Siman 25

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: After one has donned a garment with tzitzit – he should lay tefillin, for one ascends in holiness. Thus far his words. And they raised a difficulty against him: On the contrary, since tefillin is more holy, we maintain that whatever is more holy than its fellow precedes its fellow, and if so, he should have preceded tefillin to tzitzit (Sha'agat Aryeh siman 28 and Dagul Mervavah). But the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, are correct. For behold, in Menachot (49b) we conclude that "frequent" and "holy" – both are equal in stature, and one may precede whichever he desires. And so the Rambam ruled at the end of the eighth chapter of Temidin, see there. And tzitzit regarding tefillin is "frequent," as it is practiced also on Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim. And this is what he says: that since both are equal in stature, therefore from the perspective of "one ascends in holiness," meaning to elevate his body – therefore he precedes the tallit to the tefillin. And so it is in the Zohar at the end of Parashat "Bamidbar" that one should don tzitzit prior to tefillin, see there.

Nevertheless, he wrote in section 2 that one who is careful with the tallit katan should don it and put on tefillin in his house, and walk clothed in tzitzit and crowned with tefillin to the beit knesset, and there wrap himself in the tallit gadol. Thus far his words. That is to say: for the Zohar warns to come to the beit knesset adorned with tzitzit and tefillin, and it is not the way to walk in a tallit gadol from one's house to the beit knesset. And how shall he act, given that one must prioritize tzitzit over tefillin as I have written? To this he says that since he has a tallit katan upon him, he can don the tefillin without the tallit gadol, and go to the beit knesset and there don the tallit gadol, and it will turn out that he fulfills everything. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And the world is accustomed to wrap oneself even in the tallit gadol first and recite the blessing over it, and afterward one puts on the tefillin and goes to the beit knesset. Thus far his words. And he does not disagree with our teacher, the Beit Yosef. Rather, in his time the Jews lived by themselves, and they were able to walk even in a tallit gadol to the beit knesset. Therefore, they did not need to fulfill the words of the Zohar by way of the tallit katan which is not the primary fulfillment, but rather they would don the tallit gadol and the tefillin and go to the beit knesset. But in our time, due to our many sins, it is impossible to do this at all. And we don the tallit and the tefillin in the beit knesset.

Since it was explained in section 1 that one must prioritize the tzitzit before the tefillin, therefore those who place the tefillin bag with the tallit into one bag according to our custom must be careful not to place the tefillin bag on top and closer to the opening of the bag than the tallit, so that he does not encounter the tefillin first and be required to don them before the tallit. For one does not bypass mitzvot. And even though the tefillin are still inside their bag and the reason of "one does not bypass" does not strictly apply to this (Magen Avraham, subsection 1), nevertheless, since the reason for prioritizing the tallit before the tefillin is also not so clarified, and certainly according to what we explained they are equal in status according to the essential law—for the tallit is frequent and the tefillin are holy—therefore, with any encounter of the tefillin, one must prioritize them. And even though regarding tefillin, when one encounters the shel rosh first, we are not concerned with the reason of "one does not bypass" as will be explained, there it is different, for it is a scriptural decree to prioritize the shel yad as will be explained, which is not the case with tallit and tefillin (Taz, subsection 1).

But regarding that which was explained in section 2, that one dons tefillin in his home and the tallit in the beit knesset, in this there is certainly no concern even if he encounters the tallit first. Nevertheless, he does not need to wrap himself in it in his home, since he does not intend to wear it here, the law of precedence does not apply to it, just as in siman 168 where one must give precedence for "Hamotzi" to wheat bread over barley. And this is when he wishes to eat from the wheat bread, but when he does not wish to eat—we have no concern with it. And here too it is so (Magen Avraham subsection 4). And know that all this is when the tallit and the tefillin are prepared before him; in this we investigated which to give precedence. But when the tefillin are prepared before him and the tallit is not prepared—he shall not wait until they bring the tallit. Rather, he dons the tefillin, and when they bring the tallit he shall wrap himself in it.

