hope I preserved the intent.. At no point was this regulation mentioned by the Rambam, as the braitta meant that the actual boxes were made of gold or the hide of an impure animal, as was explained by Rashi.⁴⁴Menachot 42b, see page 4 above.

It is because of this that I am perplexed by what the Beit Yosaif⁴⁶See note 16; In this case it is 32:39 see note 47 wrote in Orakh Khayim 32, writing that from the words of the Rambam it appears that that when one disqualifies another leather on the boxes, it is not that the boxes themselves were made from aan impure animal etc.. It seems overturned⁴⁷Drawing from the reference to Esther 9:1, as the words of Maimonides are the exactly opposite!

The Rosh⁴⁹Asher ben Jehiel (Hebrew: אשר בן יחיאל‎, or Asher ben Yechiel, sometimes Asheri) (1250 or 1259 – 1327) was an eminent rabbi and Talmudist best known for his abstract of Talmudic law. He is often referred to as Rabbenu Asher, “our Rabbi Asher” or by the Hebrew acronym for this title, the ROSH (רא"ש‎, literally "Head")., in his smaller collection of Halachot, wrote: “Our rabbis taught: If they were coated with gold…..Rabbi Shim’own ben Gamliel states: Even the hides of a ritually pure animal are disqualified untio they are made specific to the task⁵⁰Lit. ‘made to its name’- meaning here, made for making tefillin.. In the Laws Concenring Sefer Torah (Torah Scrolls) I wrote that the law is like rabbi Shim’own ben Gamliel, that it must be made specific to the task, ergo, the parchment, straps and the boxes must be made specific to the task”- end of quotation.

As the Rosh thought there, towards the end of his statement, that the parchment, straps and the boxes, and compares them to the hide of the boxes, as they are also disqualified if they are not made to the specific task, so that one can generalize that he also explains that braitta as pertaining to the actual boxes; it does not seem to apply to the hide that is on the boxes at all.

It should be noted, however, that this reasoning can be deflected, as towards the end of his opinion⁵¹Rosh The ‘Smaller’ volume of Halcahot Concenring Tefillin, on Tractate Menachot. It is fully quoted here, he posits that it is absolute in its application to the tefillin (the actual parchment writing), but not to any leather that is on the boxes- even if the boxes were covered with leather that was not made specifically for that purpose- are disqualified, as per rabbi Shim’own ben Gamliel

Nevertheless, there is no obligation at all for there to be leather on top of the boxes, and this was not included in their thinking.

It should be noted, that later on, considering that the straps should have a pass-through⁵²See note 35f as a halacha passed down from Moses at Sinai, the Rosh wrote: “There are those who interpret the ‘pass-through’ as made from a small strap that is passed over the arm tefillin….and even if the interpretation is not that it’s a small strap, nevertheless, such tefillin are not disqualified, as the outer casing, that does not see the outside air in these cases, unless one has made another box for it. The reason that ‘caoting them with gold’ disqualifies, is that they require being covered by the hides of a ritually pure animal, and this is akin to covering it with the hides of a ritually impure animal”- end quote of the Rosh.

On first impression, how does the Rosh bring proof for that which is ‘coated with gold’? The reasoning cannot be that since the boxes do not see the outside environment, one then hangs the hide of a ritually impure animal on it- does that not need a valid comparison? Would it seem that if one hangs a ritually impure animal hide on it, it is also disqualified (as kosher tefillin) because it is not exposed to the outside air? Therefore, it must be that the boxes were made from the hide of a ritually pure animal.

Seemingly, according to the reasoning of ‘external exposure’⁵⁵That the tefillin boxes themselves should be exposed to the outside environment there is no reason to disqualify golden boxes⁵⁶As those golden boxes are also ‘exposed to the outside air’!, as there is no biblical directive to make the boxes from hides? Rashi, here in tractate Menachot, truly had difficulty with this and had to employ an a priori reasoning utilizing a comparison to the straps that must be made of (kosher) leather; as the straps are used to don the tefillin, so too, a priori, should the boxes.

In the chapter entitled ‘Once the Sentence is Passed’⁵⁸Bavli Sanhedrin 48b; see note 61, Rashi explained that it is law ‘passed down to us from Moses was on Mount Sinai’. However, in truth, we have not found any source in the Talmud that explicitly states the need for the boxes to be made from hides! I would understand⁵⁹Lit. ‘this would be good’ if the boxes were made from the hide of a ritually impure animal- it would certainly be disqualified- as it requires ‘the work of heaven’’ that ‘which is permitted in your mouth’.⁶⁰See note 27 However, something which is not forbidden, despite it not being hide, we have not found any place that explicitly disqualifies, except for this braitta stating that ‘coated with gold, disqualifies’.

Ergo, it is better to explain this braitta as not dealing with the case of making the actual boxes out of gold, rather, that it deals with boxes made with permissible leather hide(s), and then coated them with gold, that is what the braitta intended. The disqualification is secondary to box being covered⁶¹Lit. ‘not exposed to the outside air’, to wit, brings credence to the disqualification of boxes not exposed to the outside air.

It is on this that the Rosh comments⁶²See note 49 and page 10, that it (the braitta) is not so, rather, it deals with the case of making the actual boxes out of gold, comparing it (the boxes) to making them from an impure animal. Obviously, when made from an impure animal it is certainly disqualified, as we required them (tefillin) to be made ‘from that which is permissible to your mouth’

Here too, ‘coated with gold’ -that the boxes themselves were made from gold- are disqualified, as they need to be made from hide, as explained by Rashi. If that is so, there is no longer a need to explain the braitta as pertaining to boxes made of leather hide and then coated with gold, and then to state that they require exposure to the outside environment, as this braitta can be understood simply as the case of the actual boxes were made from gold.

Know that the opinion of the Rosh, prima facie (on this topic) are bewildering: What was the need⁶³For the braitta to write to write ‘coated with gold’ if the reason was not that ‘it must see the outside air’? Did it not state in that braitta that the hide of a ritually pure animal qualifies? If it was (disqualified) because it ‘could not be exposed to the outside environment’ then even covering it with the hide of a permitted⁶⁴I am trying not to be repetitive; here- the hide of a ritually pure animal. animal would be disqualified!

Then perforce, one would say that in the case of coating with the hide of a ritually pure animal, we are unconcerned about it not seeing the outside air. In any case, it would seem that in the case of the passageway made for the straps (ma’avarta)⁶⁵See note 37(f), there is no detriment for that small strap, as it is made from a permissible hide, and one would have to say that it is covered with the hide of a ritually pure animal.

If that is so, the entire box would be ‘coated’ from each side⁶⁶There are 6 sides to a cube and the ‘little’ strap covers the underside of the tefillin box.. If that is so, the coating itself is what is on the outside which is ‘exposed to the outside environment’- it is qualified because of this covering and not what is inside it.

However, this small strap-that goes across the width of the arm⁶⁸The width of the area of the arm the tefillin box is placed upon- as explained by the Tur in chapter 32⁶⁹To be more specific: Orakh Khayim 32. See below 70, note that it does not cover all sides of the box. If that is so, one cannot think that this small strap was for the box itself, and one must know that this small strap is under the leather of the box. Ergo, one could argue, prima facie, that is should disqualify secondary to preventing the box from being exposed to the outside air! The Rosh would have to contend that in the case of ‘coated with gold’, the reason cannot be secondary to exposure to the outside environment, only that the reason is the necessity of being covered with a permissible hide⁷⁰Meaning, that despite there being a ‘covering’ around a portion of the box (albeit, the underside which has NO ‘exposure to the outside, as it rests on the ‘width of the arm’!) -and that it is still ‘kosher’ tefillin- then being covered by a kosher hide is permissible..

Yet here, there is a possibility to explain the opinion of the Rosh that he too would interpret the braitta ‘coated with gold or covered with the hide from an impure animal…’ applies to the situation where, underneath, the box was made from permissible hide(s) and on the top, it was coated with gold or with hides from ritually impure animal.

Rather, the Rosh stated specifically that gold is not permissible to make tefillin boxes, and that is why he disqualifies it even when (just) covering the top of the box. However, the hide from a permissible animal, which certainly qualifies the tewfillin box when it covers the top of the box, even if it is comparable to the ma’avarta strap, that does not cover all the sides of the box- that it could still be called a ‘[tefillin] box’- even in that case, it does not disqualify the box underneath it. Look at what the Mordechai⁷²See notes 14 and 15 stated in the name of the R”i.

However, whether we regard the initial understanding of the Rosh⁷³See note 50 for the relevant Rosh; see page 12 for the comments of the initial understanding., or this recent understanding, it is still difficult⁷⁴As just stated on the previous page, that even if only partially covered., as why did the Rosh derive the law from a comparison of gold coating to that made from a ritually impure animal? From its position (in the legal argument), one can decide that gold is not a suitable substance to make a tefillin box- as had it been suitable- then if so, what difference is there from covering the box with a permissible hide or with gold? Why is one kosher and the other not?

It would appear that the Rosh did not want to elaborate and brought a proof from the subject that which was connected to it⁷⁵Look at the the first line of note 50, meaning, ritually impure animals.

Additionally, that which the Beit Yosaif⁷⁶See note 47 wrote, that the Rambam explained the latter portion of that braitta of ‘the hide of a ritually impure animal’ as applicable to the scriptural parchments and straps, and not to the boxes. Despite the Rosh seeming not to reason that way, nevertheless, he wanted to rest his opinion on that proof⁷⁷That the braitta included gold along with the hide of an impermissible animal (‘coated with gold or an impermissible hide’).

It would also appear from the words of the Beit Yosaif⁷⁸Likely misprint or error quoting the Rosh; a search of his responsae and literature using terms like אויר or בית אחר from this quote here, reveals no source at all. Ergo, Rabbi Landau is likely referring to the Beit Yosaif. -note 47 ‘that the teffilin are not disqualified because they do not see the outside environment, unless they had another box made for them.’ This implies, specifically in these situations they are disqualified and not for any other reason. ‘Coating with gold’ implies that the boxes were made of gold.

