Parshas Va'eschanan
1. On the verse "וקשרתם לאות על ידך והיו לטוטפות בין עיניך" ("You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as totafos between your eyes")1, Rashi explains: "'You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand' — these are the tefillin on the arm; 'and they shall be as totafos between your eyes' — these are the tefillin on the head."
Studying this at first glance, it might seem that Rashi here simply intends to explain that "as a sign… as totafos…" refers to tefillin. One cannot, however, learn it this way, for several reasons:
a) If so, Rashi would not have needed to copy from the verse (also) the words "you shall bind them" and "they shall be."
b) One verse earlier2 it says "ודברת בם גו' ובשכבך ובקומך" ("And you shall speak of them… when you lie down and when you rise up"). There Rashi explains only that "when you lie down and when you rise up" means "the time of lying down and the time of rising"; but that this refers to the recital of Shema, Rashi does not say. For this is a simple matter which Rashi need not explain; even a student — "a five-year-old (for Scripture)"3 — when he learns that a certain thing must be said "at the time of lying down and the time of rising," understands that this speaks of the Shema, since he does know that when going to sleep and when getting up he recites the Shema.
If so, why does Rashi need to explain that "you shall bind them…" refers to tefillin? This too is very simple, and the student knows4 that tefillin are put "on your hand" and "between your eyes"5.
c) Even if we say that since the "five-year-old" does not yet put on tefillin but does already recite the Shema*5, there is room to say that for "when you lie down and when you rise up" Rashi need not explain that it means the Shema, whereas for "you shall bind them…" Rashi does need to explain that it means tefillin6 —
we see, however, that the command of tefillin itself already appears earlier (in Parshas Bo), and twice: "והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך" ("It shall be for you as a sign upon your hand and as a remembrance between your eyes")7, and "והיה לאות על ידכה ולטוטפות בין עיניך" ("It shall be as a sign upon your hand and as totafos between your eyes")8.
d) If Rashi intended to explain that it means tefillin, it would have been enough for him to write briefly: "'You shall bind them… and they shall be' — these are tefillin"9?
From all the above it stands to reason that Rashi here intends to emphasize (not "these are tefillin," but) that "you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand" is the tefillin on the arm and "they shall be as totafos between your eyes" is the tefillin on the head. This, however, is not understood: what is the novelty in "upon your hand" being "the tefillin on the arm" and "between your eyes" being "the tefillin on the head"10?
2. After Rashi explains "'and they shall be as totafos between your eyes' — these are the tefillin on the head," he continues (in the same comment): "ועל שם מנין פרשיותיהם נקראו טטפת, טט בכתפי שתים פת באפריקי שתים" ("And because of the number of their parshiyos they are called totafos: tat in Katfi means two, pas in Afriki means two").
This too is not understood:
Rashi already wrote the meaning of "totafos" earlier, in Parshas Bo11, and there he gives two interpretations of the word: one interpretation, "and because they are four compartments they are called totafos: tat in Katfi means two, pas in Afriki means two"; and a second interpretation, that "totafos" is "an expression of speech," because whoever sees the tefillin "will remember the miracle and speak of it"12.
So either way: if Rashi is concerned that between Parshas Bo and Parshas Va'eschanan the student has already forgotten what he learned, Rashi should have written here the second interpretation as well; and if Rashi assumes that the student remembers what he learned in Parshas Bo (although in between he learned three books of the Chumash), then Rashi should not have needed to write the first interpretation either (especially since he repeats the first interpretation at full length: he is not content with writing that "totafos" is "because of the number of their parshiyos"13, but he also explains how the number is alluded to in the word "totafos" — "tat in Katfi means two, pas in Afriki means two" — while the second interpretation he does not mention at all)?
Even if we say that, as is usual in Rashi's commentary on the Torah, when he brings a matter for the second time he writes it more briefly than the first time, and so here too he writes only the first interpretation —
in our verse, however, Rashi (not only abridges but also) changes his interpretation relative to Parshas Bo: (a) there he says "four," and here he says "number"; (b) a bigger change: there he says "because they are four compartments," and here — "the number of their parshiyos"?
3. The difficulty in Rashi saying here "the number of their parshiyos" arises (not only from his changing his interpretation in Parshas Bo, where he says "four compartments," but) also from our verse itself:
Since "totafos" is stated only regarding "between your eyes" and not regarding "upon your hand," it would seemingly follow that the number four alluded to in "totafos" is found only in the head tefillin, not in the hand tefillin14. Consequently one would have to learn that the name "totafos" alludes to the four compartments, which — four compartments — are found only in the head tefillin, since the arm tefillin are a single compartment15. Why then does Rashi learn that the name "totafos" (which the verse states only regarding the head tefillin) is because of the four parshiyos — when the hand tefillin also contain four parshiyos16?
