- This topic has 33 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Did they just make up their own version, and place the psukim in whatever order they wanted?
Did Rebbeinu Tam wear Rashi tefillin?
Archeologists have founds remnants of tefillin going back to ancient times. Neither Rashi nor Rabeinu Tam invented anything.
Their names are attached to a debate on tefillin that probably goes back to antiquity as well, and refers to their advocacy of particular opinions, not the creation of anything new.
I don’t know if it was deliberate or not, but the title and OP sound scornful and offensive.
SSD, I agree. I wouldn’t have made light of these two greatest giants.
These was this folk tale that the holy Rashi was holding his young grandson, Rabbeinu Tam on his lap, when the child grabbed off Rashi’s Tefilin. Supposedly he remarked that one day he’ll disagree on the order he defined.
As noted above, the variant customs regarding the order of the parshiyos existed before Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam.
I was always curious to know how those customs were referred to before the time of Rabbeinu Tam.
The Wolf
Up to Rashi’s time, people actually would put on either Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam or both. Rashi finally made the psak that his interpretation of the order was correct and all the rabbonim of that time accepted it. One concept is that both pair were worn, the debate was which pair should be worn first. Chasidim wear both pairs after their wedding. Those who wear only Rashi tefilin are not transgressing anything.
Chasidim wear both pairs after their wedding. Those who wear only Rashi tefilin are not transgressing anything.
Shhhhh… not too loud. If Reb Wolf hears this he’s gonna say he’s a rasha for not wearing both (and insist he’s not changing).
To The Wolf
There is a theory that there was no obligation to put the parshiot in any specific order, and that Rashi and Rabeinu Tam both for intuitive reasons,wanted to establish a unified order so that everyone would be performing the mitzvah in the same way. They came to different conclusions which of the ways this should be. Hence the two prevalent ways had no specific names for themselves, as there is no need to establish a specific name for a practice that is non-specific.
I might add that there are two additional opinions regarding the order of the parshiot. One of the Ra’avad, and one of the Shimusha D’rava (debate on who he was). Needless to say, not all agree on what exactly the Ra’avad had in mind. If one wants to be a good litvak , one would need two Shel Yads and four Shel Roshes.
The ?”? actually brings that in an old Geniza they found a pair of Rabeinu Tam’s tefillin. There were those who wanted to bring a proof from there to the correctness of Rabeinu Tam’s opinion, but, says the ?”?, others brought a proof from there to the contrary. Why else should they have been put in the Geniza?!!!!!!!!
There is a theory that there was no obligation to put the parshiot in any specific order, and that Rashi and Rabeinu Tam both for intuitive reasons,wanted to establish a unified order so that everyone would be performing the mitzvah in the same way. They came to different conclusions which of the ways this should be. Hence the two prevalent ways had no specific names for themselves, as there is no need to establish a specific name for a practice that is non-specific.
That may be fine and well, but then, at the end of the day, if someone were to open their tefillin and find the parhiyos in random order, he would be yotzei the mitzvah b’di avad, since the order is clearly not m’akev.
Is that the halacha?
The Wolf
Is that the halacha?
No, and I would agree with your implication that this disproves that theory.
Is that the halachah? I would think yes.
Neither Rashi nor Rabeinu Tam demanded that one wear the other’s tefillin. I would be hard pressed to say that one of them was not yotzei the mitzvah. If this is correct, then the order is not me’akev and even a random order is kosher. Maybe even l’chatchilah. The order would then be “kach nohagim” and nothing more.
If you learn Hilchas Tefilin, you will see that both shitos are mentioned by the Geonim, it predates Rashi and R”T.
I’ll let someone else comment on oldmans stunning logical analysis.
On another note I wonder if Rabeinu Tam wore Tefillin as per the Minhag of his Zadie, even if he didn’t poskin like him?
old man: I’m not positive, but doesn’t the Gemara in Menachos say that the wrong order is Me’akev?
“Is that the halacha?
No, and I would agree with your implication that this disproves that theory. “
Im not sure I would dismiss it so quickly.
Tefilin isnt the only machlokes we have.
For example regarding the sound of the teruah the question whether it is a shevarim, (what we call) teruah or both is well known. As to how the question came about the Rosh brings from one of the Geonim (Rav Hai?) as one possibility that there were sounds added to enahnce the mitzva and with time we forgot which was the real sound and which enahmcement.
Another possibility the Rosh gives is there was no standarized minhag and (Abaye?) instituted a standard.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, thats the way I remeber it ill look it up tonight.
This sounds similar to the tehory mentioned by old man.
Yet, if somebody only knew how to blow a shevarim sound (and tekiah) should he do it? (putting aside issues of zecher bealma) I would think it is pointless. Now that it was instituted that teruah is either teruah/shevarim/both. Just doing shevarim is pointless even though it once was ok.
Similarly it is possible that there was no orgiginal standard order of parshiyos but now that there is, just doing any order without a shita backing it is pointless.