Concerning the Sma”g⁸⁰Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, also known as Moses Mikkotsi (משה בן יעקב מקוצי‎), was a French Tosafist and authority on Halakha (Jewish law). He is best known as author of one of the earliest codifications of Halakha, the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol In 1240 he was one of the four rabbis who were required to defend the Talmud, in a public disputation in Paris, and it is likely that the need for a work like the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol was driven by the decrees against the Talmud which had been promulgated in France, and had led to the confiscation and burning of all Talmud manuscripts in 1242 The "Sefer Mitzvot Gadol" (ספר מצוות גדול: The Great Book of Commandments; abbreviated סמ"ג " SeMaG" ) deals with the 365 negative commandments and the 248 positive commandments, separately discussing each of them according to the Talmud and the decisions of the Rabbis. "SeMaG" also contains much non-legal, moralistic teaching. [No, he did not live in LA (‘smog’) or defend a cavern of gold (Smaug)- and that was Middle Earth, not Middle Ages…] on this issue, I have not seen him copy this braitta at all. It would seem to me, apparently, that he completely ignored it and it never appears in his book⁸¹Confirmed with the Bar Ilan database search of ציפן זהב in the סמ"ג.! If that is so, since he also explains that if the actual boxes were made from gold or from an impermissible hide, which is why he did not need to bring that (as a proof), since he alsready explained in the beginning of his Laws Concerning Tefillin that the parchment upon which the releveant scriptures are written vas well as the strps and the hides of the boxes must be made from ritually pure animals or beasts, and are requires to be made specifically for that purpose. – see the text.

If that is so, indeed we have excluded anything that is not from the hide of a ritually pure animal, which is exactly like that braitta and rabbi Shim’own ben Gamliel. However, if one posited that the braitta of ‘coated with gold or with the hide of a ritually impure animal’ he should have brought that (as a proof). The Tur in chapter 32- with a sharp commentary⁸³Lit. ‘with a sharp knife’ see relevant Tur, note 83- cut this braitta out, neither the first or the last part. These are the words of the Tur: “If one coated them with gold or made them from the hide of a ritually impure animal, they are disqualified”. Indeed, he does not state that the boxes were made of gold, rather he stated that they were ‘coated with gold’, which implies, that underneath them is qualified leather hide, and upon them one coated the gold.

In regards to hides from a ritually impure animal, he wrote ‘that were made from the hide of a ritually impure animal’, implying that the boxes were made from the hide of a ritually impure animal.

The Beit Yosaif also wrote that, and is seen from the wording of the Tur, that if the hides were made from a ritually pure animal, and then placed on them a cover made from the hide of a ritually impure animal, they are not disqualified.

Rather, we need a reason why ‘coating with gold’ disqualifies? How is it worse than hide made from a ritually impure animal? If that is not so, then the Tur refutes himself⁸⁶For more on this expression see note 87 below, I would have been able to answer the question of the Beit Yosaif: The reason that coating with gold disqualifies, is because the boxes have to be black on the outside, similar to the straps which must be black, just as the straps must be black⁸⁷See the appendix on note 81. If one coats them with gold, they will not be black, and hence disqualified.

However, if one placed over them the hide of a ritually impure animal, that leather hide may also be black, and therefore, he does not disqualify, except if one made the actual boxes from the hide of a ritually impure animal, because it must be made from ‘that which is permissible in your mouth’.

I say to myself, that this reason, when I say that the boxes need to be black, is the reasoning of the Tosafot in tractate Shabbat 28b⁸⁹See the next note for the relevant Talmud and Tosafot loc. cit. ‘In the case of tefillin, it explicitly states’, writing these words: “Since the straps are required to be black like the capsule [‘ketzitza’] of the tefillin…”. Indeed, their explanation regards that the capsule must be black.

The Mordechai⁹¹See note 15 wrote explicitly in the name of Rabbeinu Tam⁹²Jacob ben Meir (1100 in Ramerupt – 9 June 1171 (4 tammuz) in Troyes),[1] best known as Rabbeinu Tam, was one of the most renowned Ashkenazi Jewish rabbis and leading French Tosafists, a leading halakhic authority in his generation, and a grandson of Rashi. Known as "Rabbeinu" (our teacher), he acquired the Hebrew suffix "Tam" meaning straightforward; it was originally used in the Book of Genesis to describe his biblical namesake, Jacob., that the boxes must be black, and he brought his proof from the argument employed above.

That which I have stated, that it is for that reason it is disqualified if it was ‘coated with gold’. In my humble opinion, this is brought down in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Megillah⁹⁴See following note for the fuller text, in the chapter entitled ‘One Who Reads [the Megillah] Standing Upright’, that on the Mishan that was taught there: ‘One who makes his tefillin boxes round, is susceptible to danger… If one coats it with gold…’- it states there in the Jersulamen Talmud: ‘It has been taught in a braitta by rabbi Yosseh, son of Bibi: Tefillin must be mad square and black- is an ancient tradition (lit. ‘A halacha that was transmitted orally from Moses when he was on Mount Sinai’).’

To my mind, it is hard to place the adjective ‘black’ on the tefillin straps, as straps were not mentioned at all. In addition, the text combined the terms ‘square’ and ‘black’; just as square describes the boxes, so so the term ‘black’. Then the Jerusalem Talmud gave a reason for what was stated in the Mishna, as to why round tefillin are potentially hazardous and do not fulfill the obligation (mitzva) of donning tefillin.

Also, that which it referred to as ‘coated with gold… being the way ‘outside’ thinkers do things’, the Talmud gave a reason for these two religious legal statements, as ‘square’ and ‘black’ are ancient traditions (as if they are dated back to Moses).

So, for now, the Tur has been saved from the question of the Beit Yosaif. However, despite that, the Tur is still internally inconsistent, as he wrote in chapter 32, deciding that that it is only an obligation to make the boxes black, and if they were made of another color, they are still permissible⁹⁵This is all from the casuistic logic of rabbi Landau zt”l. see note 25 which the Tur states that if coated with gold they are disqualified, that is referring to the parchment itself and not to the straps and certainly not to the boxes. Because of the constraint on terminology (whether for ‘fun or profit’- that each letter cast the typesetter, and that brevity is divine) there are adjectival difficulties that are being resolved with casuistic logic. In truth, the Tur could also have meant the boxes as well, as there is no adjectival evidence that the Tur excepted them either..

The Ran⁹⁷Bavli Tractate Megillah 15b. The Ran, rabbi Nissim ben Reuven (1320 – 9th of Shevat, 1376, Hebrew: נסים בן ראובן) of Girona, Catalonia was an influential talmudist and authority on Jewish law. He was one of the last of the great Spanish medieval talmudic scholars. He is also known as the RaN (ר"ן), the Hebrew acronym of his name, as well as the RaNbaR (רנב"ר), the Hebrew acronym of his full name, including his father's name, Reuven. He wrote a commentary on the Rif, rabbi Isaac Al-Fezi of Morocco. commented on that same Mishna in the Bavli tractate Megillah ‘Coating it with gold is an indication of following thinkers outside the rabbinic tradition’, writing that “the reason the writ states (in Ex. 13:9) ‘So that the Torah of God shall be in your mouth’ – from that which is permissible to be in your mouth. Meaning, that the parchment should be written on that which is permissible to eat. The Hebrew letter shin is also an ancient tradition⁹⁸Understood here is that the letter shin (ש) is imprinted on the box itself, ergo, the box too needs to be made from a kosher hide., ergo it requires writing it on that which is permissible to be in one’s mouth”- end quote.

It is apparent from his words that ‘coating with gold’ means the ‘leather hide’ of the box was made from gold, and his words seem to imply that the reason for disqualifying gold was because of ‘that which is permissible in your mouth’. It also appears that Rashi also explained that Mishna in the same way.

This is perplexing to me: Can gold be considered ‘forbidden to be in my mouth’? Until now, we have not excluded items based on ‘oral consumption ‘(‘in your mouth’) based on hides from animals that are ritually impure. With gold, however, what ritual prohibition or permission applies to it?

Truthfully, Rashi in tractate Menachot⁹⁹See page 4b towards the bottom of the page wrote the reasoning behind disqualifying gold, since even that which is used for tying must be of the ‘same species’, hence the requirement for leather hide. As far as a ritually impure animal is concerned, he explained the reason for disqualification as secondary to ‘that which is permitted in your mouth’. In the chapter entitled ‘After the Sentence was Passed’, Rashi explained that it was an ancient tradition (like ‘from Moses on Sinai’) that it is disqualified!

In any case, however, the concept of ‘that which is permissible in your mouth’ does not apply to gold and later on I will provide an explanation. However, in any case, we proved from the words of the Ran¹⁰⁰See top of page 23 that ‘coated with gold’ means that the boxes themselves were made from gold. The Mordechai¹⁰¹See note 72 in his Laws Concerning Tefillin, these were the words he wrote: ‘Our master rabbi Shimshon in his Shimushay Rabbah wrote that one should fold over a [blank] parchment over each tefillin parchment, and it is not disqualified for that reason¹⁰²The tefillin box being covered with anything else., as we saw here with ‘hung a hide over it’. Here, the hide of the boxes does not see the outside air.