It has already been explained that according to the Zohar it is a great matter to go to the beit din wrapped in a tallit and crowned with tefillin. And even if one must walk through filthy alleyways – he may go, provided only that he covers the "shel rosh." And so great is this matter, that there is one of the great authorities who ruled regarding one who bound himself with a fine to go to the beit knesset before the light of morning for the recitation of Tehillim in a group, and now wishes to retract because he is unable to go wrapped in tallit and tefillin before the light of day, that he may retract and is exempt from the fine. Also, the vow does not take effect upon him, because this is similar to vows made in error (Magen Avraham subsection 3 in the name of the Maharim of Lublin siman 37). And for this reason, the Ari, of blessed memory, was not among the first ten in the beit knesset, because many arrived before the light of day, and he did not wish to go without the wrapping and crowning of the tallit and tefillin (ibid.). Nevertheless, several great authorities disagreed on this, for before the light of day when it is not yet the time for tzitzit and tefillin – we have no concern with it. And the warning of the Zohar was not regarding this (Eliyah Rabbah and N.Sh. and M.E.). In any event, he certainly requires the annulment of the vow (Magen Avraham ibid.). And the reason of the Ari, of blessed memory, was not due to this alone, but because he had an intestinal ailment and needed to relieve himself, and was unable to come earlier. (Machatzit HaShekel. And so wrote the Magen Avraham in siman 90 subsection 28, see there.)

And such was the custom of the Rosh, of blessed memory: that he would wrap himself in a tallit, and arrange the blessings until "Who crowns Israel with glory," and then he would don tefillin. And he recited this blessing because the tefillin are called "glory," and it is fitting to recite the blessing immediately after donning the tefillin. Thus wrote the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in his name. However, this is not the law, for in the Gemara the morning blessings were arranged for other matters (Berakhot 60b), and this blessing is for the putting on of the hat, as I have written in siman 46. Rather, because we do not have the ability to arrange the blessings each in its proper place, we arrange them together either at home or in the beit knesset, as will be explained there. Rather, it informs us that since a great man like the Rosh, of blessed memory, acted thus, certainly one who has the ability according to his body and his way to act thus—should act thus. But it is not the law.

Every Jewish man is obligated to ensure that the tefillin are upon him during the time of the recitation of Shema and the prayer. And anyone who recites Shema without tefillin—it is as if he bears false witness against himself, and as if he offers a sacrifice without libations (Berakhot 14b). That is to say: the false witness is that he says "And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand..."—and he has not bound them. And also the recitation of Shema that he recited, he has performed only like half a mitzvah, like one who offers a sacrifice without libations. And until when the tefillin should be upon him will be explained at the end of this siman, that they should be upon him until after "Aleinu," see there.

And know that even according to the poskim who hold that mitzvot do not require kavanah, nevertheless, it is certain that he must know the essence of the mitzvah and its nature. Regarding tefillin, if he does not take its matter to heart at all—he has not fulfilled the mitzvah, and it is merely like the act of a monkey. Therefore, he should intend during their laying that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us to lay these four parshiyot, which contain the unification of His Name and the exodus from Egypt, upon the arm facing the heart and upon the head facing the brain, so that we shall remember the miracles and wonders He performed for us. For they indicate His unity, and that He possesses the power and dominion in the upper and lower worlds. Through this, he will be strengthened in his faith in Him, may He be blessed, and to trust in Him in all his affairs. And he shall subjugate to the Holy One, blessed be He, the soul which is in the brain, and also the heart which is the primary source of desires and thoughts. Through this, he will remember the Creator, and diminish his pleasures, and understand that he was created only for this purpose: to do His will, may He be blessed. And he shall cast upon Hashem his burden and all his needs. And know that of these four parshiyot, we were commanded to recite only two parshiyot: "Shema" and "Vehaya im shamoa." But "Kadesh" and "Vehaya ki yeviacha"—he does not need to recite. And thus they expounded in the Sifrei on the verse "And you shall teach them diligently to your children": "Shema" and "Vehaya im shamoa" require diligent study, but not "Kadesh" and "Ki yeviacha" for diligent study. And as for that which you find among the great authorities who wrote to say these parshiyot as well (see Magen Avraham, subsection 6)—it is neither an obligation nor a mitzvah, but rather an extra measure of love according to the attribute of the righteous. And they only came to teach that the intent was not that they forbade reciting them, but rather that they did not obligate reciting them. And one who wishes may recite them as well, and we do not prevent him.

