‫פרשת ואתחנן‬
In Shulchan Aruch Siman 303 (s’if 26) we learn:
:‫אסור לקלוע האשה שערה בשבת ולא להתיר קליעתה‬
A woman may not braid her hair on Shabbos nor may she undo a braid.
Mishnah Brurah (s’if koton 83) explains the prohibition:
'‫) ויבן ה‬1‫כב‬/‫ מדרבנן משום דדמי לבנין וכדדרשינן על הפסוק (בראשית ב‬- ‫לקלוע‬
‫ל'קים את הצלע מלמד שקילעה הקדוש ברוך הוא לחוה והביאה אל האדם ושכן‬...‫א‬
.‫בכרכי הים קורין לקלעיתא בניתא‬
To braid-This is a Rabbinic prohibition2. [They forbade braiding] because it
is similar to building in accordance with Chazal’s interpretation of the verse,
‘Hashem G-d built the rib’-this teaches that Hashem braided the hair of
Chava and He brought her to Odom. We know this because in the cities in
the sea they call braiding ‘b’niso’.
The explanation of Mishnah B’rurah is a verbatim quotation from Masseches
Shabbos (95 b) where this Halachah is brought.
1
The entire verse reads:
:‫ל'קים את הצלע אשר לקח מן־האדם לאשה ויבאה אל האדם‬...‫ויבן ה' א‬
Hashem G-d built the rib that he took from Odom into a woman and he
brought her to Odom.
Although not related to our subject, we should know what the Mishnah Brurah
adds:
‫אבל הקולע נימין בתלוש חייב משום אורג כמו שכתב הרמב"ם והכא בשער לא חשיב אריגה‬
‫משום דהוא מחובר בראשו ועוד דאין סופה להתקיים שעומדת לסתירה [מגן אברהם ושאר‬
.]‫אחרונים בשם התוספות‬
However, one who braids detached hair strands has violated the Torah
prohibition of weaving as Rambam writes. Here [in the case of Shulchan
Aruch] it is not considered to be [Torah-prohibited] weaving because it is
attached to the head. Furthermore, [another reason why it is not considered
to be Torah-prohibited weaving] is because it is not permanent and it will be
undone [Magen Avraham and other Acharonim in the name of Tosfos].
2
Rambam is in Mishneh Torah Hilchos Shabbos Perek 9/Halachah 19.
It may seem strange that braiding hair is considered close enough to the
melachah of building3. However, we are accustomed to the fact that we are not
always able to plumb the depths of the thinking of Chazal and thus we can leave
the issue with a question mark.
It is a far different idea, however, to say that Chazal would not have considered
‘braiding’ to be related to an act of building were it not for the fact that in some
foreign language the words are cognate in their sound.
Why should the Halachah be determined by a word in a foreign language4?
Meleches Boneh is one of the thirty-nine categories of forbidden activities on
Shabbos. Halachic ‘building’ in terms of its prohibition on Shabbos is an act that
that builds or adds to an already existing building or constructs an object (Kli).
3
This melacha does not apply to a body of a human or animal. In the context of the
verse that does say ‫ויבן‬, He built, is referring to the part of Odom HoRishon that was
removed and thus no longer a part of the body when it was built.
In the context of this article, Aramaic should not be considered a foreign language.
For a summation of much of what is written regarding Aramaic, see Sheilos
UTshuvos of Mishneh Halachos (13/ Siman 147) of the late Ungvar Rav ZT”L
where he deals with the controversy surrounding the Halachah found in Rambam
Hilchos Gerushin (Perek 4/Halachah 8) who writes:
‫אם היה מקצת הגט כתוב בלשון ומקצתו בלשון אחרת פסול‬
If the Get was written partially in one language and partially in another language it
is invalid.
4
Since the standard text of Gittin is in Aramaic with some L’shon HaKodesh are all
of our Gittin invalid?
Rama deals with this question in a series of four responsa (Sheilos U’Tshuvos Rama
127-130).
Among the sources cited by Rama, all noted by Mishneh Halachos, we find the
following sources referenced:
Kuzari (Maamar 2/68)-Aramaic is an errant form of L’shon HaKodesh; it uses many
words of L’shon HaKodesh.
Masseches Megillah-Targum Onklos, written in Aramaic, was given from Sinai.
It is true that words from foreign languages are used in Aggadic interpretations.