4. The explanation is as follows:
In Parshas Bo17 it says "והיה לאות על ידכה ולטוטפות בין עיניך" — "vehayah" ("it shall be"), in the singular. That is, the thing that is to be "a sign" and "totafos" is one matter — and as Rashi explains there (in an earlier passage17), "vehayah" refers to (the matter of) the Exodus from Egypt18, which was spoken of earlier in that parsha. In our parsha, however, it says "וקשרתם (לאות) גו' והיו (לטוטפות גו')" ("You shall bind them (as a sign)… and they shall be (as totafos…)"), in the plural — one must bind them "as a sign (upon your hand)" and they must be "as totafos (between your eyes)" — and this refers to "הדברים האלה" ("these words"), the parshiyos19 in which the mitzvah of tefillin is stated20, and these parshiyos are plural.
Therefore in Parshas Bo Rashi explains the name "totafos" as referring to the compartments, and in our parsha — to the parshiyos:
The Exodus from Egypt is stated in the parshiyos "Kadesh" and "Vehayah ki yeviacha." But in the parshiyos "Shema" and "Vehayah im shamoa" the Exodus is not mentioned at all*20. Consequently one cannot say that "vehayah… as totafos" (of Parshas Bo) means the four parshiyos — for with respect to the parshiyos "Shema" and "Vehayah im shamoa" it does not fit to say "vehayah" (singular), which refers to the Exodus from Egypt.
[In addition: if one were to say that "totafos" in Parshas Bo is named for the four parshiyos, it would follow that until the fortieth year — only then did Moshe say the parshiyos Shema and Vehayah im shamoa — the entire matter of tefillin was not applicable21; contrary to what seemingly emerges from the plain meaning of the verses in Parshas Bo21*, that the command "It shall be as a sign upon your hand and as totafos between your eyes" was to be fulfilled immediately22.]
Therefore Rashi learns in Parshas Bo that the name "totafos" is "because they are four compartments." That is — according to this commentary of Rashi there is a novelty: in two compartments lay the two parshiyos "Kadesh" and "Vehayah ki yeviacha," and two compartments*22 were without parshiyos23.
And the reason for "vehayah… as totafos" — that the remembrance of the Exodus (in the head tefillin) must be through four compartments — is that the multiplicity of compartments (even without parshiyos) increases the remembrance24.
In our parsha, however, where "vehayu (plural) as totafos" refers to "these words," one cannot say that "totafos" is named for the four compartments (although by this it would be understood why the name "totafos" is stated specifically regarding the head tefillin). For since "vehayu" refers to "these words" — the words, the parshiyos in which the mitzvah of tefillin is discussed — one must say that "totafos" too (that which is to be made of the parshiyos) is named for the number of the parshiyos.
5. Another change in our parsha relative to the wording of the verse in Parshas Bo:
In Parshas Bo it says "It shall be as a sign upon your hand and as totafos between your eyes" — the same "vehayah" relates both to "a sign upon your hand" and to "totafos between your eyes." That is, the "sign upon your hand" and the "totafos between your eyes" are one (being and) entity. Whereas in our parsha, where only at the words "as totafos between your eyes" does the verse add the word "vehayu"
[although the term "binding" at the beginning of the verse also fits the head tefillin25; all the more so, had "vehayu" been written at the beginning of the verse, it would have fit both tefillin],
it is evident that here there are two matters26: the binding of "these words" "as a sign upon your hand," and their becoming "totafos between your eyes," are two entities.
Therefore in Parshas Bo Rashi explains "'and as totafos between your eyes' — tefillin" (not "the tefillin on the head"), because "totafos between your eyes" is the same entity ("vehayah") as "a sign upon your hand";
whereas in our parsha Rashi emphasizes that these are two matters: "'You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand' — these are the tefillin on the arm," and "'they shall be as totafos between your eyes' — these are the tefillin on the head."
6. But this raises a difficulty: why does the verse in our parsha divide the "tefillin on the arm" and the "tefillin on the head" into two matters — unlike Parshas Bo? And seemingly, on the contrary: since the name "totafos" in our parsha is because of the number of parshiyos, they should not be separated from the tefillin on the arm, since in the number of parshiyos the head tefillin and the arm tefillin are equal.
Therefore Rashi is precise in saying "And because of the number of their parshiyos they are called totafos": the novelty of the head tefillin relative to the hand tefillin consists in the number of parshiyos:
With the hand tefillin, all that matters is that they contain the parshiyos of the Torah in which the mitzvah of tefillin is stated; the number four, however, does not matter (and the proof: throughout the forty years before the parshiyos "Shema" and "Vehayah im shamoa" were said, they contained only two parshiyos in their single compartment);
whereas with the head tefillin the number four matters27 (which is why the head tefillin had to have four compartments even when there were only two parshiyos of tefillin28; and afterwards it was further added — previously the number four was only in the compartments, and later the number became a precise requirement in the parshiyos as well).