One should don the shel yad first, and afterward the shel rosh. And even if he happened upon the shel rosh first—he is compelled to pass over it, even though one does not pass over mitzvot, and take the shel yad and don it on the hand, and afterward take the shel rosh and don it on the head. And the reason is because it is written: "And they shall be for totafot between your eyes," and we derive (Menachot 36a) from the expression "and they shall be" which is a plural expression (Rashi), that as long as it is "between your eyes"—there shall be two. And even though if he does not have a shel yad, or if it is not within his power to don it on the hand, he dons the shel rosh alone as I wrote in siman 26—this is because they are two mitzvot, and consequently he is compelled to fulfill the one that he has. But when he has two—the Torah decreed to don the shel rosh after the shel yad, and therefore we do not pay heed to "one does not pass over mitzvot." And therefore our sages, of blessed memory, said (Yoma 33a) that a person should be careful not to happen upon the shel rosh first, so that he will not need to pass over the mitzvah.

And regarding the matter of the blessings, there is a dispute among the great authorities. For there are some of our teachers who ruled to recite one blessing over both of them. And there are those who ruled two blessings: over the shel yad "le-hani'ach tefillin" and over the shel rosh "al mitzvat tefillin." And the Ashkenazim are accustomed to follow this opinion, and the Sephardim recite one blessing according to the first opinion. And the plain meaning of the Gemara in Menachot (36a) which says: If he did not speak between the tefillin shel yad and the tefillin shel rosh, he recites one; if he spoke, he recites two—implies that there is one blessing for both of them, and so Rashi explained. However, the plain meaning of the Gemara in Berakhot (60b) which says: When he places the tefillin on his arm let him say "Blessed... le-hani'ach...", when he places them on his head let him say "Blessed... al mitzvat..."—it is clarified that two blessings are required. And so it is in the Yerushalmi, and in Midrash Tanchuma at the end of Parshat "Bo," see there. And so ruled Rabbeinu Tam, and he explains that which is in Menachot that "if he spoke, he recites two" refers to the shel rosh alone. And Rashi would explain that which is in Berakhot as referring to one who spoke. And the Rif and the Rambam and the Rashba ruled like Rashi. And the Rosh and the Tur ruled like Rabbeinu Tam. (And it is not understood according to Rabbeinu Tam, that in the case of "if he spoke, he recites two" over the shel rosh, how is it possible to recite two blessings over one mitzvah? And the Maharal of Prague already awakened to this, as the Bach cited him, and he wrote that he should touch the shel yad, and one blessing stands for the shel yad. And according to this, if he has only the shel rosh, he should recite only one blessing, see there. But it does not imply so from the Tosafot and the Rosh, and so it implies from the Magen Avraham, subsection 15. And I also found in the Or Zarua HaGadol, siman 582, in the name of the Geonim, that according to the essence of the law, every tefillah required two blessings: "le-hani'ach" and "al mitzvat," see there. And it seems to me that "le-hani'ach" is the blessing of the mitzvah, and "al mitzvat" is a blessing of thanks that Hashem merited us to make a sign between Him and us. And this pertains to the shel rosh as they expounded (Menachot 35b) on the verse "And all [the nations of the earth] shall see... that the name of Hashem is called upon you and they shall be afraid of you"—these are the tefillin of the head. And according to this, it settles well. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that such is the widespread custom among the people of Ashkenaz, that they recite two blessings. And it is good to always say after the second blessing, "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever." Thus far his words. This is due to the concern of a doubtful blessing in vain, as I wrote in siman 206, that when one utters the Name of Heaven in vain, he should say "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever," see there. And it is not understood at all, for whichever way you look at it: if the matter is weak in our hands, and therefore he should say "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever," why should we recite two? Let us recite one according to the law of all doubtful blessings. And if the law is clear in our hands, if so, why must we say "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever"? And indeed, the Levush omitted this. (And also the Bach questioned this, and the Ma'adanei Yom Tov wrote that it is for the sake of extra caution. And it requires further study.) And in its simple sense, we can say that the people of Ashkenaz are certain that two blessings are required, and only our teacher, the Rema, found it weak in his hand. And to change the custom is impossible, and therefore he ruled so. And according to this, one whose heart smites him can recite one blessing. And we have heard that some great ones were scrupulous to answer "Amen" between the shel yad and the shel rosh, and they considered this an interruption for the purpose of reciting a blessing over the shel rosh according to all opinions. (And in the Beit Yosef, he indeed wondered at Mahari bin Chaviv who practiced so, for who compels him to enter into a doubtful blessing in vain, and to rescue himself by saying "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever"? See there.)