Nevertheless, I found that rabbi Yaakov [Tam]¹⁰³A most ‘famous’ Tosafot, where Rabbeinu [Yaakov] Tam (here called the R’I as the I represents the letter yod which also could mean Ya’akov.) argues with his grandfather, Rashi, as to the order of the parchment scriptures in the tewfillin. A search of בית חיצון yielded only one relevant source:
תוספות מסכת מנחות דף לד עמוד ב
...ומפרש ר"ת: קדש והיה כי יביאך מימין של קורא, ומשמאל של
קורא הוי שמע מבחוץ ואחריה והיה אם שמוע מבפנים וניחא השתא מה שחלקו וכן פירש רבינו חננאל בסנהדרין (דף פט.) כל בית החיצון שאינו רואה את האויר פסול כגון קדש ושמע וכן רב האי גאון
Our master rabbi Tam explained that the verses of “Make you first born unique to me” (Ex. 13:1-10), and “When you come to the land” (Ex. 13:11-16) are on one’s right of the one reading it, and to the left of the one reading it are “Hear Oh Israel” (Deut. 6:4-9) on the outside and afterwards “When you will certainly listen” (Deut. 11:13-21) as this now resolves the dispute, as was also explained by our master rabbi Khanan’el (Chananel ben Chushiel or Ḥananel ben Ḥushiel (Hebrew: חננאל בן חושיאל‎‎), an 11th-century Kairouanan Rabbi and Talmudist, was a student of one of the last Geonim. He is best known for his commentary on the Talmud. Chananel is often referred to as Rabbeinu Chananel - Hebrew for "our teacher, Chananel Rabbeinu Chananel" was born in 990 in Kairouan (modern Tunisia). R. Chananel studied under his father, Chushiel, head of the Kairouan yeshiva and through correspondence with Hai Gaon. He is closely associated with Nissim Ben Jacob in the capacity of rabbi and Rosh yeshiva of Kairouan. His most famous student is probably Isaac Alfasi.) quoting the tractate Sanhedrin 89a “Any [parchment] not on the outside, exposed to the outer air, is disqualified, as in “Make you first born unique to me” (Ex. 13:1-10)” and “Hear Oh Israel” (Deut. 6:4-9); so too was the custom of Rav Hai Gaon. wrote that the disqualification was not secondary to being prevented from ‘seeing the outside air’, except, specifically to the tefillin box worn on the head. However, the tefillin box worn on the arm it does not apply as there is no ‘outer box covering’ issues for the arm tefillin.

Also, there is no practical difference as to that which is ‘inside’ etc., except for the case of the tefillin box for the head. However, for the arm-tefilla¹⁰⁴Singular for tefillin, they are written out on one parchment. Ergo., there is no deductive proof from here to permit that for the head-tefilla.

It would seem that there is neither proof to disqualify or permit

Nevertheless, these examples cannot be considered as ‘beyond the legal bounds’, except for the case of one who would allow five scriptural parchments, as noted in the chapter entitled ‘Those Sentenced to Death by Asphyxiation”, or as was noted in our discussion concerning switching the order of the scriptural parchments¹⁰⁶See note 103.

However, that parchment which was placed as a cover over the tefillin scriptural parchments- was for protective purposes- we do not find a disqualification for this from that we have learned in the chapters entitled ‘After Sentencing’ and ‘Those Who are Damaged’¹⁰⁹See note 61 and 106 concerning ‘coated with gold or if the hide of a ritually impure animal was placed upon them, they are disqualified. It is not because they were not ‘exposed to the outside environment’, rather, as the Notator (Rashi) explained: It is an ancient tradition that [the tefillin require the hide of a ritually pure animal, and that applied to the hides of the boxes themselves.

Nevertheless, it is possible to understand this to mean ‘hanging (placing) another hide over it’ as was noted¹¹¹See note 71 “…one could understand the wording of ‘one hide is hung upon’, as in this case of hanging upon¹¹²the tefillin boxes with another leather hide as was noted¹¹³In tractate Berachot 43b discussing general advice given to scholars “A scholar should not go out with patched shoes” and the Talmud clarifies this to mean patches on top of patches.¹¹⁴The following is the continuation of the Mordechai quoted in note 69 (until end quote)

It still appears to me that we cannot act in accordance with the Shimushay Rabbah¹¹⁶Again, see note 71 , as noted, the Hebrew letter Shin (ש)¹¹⁷That extrudes (via mold) from the leather hide on the sides of the head-tefillin box, he concludes, is an ancient tradition. It would seem that this did not apply to the head-tefillin box¹¹⁸Lit. ‘the upper hide’but, check it out, that which our people do (lit. ‘say’), as I am unsure about that ruling¹¹⁹Lit’ ‘the halacha is loose in my hands’. The expression is found in the Yerushalmi. Here, in tractate Yevamot, the Talmud is discussing whether a woman betrothed to a kohain can eat of ‘special’ produce (tithes etc.) see note 116, and they already behave in accordance with the Shimushay Rabbah, and one cannot prevent them from doing that, each one accepts with a clear proof- that is- our master and teacher Shimshon.

In retrospect, the wording of the Mordechai are perplexing, as how was he able to reverse the ruling of the Shimushay Rabbah, using the teaching derived from ‘if coated with gold’? In fact, it is the opposite! From there we derive a proof to act in accordance with the Shimushay Rabbah, as it explicitly staes there that the use of a hide from a ritually pure animal is permitted!?!

Another difficulty: Why did he bring the braiita form the chapter ‘After Sentencing’ and ‘Those who Have Been Damaged’¹²²See note 106? Why did he not bring proof from that orderly Mishna in tractate Megillah, in the chapter entitled ‘One who Reads, Stands¹²³See note 122”: “One who caots them with gold, is the way of outside thinkers’?

This can be answered, as he (the Morcechai) wished to state afterwards that the meaning of ‘hung upon it’ meant ‘another hide’. In that Mishna, there is no mention of that, except ‘coating with gold’.

Yet another difficulty: His conclusion¹²⁵That it means the box itself, instead of simply coating the hide with gold.: “It still appears to me that we cannot act in accordance with the Shimushay Rabbah….as the Shin….did not apply to the head-tefillin box”. This incredible! Clearly, the head-tefillin box of the Shimushay Rabbah, has the letter ‘shin(ש) on it! As it is because of the parchment folded between (and covering over) the scriptural parchments that one makes that Shin. This cannot be! The explanation of the Anshay Shayme¹²⁶Actually, it cannot be the Anshay Shayme, written by Rabbi Solomon ben Judah Aaron Kluger (1783–June 9, 1869) born at Komarow, Congress Poland, was chief dayan and preacher of Brody, Galicia. I sincerely doubt that this book was published by the time he was 10, since,in 1793, Rabbi Yekhezk’el Landau died. This part- or perhaps the entire Response(?)- was obviously penned by someone else, likely, one of his sons. I am unclear as who the author was, however, it seems to be an amlgam of quotes from several Rishonim eras rabbi (see the appendix) See note 123 for a photo of the commentary and its translation; they are comments on the Mordechai being discussed at this point. also does not appeal to me.

In addition to that which he stated; ‘It is impossible to act according to the explanation of the Shimushay Rabbah- this is what he should have stated: It is impossible to act according to the legal decision (‘p’sak -halqachic decision) of the Shimushay Rabbah!

[This is also the opinion of our master rabbi and teacher, Joseph Saul Nathanson¹²⁷Joseph Saul Nathansohn (1808–1875) was a Polish rabbi and posek, and a leading rabbinical authority of his day. In 1857 Nathanson was elected rabbi of Lemberg (Lviv, Ukraine), where he officiated for eighteen years. He was a widely recognized rabbinical authority, and was asked to rule on various contemporary issues; his rulings are still widely cited (for instance he was one of the first to permit the use of machinery in baking Matzah, which created a widespread halachic controversy; Sho'el u-Meshiv", responsa , was his Magnum opus (Lemberg, 1865–79). Nathanson was very wealthy, and was known for his activity as a philanthropist. he left no children after himself. He died at Lemberg March 4, 1875. Rabbi Landau died on 17 Iyar 5553 (1793!!)- see the appendix., may his memory empower us, who was the head of the Jewish Court in Lvov.]- Editor’s note: As this is from the Bar-Ilan data base, this quote was inserted into the text (likely as a supportive text and out of the context of this translation), as it was impossible (see the footnote!) for Rabbi Yekhezk’el Landau to have quoted it. Also, see footnote 126.

Ergo, it my humble opinion, that which he wrote initially that there is no proof neither to disqualify or permit¹²⁸See note 73 (highlighted in green)- which he stated after what was taught in the chapters entitled ‘After Sentencing’¹²⁹See note 61 and ‘Those Who are Damaged’¹³⁰See note 130 concerning ‘coated with gold etc.’. If one would postulate that the meaning was coating the [tefillin] boxes with gold, if that is so, then that which he¹³¹The ‘Mordechai’: Mordechai ben Hillel 1250-98 -again, note c15 stated there ‘the hides of a kosher animal are permitted for use’, would also mean that the kosher hide was place on top of the boxes.

If that is the case, then we have a good reason to permit, as it was for that reason he did not refute the reasoning with the concept of ‘seeing the outside air’, as they were only specific to the actual boxes. However, should one have coated the hide of the boxes was not mentioned at all, not to disqualify gold or non-kosher hides, nor to permit it with kosher hides, and then made his statement afterwards.

Nevertheless, there is a possibility to examine the wording of ‘another hide…’ , which if so, it does well according to this understanding, as it isa support for the opinion of the Shimushay Rabbahi, as on this, he stated: ‘the hides of ritually pure animals are qualified’, and then he concludes that he cannot agrtee with the Shimushay Rabbah, meaning: he cannot say that the explanation mentioned above that brings a proof to the position of the Shimushay Rabbah , that ‘he hangs upon them another hide’.

As if so, how could one make sense of ‘ritually pure animals are qualified’? Does not the letter Shin (ש), which he concludes is an ancient tradition, could not be seen in the hide of the head box?! Rather, it is obvious that he made the actual boxes out of that. . If that is so, there is no need to mention ‘coating with gold or with a hide from a ritually impure animal’ on the boxes.