(of course the anaolgy isnt perfect, and im not sure just doing shevarim is pointless, does anybody discuss this issue?
I think Old aman raises a great point.
Assuming Rabbeinu Tam didnt wear Rashi’s Tefilin. Would you say he wasnt yotzei tefilin in his life R”chl? I feel very uncomfortable saying that.
Today however if a person never wore Rashi’s Tefilin I would say he wasnt yotzei.
The ‘?? in :????? ?? says the order is ????.
??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ??????
??? and ??”? in ?”? pasken this way (it’s a little clearer in the ???).
The Smag (Asei 22) mentions a set of Tefillin corresponding to Rashi’s version found buried around the kever of Yechezkel in modern say Iraq. The Drishah (O.C 34) rejects this as a proof for Rashi Tefillin as these may have been buried because they were Pasul! The Bach however argues that a such a matter wouldn’t have warranted a burial as the parshiyos could’ve been rearranged. All in all, one can’t conclude from a single discovered artifact. Interestingly, archeologists around the dead sea have discovered both sets of tefillin.
I am not totally familiar with the various archeological finds but, to me, the central question about Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam’s tefillin is in the actual “mesorah”. After all, if my father and grandfather wore certain tefillin , which I wear today, and they inherited them from their parents and grandparents, how is it possible to have questionable tefillin?We have now close to a thousand years of two sets of tefillin and never has there been a third way and this is simply because we all wear tefillin of our parents and so forth. So, what happened to Rashi and his parents and grandparents? And, begging the question, how does Rabbeinu Tam reject his grandfather’s tefillin-that I never understood.
ROB, the two shittos were around long before Rashi and Rabeinu Tam.
R”T learned the sugya, and came out like the other shittah. I don’t know what’s so shver. (Also, he had another grandfather as well.)
DaasYochid: The question is:how can you have a machlokes altogether? Open your father’s tefillin and look! It is not relevant how Rabbeinu Tam may have learned the sugya.. Rabbeinu tam inherited tefillin from his parents and grandparents- how could he reject those? Does this mean that. according to rabbeinu Tam,everyone before him did not put on the right tefillin??? If this would happen today with any other matter of halacha, they would be ostracized and drummed out.I cannot imagine anyone questioning a set halacha and getting away with it.
What I’m saying is that it was not a set halachah.
How that ever came to be is an excellent question, to which I don’t have an answer, but your question is on Rabeinu Tam himself.
it’s a machlokes that dates to way earlier than the rishonim, In an interview published in Ami a while ago, a YU professor (I forget who) said that archaeologists have found 2 complete pairs of tefillin in the bar kochva caves that they could actually open without damaging them. One was ordered according to Rashi, the other according to Rabbeinu Tam.
Also, if DY (and the rema http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14170&st=&pgnum=80)
are right that the order is meakev, then wearing 2 pairs isnt a halachic issue at all. if it was really about a chashash of being yotzei bedieved, then you would make a beracha on both pairs and wear both for kerias shema.
ROB
As others have pointed out, the machlokes predates Rabbinue Tam SO opening up earlier sets of Tefilin wouldnt have resolved much since they’d find “Rashi” sets and “R”T” sets long before Rashi/R”T
There are many things that different segments of kala yisroel do differently. IT wouldnt be surprising if you learnt through a sugya and came to a conclusion that say the correct approach is to say eat in Sukka on shemini atzeres.
In generations from now if that shita becomes known as the “Shitas ROB” Some might ask how can it be a machlokes? What did Rob’s parents/grandparents do?
Again, like all analogies this one is flawed. But the idea that there is machlokes in klal yisrtoel and different poskim go through a sugya and come out one way or the other isnt surprising in of itself
Zb, do you mean this?
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14170&st=&pgnum=80&hilite=
It’s referring to writing, the machlokes Rashi/Rabeinu Tam is about placement.
Here is the ??? about placement of ??????:
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=oc_x97
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=oc_x98 (particularly ?)
and here is ??”?:
ubiquitin: Thanks for your input although it does little to resolve the puzzle. On virtually every question in halacha, we know what the two sides maintain and we decide as per one side. Once this is decided,one does not go back and question an established fact. IN the questyion of tefillin, what was the decision,say,in the Tano’ims time? Amoro’im? Unless we accept that this question goes back to-at least- the “golus bovel”, it is a puzzle how one did not just look into the tefillin of one’s parent and do the same. According to what you write, this machlokes goes back to very early days and this is truly a puzzle.
After some investigation, I am withdrawing my proposal that the order of the parshiot is not me’akev. As Sam politely pointed out, this seems to be in direct opposition to the gemara. My wonder at how to reconcile this with Rashi and Rabeinu Tam has been dealt with in the following article. In short, the idea of two opposing long living and long lasting traditions is not unfamiliar to us, and we have learned to live with this dissonance.