And in my humble opinion, it appears that the saying of "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever" is not due to a doubt regarding a blessing, but rather for another reason. And even though the poskim wrote that it is for this reason, nevertheless, the custom appears to me to be for another reason: for behold, we have already scrutinized how it is possible to recite two blessings over one thing? And there is also one who raised a difficulty against the primary position of our teacher Tam, for behold, we learned in the Tosefta of Berakhot chapter six, and so wrote the Rambam in the first chapter of Ma'aserot, that if one separates terumah and terumat ma'aser and ma'aser sheni as one—he recites one blessing for all of them. And if so, how could they institute two blessings for the two tefillin? (The Gra, subsection 17. And the resolution of the Artzot HaChayim is perplexing, see there.)

Therefore, it seems to me that the blessing "on the mitzvah of tefillin" is a blessing of thanksgiving, as I wrote previously, since this mitzvah is the great bond that binds Israel to their Father in Heaven. For this, we recite a blessing of thanksgiving, to thank Hashem, may He be blessed, for this good. And since the essence of the bond is in the verse "Shema Yisrael," we therefore say "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever," just as our father Yaakov answered so at the time the tribes said "Shema Yisrael," as is brought in Pesachim (56a). And proof for this is from the term "tefillin" itself, for the Tur wrote it is a term of "pleading" (pelilah), that they are a sign and testimony to all who see us that the Shekhinah rests upon us... Thus far his words. And this is its explanation: that "on the mitzvah of tefillin," meaning on that which Hashem, may He be blessed, connected Himself to us—we give Him, may He be blessed, praise and thanksgiving for this. (See the Beit Yosef who brought from Zohar "Pinhas": Rabbi Shimon said: Tefillin... one blessing for both of them... Thus far his words. And he wrote that one must say his intention was that the blessing "to don" refers to both of them, and in truth two are required, see there. And in my humble opinion, it is certainly so. For in Tikkunei Zohar Chadash (Vilna edition, page 46b) it says on the verse "One thing God has spoken, these two I have heard," and this is its wording: And because from the side of the right and the left "these two I have heard" (so it must be said)—one must bless upon them two blessings, one "to don" on the of the hand and one "on the mitzvah" on the of the head. And if he spoke in between—he blesses on the of the head two. But from the side of the middle pillar it is said "One thing God has spoken" (so it must be said), and he needs only one blessing... Thus far his words. And it seems that this is its explanation: that from the perspective of the essence of the blessing on the mitzvah—one is sufficient. And this is the "middle pillar," Tiferet which is the Torah as we say in Berakhot 58a, and Tiferet is the giving of the Torah. And only from the right and the left, which are Chesed and Gevurah, are two blessings required: the first is the decree of the King and that is "Gevurah," and the second is thanksgiving for the bond and that is the right, "Chesed." Examine closely and you will find it simple.)

Tefillin has a dagesh in the lamed, for its root is PLL as I have written in the name of the Tur. It should have been written with two lameds, but the dagesh fills the place of the missing letter, as is known. Therefore, when saying "lehaniach tefillin," and likewise "al mitzvat tefillin" – he should emphasize the lamed according to the law of a dagesh. And he should say "lehaniach" with a kamatz under the heh, which is an expression of placing upon the hand, as in "to place (lehaniach) a blessing in your house," and not with a patach, which is an expression of leaving, as in "leave (hanichu) one of your brothers with me" with a makef. And "al mitzvat" with a patach under the vav, for it only refers to the of the head alone, and one must use the singular form. And even if we say that it refers to both of them, is it not written: "The commandment (mitzvah) of Hashem is pure, enlightening the eyes," which refers to all the commandments? Nevertheless, it is written with a patach in the singular form (Magen Avraham, subsection 9), for all the commandments are one mitzvah, meaning: that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us. And some say that he blesses "al mitzvot" with a cholam, and only when he has nothing but the of the head alone does he bless with a patach (Taz, subsection 6 in the name of his brother). And the custom is like the first opinion, and thus the great Acharonim have decided (Eliyah Rabbah, and the Gra"z, and Levushei Serad, and Derech HaChaim).