7. Another reason why in our parsha Rashi learns that "totafos" is "because of the number of their parshiyos," and not because of the number of compartments:
From the fact that the Torah alludes to the number four (in the head tefillin) in the word "totafos," which is composed of two words, "tat" and "pas," it is evident that the four items in the head tefillin divide into two categories.
In Parshas Bo, where two compartments had parshiyos and two compartments were without parshiyos, it is understood how the four compartments divide into two categories. But after the parshiyos Shema and Vehayah im shamoa were also said, and all four compartments have parshiyos — why do they still divide into two categories*28?
Therefore Rashi learns (in addition to what was explained above, section 4) that the name "totafos" here is "because of the number of their parshiyos," and the parshiyos divide into two categories: a) "Kadesh" and "Vehayah ki yeviacha" were said before the Giving of the Torah, and "Shema" and "Vehayah im shamoa" after the Giving of the Torah29; b) the first category also includes the matter of the Exodus from Egypt, whereas the second does not.
And that is why Rashi adds here too "tat in Katfi means two, pas in Afriki means two" — although he already said it in Parshas Bo — in order to emphasize that in our parsha too the four matters (parshiyos) divide into two categories.
8. From the "ענינים מופלאים" ("wondrous matters")30 in Rashi's comment here:
It was already discussed at length on another occasion that in the special quality of the mitzvah of tefillin, regarding its effect on the nations of the world, there are two matters:
a) "וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה׳ נקרא עליך ויראו ממך — אלו תפלין שבראש" ("'All the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of G‑d is called upon you, and they shall fear you' — this refers to the head tefillin")31: through the "peoples of the earth" seeing the Name Havayah (which is above nature32) that is present with the Jews through their wearing the head tefillin, they come to fear the Jews, and consequently it does not arise at all that they would wage war against the Jews.
b) "Because of the fulfillment of the mitzvah of tefillin (which are put on the hand and on the head) and their proper making, there will be fulfilled for the men of war 'וטרף זרוע אף קדקוד' ('he tears the arm, even the crown of the head')"33. That is, when for whatever reason the nations do wage war against the Jews, through the mitzvah of tefillin there comes about "he tears the arm, even the crown of the head."
9. The practical difference between the two matters is:
Regarding "he tears the arm, even the crown of the head," the hand tefillin and the head tefillin have separate effects — measure for measure: tearing off the crown of the head through the head tefillin, and "he tears the arm" through the hand tefillin; that is, here the hand tefillin are a matter in their own right. Whereas regarding "they shall fear you," in the words of our Sages, "this refers to the head tefillin"; the hand tefillin only add "strength" to the head tefillin34, as the Mechilta35 says: "When he puts them on, he puts on the hand tefillin and afterwards the head tefillin; and when he removes them, he removes the head tefillin and afterwards the hand tefillin."
And this is alluded to in the fact that in Parshas Bo the hand tefillin and the head tefillin come as one matter, and in Mishneh Torah (in our parsha) as two matters:
When the Jews went out of Egypt, Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to lead them to Eretz Yisrael, and then (since "פני משה כפני חמה" ("the face of Moshe was like the face of the sun")36) the entry into the land would have been in a manner "above nature"37, and the seven nations would not have dared to wage war with the Jews38, as it says39: "שמעו עמים ירגזון..." ("Nations heard, they trembled; pangs seized the inhabitants of Philistia. Then the chiefs of Edom were terrified; trembling seized the mighty of Moav; all the inhabitants of Canaan melted away. Terror and dread fell upon them…").
Therefore in Parshas Bo the hand tefillin come together with the head tefillin, for in the matter of "they shall fear you" the hand tefillin are not a matter in their own right, as above.
In Mishneh Torah, however, when it was already known*39 that the entry into the land would be through Yehoshua (and "פני יהושע כפני לבנה" ("the face of Yehoshua was like the face of the moon")36) and that it would be necessary to come to wars — to "he tears the arm, even the crown of the head" — then the hand tefillin are a matter in their own right, for they bring about "he tears the arm."
10. And this is also the reason why immediately after the Exodus there were only two parshiyos, in which the matter of the Exodus is discussed, and afterwards it was necessary to come also to the parshiyos Shema and Vehayah im shamoa, in which the matter of self-sacrifice is discussed:
The entry through Moshe Rabbeinu would have been a direct continuation of the Exodus: the report among the nations about the Splitting of the Sea (the completion of the Exodus40) brought about that "all the inhabitants of Canaan melted away."
Whereas with the entry through Yehoshua, when it was necessary to come to "he tears the arm, even the crown of the head," the matter of self-sacrifice is also relevant — which encompasses all of a person's powers, from his loftiest power, the power of intellect (in the head), down to the lowest power, the power of action (in the arm41); and specifically through self-sacrifice one has the power to bring about "he tears the arm, even the crown of the head"42.
