Siman 29

The Tur wrote: One should not recite the blessing "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to keep His statutes" when removing them. For the halacha is not like the people of the West (Berakhot 44b) who would recite the blessing "to keep His statutes" at the time of their removal, because they hold that the night is not a time for tefillin. And they derive this from "And you shall keep this statute...", which they interpret: days and not nights (like Rabbi Yosei HaGelili in Menachot 36b). But we hold: night is a time for tefillin... (like Rabbi Akiva ibid.). And even on Friday evening at twilight when one must remove them, one should not recite the blessing, for we do not learn it from "And you shall keep," but rather because of "for a sign...". And I saw in the name of Rav Hai Gaon that it is within his authority: if he wishes to recite the blessing – he may recite the blessing. And I wonder: since he is not obligated, would it not be a blessing in vain? Thus far his words. (See Beit Yosef and Bach, who labored to resolve the words of the Gaon with forced arguments. See there.)

And I wonder at the people of the West: Granted that the Torah decreed "and you shall keep" that you should not don them at night. And every place where it is said "beware lest" and "do not" – it is nothing other than a negative commandment, as is found in Menachot ibid. Nevertheless, the Rosh and the Ran and all the Rishonim have already written at the beginning of Ketubot that it is not relevant to recite a blessing over a prohibition, see there. And in my humble opinion, it appears explicitly from Berakhot ibid. and from Niddah (51b) that this blessing is a final blessing over the tefillin, just as we recite a final blessing over eating and drinking, and like the blessing over the Torah. For so it is stated there explicitly, see there. Rather, this blessing is only relevant if night is not the time for tefillin, from the derivation of "statute" – regarding this, the blessing "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to keep His statutes" is relevant, and it is the blessing after the tefillin. But if night is the time for tefillin – this blessing is not relevant even on the eve of Shabbat, for "as a sign" does not warrant a blessing, obviously, for specifically "to keep," that He commanded us to keep, warrants a blessing (and so wrote the Beit Yosef). And this is also the intent of the Yerushalmi in the third chapter of Berakhot (Halacha 3) see there, and not that the blessing is over that which it is forbidden to don them at night. And therefore, the opinion of the Gaon is that just as with the blessing "Borei Nefashot" it is in the Gemara: one who recited a blessing over water and one who did not recite a blessing, see there – here too regarding tefillin it is so. And he ruled like Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that night is not the time for tefillin. And behold, the opinion of the Rambam is also so, as will be explained in siman 30, and despite all this, he did not write this blessing because we hold that we do not recite a final blessing over a mitzvah, as is explained in the Gemara there. And the Gaon said that whoever wishes – may recite the blessing, and there is no concern in this. (And also the words of the Tosafot there should be interpreted so, see there carefully. However, from the words of the Tur, and the Beit Yosef, and the Bach, it is clear that they did not interpret it so. And also with what we have written, the difficulties of the Taz and the Magen Avraham are answered, see there carefully, because we hold that a mitzvah does not require a blessing after it. Examine and you will find it simple.)

There are those who are accustomed, when they reach "May it be Your will that we keep Your statutes..." in "Uva LeTzion," to remove the strap from the finger, as a remembrance of "to keep His statutes" of the people of the West. I do not know if it is proper to do so, since we do not rule in accordance with the people of the West. Furthermore: the people of the West would only recite a blessing if they removed them toward evening. But conversely: what concern is there in this? Nevertheless, I do not know if one should make a remembrance for that which we do not rule as the law. It requires further study.