It is a known matter that for all mitzvot one must recite the blessing "prior to their performance," meaning: before their performance, and immediately adjacent to the performance. Therefore, one should not recite the blessing over the shel yad before he has placed it upon the biceps, which is the location for placing the tefillin as I wrote in siman 27, because it is not adjacent to the tightening, which is the performance of the mitzvah; nor should he recite it after the tightening, for we require "prior to their performance." Rather, he places it upon the biceps, holds the strap in his right hand and recites the blessing, and immediately tightens it, which is the tightening that completes the mitzvah. And similarly for the shel rosh—he should recite the blessing before he tightens them on his head, which is after the placement on the head and before the tightening (Magen Avraham, subsection 13). According to this, one must be careful not to uncover his head (Pri Megadim), and he should pull the tallit over his head. This is a difficult matter, especially for young men who do not have a tallit, obviously. Therefore, some have the custom to hold the shel rosh near the head and recite the blessing, and immediately place it upon the head, and this is also adjacent to their performance. And know that all this is ab initio. But ex post facto, if he did not recite the blessing beforehand—he recites the blessing afterward, since it remains placed afterward for a long time (Pri Megadim). This is similar to one who did not recite "Hamotzi" before he began to eat, who recites the blessing in the middle of the meal. The same law applies here, but he must touch the tefillin at the time he recites the blessing, for touching is considered somewhat like placement.

Ab initio, it is forbidden to interrupt with any speech between the tefillin of the hand and the tefillin of the head. And if one spoke between one tefillin and the other—he returns and recites the blessing over the tefillin of the head, "al mitzvat tefillin." This applies to those who recite one blessing over both of them. But for those who recite two blessings—he recites two over the tefillin of the head, as has been explained. And this is what he should do: he should touch the tefillin of the hand and tighten the knot, and recite both blessings over the tefillin of the head, for it is as if one is over the tefillin of the hand because of the touching and one is over the tefillin of the head (Magen Avraham, subsection 15, in the name of the Ran, see there). And this is because it is a wonderous matter to recite two blessings over one thing. And we have already explained this with the help of Heaven.

And this fact that conversation constitutes an interruption, this is when one spoke not for the sake of the matter of the tefillin. But when one spoke for the sake of the tefillin, even though initially one should refrain even from this unless it is a matter in which one is forced to interrupt for the sake of the tefillin – one does not require another blessing, for any conversation that is for the sake of the mitzvah in which one is engaged does not constitute an interruption. And if one hears Kaddish or Kedushah between the shel yad and the shel rosh, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10 that one should not interrupt to respond with them. Rather, one remains silent and listens, and focuses on what they are saying. Thus far his words. For regarding the matter of responding to Kedushah and Kaddish and "Barchu," hearing is like responding, and regarding the matter of interruption, it is not called an interruption. And if one responded to Kaddish..., some say that one returns and recites another blessing over the shel rosh (Magen Avraham, subsection 17). And some say that one does not return and recite a blessing, for since this matter is an obligation upon him – it is no worse than speaking for the sake of the tefillin (Taz, subsection 8). And so the primary ruling appears. (And from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch it is implied that for the response of "Amen" one does not need to interrupt even with mere listening. And perhaps he did not see fit to mention it, for behold, even "Barchu" he did not mention. Examine and you will find it simple.)

It is understood by all that since the blessing "le-haniach" also pertains to the shel rosh—and this is not only according to those who recite only one blessing, but even according to those who recite two blessings—nevertheless, the blessing "le-haniach" also pertains to the shel rosh. Therefore, one must minimize the interruption to the best of one's ability. Consequently, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11 that after one has tied the shel yad on the arm, he should place the shel rosh before he winds the strap around the arm. Thus far his words. And the Tur wrote that the Rosh, of blessed memory, conducted himself in this manner, even though he held that one recites two blessings. Nevertheless, we do not conduct ourselves in this manner. And they wrote that the Arizal would wind the windings and afterward place the shel rosh, even though he, of blessed memory, would recite only one blessing. Simply, one may say the reason is: that since the windings must be done, if so, they are also part of the placement of the tefillin and this is not an interruption. Furthermore: it is known that if one does not wind the windings, the knot of the shel yad will loosen, and it will turn out that for the shel rosh, the tying will precede the shel yad. However, besides this, they wrote that there are hidden reasons for this (see Taz, subsection 9, and Magen Avraham, subsection 18). And such is the custom, and one should not change it.