Ergo, we have no proof at all to disqualify secondary to ‘coating with gold or covering with the hide of an impure animal, or to qualify it with ritually pure animal hide. Since we have no basis to decide, then, logically, all of that is permitted. As that is under the rubric of ‘if that is allowed, everyone will make a fifth compartment’, or ‘it does not see the outside environment, then everyone will make a fifth compartment’, or will flip the inside parchments of the tefillin to the outside¹³³This may also mean the order of the parshiyot, as to which are on the ‘outside’. In other words, this is not violating the ancient tradition (lit. “from Moses on Sinai”) to the point where one could then logic from this leniency to do forbidden procedures, like adding a fifth scroll or compartment. He is stating that these issues of coverings of a box that is already kosher, is a non-issue..

As I would humbly see it, the explanation of the Mordechai’s should be viewed in the context of his [initiaql presumed] conclusion that ‘coating with gold’ meant making the boxes themselves out of gold

Now, from this we can learn that not one of the previous halachic decisors understood ‘coating with gold’ meant making the boxes out of gold, or from a ritually impure animal hide, and so too, is the final conclusion of the Mordechai.

We see in the Tosafot in tractate Menachot 35a in two cases, citation beginning with ‘Ma’avarta’ and the citation beginning with ‘The Shin of the Tefillin’. Their words are difficult to understand¹³⁶Lit. ‘Sealed and closed’ and the edition is sparse and corrupted, and without all these great scholars¹³⁷Lit. ‘Men of Valour’ a reference to the kind of men Yitro asked Moses to appoint for the judiciary. See Ex. 18:21 to understand the authorial intent, how can we take their meaning to either disqualify or permit?

The Maharsha¹³⁹Shmuel Eideles (1555 – 1631) (שמואל אליעזר הלוי איידלס‎‎), was a renowned rabbi and Talmudist famous for his commentary on the Talmud, Chiddushei Halachot. Eidels is also known as Maharsha (מהרש"א, a Hebrew acronym for "Our Teacher, the Rabbi Shmuel Eidels"). The Maharsha was born in Kraków, Poland. From early childhood, the Maharsha's remarkable talents were evident. When he came of marriageable age, the Maharsha was offered many prestigious shidduchim (marriage partners), but he rejected them, asserting that he wanted to devote himself solely to Torah study. He married the daughter of Edel Lifschitz of Posen and the late Moshe Lifschitz, rabbi of Brisk. He then moved to Posen and he established a yeshiva there. For twenty years all the expenses of the yeshiva were assumed by his mother-in-law. In appreciation of her support he adopted her name. After her death, he served as rabbi in the following prominent communities: Chełm, Lublin and Ostroh. Eidels was also active in the Council of Four Lands. and the Morsha”k¹⁴⁰See note 122, as the acronym is likely Rabbi Shlomo Kluger. All the other choices, I have yet to access their works to verify. They are: Rabbi Shimshin Kinun (1300’s, France), who wrote ספר הכריתות on Talmudic principles; Rabbi Shaul Katzenelebogen-Wahl (1545-1617) who was once the king of Poland for one night (see appendix for details!). edited each one according to his methodology. Anyone examining their writings will see that both were very strained, and the editions of each one of these and their explanations are difficult to understand.

In my research, in my humble opinion, the authorial intent in their commentary on the citation “Shin of the Tefillin, is obviously one item, as was explained by Rabbi Shlomo Kluger¹⁴¹See note 122. Editor’s note: Hebrewbooks.org has an OCR of the 1776 edition of the Noda B’yehuda which contains this acronym. That is 7 years before Rabbi Kluger was born, ergo it is someone else. [with thanks to Rabbi Joshua Flug, YU], but not according to his explanation, except for what was mentioned beforehand, as they wrote “For one, the concept of ‘not being exposed to the outside air’ does not apply in such an instance, except if another box is placed upon it. In addition, perhaps the outside box is ‘not being exposed to the outside air’ also does not apply except to the head box of the tefillin, and not to the arm box, as was explained in the response literature of the Gaonim. ”.

Their explanation is obfuscating and they did not explain the reasoning why the concept of ‘not seeing the outside air’ applies only to the head box, and not to the arm box.

The Rosh,¹⁴³See note 50 in his chapter on the Laws concerning Tefillin, also wrote to permit this ‘small strap’ that was mentioned above, because, “nevertheless, the teffilin are not disqualified because of ‘not seeing the outside air’ in these instances, except if one ties another box to it….

Also, the concept of ‘not seeing the outside air’applies only to the head box of the tefillin, which is made of four compartments, moving any one from its designated place. However, in the arm box, which has only one compartment, it does not apply, and so it seems from the Responsae of the Gaonim.” – endquote of the Rosh.

We see tha the Rosh understands the reasoning of the Gaonim as that it does not apply here except in the cxase of the tefillin head-box- since it has four compartments- and one of them has been moved out of place. However, in the case of the tefillin arm-box, which has only one compartment- it does not apply.

So too, the Mordechai wrote¹⁴⁴Note 71, first paragraph that this applies only to the head-box, and reasoned that there is no application of the rule of ‘exposure to the outside’ for the arm-box, which seem to be the same intention as the Rosh! He also added that the concept of ‘switching the parchments from the inside to the outside’ only apllies to the head-box: in each compartment there are different scriptural passages written on the parchment, and when one switches the order, the passages that should be on the inside on then on the outside and vice versa.

However, Tosafot’s¹⁴⁵See note 133 and 134 above explanations were unclear, and they did not explain why these principles applies to the head-box and not the arm-box.

Therefore, in my humble opinion, that all of the above considerations apply to what they wrote in the second location citation of “The Shin“¹⁴⁷See note 137. Their import: There is a prohibition in the case of the head-box when it ‘cannot see the outside air’, as the Shin of the tefillin (head-box only) is an ancient (‘Mosaic’) tradition, and must be on the outside of the tefillin head-box. It was because of that Shin on the head-box that the scripture referred to “So that the nations of the Earth see name of Hashem upon you…”¹⁴⁸Deut. 28:10 …and they shall fear you. The letter Shin is also the first of one the three-letter name of God, ‘Shaddai’.. Ergo, if one added something to the outside, the Shin would not be seen.

It is for that reason that the Talmud in the chapter ‘Those who are Sentenced to Death by Asphyxiation’¹⁴⁹See note 106 discussing ‘adding a fifth compartment’, even if one creates the compartment on the outside of the Shin. It was on that point that they concluded that anything placed on the Shin, creates the disqualification, as the Shin that one puts on that¹⁵⁰The ‘extra’ fifth compartment- one tries to add the letter Shin to that as well is of no use, as that is not where the Shin belongs and one will find that the box (the parchments inside) ‘will not see the outside air’, meaning the box side that is supposed to have the Shin (imprinted) on it.

This, is my humble opinion, was the intent of the Tosafot. Despite that they did not articulate it enough, nevertheless, in my mind it is a better explanation that that of the Mahar”sha or the Mahor”shak¹⁵¹See notes 138 and 139.

The Beit Yosaif¹⁵²See note 17 in chapter 32¹⁵³See note 47 stated specifically in the name of Rabbi Shrira Gaon that the requirement of the outer compartment/box to ‘see the [outside] air’, is secondary to the ‘air’ of the Shin, meaning that according to my interpretation of the Tosafot, they conclude that this only applies to the head-box because of the Shin. However, if the Shin can be recognized, there is no prohibition.

Whether their intentions are like mine or not, nevertheless, their intentions¹⁵⁴Lit. ‘their words’ are difficult to understand. Ergo, their words are unclear and one may not use them to derive a source to either prohibit or permit.

It appears that the Beit Yosaif in his commentary on the Tur in chapter 32¹⁵⁵Ibid. notes 149, 47 on “If one coated the boxes gold…”, The Beit Yosaif wrote: “The Mordechai wrote in his Laws Concerning Tefillin that this concerns the leather of the boxes, implying that if the boxes were made from a ritually pure animal and then coated with gold or with a hide from a non kosher (impure) animal, it is fit for use.

This is also evident from the language used by our master concerning the hides of an impure animal, writing ‘or it was made from the hides of an impure animal’ , rather, we need a reason as to why coating it with gold disqualifies (the Tefillin)? Why should gold be any worse than an impure hide?

After that, the Beit Yosaif concludes: “…Indeed, afterwards, the Mordechai reverses himself. Nevertheless, it could be seen that he was trying to say that another hide was hung over it, as he should have stated ‘a hide upon another hide’, which is also apparent from the words of the author of the Terumah¹⁵⁷See note 47, where the text quoted stated ‘Tosafot'. The error is understandable: Baruch ben Isaac, called usually from Worms or from France (Tzarfat) was born approx. in 1140 and deceased in 1212 in Eretz Israel, where he emigrated in 1208 together with his friend Samson ben Abraham of Sens. He is not to be identified with another Baruch ben Isaac (fl. 1200), a Tosafist and codifier who was born at Worms, but lived at Regensburg, (he is sometimes called after the one and sometimes after the other city).
A pupil of the great Tosafist Isaac ben Samuel of Dampierre, Baruch wrote Tosafot to several treatises (e.g., Nashim, Nazir, Shabbat, Hullin); nearly all those extant on the order Zevahim are his. A. Epstein believes that the commentary on the Sifra contained in the Munich MS. No. 59 is the work of this Baruch. He is the author also of the legal compendium, Sefer ha-Terumah (Book of the Heave-Offering, Venice, 1523; Zolkiev, 1811), written circa 1202, containing the ordinances concerning slaughtering, permitted and forbidden food, the Sabbath, tefillin, etc. The book is one of the most important German codes, and was highly valued by contemporaries and successors. It is noteworthy by reason of the author's attempt to facilitate its use by presenting a synopsis of its contents, the first attempt at making a practical ritual codex in Germany., as well as the Rambam, may their memories empower us, perhaps our master (the Tur) may have intended this but it is not specified in his words.”- end quote of the Beit Yosaif.