11. It is stated in Chassidus43 that through the entry into Eretz Yisrael by Yehoshua a superior quality was achieved compared to how the entry would have been through Moshe. And although "the face of Moshe was like the face of the sun and the face of Yehoshua like the face of the moon," this itself is a reason why the entry into the land had to be through Yehoshua. For the principal elevation is not in "the face of the sun," which indicates44 a drawing down from Above to below, but in "the face of the moon," which indicates an ascent from below to Above. And as has been discussed many times45, the true intent of "a dwelling in the lower realms" is completed specifically through ascent from below to Above, where the refinement of the "lower realms" comes about (not through a revelation of light from Above, but) through themselves — the "below" itself is elevated until it becomes a dwelling for Him, may He be blessed.
From this it is understood that in "he tears the arm, even the crown of the head" too (to which it was necessary to come because the entry into Eretz Yisrael was through Yehoshua) there is a superior quality over "they shall fear you" (which would have been with the entry through Moshe) — in keeping with the superiority of ascent from below to Above over a drawing down from Above to below.
The explanation is as follows:
A revelation of light from Above effects in kelipah nullification and iskafya (subjugation)46. That is, as long as the light shines, the opposing force stands in a state of "they shall fear you": it does not dare to oppose and wage war with holiness, but the evil is not transformed [similar to what (happened) at the Exodus from Egypt47 — which came about through a revelation of light from Above — that the evil remained in its strength48];
it is different with service from the side of the "below," through which the evil becomes entirely nullified — "he tears the arm, even the crown of the head" [as at the Giving of the Torah — which came after the service of Counting the Omer*48, a service from the side of the "below" — "their impurity ceased"49].
12. It can perhaps be said that this is also the inner reason why specifically in Mishneh Torah*49 it was newly revealed that the hand tefillin are a mitzvah in their own right:
From the standpoint of revelations, the head tefillin are higher than the hand tefillin, and therefore their sanctity is more stringent50. And as is known51, the head tefillin are the level of yichuda ila'ah (the higher unity) and the hand tefillin are the level of yichuda tata'ah (the lower unity). Nevertheless, because "נעוץ תחלתן בסופן" ("their beginning is wedged in their end")52, the root of the hand tefillin is higher than that of the head tefillin53 (similar to the superiority of "the face of the moon," the level of Malchus, over "the face of the sun," because of "their beginning is wedged in their end, etc."54).
And this is the connection of the hand tefillin — as a principal matter — with "the face of Yehoshua like the face of the moon": externally, it is because had the entry into Eretz Yisrael been through "the face of Moshe like the face of the sun," there would not have been a need to come (so much) to (the hand tefillin,) the lower unity; and in the inner dimension of matters, it is because of the superiority of the lower unity over the higher unity, in that the principal work of refinement is accomplished specifically through the service of the lower unity55. This parallels the superiority of "he tears the arm, even the crown of the head" over "they shall fear you"56.
13. In Torah all matters are utterly precise. It follows that the second difference in tefillin too — that specifically in Mishneh Torah the parshiyos "Shema" and "Vehayah im shamoa" were added — is connected with the above57. For the parshiyos Kadesh and Vehayah ki yeviacha are connected with the mode of service of "the face of Moshe like the face of the sun," and the parshiyos Shema and Vehayah im shamoa with the mode of service of "the face of Yehoshua like the face of the moon."
This will be understood by first introducing that the parshiyos "Kadesh" and "Vehayah ki yeviacha" are mochin (the intellect) — Chochmah and Binah — and "Shema" with "Vehayah im shamoa" are (Daas, which divides into) Chesed and Gevurah — middos (the emotions)58.
And this is also the inner reason why the four parshiyos divide into two categories — "tat in Katfi" and "pas in Afriki": the middos derive from the two shoulders of Arich, which are alluded to in "Katfi," and the mochin derive from the two arm-joints of Arich, which are alluded to in "Afriki"59.
Accordingly the question arises: if in the tefillin of the Jews in the desert two compartments were without parshiyos, and those two compartments were there only to increase the remembrance of the Exodus stated in the parshiyos "Kadesh" and "Vehayah ki yeviacha," it follows that all four compartments are the matter of mochin. Why then does Parshas Bo also use the term "totafos" — tat in Katfi and pas in Afriki — which indicates both things, mochin and middos?
The explanation is: in Parshas Bo too the four compartments were divided into the two categories of mochin and middos; only there the middos are of the kind that come from the mochin automatically, and no special service is needed for them60. Therefore the two compartments alluded to in "tat in Katfi" (middos) are also connected with "Kadesh" and "Vehayah ki yeviacha" — mochin.
And this is the reason why the two parshiyos Shema and Vehayah im shamoa were introduced only in Mishneh Torah: had the entry into Eretz Yisrael been through Moshe, all the Jews would then have had sight of G‑dliness61. And when the service is on the level of sight, there need not be any special effort to arouse the middos, for through sight a person becomes completely attached to the thing seen62. Whereas when the entry into Eretz Yisrael is through Yehoshua, on account of which "ועתה ישראל שמע גו'" ("And now, Israel, hear…")63 — the service is only on the level of hearing — a special service is then needed to arouse the middos64.