And so too, one should not remove the shel rosh from the bag until he has donned the shel yad. And even if both are before him outside of the bag—he should not arrange to prepare the shel rosh before he has donned the shel yad, for if not so, since he is occupied with the shel rosh and sets it aside, and dons the shel yad first—behold he passes over the mitzvah, and one does not pass over the mitzvot as I have written. And therefore our custom is that we place both in one bag, and we place in the bag the shel rosh on the right of the bag and the shel yad on its left. And we always do so. And therefore he opens the bag and turns to his left for the shel yad and dons it, and afterward he takes the shel rosh from the bag and dons it. And specifically regarding himself is there a concern. But if another man takes the shel rosh from the bag and prepares it before the one donning—there is no concern.

And know that they wrote based on the Zohar to place the shel yad while sitting and the shel rosh while standing. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 11 that we do not practice this way, but rather both while standing; see there. And there is one who wrote that the placing should be while sitting, and the blessing and the binding while standing (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And the Maharshal (siman 98) ruled that even the placing should be while standing. And so wrote many great authorities, and so is the simple custom. And the truth is that according to the law of the Gemara there is no insistence on this, and it is only because we perform all blessings over mitzvot while standing. However, there is no hindrance in the matter. And according to this, it is not understood why we should not practice according to the opinion of the Zohar. However, in any event, all the great ones of Israel in previous generations did not practice so. (And it seems to me regarding their reasoning that there is no necessity at all from the Zohar for this. This is its wording at the end of Parshat "Bamidbar": The prayer of sitting corresponds to the tefillah of the hand, afterwards the prayer of standing which corresponds to the tefillah of the head. And this action is like this speech… Thus far its words. And the explanation is not that one should place the shel yad while sitting, but rather this is its explanation: In the prayer of sitting, which is "Yotzer Or," it is much lower in level than the Shemoneh Esrei, as is known. And so the tefillah of the hand is lower in level than that of the head, as is explained in the Zohar "Chayei Sarah" in the Midrash HaNe'elam. This is its wording: The upper chariot… these are the tefillin of the head, the tefillin of the arm… the example of the lower chariot… Thus far its words. And therefore the shel yad hints to the prayer of sitting and the shel rosh to standing. "And the action is like the speech," this is its explanation: just as in speech there are two levels, so too in action. Examine and you will find it simple.)

The Tur wrote that every time one puts them on during the day – he recites the blessing. And even if they slipped from their place, and he touches them to return them to their place – he must recite the blessing. Thus far his words. That is to say: it is not necessary to state that when he removed them entirely and puts them on after some time that he recites the blessing, but even if they only slipped from their place on their own, and he touches them to return them to their place immediately – he must recite the blessing. And this is not because of the interruption of a short amount of time, for he explained above in siman 8 that if he moved them from their place with the intention to return them immediately – he does not recite the blessing, see there. Rather, it is because they slipped without intention, and therefore he is obligated to recite the blessing even immediately. And that which he is obligated to recite the blessing every time he puts them on, this is when he removed them with the intention not to wear them, or to wear them after some time. And that which he said "even," is because regarding a long duration of time when he removed them himself, there is a greater novelty regarding a short duration of time, even when they slipped on their own.

And according to this, according to the opinion of the Tur, one who removes his tefillin to go urinate or for a bowel movement with the intent to don them immediately upon his return—does not need to bless. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 12 disagrees with him, as he wrote: If they slipped from their place… – he must bless. If he moved them from their place with the intent to return them immediately – he must bless. Thus far his words. For he holds that whenever they are removed from their place, whether intentionally or unintentionally, whether with the intent to return them immediately or with the intent not to return them – he must bless. And upon this our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And there are those who say not to bless, and such is the custom. Thus far his words, and it refers to moving them from their place with the intent to return them immediately, and according to the opinion of the Tur that we explained. And so we practice. And more than this: that even if they slipped from their place on their own – we do not practice to bless. And I do not know the reason, for behold, in this everyone agrees that he should bless. And there are those who wrote the reason is because during the time of prayer he presumably does not divert his mind from them, and it is like removing them with the intent to return them (Magen Avraham, subsection 21 in the name of the Shelah). And how weak is this reason, for even if we compare it to this, behold the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is to bless even in such a case. Furthermore: for behold the early authorities did not hold so, for regarding slipping, everyone agrees that he must bless, even those who hold regarding removing them with the intent to return them not to bless. And one must say that the intent of the early authorities was when they slipped not during the time of prayer, and the difficulty is evident. (And in my humble opinion, it seems it is because the source is from the rabbis of the academy of Rav Ashi, that whenever they touch them – they bless. And the Rosh explains that this is when they slipped. And the Rambam in the fourth chapter of Sefer Torah omitted this. And the Kesef Mishneh wrote that this is a simple matter, see there. And it requires investigation, for if so, why did he omit a law explicitly stated in the Gemara? Rather, the Rambam explains that they disagree with the previous view, and the halacha is not like the rabbis of the academy of Rav Ashi in several places in the Shas, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah, siman 293. Examine and you will find it simple.)