In my mind, this is unclear:That which I wrote of the Rambam’s¹⁵⁸See note 25, Laws Concerning Tefillin 3:15. One could infer as well that it meant covering the boxes with gold or impure hide disqualified, rather than the actual boxes made from gold or impure leather. opinion, I have explained his words to the opposite effect! That which I wrote as the conclusion of the Mordechai’s¹⁵⁹Again, a reference to note 71 and comments on pages 15-16, concerning this parsing of the text. opinion- meaning- a hide upon another hide, I already explained what the Mordechai concluded!

It also appears to me that one cannot explain it according to the Shimushay Rabbah,¹⁶⁰See page 27, note 114, again, the source being note 71. which refutes the understanding of ‘a hide upon another hide’, that it means the actual hide itself. If that is so, then it is the opposite of the Mordechai’s conclusion?!

Nonetheless, I already explained that the Mordechai’s conclusion was that the braitta was speaking about the hide of the actual boxes. However, placing a hide on top of another hide was not discussed- either to disqualify or permit.

In the mind of the Tur,¹⁶²See note 19 if we have come to say that the Tur is exacting in his terms and differentiates between ‘gold’ and ‘hides of an impure animal’, I might have considered that he meant that if the coating was from disqualified material, would not disqualify, and is considered ‘null’ in respect to tefillin. That is in spite of the fact that the opposite applies to laws of ritual impurity, as the coating is considered essential, whether to permit or restrict, as was noted at the end of tractate Khagiga (26a-27a),-

As that it is akin to the Shew-Table and Altars of the Temple, that all the utensils of the Shew-Table and the Altar were all coated above their surfaces. So too the Shew-Table and the Dulphaki¹⁶³See Appendix for a depiction. that was mention there (tractate Khagiga), that there was no place left on the coating to place the cups or pieces. If so, its entire use was above the coated surface that it is akin to the Shew-Table and Altars of the Temple, that all the utensils of the Shew-Table and the Altar were all coated above their surfaces. So too the Shew-Table and the Dulphaki that was mention there (tractate Khagiga), that there was no place left on the coating to place the cups or pieces. If so, its entire use was above the coated surface, thereby disqualifying the Table in the Tabernacle’s Holy.

In the case of Tefillin, the opposite applies. The tefillin’s main purpose is their use in a mitzva as tefillin. However, gold is something important and is not nullified- as in the reasoning of Resh Lakish¹⁶⁴See note 162. Shim‘on ben Lakish (Shim‘on bar Lakish or bar Lakisha), better known by his nickname Reish Lakish, was asecond generation ‘Palstenian’ amora who lived in the Roman province of Syria Palaestina in the third century. He was reputedly born in Bosra, east of the Jordan River, around 200 CE, but lived most of his life in Sepphoris. Nothing is known of his ancestry except his father's name.
He is something of an anomaly among the giants of Torah study as he was supposed to have been in his early youth a bandit and a gladiator. Reish Lakish was regarded as one of the most prominent amoraim of the second generation, the other being his brother-in-law and halakhic opponent, Johanan bar Nappaha. Rabbi Yochanan promised Reish Lakish his sister's hand in marriage if the latter would rejoin the yeshiva and begin his studies anew (Baba Metzia 84a). R. Yochanan might be called a teacher of Reish Lakish (Brachot 31a); but the latter, through his extraordinary talent and his exhaustless diligence, soon attained so complete a knowledge of the Law that he stood on an equal footing with R. Yochanan. They are designated as "the two great authorities" (Yer. Berakhot 12c). While R. Yochanan was still in Sepphoris, teaching at the same time as Hanina, Reish Lakish stood on an equality with him and enjoyed equal rights as a member of the yeshiva and council (Yer. Sanhedrin 18c; Yer. Niddah ii. 50b). their who attempted to differentiate between vessels made of cheap akhselag¹⁶⁵‘Generic’ wood- that found with a forrester (Ashkelag) wood or vessels made of expensive masmi¹⁶⁶Polished or Coral Wood wood. That the ritual law (halacha) is according to Rabbi Yokhanan¹⁶⁷Johanan bar Nappaha (Hebrew: יוחנן בר נפחא‎‎ Yoḥanan bar Nafḥa) (also known as Johanan bar Nafcha, "Johanan son [of the] blacksmith") (lived 180–279 CE)[1] was a rabbi in the early era of the Talmud. He was born in Sepphoris in the Roman-ruled Galilee (then part of Syria Palaestina province). His father, a blacksmith, died prior to his birth, and his mother died soon after; he was raised by his grandfather in Sepphoris, that there is no differentiation, as noted there, that the Shew-Table is completely coated, and cannot be see. Also, all use of it is on top of the coating, and hence, the Table is nullified, even if it is made of polished mamsi wood.

However, here, the coating is above. Rather, since the Tefillin are the essential, the coating is nullified, meaning –‘hide against/upon a hide’- meaning the hide of an impure animal is nullified in the presence of the hide of a ritually pure animal. However, gold cannot be nullified, as it carries importance.

All this could be potentially the intent of the Tur. I can find support for this, differentiating between ‘gold’ and ‘non-ritually pure animal hide’ from the braitta, as it is difficult: Why did the braiita specify both ‘gold’ and ‘non-ritually pure animal hide’, as it could have simply lumped them together and hidden the term ‘coat [with gold]’under the rubric of ‘things which disqualify, and hides from ritually pure animal are permitted, even if they were not made for a specific intention. Why not just include it anything that is not of the ‘hide of a ritually pure animal’?!

Just as was noted regarding the tefillin straps in the chapter entitled ‘One Who Takes the Handful [for the meal sacrifice]’¹⁶⁸See note 30 on p35a: “The tefillin must be tied with straps of the same [material as the tefillin themselves…”, it is obvious that as the Talmud specified those two, they are separate issues. Gold is disqualified even for coating, as its importance cannot be ignored¹⁶⁹Since the religious obligation is hide from an animal one may eat, using gold in its place cannot be ignored.. ‘Non-ritually pure animal hide’ only disqualifies when used to make the actual boxes.

This was how it appeared to me in my humble opinion, rather, that I defer my opinion in the face of the opinion of the Rosh,¹⁷⁰See note 48 may his memory empower me, who wrote coating with gold is akin to the ‘non-ritually pure animal hide’. If that is so, then the two are similar when applying ritual law.

It was good that Rabbi Karo, in his Beit Yosaif wrote that the Tur was ‘imprecise’¹⁷¹Review page 39- where this argument begins.. As certainly, the Tur would not plainly disagree with the Rosh. However, in this instance, one may presuppose it it not as according to the Beit Yosaif’s opinion. As after he states that he was ‘imprecise’, I would say that he (the Beit Yosaif!!) was unclear in the initial wording of ‘coating the boxes with gold’- imprecise- rather, that his intent was that the tefillin were coated with gold, meaning, the actual boxes themselves were made of gold, as I have already shown that this was the Rosh’s intent as well. Ergo, the opinions of the Rosh and the Tur coincide.

Up until now, we have discussed the opinions of our halachic precedents. Now, let us understand the Talmudic terms concerning ‘coated with gold’.

In tractate Shabbat 28b¹⁷²See note 32 for more complete details:” ….And, if so, that which Rav Yosef taught: ‘Only the hide of a kosher animal was suitable for heavenly service’, for what halakha is that relevant, as it is clearly not relevant to the Tabernacle? The Gemara replies: This halakha was stated with regard to phylacteries, which may be prepared only from the hide of a kosher animal….Did not Abayay state: The Shin of tefillin is an ancient custom?....” Rashi commented: “Since a letter from God’s name is written on it, it should be made from that which is ‘permissible to your mouth’…” .

This presents a difficulty: That which we require [the material of the tefillin] to be ‘permissible to your mouth’, as because there is nothing else permitted, only that which comes from a ritually pure animal. How much spinning did Rashi have to do in tractate Menachot 42 that coating with gold disqualifies? Rashi explained that the actual boxes were made from gold, and his reasoning was that even the straps had to be from the same species¹⁷⁴Meaning, a ritually pure animal hide, that which is ‘permissible to your mouth’. The straps and the boxes are to be made of the same material..

In the chapter entitled “After the Sentence was Passed”¹⁷⁶See note 61 the blue colored notes are Rashi’s comments, Rashi explained that it was an ancient tradition, and were it not for the verse (Ex 13:9) which is the source for that which is ‘permissible to your mouth’, we would not have known the requirement of the ritually pure animal hide. Perhaps it could be made from gold or other species; that is why Rabbi Yosaif taught us that it require that specific hide. Despite the fact that Rashi explained that it is an ancient tradition, nevertheless, it was not taught explicitly that it is an ancient (‘Mosaic’) tradition, as there was the question raised on Rabbi Yosaif¹⁷⁷See note 33. However, see note for more relevant expansion to include Rav Yosaif’s question.. Look and understand well the Tosafot loc. cit. “Tefillin”. ¹⁷⁸Tractate Shabbat 28b see also note 86 also see the next note

It would be understandable at the outset when it stated ‘tefillin’, and then asked about the explicit verse (Ex 13:9) “The words of Hashem in your mouth’, on would not have been able to exclude that which is not made from hide, as there is a Mishna in tractate “Hands” 4:5 that states: “In general, an object cannot convey ritual impurity to the hands until it is written with the Assyrian ink (and script) and on hide-parchment”.

We also learned in a Mishna in tractate Megilla (1:8) “There is no difference between sefarim [books of the Tanach written in holiness, on parchment, and used for personal or public study, or for reading aloud in public. Sometimes the intent is specifically Torah scrolls] and tefillin…”¹⁷⁹…..and mezuzot except that sefarim may be written in any language, while tefillin and mezuzot may only be written in ashurit [in the Hebrew language using a particular set of glyphs]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, "Even concerning sefarim, they only permitted them to be written in Greek” If that is so, then we learned in a Mishna that Tefillin cannot be written on anything but hide. One cannot deduce, as Rav Yosaif that it means only ritually pure.