For example, based on this same verse, we find at least two Aggadic
interpretations. We read (Masseches B’rachos 61 a):
‫ מלמד שקלעה הקדוש‬- ‫ מאי דכתיב ויבן ה' את הצלע‬:‫דרש רבי שמעון בן מנסיא‬
.‫ שכן בכרכי הים קורין לקליעתא בנייתא‬,‫ברוך הוא לחוה והביאה לאדם הראשון‬
‫ מלמד שבנאה הקדוש‬,‫ ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא‬,‫ אמר רב חסדא‬,‫ ויבן‬:‫דבר אחר‬
‫ כדי לקבל‬,‫ מה אוצר זה קצר מלמעלה ורחב מלמטה‬,‫ברוך הוא לחוה כבנין אוצר‬
.‫ כדי לקבל את הולד‬,‫ אף אשה קצרה מלמעלה ורחבה מלמטה‬- ‫את הפירות‬
Additionally, we are referenced to the Midrash B’reishis Rabba (Parshas Vayetze
Parshata 74/14). That Midrash is referring to verses in that Parsha that deal with
the final meeting between Yaakov Ovinu and Lovon at which they make a covenant
with a pile of rocks to symbolize that covenant.
The Posuk (B’reishis Perek 31/Posuk 47) there reads:
:‫ויקרא לו לבן יגר שהדותא ויעקב קרא לו גלעד‬
Lovon called the pile of rocks ‘y’gar sahadusa’ and Yaakov called it ‘gal’ed’.
Rashi writes there:
:‫ תרגומו של גלעד‬- ‫יגר שהדותא‬
Y’gar sahadusa-It is the targum (Aramaic) of gal’ed
:‫ גל עד‬- ‫גלעד‬
Galed (one word)-[This is equivalent to the two words] gal eid [A pile as a
witness].
The Midrash writes:
‫ אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמן אל יהא לשון פרסי הזה קל בעיניך שבתורה‬,‫ויקרא לו לבן יגר שהדותא‬
,‫ בתורה ויקרא לו לבן יגר שהדותא‬,‫בנביאים בכתובים מצינו שהקדוש ברוך הוא חולק לו כבוד‬
‫ד) וידברו הכשדים למלך‬/‫ בכתובים (דניאל ב‬,'‫יא) כדנה תאמרון להום וגו‬/‫בנביאים (ירמיה י‬
‫ארמית‬
Lovon called it y’gar sahadusa-Rabi Shmuel bar Nachman said: Do not treat
the Parsi [Aramaic] language lightly because in Torah, Nevi’im and Kesuvim
we find that Hashem honors it. In the Torah it is written “Lovon called it
y’gar sahadusa”. In Nevi’im, Yirmiyahu said in Aramaic, “so you should say
to them”. And in Kesuvim, “The Kasdim spoke to the king in Aramaic”.
Rabi Shimon ben Menasia5 interpreted: What is written, “Hashem built the
rib”? This teaches us that Hashem braided Chava’s hair and brought her to
Odom HoRishon6. [We know this] because in the cities over the sea that
call ‘braiding’ –‘b’ni’yo’so’. Another interpretation-And He built-Rav Chisda
said, and some say it was taught in a Braisa7, ‘this teaches that Hashem
constructed Chava as a storage vault. Just like the storage vault is narrower
at the top and wider at the bottom in order that it can contain the fruit8, so
This interpretation also is brought in Masseches Shabbos cited in the text.
However, the interpretation of Rav Chisda is not cited there-only in Masseches
B’rachos.
5
The implication of this Midrash is that Hashem prepared Chava for and
accompanied her to the Chuppa. The accompaniment is explained in the
continuation of the Gemara.
Braiding her hair was the part of the preparation.
6
However, see Yaaros D’vash (by Rabi Yonasan Eibshutz) Chelek I, Drash 9 (Page
188) where he writes that the explanation of ‫ קלעה‬is not braiding! He explains that
this word is derived from the work that is used in Chumash, ‫קלעים‬, the curtains that
formed the walls of the Mishkan. (See Sh’mos Perek 27/ from Posuk 9).
The explanation of this Chazal according to the Yaaros D’vash is that Hashem
prepared a secluded environment for Chava in keeping with the words of Chazal in
Masseches Megillah (10 a):
.‫קלעים למה? משום צניעותא‬
What was the function of these dividing curtains? For seclusion and tzniyus.
This, says Rav Yonoson Eibshutz, is closer to the meaning of ‘building’, the foreign
word for ‫ קליעתא‬because it is connected with the erection of the Mishkan which was
a Torah act of building that was not allowed on Shabbos.
See the Yaaros D’vash for a reconciliation with the Halachic Drasha of braiding.
7
Rav Chisda was an Amora. A Braisa is authored by Tannaim.
Rashi writes:
‫ שאם יהיה קצר מלמטה ורחב מלמעלה תהא התבואה דוחפת את‬- ‫כדי לקבל את הפירות‬
.‫ שהמשא מכביד עליהם‬,‫הכתלים מלמעלה לכאן ולכאן‬
In order to contain the fruit-If it was narrower below and wider above the
grain would push against the walls from above on all sides because the load
would be too heavy.
