To Line Or Not To Line (Tefillin)

The Gemorah in Menachos 32b tells us that there is a הלכה למשה מסיני that mezuzah requires שרטוט.  However, there is no such halacha regarding tefillin.  There is another halacha that the Gemorah in Gittin (7b) tells us  that all pesukkim need to be written with sirtut.  So, it would seem that tefillin would be included in this law.  However, the Gemorah in Menachos indicates that isn’t the case.  Tosfos brings Rabbenu Tam answers that the law of sirtut requires one to make lines only around the four edges of the paper but not on every line.  It is the extra law of mezuzah that makes one do sirtut on every line.  In Tosfos Gittin and Sotah 16b, he says that on tefillin one should not do sirtut because it is something that one is exempt from and by doing it, he is considered a hediot.  It is interesting as to why doing this would make the person a hediot and wouldn’t be hiddur mitzvah.  (The מחבר ורמ"א לב:ו disagree if one should do sirtut on every line of tefillin.  Also note the מחבר follows the view of Rabbenu Tam cited in the Ran Megillah 18b that sirtut isn't on the four edges, its on the top line alone.)  'Tosfos states explicitly that the גדר of this sirtut on every line is hiddur mitzvah.  However, Tosfos in Menachos has a little different version of Rabbenu Tam.  They bring Rabbenu Tam as saying there is no element of hiddur mitzvah since the tefillin are covered and the writing is never seen by anyone. 

The Rambam is of the opinion that sirtut must be done on every single line (Laws of Sefer Torah 7:4.)  According to this view the question of Tosfos comes back, why is there no sirtut in tefillin?  The Rambam himself answers this question (in Laws of Tefillin 1:12,) that tefillin don’t require sirtut because they are covered.  The Kesef Mishne is bothered that mezuzah is also covered?  However, in light of this explanation of the Rambam, the question doesn’t start; there is aהלמ"מ   that mezuzah requires שרטוט! The Rambam is addressing the second din of pessukim.  The Kesef Mishne clearer didn't understand the Rambam this way, rather the Rambam was bothered why tefillin doesn't have the same הלמ"מ as mezuzah.  The Kesef Mishne writes at the end of Ch. 7 of the Laws of Sefer Torah that according to the Rambam sirtut on tefillin is required because of the din of the Gemorah in Gittin, it just doesn't have the  הלמ"מ.  

We see that the Rambam takes the same approach as Tosfos in Menachos.  It is clear accord to these opinions that the yesod of the din is hiddur mitzvah.  We see that they understand hiddur mitzvah isn’t to beautify the object, its to look nice to an outsider. 

Another approach of the Rishonim is that the הלמ"מ of mezuzah comes to exclude tefillin from needing sirtut; the הלמ"מ says only mezuzah requires sirtut not tefillin.

The Ran Megillah (ibid.) says tefillin doesn't require sirtut because it isn't meant to be read and mezuzah wouldn't need sirtut except for the fact that there is a הלמ"מ.  It seems that this סברה assumes the דין of sirtut stems from it having a חלות שם ספר (see Rashi Sotah 17b) and something not meant to be read isn't a ספר.

The Brisker Rav (Laws of Megillah) asks on the Rambam why does the Rambam need the reason that the tefillin are covered, why would one assume there is a law of sirtut, it’s a din said only in regard to sefer torah and mezuzah (which is a question on the approach of the Kesef Mishne)?  He answers that the yesod hadin is a din in kisvei kodesh, that any holy words require sirtut.  However, in light of the Tosfos, the question of the Brisker Rav is mute.  The Rambam is bothered by the same issue as Tosfos, why is there no sirtut because of the din of sirtut on pessukim. 

Its interesting that the Amek Beracha Tefillin #1 cites the Briskor Rav answered the question of Tosfos that tefiilin isn’t a writing of select pessukim, it is a din by itself of parshas tefillin.  What does he mean, the law is that sirtut is required (at least according to Rambam,) when writes pessukim even on paper or the parsha of chalitza, not only if there is a chalos din of sifrei kodesh?  The פירוש מיוחס לרשב"א in Menachos asks how could they receive the mitzvah of tefillin at the end of this week’s parsha, the parshios weren’t given until later?  Rav Gedalye Shorr answers that the parshios of tefillin were given irrespective of the chalos pessukim in the Torah.  The parsha of chalitzah, a passuk on paper is the writing of a passuk, that requires sirtut.  However, when writing tefillin its not writing pessukim of the Torah, its writing tefillin.  However, this Rav contradicts the Rambam and all the Rishonim?  It is also noteworthy that the Briskor Rav cited in the Amek Beracha contradicts the Rav in Hilchos Tefillin.  There, the Rav explains why tefillin must have the parsha pesucha and tagim of the pesukim of the sefer torah as opposed to the mezuzah doesn't?  He says that the parshios of tefillin are a copy and paste from the Torah as opposed to mezuzah which is a chalos kesiva unto itself.  The Rav in Vaeschanan uses this idea to explain why the Torah says in regard to tefillin, וקשרתם as opposed to mezuzah, וכתבתם.  Why the change in language?  Tefillin you take the parshios of the Torah and tie them, mezuzah there is a new chalos kesiva.  This runs in contradiction to his words in the Amek Beracha and is hard to understand seeing as the parshios of tefillin were given before they became part of the Torah.