And know that the great later authorities agreed that even though we hold like the Tur that we do not recite a blessing when removing them with the intent to return them immediately, nevertheless, if he removed them to go to the beit hakise—he must recite a blessing when he comes from there and dons them. For since he is not permitted to go into the beit hakise with them—they were set aside, and therefore he must recite a blessing (Taz, subsection 11, and Magen Avraham, subsection 22). And so it is explicitly proven in the Gemara (Sukkah 46a). And although there is one who wanted to say that this was specifically for them, as their batei kiset were outside the city and it constituted a significant interruption, which is not the case for us (ibid.), nevertheless, it does not appear so. And so we practice. And similarly, if he removed them with the intent not to don them immediately, even though he changed his mind and donned them immediately—he is obligated to recite a blessing (ibid.). And so too the reverse: if he removed them to don them immediately, but was delayed a long time—he is obligated to recite a blessing. And similarly, if he removed them because he needed to flatulate, even if his intention was to don them immediately, it is possible that he must recite a blessing and one should deliberate on this. But if he removed them to urinate, or to eat a snack, and it was in his mind to don them immediately and he donned them—he does not need to recite a blessing. And if he removed them without specification, without any intention, it appears that it is like one who removed them with the intent not to don them, for if not so, why did he remove them? Therefore, when he settles to don them—he returns and recites a blessing. However, this is when he removed both of them. But if he removed the shel rosh alone and settled to don it—he does not recite a blessing, since the shel yad is still upon him—it is not considered a removal even for those who recite two blessings. And even though regarding the matter of them slipping from their place our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if he returns one of them it is like donning one of them, as will be explained in siman 26, thus far his words—this is when it slipped on its own. But in the case of removing, as long as he did not remove both of them—it is not considered a removal. And he does not need to recite a blessing when he returns and dons the one he removed, even if his intention was not to don it again. (So it appears in my humble opinion. And see Artzot HaChayim and Mishnah Berurah. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12: One who puts on the tefillin shel yad and recited the blessing, and at the beginning of the tightening the knot of the yad snapped and he needed to make another knot, provided he did not divert his attention—he does not need to return and recite the blessing. Thus far his words. For it does not constitute an interruption. And even if he requested another to make the knot and spoke—it does not constitute an interruption, as this is for the sake of the tefillin. And from his wording it implies that specifically when the knot snapped at the beginning of the tightening, such that the blessing had not yet taken effect upon the mitzvah, therefore he does not need to return and recite the blessing. But if it snapped after the tightening—he must return and recite the blessing even if it snapped before the donning of the shel rosh.

And they raised a difficulty against him from what he himself wrote afterward: If the one of the hand became loose before the donning of the one of the head—he tightens it, and does not need to return and bless. But if he donned the one of the head, and afterward the one of the hand became loose—he tightens and blesses. Thus far his words. And they answered that if the knot snapped, which is a significant interruption in the making of the knot—he blesses even before the donning of the one of the head if it snapped after the tightening. But if it became loose, where he only requires a mere tightening—he does not bless unless it became loose after he donned the one of the head (Magen Avraham subsection 24). And there is one who ruled even regarding a snapped knot like the case of becoming loose, that if it snapped before he donned the one of the head, even if it snapped after the tightening—he does not bless (Taz subsection 13). And it appears to me that the intention of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is also thus. And he took the common way of the matter, for the loosening of the knot can happen even after the tightening. But snapping, which is due to the weakness of the strap—it is not its way to snap except at the beginning of the tightening when he pulls it, and not afterward.