8
woman is narrower at the top and wider at the botton so that she can
contain the child (fetus).
We do not have to have the same rules9 of Halachic interpretation applying to
Aggadic interpretation10. While this is not the place to discuss the nature of
Aggada, suffice it to say that Aggada does not necessarily have to be understood
literally whereas Halachah must be understood literally.
There are times when unknown words are interpreted by foreign terms and even
though there are Halachic implications, the foreign word allows me to understand
the Halachah-it does not determine it.
For example, we read in the Mishnah in Masseches Shabbos (20 b) regarding the
various oils that are considered for use in lighting the Shabbos Lamp:
‫ולא בשמן קיק‬
One cannot use Kik oil.
The Gemara (21 b) writes:
‫ עוף אחד יש‬:‫ שאילתינהו לכל נחותי ימא ואמרו לי‬:‫ אמר שמואל‬- ?‫מאי שמן קיק‬
.‫בכרכי הים וקיק שמו‬
What is kik oil? Shmuel said, “I asked all those who sail the sea and they
said to me, ‘There is one bird over the sea and its name is kik11.
In the Wagschall (5761) edition of the Midrash Rabbah we find essays on the
nature of Aggadah from the Shaloh HaKodosh and Ramchal. Both are worthy of
study.
9
Other examples of usage of overseas languages in Aggada are in Masseches
Eiruvin 54 b; Masseches Megillah 12 b; Masseches Sotah 42 a.
10
Another example of using a foreign word to define a term and thus have Halachic
implications is found in Masseches Sotah 13 a.
11
However, these examples do not have direct Halachic relevance at all. It would
appear that the interpretation regarding braiding hair on Shabbos is exclusive12.
However, that ‘exclusivity’ is mediated by Rashi in our Parsha. In our Parsha13 we
read (D’vorim Perek 6/Posuk 8):
:‫וקשרתם לאות על ידך והיו לטטפת בין עיניך‬
You14 shall tie them as a sign on your arm and they should be totafos
between your eyes.
What does this unique word totafos15 mean?
We have found that in Sheilos U’Tshuvos that Halachic implications are derived
from what appears to be a non-Halachic usage of foreign terminology.
12
See Sheilos U’Tshuvos (Maharik Siman 95) where he applies Halachic meaning to
the explanation that Chazal gave for the monetary units with which Yaakov Ovinu
purchased Shechem.
In Sheilos U’Tshuvos Chasam Sofer (Even HoEzer II Siman 28) we have an
application of a foreign term for acquisition, also in regards to the purchase of
Shechem, to a Halachic subject.
There are other examples as well and they indicate that one should not fully
distinguish Aggadic interpretations from Halachic ones.
The Mitzvah (Mitzvos) of Tefillin appears three other times in the Torah, twice in
Parshas Bo (Sh’mos Perek 13/ P’sukim 9 and 16) and in Parshas Eikev (D’vorim
Perek 11/Posuk 18). Three times the word Totafos is used for the Tefillin Shel
Rosh, once the word Zikaron describes it).
13
You in this verse is in the singular. In the parallel verse in Parshes Eikev, the
Torah writes U’k’shartem osom. There, You is in the plural.
14
We find the word totefes, which would seem to be the singular form of totafos in a
Mishnah in Masseches Shabbos which teaches about types of ornamentation and
dress which a woman may not wear outside of a Reshus HaYochid on Shabbos.
The Mishnah there (57 a) writes:
...‫בטוטפת‬...‫במה אשה יוצאה ובמה אינה יוצאה? לא תצא אשה‬
15
‫ אלו תפילין שבראש ועל שם מנין פרשיותיהם נקראו‬- ‫והיו לטטפת בין עיניך‬
:‫ פת באפריקי שתים‬,‫ טט בכתפי שתים‬.‫טטפת‬
They should be ‘totafos’ between your eyes-This refers to the Tefillin that
are worn on the head and because the term refers to the number of the
[separate] parts of the Torah that are in them because totafos [means four]
since tat )‫ (טט‬in the Kaspi language means ‘two’ and fas ]‫ [פת‬in the African
language means two [thus the combined word of totafos means ‘four’].
If it was unusual or difficult to comprehend why Chazal would assign importance
to a foreign language and let it serve as a basis for one of their gezeiros,
preventative decrees, it may seem incomprehensible that a Mitzvah that is
mentioned four times in the Torah can only be defined by two foreign languages!
Furthermore, the significance of Tefillin is given expression by the following
statement in Masseches Rosh Hashanah (17 a):
.‫ קרקפתא דלא מנח תפילין‬:‫פושעי ישראל בגופן מאי ניהו? אמר רב‬
Who are ‘the criminals of Israel by their bodily actions’? Rav said, ‘the head
that does not put on Tefillin.