It was a good question that the scriptural basis of ‘that which is permitted in your mouth’, to employ it to establish the use of hides, why should the question be based on the concept of the Shin? Once we know ‘that which is permitted in your mouth’, now Rav Yosaif comes to teach us the requirement of hides? Rather, it is obvious that this is also part of a long Mishna in the chapter entitled “One Who Reads, Stands”One who coats [one’s tefillin] with gold…” If that is so, one perforce would deduce that it means that the actual [hide] boxes were coated from above with gold.

If that is so, then perhaps the disqualification is secondary to the box ‘not seeing the outside air’, despite the fact that the the actual box is permitted (‘kosher’)? If one would posit: if that is so, that which stated ‘coated with gold’ meant on top of hide(s) from a ritually pure animal , as I questioned above concerning the Rosh, this cannot be as we take it for granted that when one coated [the boxes] with the ‘hide(s) from a ritually pure animal’ has a Mishnaic source; The other case is [only] a braitta! For a braittait is unworthy to question the [Masoretic] traditional law as received by Rav Yosaif, employing the term ‘tenina’¹⁸¹See previous note, as Rav yosaif also brought a braitta as a support! Then it must be that ‘coated with gold’ means that the actual box was made of gold.

Yet, it is still difficult: On its basis, from where does the Talmud come to question Rav Yosaif? Perhaps this ‘coating with gold’ means ‘coating with gold’ on top of the hide of the boxes? Rather, the Talmud reasons that there is no reason to disqualify for such a case. This, in my mind, there is no doubt that if the hide boxes were coated with anything one wanted, with the exception of the head-box -if the Shin does not protrude- however, if they do protrude, it would be permissible (‘kosher’).

Now that we have supposed that even according to him¹⁸³Rav Yosaif, the proof brought that ‘coating with gold and hanging upon it the hide of a ritually impure animal’, Applies to the boxes, like the halachic decision of the Shukhan Aruch in (O”Kh) 32:48¹⁸⁴See the following note for the source. The point here is that it must mean ‘gold that stands by itself, and likely not on the box, but the box itself is made of gold. Gold being considered an ‘important thing’ has ‘substance’ – stands alone. This argument will then be applied to the blackening dyes of the tefillin., meaning in a coating that stands on its own and not relying on the box.

However, that the blackening that we apply to the tefillin, this applies to the hide and is secondary to it, and the concept of ‘the box does not see the outside air’ doesn’t apply to it. If we come to disqualifying with this, what parameters could we give to the dyes that blacken the boxes? If there is any ‘substance tro it, it would disqualify! This thinking cannot be acceptable, nor did any of our forbearers even consider this!

Since the hides of the boxes are also required to be black-and to some of the previous halachic authorities it is an ancient (‘Mosaic’) tradition- and to my understanding, also the opinion of the Jerusalem Talmud, in the chapter entitled ‘One Who Reads Must Stand’¹⁸⁵See note 178, is the same, as I stated above. Nonetheless, to the rest of the halachic authorities, there is a mitzva to do so

Additionally, that which is down with the black dye coloring, that it should be a deeper black or prettier, all goes under the rubric of making that dye, and there is no concern for any ‘addition’ that would make it fall under the prohibition of ‘You shall neither add (nor subtract from sopecified commandments)’ nor does it fall under the prohibition of ‘the box does not see the outside air’.

This can be understood as an a priori argument from the techaylet of tzitzit¹⁸⁷Techailet is the special blue dye (made from the tropical sea snail murex trunculus) for the wool fringe of the tzitzit which is a biblical requirement (Num. 15:38) of placing fringes on any four-cornered garment, in this case of linen, with one wool fringe., which the Torah was very specific about and quite stringent in its method of production¹⁸⁸See Tractate Menachot 42b-43b. Despite that one places various chemicals into the blood of the khilazon (Murex snail) as explained in tractate Menachot 42b¹⁸⁹See the appendix. The Tosafot wrote, loc. cit. ‘Ingredients (chemicals)’ were indeed perplexed by this and wrote that perhaps those chemicals could be [part of what is] called ‘techaylet’- the blue-ish dye.

To me it would seem, that the blood of this khilazon does not hold extraordinarily fast to the wool, except if one adds these chemicals to it, if so, then those chemicals are part of this particular color. So it was explained in the Rambam’s Laws Concerning Tzitzit 2:2¹⁹⁰See appendix for the full text : “The blood is placed in a pot together with herbs - e.g., chamomile - as is the dyers' practice.” [end quote of the Rambam], and this references the reasoning for putting in those chemicals ‘as is the dyer’s practice’, presumably, this was the intent of the Torah.

I can also apply this to the black coloring of tefillin. All that is added to increase the blackness belongs to this and all is subsumed under the rubric of ‘black coloring’. I would also say the same applies to ‘coating it with gold’- even if one supposes that it means coating on top of the hide of the boxes- despite that, I would say specifically when they coat it with gold, as this coating is an entity within itself, as one place a gold foil upon them. However, if one made the hide of the boxes gold colored, the way they color silver objects to make them look like gold, it would not disqualify to those who hold that the boxes do not necessarily have to be black, as this is a beautification that is subsumed to the purpose of the tefillin boxes.¹⁹¹Likely meaning that this would be masking one’s mitzvot beautiful (‘הידור מצוה’)

It is a well-known fact that since the hides of the boxes have to be hard enough to be made into a cube, it does not absorb the black color as well if the dye that colors it is weak and thin, as the dye must have some ‘substance’ to it so that it absorbs well into the hide.

I have also seen that from time to time, they (? the dye or the boxes) harden by themselves, as the boxes, according to halacha, do not need to be black. If that it so, what authority is there to blacken them? The dried dye is something that would be a partition, as we learned in [Babylonian] tractate Shabbat 120b? If that is so, then ‘the box does not see the outside air’- the dried blackening dye is a partition between the box and the outside air!?

It is also difficult pertaining to what the Magen Avraham¹⁹⁶Abraham Abele Gombiner (c. 1635 – 5 October 1682), known as the Magen Avraham, born in Gąbin (Gombin), Poland, was a rabbi, Talmudist and a leading religious authority in the Jewish community of Kalish, Poland during the seventeenth century. His full name is Avraham Abele ben Chaim HaLevi from the town of Gombin. There are texts that list his family name as Kalisch after the city of his residence.[1] After his parents were killed in the Chmielnicki massacres of 1648, he moved to live and study with his relative in Leszno, Jacob Isaac Gombiner.
He is known to scholars of Judaism for his Magen Avraham commentary on the Orach Chayim section of Rabbi Joseph Karo's Shulchan Aruch, which he began writing in 1665 and finished in 1671. His brother Yehudah traveled in 1673 to Amsterdam to print the work, but did not have the needed funds, and died on the journey. It was not published until 1692 by Shabbethai Bass in Dyhernfurth after Rabbi Gombiner’s death. His son Chaim wrote in the preface to the work that his father was frequently sick and suffered pain and discomfort. wrote on (O”H) 33:7 concerning tefillin straps that were blackened by a non-Jew: If a Jew then reapplied the dye with the intent to fulfill that specific mitzva, then they are permitted for use. This was stated in tractate Gittin 20b: If one wrote the ‘Name’ of God and did not sanctify it, then one should pass the quill over it and sanctify it. Even according to the majority of Talmudic rabbis there is no argument, rather, it appears checkered/spotted; if that were not so, it would be permitted. If that is so, then all would permit it! See the Evehn Haezer chapter 131:4”-[end quote of the Magen Avraham].

In the case of that which hardens occasionally, how does a repeat blackening change things? The initial dyeing on the straps ‘blocks’ the next coating and forms a partition between it and the strap?

Also, the concept of occasionally hardening is seen in the words of the Magen Avraham mentioned above, as he wrote that even according to the majority of the Talmudic rabbis, it was only because it would appear spotted etc., and this is only according to Rabbi Akha’s opinion there in tractate Gittin.¹⁹⁹See note 201 for fuller text. Essentially, Rabbi Akha is stating that going over the letters would not be appropriate for scriptural passages, which should be beautifully conceived and written. However, a Get is not scripture, and that’s why it can be done there. However, according to the view of Rabbi Khisda there²⁰⁰See note 190 for fuller text. Also see the text in note 195, that a Jewish Divorce document (‘Get’) not written for a specific person, then is gone over with a reed pen with the intent for a specific person, depends on the argument between Rabbi Yehuda and the majority of rabbis etc. According to Rav Khisa, the reason is not because of it appearing spotted²⁰¹See note 202, the reason is that the rabbis transferred the ownership of the Get to the husband, so it is as if he wrote it for his wife. The act of going over it again is the husband’s way of acquiring the Get.. Since we establish he halachic ruling in the Shulkhan Aruch Evehn HaEzer according to Rabbi Khisda’s opinion, if that is so, then I find the explanation of the Magen Avraham bewildering- end quote of my esteemed questioner²⁰²See note 14, we do not have the full text of the question. Also, the acronym מע"ל is confusing here, that earlier it meant ‘time to time’ (occasionally) and now it refers to ‘his eminence’..

It has been several years that I have been writing a journal on my [copy of the] Magen Avraham, and look at Evehn HaEzer 131²⁰⁴A cursory search at bothe the Bar Ilan database and Hebrewbooks.org did not reveal any commentary of Rabbi Gombiner (see note 192) on this section of the Shulkhan Aruch. It was written on the Orakh Khayimas was the Daggul Mayrivava which was written by Rabbi Landau. There I wrote: “He brought a proof to refute²⁰⁵The actual quote of the Magen Avraham is on page 46 (not a footnote).. However, according to my humble opinion, the Magen Avraham did not lose sight of what Rav Khisda said in tractate Gittin, that it is disqualified. The Magen Avraham did not need to tell us that according to Rav Akhai, it was permissible even to the majority of the rabbis at that time. Apparently, according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Khanan’el, who is the ‘there are those who state’²⁰⁶See note 194. This gets more interesting, as I am unable to find a Rabbeinu Khana’el commentary on tractate Gittin. quoted in the Evehn HaEzer, that this is undecided legally- whether the decision is according to Rav Khisda or Rav Akhai. Since tefillin that was blackened by a non-Jew, without any other qualifications, would clearly be disqualified, even if it was just the straps, it is still undecided, as was explained in the Beit Yosaif just recently discussed²⁰⁷Actually, this refers internally to the Magen Avraham.