I am respectfully requesting the moderator to allow this link, a pure Torah article.
After some investigation, I am withdrawing my proposal that the order of the parshiot is not me’akev. As Sam politely pointed out, this seems to be in direct opposition to the gemara. My wonder at how to reconcile this with Rashi and Rabeinu Tam has been dealt with in the following article. In short, the idea of two opposing long living and long lasting traditions is not unfamiliar to us, and we have learned to live with this dissonance.
I am respectfully requesting the moderator to allow this link, a pure Torah article.
It does not work.
ok, thanks
How about google ??? ?????? ??????? ????
It’s the first pdf on the page.
If that’s a no-go, thanks anyway
shabbat shalom
It is .rtf, not .pdf, so some programs won’t open it. I found one that does, and copied:
?????? ?? ??”? ??”?
???? ?????
????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????, ??????? ????? ????? ??????:
??????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??????. ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???????, ??????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????, ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????. ?????? ??, ??”? ????? ?? ????? ?????:
4) ‘???? ?? ????’. ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????, ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????. ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????, ?? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????.
????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???????, ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????: ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?????????, ??????? ?????? ???????. ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??? ???? ‘?????’ ????, ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????, ??? ????? ???? ?? ???????.
???? ????? ??”? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ??’ ??????, ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??”?:
?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????. ?????, ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????, ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????.
?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??”?, ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??”? ????? ???: ??????, ????? ??”?, ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. ????? ???? ??? ??? ???????, ????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ????, ?????? ??????? ??? ????. ???? ?”?, ?? ???? ????? ??”? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????. ?????? ?? ???? ?”?:
4) ‘???’.
?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??”?, ????? ????????? ???? ?????. ?????, ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ????? ?????, ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???.
????? ????????
????”? ??? ????? ??”?, ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?????:
“???? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ‘???? ?? ???’ ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ?’???’ ????? ??, ‘???? ?? ????’ ???? ????? ????? ?’???’, ?’??? ??’ ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???… ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????.
?????? ???? ?? ??? ????, ????”? ???? ?? ????”? ???? ??????: 1) ??? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?”?. 2) ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????. ????”? ??? ?? ???? ????”? (?????? ?????? ??? ????????), ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ????”? ???? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????, ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????.
???? ????? ????”? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ???????:
“??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????, ??? ???? ?????? ???????, ?????? ????? ??????? ??????, ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? – ????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????”
????? ????? ????”? ???? ????? ??”? ??”?, ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????. ?? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ??????, ??? ???? ????, ?? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????”?.
???? ????”?
????”? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????????, ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????. ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?”?, ???????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???. ????”? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??, ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ????.
????? ?????, ????”? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??????:
????? ????”? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????”? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????[1]. ???? ????”? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? – ??? ?? ????? ????. ???? ??? ????”? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???, ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ????”? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???.
??? ???????? ?????? ????? ?”? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???, ?? ????? ???”? ??? ?????? ???? ????:
???”? ???? ?? ?????? ??”? ??”? ?????:
[2]
????? ???? ?? ????
?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ??????, ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????: ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?”? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??, ?????? ??? ??. ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ??. ?????, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ????, ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ????”? ??? ???”? ??? ??????? ??????[3].
?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????, ?????? ??????? ???? ?’, ??’ ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???????- 1. ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???. 2. ??? ????? ??? ??????? ????, ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????. ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????, ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????.
?????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ??”?, ??? ?? ???? ??????? ?????. ?????, ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ???? ????[4]
???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ??????. ????, ????? ?? ???? ????? ??”? ?????? ???: ??? ??????? ???????? ??????, ‘???’ ?? ???? ‘???? ?? ?????’. ??? ?????? ?????? ??????, ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????, ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ????????. ???? ???, ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??”?.
??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ‘???????’, ????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?”?. ???-??, ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??”? ??? ????? ?”?. ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??: “???? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????”[5].
???? ????? ???? ???????
????”? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?”? ???? ??? ?????? ?????. ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??. ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???????, ??? ??? ?? ???? ???[6]. ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? (?’ ????? ?? ????[7]) ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????, ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????. ?? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????, ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ???????. ???? ?? ???? ????? ????”? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?”?.
??? ????? ?????, ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?”? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??????. ???”? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???????, ????? ????? ???”? ?????”?. ?? ?? ??? ???”? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????[8].
*
?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????, ???”?
????: ????? ????????
*******************************************************
??? ????? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ?????
**********************************************************
????? ???
????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????????’?? ?????? ??????? ??? ?”?[9]. ????”? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ???????. ?? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????: ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????, ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????. ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ?’ ??? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??”?. ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????, ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?’ ??-??? ??? ?? ???.
??? ????????’?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?”?- ??? ??????? ???????? (??? ??, ???? ?? ?????) ???????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????. ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????. ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? (???, ???? ?? ????) ??? ???? ?????, ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????. ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?????.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
The words “invent” and “make up” have a ridiculing connotation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.