With what apparel and ornamentation may a woman leave [a reshus
hayochid on Shabbos] and with what can she not? She may not leave with a
totefes.
The Gemara (57 b) explains:
‫ אפוזיינו‬:‫אמר רב יהודה משמיה דאביי‬... ?‫מאי טוטפת‬
What is a totefes? Rav Yehuda in the name of Abaye said, ‘apuzainu’.
Rashi explains:
.‫ פרונטי"ל של זהב‬- ‫אפוזייני‬
Apuzainu-Golden jewelry that is worn on the forehead.
It would be reasonable to assume that this forehead piece took its name from the
Tefillin shel Rosh that are worn above the forehead and thus it has no meaning of
its own.
This is a very strong indictment of the man who never puts on Tefillin. Why does
the indictment come from an imported vocabulary?
Furthermore, if this word does come from an imported vocabulary, why must it
be a combination of two words? Since tat means ‘two’ and pas means ‘two”, the
Torah could have written tattat or paspas, each would have meant four. Why
was it necessary to conjoin two words, each meaning two, when one of those
words could have been doubled? Similarly we can ask-why not use a word that
means ‘four’ from one of the languages? Why have a word that literally means
‘two and two’?
It is not surprising that these questions engender much discussion and
suggestions of explanations. It seems that many of the explanations have a
similar focus.
That focus raises the question of the nature of the languages of the world. Were
they independent creations that somehow ‘developed’ or was there an orderly
creation that guided them16?
Sh’loh HaKodosh writes in Torah She’ba’al Peh (15):
‫ אלא הכי‬,‫אל יעלה בדעתך שהתורה כתבה אלו הלשונות שאינם לשון הקודש‬
‫ לא היה רק לשון הקודש כמו שכותב רש"י‬,‫פירושו כשברא הקדוש ברוך הוא עולמו‬
‫ בא לשון‬,‫ וכשבלל הקדוש ברוך הוא הלשונות בדור הפלגה‬,‫ז"ל בכמה דוכתי‬
There is a well-developed field of psycholinguistics that deal with the
development of languages-on the individual and communal levels.
On the
individual level it focuses on how people learn languages with all of their
complexities of grammar and syntax and much more.
16
On the communal level the focus is on the source of communities and the formation
of language that serves as a means of communication as well as a social definition of
that particular population.
A contemporary article about the latter can be found in the New York Times July
16, 2013 edition, entitled ‘A Village Creates a Language All of Its Own’.
These scientific studies do not necessarily have to be in opposition to the opinions
brought here.
‫ והתיבות הנ"ל הם לשון הקודש ונכללו בלשון יוני או‬,‫הקודש גם כן בשאר הלשונות‬
.‫בכתפי או באפריקי‬
Do not even consider that the Torah wrote these languages which are not
L’shon HaKodesh. Rather, the following is the explanation. When HaKodosh
Boruch Hu created His world, there was only L’shon HaKodesh, as Rashi
writes in many places17. When HaKodosh Boruch Hu commingled the
languages at the time of Dor HaPlaga18, L’shon HaKodesh became part of all
the other languages. These words [tat and pas] are L’shon HaKodesh and
are included in Greece, Kaspi or Afriki.
Thus, it appears from these words of the Sh’loh HaKodosh that L’shon HaKodosh
functions like any other original building matter of Creation. Just like in Creation
there were basic components from which all matter developed, original creatures
from which stemmed all other creatures and Odom HoRishon from whom
stemmed all people, so there was an original language from which stemmed the
bases of all languages.
There seems to be a source for this thesis of Sh’loh HaKodosh that teaches that in
every language there are stem words that are sourced in L’shon HaKodosh.
17
We read in Parshas B’reishis (Perek 2/Posuk 23):
:‫ויאמר האדם זאת הפעם עצם מעצמי ובשר מבשרי לזאת יקרא אשה כי מאיש לקחה זאת‬
Odom said, ‘this time it is a bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh; this
one shall be called I’shoh because this one was taken from Ish.
Rashi writes:
:‫ מכאן שנברא העולם בלשון הקדש‬,‫ לשון נופל על לשון‬- '‫לזאת יקרא אשה כי מאיש וגו‬
This one shall be called I’shoh because this one was taken from Ish -The
words are assonant. From here we derive that the world was created with
L’shon HaKodesh.
I did not find other places where Rashi writes such explicitly.
18
B’reishis Perek 11/P’sukim 1-9.
We learn in Masseches Rosh HaShanah (26 a-b) regarding which animal horns are
Kosher to be used for the Shofar for Rosh Hashanah and for Yom HaKippurim of
the Yovel year19.