14. Although the middos, when they come from the mochin automatically, are much higher than the middos that come through special effort, nevertheless with regard to the refinement of the animal soul there is a superiority in the middos that come through effort. For the animal soul is essentially middos65, and therefore66 the middos that are connected with the mochin do not affect it as much as actual middos affect it.
Accordingly it is understood that the superiority of "he tears the arm, even the crown of the head" over "they shall fear you" — which was achieved through the entry into Eretz Yisrael by Yehoshua — is connected (not only with the fact that in Mishneh Torah the hand tefillin were newly established as a mitzvah in their own right, as above at the end of section 11, but also) with the fact that in Mishneh Torah the parshiyos Shema and Vehayah im shamoa were added:
The service from the side of the mochin — "Kadesh" and "Vehayah ki yeviacha" — effects in the animal soul a temporary nullification but not is'hapcha (transformation) — "they shall fear you"; and the service from the side of the middos — "Shema" and "Vehayah im shamoa" — effects transformation: "he tears the arm, even the crown of the head." [OCR unclear]
(From the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Va'eschanan, 5729)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 6:8.
2) Ibid., verse 7.
3) And he has also already learned the mitzvah of reciting the Shema — in Rashi on Balak 23:24.
4) He has also already learned the mitzvah of tefillin — in Parshas Bo (as below in the text), in Rashi on Balak there, and in Rashi on our parsha, 6:2.
5) On the contrary: regarding "when you lie down and when you rise up," since at the beginning of the verse it says "and you shall speak of them," which refers to words of Torah in general (and not only to the parshiyos of the Shema), one is more likely to err and think that "when you lie down and when you rise up" does not refer to the Shema.
*5) Well known is the wording of the directive of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, that from the day of the "three years" haircut "it is customary to be careful to train the child in… the morning blessings… and the bedtime Shema" (Hayom Yom, 4 Iyar).
6) But this is very forced to say, for since he sees how others put tefillin on the arm and on the head, when he learns "you shall bind them… upon your hand… between your eyes…" he knows that the intent is tefillin, as stated in the text.
7) 13:9; 16.
8) Although with some strain it can be said that since this is many parshiyos before our parsha, he explains it again (just as he repeats and explains the word "totafos," which he already explained in Parshas Bo, 13:16; but see below, end of section 2).
9) And the conclusion of his comment, that "totafos" is because of the number of their parshiyos, etc., he would write as a separate comment.
10) Even if we say that regarding "between your eyes" there is a novelty — that one should not place them literally between his eyes (and although Rashi already explained in Parshas Bo (13:9) "and bind them on the head," we could answer that Rashi is concerned the student does not remember, as above, note 8) — then (in addition to the question why he needed to explain "'You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand' — these are the tefillin on the arm," and likewise regarding the head tefillin) Rashi should have written briefly: "'between your eyes' — on the head"?
11) 13:16.
12) The reason why Rashi (there) needs two interpretations can be explained as follows: in Parshas Kadesh it says "and as a remembrance between your eyes," and since afterwards the verse changes and says "and as totafos," it is evident that it introduces something not stated before. Therefore Rashi explains in the first (principal) interpretation that the verse introduces here that the head tefillin must have four compartments, as below, section 4. Nevertheless, since the change in the verse's wording, "It shall be as a sign upon your hand and as totafos between your eyes," implies that the intent of "as totafos" in the head tefillin parallels that of "as a sign" in the hand tefillin, and not that "totafos" means tefillin, he therefore brings a second interpretation, that "totafos" is "an expression of speech, like 'as a remembrance between your eyes'" (in addition to the fact that according to the second interpretation "totafos" is a word in the Holy Tongue itself, and there is no need for the explanation of "tat in Katfi… in Afriki…," which is not at all smooth* according to the plain meaning). And see below, note 23.
*) Nevertheless — at least according to the second interpretation — "in Katfi," "in Afriki" is also according to the plain meaning of Scripture (which is in the Holy Tongue); this was explained at the farbrengen.
13) As in many places, where the second time Rashi explains briefly.
14) As according to the second interpretation of "and as totafos between your eyes" in Parshas Bo, "that whoever sees them… will remember the miracle and speak of it" (Rashi, Bo 13:16), which applies only to the head tefillin, which are exposed.
15) See Mechilta, Bo 13:9; Sifri on our parsha here; and see also Menachos 34b. And the student sees this in practice.
16) Moreover: since in our parsha Rashi is precise in saying "these are the tefillin on the head" (unlike in Parshas Bo, where in explaining "and as totafos" he writes simply "tefillin"), all the more so should Rashi have explained that they are called totafos because of the number of compartments?
17) 13:9 — where too it says "vehayah," in the singular. ↩
18) And not "the parshiyos," which Rashi mentions immediately: "that you write these parshiyos." Rashi's intent in this is that the manner in which "the Exodus from Egypt shall be for you as a sign, etc." is through "writing these parshiyos and binding them, etc." Accordingly it is understood why Rashi adds "that is to say": first he writes the explanation of the verse, "the Exodus from Egypt shall be for you as a sign upon your hand and as a remembrance between your eyes," and afterwards he explains his meaning — "that is to say," that this is through "writing these parshiyos and binding them on the head and on the arm."
19) But not to (the matter of) the Exodus, for (in addition to the fact that "you shall bind them… and they shall be" is in the plural) in our parsha, before "you shall bind them…," the matter of the Exodus is not discussed at all.
20) But not to words of Torah in general (as in "and you shall speak of them") — for it is obvious that what must and can be "as a sign… and as totafos" are only the parshiyos in which the matter of tefillin is discussed (just as it is obvious that "and you shall speak… when you lie down and when you rise up" refers only to the parshiyos of the Shema) — including also the parshiyos of tefillin in Parshas Bo.
*20) Accordingly one must say that according to Rashi's commentary on Bo (13:9), that the command "It shall be for you as a sign… and as a remembrance" refers to the Exodus, they were then commanded (according to the plain meaning) to put on two parshiyos, Kadesh and Vehayah ki yeviacha; and when it was said "and these words shall be… you shall bind them… and they shall be," they were commanded regarding four parshiyos. See Responsa Besamim Rosh, Kisa d'Harsena, §24. And we find similarly regarding the mitzvah of Shabbos, which was added to at the Giving of the Torah beyond what was said at Marah (Shabbos 87b); and elsewhere.
21) That is why some say that in the desert they did not put on tefillin — see the sources cited in Torah Shleimah vol. 12, p. 249 [OCR unclear].
21*) See Rashi there (13:11): a) "There are those who say… and whoever says they sanctified [them] (in the desert)…"; b) he says this only regarding the sanctification of the firstborn, but not regarding tefillin. But see Kiddushin (37a, beginning) and Rashi there. Accordingly it can be said the reverse — that specifically regarding the firstborn some say they sanctified them in the desert (since they had been sanctified in Egypt — see Bechoros 4b), unlike tefillin (and unlike in the text) — at least according to the plain meaning (but according to halachah, see Kiddushin there (37a, end of side b): "the 'coming' which the Torah wrote regarding tefillin… perform this mitzvah, on account of which you will enter the land" (for it is very forced to say that the intent is (only) the time of exile after their coming into the land); and see Yalkut Shimoni and Rabboseinu Baalei HaTosafos, Shelach (15:32), that they put on tefillin in the desert).
22) For if we say that only on coming into the land were they obligated to put on tefillin (see the previous note), the plain meaning of the verses in Parshas Bo would differ from the plain meaning of the verses of the Shema in our parsha, where no condition of coming into the land is stated. But it can be said that "Shema…" comes in continuation of the beginning of the chapter: "And this is the commandment… to do in the land…" And see Tanya, end of ch. 25.
*22) Note that in any case (according to halachah) there are two types among the four compartments — those which have a shin and those which do not. And see Menachos (35a, beginning): "inner and outer," etc. And elsewhere.
23) It can be said that for this reason too Rashi brings another interpretation there (in addition to what was explained above, note 12) — for it is somewhat forced to say that there would be a command to make compartments without parshiyos (although these too add to the remembrance, as below in the text; and see the next note).
24) Based on what is said in the text, that compartments without parshiyos also add to the remembrance, one will understand Rashi's statement (Re'eh 13:1), "'You shall not add to it' — five totafos in tefillin," and his change from his wording in our parsha (4:2), "'You shall not add' — for example, five parshiyos in tefillin." From "you shall not add," stated the first time, we learn only that it is forbidden to add something not related to the mitzvah; therefore he explains there "five parshiyos," since a fifth parshah is not related to tefillin (for there are in the Torah only four parshiyos in which the mitzvah of tefillin is stated). Whereas from "you shall not add," which was added a second time, we learn further that it is forbidden to add even something related to the mitzvah*. Therefore he writes "five totafos," that is, five compartments** — for although this would add to the remembrance, nevertheless "you shall not add to it."
*) This is also the reason why in Parshas Re'eh Rashi says "four blessings for the Priestly Blessing" — and not "five tzitzis" as in our parsha — for in the Priestly Blessing too it is forbidden to add a blessing (see at length the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Re'eh 5729; and see there that Rashi's intent in "five species in the lulav" in Parshas Re'eh is in another manner than in our parsha).
**) And if we say that regarding parshiyos too there can be a novelty in the warning "you shall not add," as it stands the second time, through adding a fifth parshah in which the Exodus is discussed — it can be said that this too is included in the precise wording "five totafos" (and not "compartments"), which also includes the meaning "parshiyos" (unlike in the body of the note), since the fifth parshah is related to tefillin, which are called totafos because of the parshiyos. With this, it is all the sweeter that in "you shall not add" of our parsha he writes "five parshiyos," and in "you shall not add to it" of Parshas Re'eh "five totafos": tefillin are called "totafos" both because of the compartments (Rashi, end of Parshas Bo) and because of the parshiyos (Rashi on our parsha, 6:8). Therefore in "you shall not add," which is a warning only against five parshiyos (and not against five compartments — for since the compartments add to the remembrance, a fifth compartment too is related to tefillin, and one cannot learn from here that it too is forbidden, as in the body of the note), Rashi writes "five parshiyos"; whereas in "you shall not add to it," where the novelty of this warning applies both to five compartments (as in the body of the note) and to five parshiyos (when the fifth parshah is about the Exodus), he writes "five totafos."
25) See Rashi, Bo there: "and bind them on the head and on the arm."
26) Note Bereishis 1:14–15: "והיו לאותות גו' והיו למאורות גו'" ("and they shall be for signs… and they shall be for luminaries…"), with "vehayu" twice — for "luminaries" is a matter in themselves, unlike signs and seasons, etc. And see Rashi there: "Furthermore, etc."
27) And according to what the Rogatchover writes (Tzafnas Paneach, Klalei HaTorah VehaMitzvos, principle 83), that the prohibition of bal tosif (adding to a mitzvah) applies specifically where the Torah was particular about the number (and why five species in the lulav is forbidden — he explains there that it is for another reason) — there is a practical halachic difference in Rashi's saying "number": the prohibition of bal tosif in tefillin (according to this commentary of Rashi) would apply only to the head tefillin. But from Rashi (above 4:2; Re'eh 13:1) it is evident that (at least according to the plain meaning) he does not hold this distinction.
28) Nevertheless, in Parshas Bo Rashi did not write "the number of compartments" — because regarding compartments: a) only the matter of number applies; b) there was no change in this — unlike the parshiyos, whose matter is their content and their number, and in which the number changed [and also the content (from the Exodus to "these words"), but this is not alluded to in "totafos"].
*28) The distinction above, note *22, is according to halachah.
29) Even "a five-year-old (for Scripture)" understands that the commands after the Giving of the Torah are of an entirely different nature from those before the Giving of the Torah. See at length the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Va'eschanan 5728.
30) Shelah, in his Maseches Shavuos (181a).
31) Berachos 6a.
32) For it indicates that He was, is and will be — above time — and likewise above the level of space, etc. (Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 7).
33) Hilchos Ketanos of the Rosh, Laws of Tefillin, §15 (according to the version cited in Maadanei Yom Tov there; the difference is in the wording, not in the content of the matter). And see also Rabbeinu Bachaye, end of Parshas Matos: "They were confident… in the merit of the mitzvah in their hands, as our Sages expounded: 'he tears the arm' — in the merit of the hand tefillin; 'even the crown of the head' — in the merit of the head tefillin." And see above, p. 11.
34) See Tzafnas Paneach on Rambam, Laws of Tefillin 4:4: it causes the head tefillin to be placed… on your head… [OCR unclear]; nevertheless the hand tefillin are required because "as long as they are between your eyes…" See there.
35) Bo 13:9. In the Babylonian Talmud (Menachos 36a; and so in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch 28:3) this law is derived from "vehayu" (plural) stated in Mishneh Torah. But according to the plain meaning, the law that "as long as they are between your eyes, there should be two" is not learned from "vehayu." For in addition to the fact that "vehayu," plural, refers to "these words" (as above, section 4) — on the contrary: had it said "you shall bind them as a sign… and as totafos…" (without the word "vehayu"), the hand tefillin and head tefillin would be one mitzvah (see above, section 5), and not merely "there should be two." Therefore it can be said that according to the plain meaning this law is learned from the fact that in Parshas Bo the hand and head tefillin are blended together (although they are two mitzvos, as is evident from "vehayu" stated in Mishneh Torah). And see the Mechilta cited above: "From here they said: when he puts them on, etc." And see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 9, p. 47 ff.
36) Bava Basra 75a; Sifri and Rashi, Pinchas 27:20; and elsewhere. Sun and moon parallel (see Zohar I, 20a) the Name Havayah (which is above nature) and the Name Elokim (numerically equal to "hateva," nature) — see Shaar HaTeshuvah of the Mitteler Rebbe, vol. 2, ch. 5; Or HaTorah on our parsha, end of p. 90 ff., end of p. 93 ff.; and elsewhere. ↩
37) See at length above, end of p. 9 ff.
38) And consequently they would not then have needed "he tears the arm, even the crown of the head." And see above, p. 4, note 24.
39) Beshalach 15:14–16.
*39) As stated at the beginning of our parsha: "Enough for you… and command Yehoshua…"
40) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, pp. 878–879 and note 11.
41) And within this itself — the power of action in the arm, that is, the left hand, which is the weaker one — where even the power of action is in a state of weakness.
42) See also above, pp. 10–11.
43) See Shaar HaTeshuvah there; Or HaTorah on our parsha, p. 67; p. 160 ff.
44) Shaar HaTeshuvah there; Or HaTorah there, p. 65 ff.; p. 97 ff.
45) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 72 ff.; vol. 10, p. 18 ff.; and elsewhere.
46) See the sources cited in note 48; Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 3a; and elsewhere. And see below, note 56.
47) From this aspect too it is understood why in Parshas Bo it says "vehayah" (singular), referring to the Exodus, and in our parsha "vehayu" (plural), referring to "these words which I command you today" — the parshiyos (Shema and Vehayah im shamoa) that came after the Giving of the Torah.
48) Tanya, ch. 31 (40b). And see also Likkutei Torah, Vayikra 3a; and at length, Likkutei Sichos vol. 1, p. 267 ff.; and elsewhere.
*48) There is also an aspect of the Giving of the Torah that is above the service of Counting the Omer; accordingly it is explained in several places how at the Giving of the Torah the effect was in the manner of from Above to below, especially regarding the refinement of the world — "a bird did not chirp, etc." (Shemos Rabbah, end of Parshas Yisro). This requires further study.
49) Shabbos 146a, beginning. And see Zohar III (97b), that this came through the preceding service of "and you shall count for yourselves."
*49) Note that in the Torah itself, the four books and Mishneh Torah parallel Z"A and Malchus (sun and moon) — see Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 15c.
50) Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, beginning of §42.
51) Or HaTorah on our parsha, end of p. 334 ff.; and elsewhere.
52) Sefer Yetzirah 1:7.
53) Or HaTorah there, end of p. 340.
54) Shaar HaTeshuvah there.
55) Kuntres Etz HaChaim, ch. 9; and elsewhere.
56) This is not contradicted by what is explained in Kuntres Etz HaChaim, ch. 7, that regarding the service of the lower unity "there are many hindrances and obstacles" and "one can easily fall from his level, G‑d forbid," and that specifically through the service of the higher unity "all workers of iniquity will be scattered, for all hindrances and obstacles are nullified." For regarding the sparks [OCR unclear]: since the higher unity is above the world, etc., the nullification of the hindrances and obstacles comes from a revelation of light that is above them, etc. — the level of "they shall fear you" — and it is possible that it will be only a temporary nullification, and after the revelation ceases the evil will reawaken. Whereas in the service of the lower unity, since it relates to and acts within the "yesh" (created existence), the sparks are refined and included in holiness, and the evil is torn apart and nullified. This is not so regarding a person whose service is in the lower unity, etc.
57) Not only from the aspect that the parshiyos Kadesh and Vehayah ki yeviacha relate to the Exodus, and the parshiyos Shema and Vehayah im shamoa were said after the Giving of the Torah (as above, note 47), but also from the aspect of their content in itself.
58) Zohar on our parsha, 262a–b. Explained at length in the Siddur, Shaar HaTefillin, at its beginning; in the Tzemach Tzedek's work on the mitzvos [OCR unclear], mitzvah of tefillin; and elsewhere.
59) Or HaTorah on our parsha, end of p. 316, from [OCR unclear] 9:7.
60) See Kuntres HaAvodah, p. 7; the maamar "Lecha Amar Libi," 5670; "Ki Chok," 5710, ch. 13; and elsewhere.
61) Likkutei Torah on our parsha, 2d; and at length, Or HaTorah, the maamar "Va'eschanan."
62) See Biurei HaZohar 103c–d; and elsewhere. And see note 64.
63) Our parsha, 4:1. Likkutei Torah there, 3b.
64) And although on the level of the inner dimension of Binah too the middos come automatically (the maamarim cited in note 60), nevertheless [in addition to the fact that hearing in general is the level of the external dimension of Binah — even from the aspect of the inner dimension of Binah], although it brings about attachment (and not excitement), the attachment is felt as attachment to a separate thing; unlike the attachment that comes from the sight of Chochmah (the maamar "V'Atah Yigdal Na," 5700, ch. 2; and see also the maamar "BaSukkos," 5670, at its beginning; "Yehi Or," 5710, end of ch. 22).
65) The maamar "Uvriach HaTichon," 5672 (Hemshech 5672, vol. 1, ch. 33).
66) Ibid.; Kuntres HaAvodah, end of p. 6; the maamar "Lecha Amar Libi" there; "Ki Chok" there; and elsewhere.
Key Lesson
Had the Jewish people entered the land under Moshe, a revelation from Above would simply have kept the enemy at bay; under Yehoshua they had to fight, and this effort from below achieved more — the opposition was not merely subdued but truly overcome. So too in our service of G‑d: the work of refining our own emotions, symbolized by the hand tefillin and the parshiyos of Shema and Vehayah im shamoa, is what transforms the animal soul and makes the world a true dwelling for G‑d.