And know that there are those who say that since it was explained in section 22 that we are accustomed not to recite a blessing when they have slipped from their place, if so, also when the knot is loosened or the knot is severed—one does not need to recite a blessing (Magen Avraham, subsection 23). And it appears that there is no proof from there except regarding when the knot is loosened, for it is a common matter like slipping from its place. However, being severed is not the usual way. Furthermore: even regarding this that they are accustomed not to recite a blessing when they have slipped, the reason is not so clear, and one should not add to it. Therefore, it appears that in this case one should instruct to recite a blessing, and so appears the opinion of the great later authorities. (And so it is implied from the HaGra"z who did not mention this, see there. However, in Artzot HaChayim he wrote like the Magen Avraham. And see Mishnah Berurah who wrote like our words. And it is simple that if he dons the tefillin of another he should recite a blessing. But another strap does not cause a blessing, for the blessing is over the box and not over the strap.)

It is permitted to recite a blessing over borrowed tefillin. This is not similar to tzitzit, as was explained in siman 14, where one does not recite a blessing over a borrowed tallit, for there it is written "your garment," implying it must be yours, but this is not so regarding tefillin. Furthermore, it was explained there that it is permitted to take the tefillin of one's fellow without his knowledge to pray in them, for presumably a person is pleased that a mitzvah be performed with his property in a matter involving no loss; unless we know that he is a fastidious man, in which case one should not take them without his knowledge. One does not recite a blessing over stolen tefillin, and regarding this it is said: "The robber blesses...". When there has been despair and a change of domain—one recites a blessing. There are those who hesitate even in this because a blessing is different. (See Turei Zahav, subsection 14, and see what I wrote in siman 14 regarding this matter.)

In the time of the Shas, they would walk in tefillin all day. Now it is impossible to conduct ourselves so, because of our distractions and the great degree of care required for them. Therefore, we don the tefillin from before the prayer until after the prayer. The world has the custom not to remove the tefillin until after the Kedushah of "Uva LeTziyon." Some have written according to the hidden wisdom not to remove them until one says and hears in them three Kedushot—namely the Kedushah of the day, the Kedushah of the Shemoneh Esrei, and the Kedushah of "Uva LeTziyon"—and four Kaddishim—namely the Kaddish before "Barchu," after the Shemoneh Esrei, the Full Kaddish after "Uva LeTziyon," and the Mourner's Kaddish after "Aleinu." For these are among the essentials of the prayer and hint at lofty matters. It is a simple matter that on a day when there is a reading of the Torah, one should not remove them until after the reading of the Torah. And this follows automatically, for one must remove them after "Aleinu" as I have written, and they have already read from the Torah. Even in places where they read from the Torah afterward—he should not remove them until after the reading. He should be careful not to remove them in front of the Sefer Torah, for it is insolence to uncover his head in front of the Sefer Torah; rather, he should move to the side. On Rosh Chodesh, we remove them before Musaf, even in places where they do not say "Keter" in the Kedushah. And even though several great ones cried out against this, nevertheless, such is the custom in all the dispersions of Israel. Heaven forbid one should change it, for it was established according to the wisdom of the Kabbalah. On Chol HaMoed, we remove them before Hallel. The prayer leader should also remove them before Hallel on Chol HaMoed Sukkot. Some do so also on Chol HaMoed Pesach; each river follows its own course. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 28, who wrote that one must say three Kaddishim and four Kedushot, and it requires further study. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

And know that there are matters regarding tefillin, and likewise regarding other mitzvot, that are performed according to the wisdom of the Kabbalah. The poskim wrote a general rule regarding this: that when the Gemara and the poskim disagree with the Zohar – we follow the Gemara and the poskim. And if the Zohar is more stringent – whoever wishes to be stringent like the Zohar may do so. And in a matter that is not mentioned in the Gemara – it is certainly proper to act according to the words of the Zohar, however, we do not compel this. (Magen Avraham subsection 20 in the name of the Radbaz, see there. However, I have a tradition that it is impossible for the Zohar to disagree with the Gemara, unless there is also a dispute in the Gemara. And in a place where the law is decided in the Gemara – the Zohar also holds accordingly. And perhaps there are places where they did not explain the Zohar thus, they did not intend the truth, and one must explain an explanation that will be equal with the Gemara. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)