The Mishnah there reads:
‫ והלא כל‬:‫ אמר רבי יוסי‬.‫ חוץ משל פרה מפני שהוא קרן‬,‫כל השופרות כשרים‬
.20 ‫ה) במשך בקרן היובל‬/‫ שנאמר (יהושע ו‬,‫השופרות נקראו קרן‬
All horns are fit [to use for the Shofar of Rosh Hashanah] except that of the
cow because its horn is referred to as keren. Rabi Yose said, ‘Are not all
shofros called keren as the verse says ‘when the keren of the yovel is drawn
out.
The Gemara continues:
‫ כשהלכתי‬:‫ אמר רבי עקיבא‬,‫מאי משמע דהאי יובלא לישנא דדכרא הוא? דתניא‬
.‫לערביא היו קורין לדכרא יובלא‬
How do we hear from this verse that yovel refers to a ram21? The Braisa
says, ‘Rabi Akiva said, When I went to Arabia they would call a ram ‘yovla’.
The Gemara continues with other episodes in which Rabi Akiva learned from the
foreign vernacular regarding a woman who is a Nidda, monetary units and terms
that mean ‘purchase’.
We learn in that sugya that on Yom HaKippurim of the Yovel year we recited the
special three Brachos of Malchuyos, Zichronos and Shofros and sound the Shofar
exactly as we do on Rosh Hashanah.
20 The entire verse reads:
‫והיה במשך בקרן היובל כשמעכם את קול השופר יריעו כל העם תרועה גדולה ונפלה חומת העיר‬
:‫תחתיה ועלו העם איש נגדו‬
When the horn of the yovel is drawn out, when you hear the sound of the
shofar, all the people should cheer a loud cheer and the walls of the city [of
Yericho] will fall straight down and the people will go up against it.
19
Thus, according to Rabi Yose, only a ram’s horn is kosher for the Shofar of Rosh
Hashanah.
21
Later the Gemara tells us that Rabi Yehuda HaNosi’s servant woman’s vernacular
was instructive for the Chachamim as they sought to understand various verses.
This, too, indicates there is a connection between L’shon HaKodesh and other
languages22.
However, we still need to investigate why Tefillin, in particular, were chosen to be
the vehicle by which this idea of the propriety of the usage of seemingly foreign
words is appropriate. There are other Mitzvos-why was this Mitzvah chosen to
be representative?
It would seem appropriate to suggest that Tefillin are uniquely representative of
the entirety of the Mitzvos of the Torah. Such is the gist of the introductory
prayer that is said when Tefillin are donned.
This prayer, the essence of which is found in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim Siman
25/s’if 5) reads:
‫וצונו להניח על היד לזכרון זרוע הנטויה ושהיא נגד הלב לשעבד בזה תאוות‬...
‫ומחשבות לבנו לעבודתו יתברך שמו ועל הראש נגד המוח שהנשמה שבמוחי עם‬
...‫שאר חושי וכוחותי יהיו משעובדים לעבדתו יתברך שמו‬
G-d commanded us to place the Tefillin on our arm as a remembrance of
His outstretched arm and the [place of the arm for donning Tefillin] is by
the heart so that we subjugate the desires and thoughts of our heart to His
service. We don Tefillin on our head, by the brain so that the neshamah
that is in by brain, together with my other senses and powers, should be
subjugated to His service.
The extraordinary Margliyos HaYam on Masseches Sanhedrin (4 b, note 6) brings
this proof.
22
However, this proposition is equivocal at best. It is likely that the maidservant was
speaking some form of Aramaic and we have already shown that Aramaic has a
unique standard and is not in the same category of other foreign languages.
The reason why Shulchan Aruch had to introduce this prayer, unique among
supplications that we find in the Siddur but not mentioned at all in Shulchan
Aruch is explained by the Bach whom Mishnah Brura cites.
Mishnah Brurah there (s’if koton 15) writes:
'‫) והיה לך לאות על ידך וגו‬23‫ט‬/‫כתב הב"ח בסימן ח' טעם לזה מדכתיב (שמות יג‬
‫למען תהיה תורת ד' בפיך כי ביד חזקה הוציאך וגו' יורה כי עיקר המצוה וקיומה‬
.‫תלויה בכונה שיכוין בשעת קיום המצוה‬
The Bach in Siman 8 writes the reason for this [prayer with its unique
content] is based on the verse [regarding Tefillin], ‘’It shall be sign on your
arm…in order that Hashem’s Torah will be in your mouth because with a
strong arm I Hashem took you out.
This teaches that the fundamental principle of this Mitzvah and its
fulfillment depends on the intent that the wearer has when he fulfills it.
Although all Mitzvos should involve us fully, Bach says that the verse in Sh’mos
gives special strength to the Mitzvah of Tefillin to engage us comprehensively: our
physical prowess, our emotional strength, our mental aptitude and our spiritual
capacity.
Tefillin are thus representative of the Torah in its entirety being all-encompassing.
Thus, they become an appropriate carrier of this message.
