Responsa sobre Êxodo 13:9
וְהָיָה֩ לְךָ֨ לְא֜וֹת עַל־יָדְךָ֗ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן֙ בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֔יךָ לְמַ֗עַן תִּהְיֶ֛ה תּוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֖ה בְּפִ֑יךָ כִּ֚י בְּיָ֣ד חֲזָקָ֔ה הוֹצִֽאֲךָ֥ יְהֹוָ֖ה מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃
e te será <span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Exceptua outros sinais, ou seja, nos dias que são chamados de sinal entre Deus e Israel, não é necessário que usem os tefilin. Aprenda os pormenores deste preceito no Michnê Torá, nos primeiros quatro capítulos de Leis de tefilin, mezuzôt e Sêfer Torá.');" onmouseout="Hide('perush');">por sinal sobre tua mão e por memorial entre teus olhos</span>, para que a lei do SENHOR esteja em tua boca; porquanto com mão forte o SENHOR te tirou do Egito.
Noda BiYhudah I
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 “.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Noda BiYhudah I
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Noda BiYhudah I
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Noda BiYhudah I
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’).’
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Noda BiYhudah I
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Noda BiYhudah I
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
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Noda BiYhudah I
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”.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy