The Scribe part 11

The divergent opinions as to the correct order of the Tefillin passages, while seemingly a minor detail, did in fact threaten the unity of the Jewish people. One view was clearly right, one clearly wrong, but which one was which? Although custom has settled on one view, it remains an issue.
The Kabbalah takes a different approach on this question. Each view represents a different reality of Divine perception. Both are needed.
There is a Midrash, that G-d originally planned to create the world through "Midat HaDin" (stern judgment). He saw, however, that Man could not endure this, so he put in "Midat HaRachamim" (mercy/compassion) first, only applying judgment once Man had the proper maturity and perception to deal with this. In the future world, however, the "straight story" will prevail. The will of G-d will be manifest. In the tefillin, the basic debate is whether to put the passage of Shma', which deals with the acceptance of "the Yoke of Heaven"; the love of G-d, before "vhayah im Shamo'a" (this is the view of RASHI) which deals with observance of the Torah, and the concepts of reward and punishment, or whether observance and obedience come first, only later struggling with how this connects us with G-d (this is the view of Rabbenu Tam). In other words, RASHI's view symbolizes how G-d actually made the world, while Rabbenu Tam's view symbolizes how G-d originally INTENDED the world to be.The ambiguity in the Talmud regarding the tefillin was no accident; it allowed for each opinion.The two go hand in hand, representing the acknowledgement of Man's shortcomings, as well as what ideally should be. In addition, RASHIs represent ORDER, as it is the sequence of these passages in the Torah. Rabbenu Tam represent making order out of DISORDER. RASHI's view is the childhood experience; being taught information, being trained step by step on how to live. Rabbenu Tam's view is the adult reality. Nothing goes as we plan.We must learn to "roll with the punches". We must not only survive, but thrive through all the challenges. Still another explanation is that the Rashis represent a female experience (Mochin D'Imma), like a mother who is always there to give order and direction to he children's lives. Rabbenu Tam's are the masculine reality (Mochin d'Abba); struggling in the world, taking risks, in order to provide for his family.The family's order depends on how he deals with disorder! Which is better? They are totally interdependent! Now, not all Jews follow the Kabbalah's injunction to wear both. But among those that do, (Mostly Hasidim and certain Sepharadic communities), some wear both already from Bar Mitzvah. Many others wait to start putting on Rabnenu Tam's until after marriage. The Rabbenut Tam's represent a maturity which might be as yet beyond the comprehensions of an adolescent. They represent an ability (just beginning for the newlywed!) to understand that the genders think and react differently, and happiness can only be achieved when both are appreciated and understood. Some put on both tefillin together, others put on RASHI's first, only after praying putting on Rabbenu Tam's, recognizing that the idea of making order from disorder, of penetrating the role of the male struggle, can only come after the relative calm of the acceptance of G-d, having already prayed, and piercing the veil of the male-female dance in our existence

The Scribe part 10

When I lived in Israel, I often got around by hitchhiking (what the Israelis call "tremping"). Once, I got a ride with a man who looked at me and said "Hey, aren't you the tefillin expert? What do you think of the guy with the new kind of tefillin?" I expressed surprise at this, as I was unaware that there was a new kind of tefillin. He said "You know, that guy. I think his name is Rabbenu Tam". I tried hard not to laugh. This "guy" was Rabbi Yaakov Tam (1100-1171); the greatest of all Ashkenazi Talmudists and Halachists, and some argue the greatest...period. An older contemporary of RAMBAM, they share the spotlight as the seminal figures in Judaism of that time. But they were very different. While RAMBAM would pour over ancient texts, deciding which was or wasn't authoritative, and analyzing earlier commentaries in an attempt at determining which tradition was "right", and which needed to be jettisoned, Rabbenu Tam would little consider earlier views, and decided on the basis of a careful analysis of the Talmudic text or texts, attempting to come up with a reconciliation between views in the Talmud itself.
In the area of Tefillin, there was a seemingly minor debate, which threatened to divide the Jewish people. The Talmud, as we have seen, puts great emphasis on the mitzvah of Tefillin. It stresses that the four passages of the Torah contained in the Tefillin, must be written and placed in the proper order. But the Talmud is remarkably unclear as to what that order is! In rabbinic literature not included in the Babylonian Talmud, two interpretations, and practices, emerged. One was that the four passages must be in the order in which they occur in the Torah. This is borne out by an early Midrash called "Mechilta", and appears to have become the accepted practice in Babylon (Iraq). The other view is that the last two passages need to be in reverse order. Although the relevant section of the Jerusalem Talmud has been lost, several early post-Talmudic rabbis report that this was, in fact, codified in the Jerusalem Talmud, and was, in fact, the custom of the Land of Israel. For centuries, communities...and rabbis, were divided on the "right" practice. The great 11th century rabbi and commentator, RASHI, championed the view that the Torah order should be observed, and the alternative  opinion could be ignored. He was joined in this view half a century later by RAMBAM, who reports that the tefillin he had from his youth were, in fact, the alternative order, but, when he had delved into the sources, "realized" that this was not valid, and made new tefillin for himself. Ironically, RASHI's own grandson, Rabbenu Tam, differed. He accepted the alternative view as valid, and became that view's champion. Ever since, these are known as "RASHI's tefillin, and Rabbenu Tam's tefillin, respectively, although each view was far earlier. Entire regions of the Jewish world were choosing between these views, which began to take on the appearance of two forms of Judaism, similar to what we would expect had there been two traditions of which day was Shabbat. By the time the Shulchan Aruch  was written in the late 16th century, the view of RASHI had prevailed...but had never really been determined to be the correct view. RASHI's view had become the universal custom, but doubts lingered. The Shulchan Aruch rules that all must wear RASHI's tefillin. However, one who is scrupulous in fulfilling the laws of the Torah, should wear both. If possible, they should be worn together (I have friends who do this), or else to pray in RASHI's, but to put on Rabenu Tam's later (this is my practice). However, the Shulcah Aruch warns that this should not be done by everyone, as it appears ostentatious. Only those known in the community for their piety should do this, with everyone else relying on the customary acceptance of the view of RASHI. (I won't get into the minority views of one 18th century sage that only RASHI's are valid, and one twentieth century sage that only Rabbenu Tam's are valid, but that we must also wear RASHI's as a custom. The vast majority of rabbis accept the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch).
The Kabbalists, however, saw the entire issue in a different light. They are BOTH valid (and necessary), and represent two different perceptions of G-d. How is this interpreted, and what are the implications for practice? That will be my next post.

The Scribe part 9

The tefillin are a beautiful mitzvah (actually two, as the hand tefillin and head tefillin constitute two separate mitzvot.) Surprisingly, the Talmud puts what would seem to be disproportional emphasis on this precept. "The skull that has not borne the tefillin, has no share in the World to Come", and "One who does not wear tefillin is as one who sins with his body". Why the dire statements?
Let's look deeper. We take an animal, with all the behaviors that are normal to an animal. The animal is slaughtered for food.The skin is removed. It is washed, soaked in chemicals that strengthen and preserve it (tanning). It is then purified by scraping to remove remnants of blood vessels. The skin, now parchment, is given a silken texture, ruled to receive the writing. The holy passages of the Torah are written on this parchment, including the Great and Holy Name, twenty one times in both the head and hand tefillin. The compartments (battim) are likewise from an animal. The purification of the skins, and the cubic shape. reminiscent of the altar in the Temple, take, in good quality tefillin, over a year to achieve. The passages are placed in the battim, wrapped in the hairs of a calf's tail, and sewn with sinews. The straps are leather as well. Think of what we have just done. We have taken an animal, and transformed it into a great and holy mitzvah. When placed on the arm and head, they become a means of attachment to G-d. From animal to G-d!!!!
Science tells us that we, too, are animals. Torah teaches us that Man is in G-d's image. The Talmud enumerates different ways in which Man is like an animal, others in which he is like an angel. The Tefillin are the ultimate symbol of the transformation from the animal to the Divine. Our bodies DO NOT belong to us to do with them as we please. They belong to G-d. We are meant to soar higher than the eagles; higher than the angels. The tefillin teach us that this transformation is not only possible, but essential. "Sins with his body"? Yes, if we do not recognize the body as a vehicle to our higher selves, we sin against it, ourselves and G-d. "No share in the world to come"? Yes. In Judaism, one does not step out of the body to find G-d. We purify and sanctify the body, thereby finding G-d, as well as ourselves.