Subsequently I saw that Margolios HaYam (Masseches Sanhedrin 4 b, note 7)
quotes the commentary of Eitz Yosef on Tanchuma at the end of Parshas Bo who
tells us why the focus is not just on Tefillin, but on Tefillin Shel Rosh.
Eitz Yosef tells us that Rav Mordechai Yaffe writes that Tefillin Shel Rosh indicate
G-d’s rule over heaven and earth. The actual bayis, the housing of the Tefillin
The entire verse reads:
'‫והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך כי ביד חזקה הוצאך ה‬
:‫ממצרים‬
It shall be for a sign on your arm and a remembrance between your eyes in
order that Hashem’s Torah will be in your mouth because with a strong arm
Hashem took you out of Egypt.
23
Shel Rosh with its four Parshos, is worn at the top of the person, signifying G-d’s
rule in the Heavens.
The straps of the Tefillin Shel Rosh which hang downwards toward the ground
suggest that His rule extends to the earth as well. That is, G-d is allencompassing.
Furthermore, he explains, the need for the word totafos to be a conjunction of
two words, each meaning ‘two’, from two disparate languages. He says that
Kaspi and Afrikai are two distant nations and thus G-d’s rule extends over the four
corners of the earth24 as well as heaven above.
We are now able to understand two aspects of the Rambam’s presentation of
Hilchos Tefillin.
First, although the Torah always writes the Mitzvah of Tefillin Shel Yad before the
Mitzvah of Tefillin Shel Rosh25, Rambam always discusses them in the order of
This is based on one of Chazal’s interpretations of the first verse in the Megillas
Esther.
We read there:
:‫ויהי בימי אחשורוש הוא אחשורוש המלך מהדו ועד כוש שבע ועשרים ומאה מדינה‬
It was in the days of Achashverosh, this is Achashverosh who rules from
Hodu to Kush, one hundred twenty-seven states.
24
[It is true that today we translate Hodu as India and Kush as Ethiopia. Whether
those translations are appropriate for the following Gemara is open to question.]
In Masseches Megillah (11 a) we learn:
‫ הודו וכוש‬:‫ וחד אמר‬,‫ הודו בסוף העולם וכוש בסוף העולם‬:‫ חד אמר‬,‫מהדו ועד כוש רב ושמואל‬
.‫ כך מלך מסוף העולם ועד סופו‬- ‫ כשם שמלך על הודו וכוש‬,‫גבי הדדי הוו קיימי‬
From Hodu to Kush-Rav and Shmuel disputed. One said, “Hodu is at one end
of the world and Kush is at the other. The other said, “Hodu” and “Kush” are
adjacent. Just like he ruled over Hodu and Kush [which are adjacent [so he
ruled with the same ease] from one end of the world to the other.
In his commentary to Megillas Esther, Rashi adopts the opinion that Hodu and
Kush are adjacent.
I have written as if it is simple that there are two separate Mitzvos-one of Shel
Yad and one of Shel Rosh. There is a great deal of discussion about this subject but
25
Shel Rosh prior to Shel Yad26. For example, in his Sefer HaMitzvos, Mitzvas Aseh
12 is to place the Tefillin Shel Rosh and Mitzvas Aseh 13 is to place the Tefillin Shel
Yad.
In his Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Tefillin Perek 2 (Halachah 1), Rambam writes:
‫ושל יד כותבין‬...‫ כותבין ארבע פרשיות על ארבע קלפין‬,‫כיצד כותבין את התפילין של ראש‬
...‫אותן הארבע פרשיות בארבע דפין על קלף אחד‬
How are Tefillin Shel Rosh written? We write four parshos on four [separate]
parchments…and the Tefillin Shel Yad we write all four parshos on four pages of
one piece of parchment…
In Perek 4 (Halachah 1), Rambam writes:
...‫היכן מניחין תפילין של ראש מניחין אותן על הקדקד‬
Where does one place the Tefillin Shel Rosh-they are placed on the top of
the head…
Only in the next Halachah does Rambam teach about putting on Tefillin Shel Yad:
...‫ושל יד קושר אותה על שמאלו על הקיבורת‬
The Shel Yad is placed on the upper arm….
With the understanding we have attained we can assign an hashkafic reason for
this order.
it is not within the purview of this article. Rambam lists them as two separate and
distinct Mitzvos as does Sefer HaChinuch.
Another approach is that there is a Mitzvah of Tefillin which has two parts-Shel
Yad and Shel Rosh.
See Shoresh 9 of the Rambam’s introduction to his Sefer HaMitzvos.
There are Halachic implications for this ‘out of order’ order. It may be that
according to Rambam, one does not violate the Mitzvah by donning the Shel Rosh
prior to the Shel Yad. However, the accepted Halachah is not according to that
possible interpretation.