Ergo, if a Jew then comes and blackens it again, that would be a case of double indecision (‘doubt’)²⁰⁸See the exceelent review by Rabbi Moshe Koppel שליט"א “Resolving Uncertainty: A Unified Overview of Rabbinic Methods” koppel@netvision.net.il, where he writes:“Roughly, if a particular prohibition holds only if both conditions A and B hold, and in fact, both A and B are in doubt, then we can assume the prohibition does not hold.” There is a doubt if it definitively needs to be black and a doubt about applying a second coating.. In my humble opinion, that resolves the understanding of the Magen Avraham. Nonetheless, practically, my inclination is to be stricter, specifically to that of the Rambam who was the first opinion quotes there in the Evehn HaEzer, that obviously the halacha is as per Rav Akhai”- this is the end-quote from my journal on the Magen Avraham.

That which he wanted to explain as the position of the rabbinic majority in the passage in tractate Gittin 20a, concerning ‘moving a quill over the letter with specific intent (to write God’s name) is not the optimal way to write God’s name’ because the ink below it is a formed separation (to the parchment) to the ink from the quill above it, as the name of God is not directly written on to the parchment. He also mentions this reasoning in regards to writing a Get that the ink is a barrier, as the ink from the quill above does not reach the paper. Despite the fact that we do not require a Get to be written on parchment²⁰⁹Lit. ‘written as a book’- meaning- as a scroll on parchment., and can be written on anything substantive, as my esteemed questioners had mentioned at length.²¹⁰Again, here we are getting fragments of the extended question which was presented in its briefest fashion at the beginning, obviously omitting these paragraphs.

I would say to his reasoning: Why should Rabbi Yehuda and the majority of the rabbis of that time disagree about God’s name not written specifically?²¹¹See note 193 Even if one wrote God’s name intentionally and then passed the quill over it to make the ink clearer, would also be disqualified according to the majority of the rabbis- as the underlying ink is not seen- as it is covered by the upper ink applied and that second coat of ink isn’t even on the parchment!?

If my esteemed interlocutor would say: ‘Certainly that would be disqualified’, as he brought the case of writing (the name of God on a parchment) without specification in its usual manner of teaching those laws, then why should one pass a quill over it? Not only that, but by bringing up ‘not specified’ it comes as a support to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion²¹²That it would be ok to go over it with a quill (note 193). However, according the the rabbinic majority, even if it was written specifically, it is disqualified.

I would say that, if so, he would disqualify most Torah scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot²¹³The Oral Torah has interpreted Deuteronomy 6:9 and 11:20 as actually placing scrolls with these sections on one’s doorposts. These are called mezuzot.! As in now routinely done in many cases, when the ink of those parchments is drying up because of age (or environment), one takes it to a scribe who goes over it with a quill to make it look ‘good as new’. This religious law is explicit in the Shulkhan Aruch, Orakh Khayim 32:26: “If the letters of the words were erased slightly, if their impression is still recognizable a little bit such that a child…, it's permitted to pass over it with a quill to improve the writing and renew it, and this is not considered [written] out of order.”

Look also at the Magen Avraham 32:39, and this law is explained in the Terumat HaDeshen²¹⁶Israel Isserlin (ישראל איסרלן; Israel Isserlein ben Petachia; 1390 in Maribor, Duchy of Styria – 1460 in Wiener Neustadt, Lower Austria) was a Talmudist, and Halakhist, best known for his Terumat HaDeshen, which served as one source for HaMapah, the component of the Shulkhan Arukh by Moses Isserles. He is also known as Israel of Neustadt, Israel of Marpurk, Maharai
Terumat HaDeshen is written as 354 responsa. Note that Rabbi Shabbatai ha-Kohen comments in his famous commentary on Shulchan Aruch, the Shach, on Yoreh De'ah 196:20, that there is a tradition that Rabbi Isserlein was not answering questions posed to him in the Terumat HaDeshen, rather he actually wrote the questions and answers himself. Therefore, Shach concludes, in contrast with other responsa, the parameters of the questions posed in the Terumat HaDeshen are themselves binding when alluded to in the answer. However, with the printing of the work Leket Yosher of Joseph (Joselein) ben Moses in 1903, it became apparent that the responsa were in fact based on actual questions, as the individuals who asked the questions are clearly identified there.
The work is named for the practice in the Temple in Jerusalem of removing a part of the previous day's ashes from the furnace – 354 is the numerical value of Deshen (Hebrew: דשן). Terumat HaDeshen serves as an important source of the practices of the Ashkenazi Jews. The work was therefore used by Moses Isserles as one basis for HaMapah – the component of the Shulkhan Arukh which specifies divergences between Sephardi and Ashkenazi practice. and the Responsa of the MaHaRil²¹⁷Yaakov ben Moshe Levi Moelin (Hebrew: יעקב בן משה מולין‎‎) (c. 1365 – September 14, 1427) was a Talmudist and posek (authority on Jewish law) best known for his codification of the customs (minhagim) of the German Jews. He is also known as Maharil - the Hebrew acronym for "Our Teacher, the Rabbi, Yaakov Levi" - as well as Mahari Segal or Mahari Moelin. Maharil's Minhagim was a source of law for Moses Isserles’ component of the Shulkhan Arukh Maharil's best known work is Minhagei Maharil, also known as Sefer ha-Maharil or simply the Minhagim. It contains a detailed description of religious observances and rites, at home and in the synagogue, and thus provides an authoritative outline of the minhagim of the German Jews, Another pupil of Moelin, Eleazer b. Jacob, collected some of Moelin's responsa; these were published in Venice in 1549. Many more of Moelin's responsa remained in manuscript. These were collected and edited by Rabbi Yitzhak Satz, and, published in 1977 under the title SHuT Maharil heChadashot.

This is also proved from the Tur²²²See note 19 in Yoreh Day’ah 276: “If the letters of the name(s) of God appear inseparable, he may move the ink away, and there is no need afterwards to go over it with a quill to re-sanctify it…” Similar language is used in the Responsa of the Rosh²²³See note 46 3:11 and the terms used come to teach us that one does not have to go over it with a quill, however, if one desires to do so, it is permissible.

According to the terms of my esteemed interlocutor, one who goes over the script with a quill completely ruins and disqualifies! It is then rather obvious that this is not so, and since one does so in order to make the script nicer, it does not replace the ink underneath it, as the new ink is subservient to the ink underneath it, allowing the underlying ink to remain viable for ritual use. Ergo, this would even be permitted when writing the scriptural passages for tefillin, as it would not be ‘writing it out of order’. Anything done to beautify it not considered a separation. However, it is not my intention to prolong this part of the discussion. In any case, my esteemed interlocutor sensed the question, according to his line of reasoning, of how could one permit the blackening of the tefillin boxes at all, as one could state that it does not permit the boxes to ‘see the outside air’? Rather, it is obvious that this is not considered a partition.

That which my esteemed interlocutor wrote that this applies specifically to one who blackens with ink dyes, as this is only the application of a black color which has little substance, is akin to what was stated in the Talmud, tractate Bava Kamma, in the chapter entitled ‘One who Steals’ page 101a, concerning the topic of

Whether dyeing enhances the value of wool. With all due respect, it applies to its appearance, as the dyes to not affect the valuation of the wool, it is the wool’s appearance. We see a similar issue noted in in Yoreh Day’ah 221:8²²⁶See note 224, when one gives a tableau to asn artist to draw upon it, there it also the case where the tablet and the dyes were provided by the owner/buyer’s expenses, it is just that the artist simply draws. However, to him- it is impossible that the dye has no substance.

Additionally, what is the relationship of the ink to its colour? Dye must have substance²²⁸Lit. ‘we do not find any dye that does not have substance), but colour does not have ‘substance’, as was noted in Yoreh Day’ah 198:21²²⁹See note 228 in the Sha”ch²³⁰Shabbatai ben Meir HaKohen (Hebrew: שבתי כהן‎‎; 1621–1662) was a noted 17th century talmudist and halakhist. He became known as the Shakh, (Hebrew: ש"ך‎‎), which is an abbreviation of his most important work, Siftei Kohen (Hebrew: שפתי כהן‎‎) (literally Lips of the Priest), and his rulings were considered authoritative by later halakhists In Cracow in 1646, he published his magnum opus, the Siftei Kohen (Hebrew: שפתי כהן‎‎) or the Shakh, (Hebrew: ש"ך‎‎) a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah. This work was approved by the greatest Polish and Lithuanian scholars and since 1674 has been published in most editions of the Yoreh De'ah You should know that it is not found as part of the ink, as it has no ‘substance’, since if it were not so, how are we to understand the the query posed in the Talmud, tractate Shabbat 120b-²³¹See note 193- especially in red outine ‘derive that it is an interposition in any case due to the ink (on his skin)’? Perhaps, this was in context of God’s name written on one’s skin, and not just the ‘color’ black- and it would have no substance! Rather, it is obvious that writing must have some substance to it.

