Aspects Of Tefillin

Some ideas I said pinch hitting for a Chumash shiur. 

Where tefillin worn in the Midbar?  The first two parshios of tefillin were given in this week's parsha so presumably tefillin were worn but what about the missing two parshios which where only given later?  Some are of the opinion that although the parshios are given here, tefillin was not actually worn in the Midbar.  Others say that they worn tefillin with two parshios.  The question is according to that approach, did the head tefillin have all 4 compartments and two were left empty, or where there only two compartments? 

Rashi in Bo (13:16) says וְעַל שֵׁם שֶׁהֵם אַרְבָעָה בָתִּים קְרוּיִין טטפת – "טט" בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, "פת" בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם.  However, Rashi in Vaeshachan (6:8) says  וְהָיוּ לְטֹֽטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶֽיךָ.  אֵלּוּ תְּפִלִּין שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, וְעַל שֵׁם מִנְיַן פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֵיהֶם נִקְרְאוּ טֹטָפוֹת.  In Bo he identifies טטפות as 4 to correspond to the 4 compartments but in Vaeschanan he says it corresponds to the 4 parshios.  Why the change?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 9) explains in our parsha it says וְהָיָ֤ה לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יָ֣דְכָ֔ה וּלְטֽוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֑יךָ, in the singular tense.  What is it that should be טוטפות?  The single aspect of leaving Egypt and that is only expressed in the two parshios of Bo, not in the additional parshios of Shema and Veha im shemoa and therefore the 4 must be referring to the amount of compartments in the tefillin which enhances the fulfillment of remembering leaving Egypt.  In Vaeschanan, the possuk says וְהָי֥וּ לְטֹֽטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ, in the plural, referring to all of the parshios.

 

We find the same change in Rashi's explanation about the two prohibitions of adding to a mitzvah, in Vaeschanan (4:2) he says לֹא תֹסִפוּ.  כְּגוֹן חָמֵשׁ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת בַּתְּפִלִּין but in Reah (13:1) he says לֹֽא־תֹסֵף עָלָיו.  חֲמִשָּׁה טֹטָפוֹת, because the first issur is to add a non mitzvah item to the mitzvah and that is a fifth parsha but the second issur adds adding to the item of the mitzvah and that is a  fifth compartment. Nonetheless, we see from Rashi that the teffilin of the Midbar had 4 compartments, but 2 would remain empty. 

 

The Rashba Minachot says that even though two of the parshiot are only recorded later on in the Torah as part of the Torah, they were given as part of tefillin earlier.  What we see from here, says Rav Gedalia Schorr, is that the parshios of tefillin are not Torah parshios placed in tefillin but there is a unique din of parshios tefillin not as words of Torah.  As pointed add out in the past on the blog, this is an idea also advanced in the Amek Beracha in the name of the Rav but contradicts the Rav in Vaeschanan, Hilchot Megillah and Tefillin where he assumes that the parshios of the tefillin are a cut and paste of the parshios of the Torah with all the laws of the writing of parshios of the Torah and not a new din of parshios of tefillin. 

Why do the parshios of tefillin include the law of kedushas bechor of an animal.  What does that have to do with tefillin?  Klal Yisrael is called by Hashem (Shemos 4:22) בני בכורי ישראל.  What does this mean that we are the bechor of Hashem?  The Pachad Yitzchak Pesach maamer 81 develops the idea that a bechor is a mirror of the father.  The word for father is אב, the 1, the father leading to his "double," the בכר, the letters of doubling, ב is 2, כ is 20 and ר is 200, the doubling of all the units.  The word בכר is in reverse רכב, a chariot,  The idea of the bechor is to return the כבוד back to its source, the father.  By returning, going backward as a רכב as complete bittul to the source, then one is acting as a proper bechor.  This is the bechorness of Klal Yisrael.  We are meant to reflect the kavof of Hashem in the world.  By subjugating ourselves to Hashem, by being the rechev, we act as the bechor.  This is the message of tefillin, to become subjects of Hashem, to assert ourselves as the bechor.  This is the ide of the kedusha of the bechor.  That which is a reflection of the source is designated to remind us of our mission to reflect our Source.       

The part I didn't get to. 

Why is there a split between the two parshios of tefillin here and two later on in Sefer Devarim?  The opinion of Rabbenu Tam is that that the order of the parshios of the tefillin goes קדש והיה כי יביאך והיה אם שמוע שמע.  Why does he hold the parshois go out of the order they are written in?  Rav Solevetchik explains (shiurim on Stam,) that Rabbenu Tam holds the first two parshios and last two are divided into two categories.  The first two go right to left from the perspective of one standing opposite the reader for it is a commandment to remember the Exodus which is a message meant to be passed to others.  The thrust of yitzias mitzraim is told over to one's children, it is a message passed on about Hashem's control of the world.  The last two parshios however, go right to left from the perspective of the wearer of the tefillin in which case to the reader opposite והיה אם שמוע appears before שמע but from the wearer's "view" שמע comes first.  That is because the kabbalas ol represented by these two parshois are that of a personal kabbalah.  The first two parshios are the parshois of the nation, of the kedusha of Klal Yisrael in its totality as they collectevly experienced yitzias Mitzraim, the tefillin are speaking outwardly.  The last two parshios are the personal parshois, the one's that speak of the individual's kabbalas ol.  With this idea we can say that the parshios of the tzibbur, the one's of yitzias mitzraim are given in Bo, the time when Klal Yisrael is developing into a nation of Hashem.  The time for individual kabbalas ol is relevant when they are on the brink of entering Eretz Yisrael where there would no longer be one large national encampment of people and instead the individual commitment to Hashem had to be highlighted.