26
We have suggested that the expression of the words of Tefillin in words from a
foreign language comes to emphasize G-d’s control over the entire world.
Language was part of Creation and just as all new entities are offspring of the
original entities that G-d created, so language, the tool with which Creation took
place, ‘gave birth’ to the other languages of the world.
G-d is in control and it is the Tefillin Shel Rosh with its down-hanging straps that
symbolize the mastery of heaven over earth. Certainly that is a sufficient reason
to write Tefillin Shel Rosh prior to writing about Tefillin Shel Yad, even though the
order of donning them is the reverse.
Our inquiry into the language that the Torah uses can also explicate another
puzzling issue.
As noted earlier, the Torah writes about the Mitzvah of Tefillin four times, twice in
Parshas Bo in Sefer Sh’mos and twice in Sefer D’vorim, in our Parshas Voeschanan
and in the following Parshas Eikev.
I would have thought that I would consider the Mitzvah of Tefillin as being
commanded the first time that I see it-in Parshas Bo. I am aware that the fourtime repetition has a purpose27, but when I learn that there are objects called
Tefillin and that the Torah says that I have to wear them-that is the Mitzvah.
However, it is clear from Rambam and the Sefer HaChinuch that the Mitzvah of
donning Tefillin is only derived from our Parshas Voeschanan. Why28?
Let us revisit the explanation that Rashi gives us for the first verse of Shema, an
explanation that should be integrated into its daily recitation.
The Posuk (D’vorim Perek 6/Posuk 4) reads:
27
See Masseches Menochos 44 a and the commentaries there.
It certainly could be that the first time that we learn that Tefillin must be tied to
the body, a concept that is relative to the Tefillin Shel Rosh as well –teaching us
that its straps must adhere tightly to the head is in our Parsha. Until now, in
Parshas Bo, the word u’k’shartom was not used.
28
‫ל'קינו ה' אחד‬...‫שמע ישראל ה' א‬
Hear Israel, Hashem is our G-d Hashem is One.
Since we know that the Torah does not waste words, we might wonder why the
Torah did not ‘streamline’ Shema and write:‫ל'קנו אחד‬...‫ ?שמע ישראל ה' א‬Hear
Israel Hashem our G-d is One. Why is it necessary to write Shem Hashem a
second time in this verse?
This is what Rashi teaches us:
‫ הוא עתיד‬,‫ל'קי האומות‬...‫ל'קינו עתה ולא א‬...‫ ה' שהוא א‬- ‫ל'קינו ה' אחד‬...‫ה' א‬
‫) כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרוא‬29‫ט‬/‫ שנאמר (צפניה ג‬,‫להיות ה' אחד‬
:‫) ביום ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד‬30‫ט‬/‫כולם בשם ה' ונאמר (זכריה יד‬
Hashem our G-d Hashem is One-Hashem Who is our G-d now, but not the
G-d of the nations31, He in the future will be One G-d32 as it says, ‘They I
Hashem will turn over the nations to a clear language to proclaim all of
them in the Name of Hashem. And it says, ‘On that day Hashem will be
One and His Name will be One.
Rashi teaches us that one of the aspects of Shema’ is universalism. Hashem is the
One G-d and eventually all will acknowledge that. Not only is He the One G-d but
29
The entire verse reads:
:‫כי אז אהפך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרא כלם בשם ה' לעבדו שכם אחד‬
Because then I Hashem will turn the nations to a clear language for all of
them to proclaim in the Name of Hashem to serve Him altogether.
30
The entire verse reads:
:‫והיה ה' למלך על כל הארץ ביום ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד‬
Hashem will be the King over the entire land; on that day Hashem will be
One and His Name One.
The nations of the world are idolaters and they do not consider Hashem as their
G-d.
31
That is, according to the perception of the nations there is not One G-d; there are
multiple G-d. When the nations of the world will recognize G-d’s majesty, they will
cast aside their false beliefs and they, too, will acknowledge that there is One G-d
only.
32
all of the nations of the world will acknowledge that fact with a ‫שפה ברורה‬, a
clear language.
Radak writes on the verse in Tzepaniah:
‫ פירוש העמים שישארו אחר מלחמת גוג‬- ‫כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה‬
‫שפתם הראשונה אהפוך אותה עליהם בשפה ברורה שלא יוציאו בשפתם אלהים‬
‫אחרים אלא כולם יקראו בשם ה' זהו שפה ברורה כמו שאמר בנבואת זכריה ביום‬
‫ והחכם רבי אברהם אבן עזרא ז"ל פירש יתהפכו‬,‫ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד‬
:‫לעבוד ה' לבדו בשפה ברורה היא לשון הקדש שבה לבדה נקרא השם הנכבד‬
Because then I Hashem will turn the nations to a clear language-The
explanation is that the nations that will remain after Milchems Gog, I
Hashem will change their first language to a clear language-they will not
mention other gods but all will proclaim in the Name of Hashem. That [is
the meaning of] clear language like it says in the prophecy of Zecharia-‘On
that day, Hashem will be One and His Name One.