Despite that²³²That the dye has substance to it, and therefore covers the boxes of the tefillin, we still blacken the hides of the tefillin boxes, and it is not disqualified because it ‘cannot see the outside environment’. Nor is it disqualified for adding something to the mitzva, because this was done to beautify the boxes. That which my esteemed interlocutor wrote, then what is the difference between that and a woman finishing her ritual menstrual cycle, who immerses herself with her clothing on- if they are fastened, they are a partition (to the water of the mikva) despite being there to beautify!? I am perplexed!! Do her clothes always stay on her? Does she not take them off and put them on? How could one think they are part of her body?²³³Rabbi Landau is hammering home the comparison to the ‘substantive’ dye vs insubstantive ‘color’ – and despite the substantivenes ofr the dye, it may be used to cover tefillin, as it is used to beautify. Using the logic ad absurdium, then anything that beautifies should be permitted as a non-substance.

From this, we can deflect that which was asked from tractate Pesachim 57a at the end of the chapter entitled ‘In places in Which the Custom Were…’, concerning the high priest Yissachar, the ‘man’ from the village Sunrise (Barka’i) ²³⁷See note 238 and the appendix for the complete reference.. It should be noted that what her did was not to beautify, but to protect his hands from getting dirty. Perhaps, this can be employed to answer that which my esteemd interlocutor questioned as to why Rash’I²³⁸See note 239 did not use the reason of ‘adding to a mitzva of the specified amount of priestly uniforms?Since it was not done to beautify, even though it was technically ‘clothing’ ²³⁹just a silk wrap around his hands, perhaprs not even having the dimensions of three by three²⁴⁰The required minimum to be considered ‘clothing’ in the sense that- especially in the case of the Temple environs- to be succeptible to ritual impurity, a severe violation., perhaps when he covered his hand, it was not even the entire hand? See tractate Zevakhim 19- and this is not the lace to discuss this.

Against all this, the dye that is placed on the tefillin boxes does no ‘harm’²⁴¹By causing the tefillin to be disqualified for use despite having ‘substance’. Besides, limits could one place on this? If the dye is thin, then if it is a little thicker, one would disqualify; if that is the case, then one reduces this ritual legal issue to a matter of measurements, in which case, reducing the issue to futility²⁴²Lit. ‘there will be no end ‘ to the squabbling over the limits to regard what is forbidden and what is permissible.. Ergo, this is a simple matter, that anything that blackens or improves blackening can be included in that which beautifies the tefillin.

That which he²⁴⁴Rabbi Yitzkhaq HaKohain of Bonn, the ‘esteemed interlocutor’ from the first paragrapgh…. wrote concerning the erasure of the letter Shin of God’s name²⁴⁵The shin is embossed on the sides of the head box of the tefillin See the appendix, I am perplexed! If one accepts that line of reasoning, then what if he holds that the letters Daled and Yod in the knots of the straps of the head and arm tefillin respectively, which complete God’s name- as there are the letters Shin, Daled, Yod -if so, ask yourself how is it that at times one can undo those knots as necessary, perhaps one is then erasing God’s name?! “According to our master rabbi Eliyahu²⁴⁶One of the few English Tosafists, who perished at Clifford’s Tower during the crusades, 8 Nissan 1146. This is a quote from Tosafot, see note 247, there is a daily requirement to undo those knots and renew them”, go examine that which was explained in the Tosafot tractate Menachot 35b loc. cit. ‘From the Time’.

Rather, it must be, that since these letters are not ‘together’: The Shin is on the box, the daled is in the knot of the straps of the head tefillin and the yod in the straps of the arm tefiilin²⁴⁷Again, the letter shin, daled, yod spell out one of the names of God: Shaddai., there is no prohibition of ‘erasing God’s name’.

If my esteemed interlocutor would say: The daled and the yod do not possess the ‘sanctity’ God’s name- just the shin- as per the opinion of the Tosafot on that same page in tractate Menachot, loc. cit. ‘These are the Tefillin’. If that is so, then there is no letter other than the shin- it is obvious that there is no prohibition of ‘erasing God’s name’, as was explained in Yoreh Day’ah 276:10: “[erasing] shad²⁴⁹In Hebrew, the appellation of God as Shaddai (lit. Breast-God) in the sense of nurturing, is made of the three letters mentioned in this discussion: shin (ש), daled (ד) and yod (י). “Shad” would be shin and daled – two of the three letters. See the appendix from the word Shaddai or tzav from the word Tzva’ot²⁵⁰AS in the previous note, this appellation means ‘the Lord of Hosts’, in Hebrew: Tzva’ot. It is usually spelled with five letters, the first two being tzaddi (צ) and bet (ב)., may be erased”.

That which he brought from the end of the tractate khagiga²⁵¹See note 160, that the vessel’s ritual use is negated secondary to its coating’, I have already written that this source is not a proof for his positions. Therre, the coating is for ritual use, as the coating is essential to its (ritual) function. Here, however, the coating is just for beautification, as there is no ritual use for this coating.

The same applies to the Shew-Bread Table and the Altars in the Unique Temple, the gold coating was essential to their ritual purposes. Since that is so, despite the fact that in the written Torah²⁵²Lit. ‘The merciful one’ meaning, it is God who ‘wrote’ our Torah via Moshe, our master teacher A”H it states (Ex. 25:23) ‘Tree(s)’, its coating is not subsumed by it.²⁵³Meaning: Despite the Torah writing that the Table was to be made of wood (‘tree’) and that one could surmise that its ritual function was to ne made on a wood surface, the coating would NOT be subsumed under the heading of ‘wood’, and, its gold coating is essential, not just for beautification. If one would say that the coating of the Temple’s Table and Altar was for ornamentation, I have already written about this above, that gold is an unusual case, in that it has importance/value, and therefore cannot be ‘subsumed’, and will not be negated in term of ritual use. It was there that I answered the many question that arose from the discussion in tractate Khagiga, but this is not the place to impose yet another lengthy analysis²⁵⁴See pages 37-8 and note 162. This line of reasoning is quite deep and one needs time and patience to understand it.

When one examines the statements of the Rambam in his Laws Concerning Vessels, chapter 4:4, he wrote: “So too, any wooden or bone vessel that have…”, then, there too, there is no proof that the essence of the ritual use of a vessel is on its coating. Indeed, it may be just the opposite! The vessel is not negated, since the coating is simply considered as a ‘covering’ for the vessel.

However, coating which is only ornamental, is subsumed to the essence of the vessel. Search out the laws concerning a clay vessel that is coated on the inside surface, the Sm’ak²⁵⁷Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil (d.1280) was a French rabbi and Tosafist who flourished in the second half of the thirteenth century. he is best known as the author of Sefer Mitzvot Ḳatan wrote that it is immersed without a blessing. This is also because of the inside coating, as the essence of that vessel’s use was for what is inside the coating²⁵⁸In that case, the coating was insignificant to the actual substance of which the vessel was made, which without this quasi-metal coating, would require ritual immersion..

That which my esteemed interlocutor wrote: “Also, even if one would consider that it is insignificant compared to the hide, if that is so, it will further bolster my argument²⁵⁹Lit. ‘adds water and flour’ that one is making the tefillin boxes from something that is not leather”; I say: The boxes must be made of leather, but their adornments, although insignificant to the leather, does not have to be made from hides. You should study the concept of beautification of the Sukkah, as the reason they do not disqualify the Sukkah , is that they are ‘insignificant’ compared to the Sukkah. This is also the words of the Tur²⁶⁰See note 19 (O”H) 627: “Even if one spread a sheet…however, if it within four handbreaths of the roof, it is not considered significant in regars to the roof, as it was placed only to beautify”- end quote of the Tur.

According to the words of my esteemed interlocutor, we can state the opposite- since it is insignificant compared to the s’chach²⁶¹The ‘roof’ of the Sukkah. Lit. that which covers., it is like covering the Sukkah with something that disqualifies it! Rather, it is obvious that it is not insignificant compared to the s’chach. However, despite that, the s’chach still remains as it is.

The same applies to the concept of blackening the tefillin boxes, which is insignificant regarding the hide of the box, which remains in essence- a hide. This is what we were given and what we conclude that these are the tefillin given to us by the master of the universe, and therefore, it has an aspect of ‘This is my Lord, and I will glorify him’²⁶²Ex. 15:2 It is interesting to note that this verse from Exodus is not applied to tefillin. The verse applied is from Detu. 28:10 “So that the peoples of the Earth shall see that the name of Hashem is upon you”.. In this matter, I agree with him, so despite the above reasoning, the blackening plaster should not be thicker than the hide of the tefillin boxes, as the insignificant should not be ‘more’ than the significant- this is also a stringency.

However, that which my esteemed interlocutor stated that one may not cube the tefillin box leather, except for this (blackening) plaster- in this he ruled and taught beautifully- that the boxes must be made into natural cubes and that the hides of the boxes should be molded into cubes. Also, the Tosafot²⁶⁴Menachot 35a see note 264 were unclear if the tefillin boxes require being made as cubes, as the Talmud only applies this to the stitching of the undersides and its diagonal (to make it a square) etc... Nevertheless, the major halachic decisors have deemed that the boxes must be made into cubes. With this, it is obvious that making the plaster into a cube is of no assistance, and my esteemed interlocutor was indeed correct vin this matter.

Additionally, that which he mentioned about those who place an elephant bone into this plaster as a joke, in that too, he decided well to forbid that practice. It is clear to the halachic decisors of the past that the boxes need to be black, as it is an ancient Mosaic tradition. It is obvious that the concept of ‘that which is permitted in one’s mouth’ applies here. One can analyze this, as they are not necessary and are placed for appearances sake, as to whther the concept of ‘that which is permitted in one’s mouth’ applies to it. Nevertheless, it is a good idea to be stringent²⁶⁵Besides ridiculing the addition of an elephant bone to this blackening plaster, the issue of whether it has to be from a kosher animal does apply to this- only to the actual tefillin. He still advocates not using a non-kosher item..

Even according to those halachic decisors of the past who held that the boxes do not have to be black- except to beautify them- even then it is a good idea to be stringent, tha one should not use a rituaslly impure animal for this.

It is for all the concerns placed upon me that I cannot elaborate further on this, so I will bid you a peaceful farewell.