The Chacham Rabi Avraham Ibn Ezra explained that they will be changed to
worship G-d alone with a ‘clear language’-that is in L’shon HaKodesh that
with it alone we will proclaim the Honorable Name.
This commentary of Ibn Ezra is found in the preceding Posuk 8.
The verse reads:
‫לכן חכו לי נאם ה' ליום קומי לעד כי משפטי לאסף גוים לקבצי ממלכות‬
:‫לשפך עליהם זעמי כל חרון אפי כי באש קנאתי תאכל כל הארץ‬
Therefore wait for Me, says Hashem, for the day of My arising
forever because it is my judgment to gather the nations, to gather
the kingdoms to pour over them My wrath, all of My anger,
because with the fire of My zeal it will consume the entire land33.
Ibn Ezra writes:
33
This is the basis for Radak’s comment ‘after Milchemes Gog’.
‫ משפט הוא שאעשה כן וטעם קנאתי בעבור שיעבדו אלהים אחרים כדרך‬- ‫משפטי‬
‫) קל קנא כי זה לעתיד ועל דעת רבי משה על בית שני יתהפכו לעבוד‬34‫ה‬/‫(שמות כ‬
:‫השם לבדו בשפה ברורה הוא לשון הקודש שבה לבדה נקרא השם הנכבד‬
My judgment-My judgment is that so will I Hashem do. The reason for the
‘zeal’-is because they will worship other gods in the matter that [the Torah
writes that Hashem is] a G-d of Zeal. According to Rabi Moshe regarding
the second Beis HaMikdosh35 they will turn to worship Hashem alone with a
‘clear language’ which is L’shon HaKodesh that with it alone we will
proclaim the Honored Name.
The trek towards other languages came from a status of (B’reishis Perek 11/Posuk
1):
:‫ויהי כל הארץ שפה אחת ודברים אחדים‬
And the entire land was one language and few words.
Ibn Ezra writes there:
.‫ והקרוב אלי שהיה לשון הקדש‬.‫ לשון אחת‬,‫וטעם שפה אחת‬
The explanation of ‘one safa’ is one language. And it appears to me that it
was L’shon HaKodesh.
There will be a time, Shema’ teaches us, when the universality of G-d will be
known to all. All of mankind will return to G-d Who made them. All of their
speech will be restored to the original speech which was the vehicle of Creation.
The entire verse reads:
‫ל'קיך קל קנא פקד עון אבת על בנים על שלשים‬...‫לא תשתחוה להם ולא תעבדם כי אנכי ה' א‬
:‫ועל רבעים לשנאי‬
Do not prostrate to them [the false gods] and do not serve them because I
Hashem your G-d am a G-d of zeal Who visits the sin of fathers on sons for
the third and for the fourth [generations] for those who hate Me.
34
I do not know the meaning of this reference to the second Beis HaMikdosh which
was destroyed about a millennia before the time of Ibn Ezra.
35
This is why36 the Mitzvah of Tefillin is derived from Parshas She’ma.
The Mitzvah that proclaims G-d’s majesty over all as it streams down from heaven
and goes from one end of the earth to the other, the Mitzvah of Tefillin, will
rightly be an eternal reminder of how the world split itself from the One G-d
Whose Majesty is all-encompassing and Who will unite all of mankind in His
service.
Such is the message of Parshas Voeschanan. Not only does its Haftarah begin the
series of consolation following the dark days of Menachem Av. The Parsha itself,
with its Mitzvah of Tefillin, provides us with a glimpse that we pray to see speedily
in our days.
Shabbat Shalom
Rabbi Pollock
We are careful not to attribute our conclusion to the Ibn Ezra even though the
last part of this essay draws heavily from his commentary.
36
The reason that we are unable to make this attribution is that Ibn Ezra does not
view the word totafos as being derived from foreign words.
On our Parsha, Ibn Ezra writes:
.‫ אין למלה הזאת ריע במקרא‬- ‫לטוטפות‬
For totafos-This word has no cognate in the Tanach.
In Parshas Bo (Hapeirush HaOruch - Sh’mos Perek 13/Posuk 16) he writes:
.‫ כמו זכרון‬- ‫ולטוטפת‬
For totafos-it means something like ‘memory’.
It appears that this explanation is derived from the earlier verse (Posuk 9) on
Tefillin Shel Rosh that writes ‫ולזכרון בין עיניך‬-for a remembrance between your eyes.
Thus, Ibn Ezra derives this unknown word totafos from a parallel usage.