Siman 33

We say in Menachot (35a) that if two of the batim of the head-tefillin were damaged in the batim, and the batim are adjacent to one another—meaning the leather of the batim was slightly torn between one bayit and another, but the sides and the roof are intact; if the tefillin are old—they are pesulim because they have already been damaged due to their age. And if they are new—they are kosher as long as the leather of the seat of the batim, which is the titura, remains, and also the bases of the batim remain, except that they were slightly torn as I have written. This is according to the version of the Rambam in the Gemara there. But according to the version of Rashi it is the opposite: that new ones are pesulim, and old ones are kosher. And the reason: that new ones are still loose and soft, and are easily damaged (Levush). And furthermore: that regarding new ones, the matter is revealed that the leather is defective since it was damaged in a short time, which is not the case with old ones which have already strengthened and the leather was good from its beginning. And it seems to me that each one follows his reasoning well: for Rashi explains that it refers to the leather as I have written, therefore new ones are worse for this is a sign that the leather is rotten. But the Rambam, who explains that it refers to the gidin as will be explained—certainly old ones are worse, for due to their age they have rotted. But new ones, most of them are strong, as is known by the senses.

But if the two batim are not adjacent to one another, such as the first and the third, even if they are old—they are kosher. And according to the method of Rashi, even if they are new—they are kosher. And if three batim were damaged—in any case they are pasul even with new ones, and according to the method of Rashi, even with old ones. And know that which was explained in the previous section, that if they are adjacent to one another they are pasul—there is no difference whether the damage is on one side, in a manner where the damage is opposite each other, or whether one wall was damaged from one side and the second from the other side. And in any case they are pasul (Taz, subsection 3).

And which are called "new" and which "old"? "New" are called as long as if one were to pull them by the straps, the bayit expands and opens—it is called "new." And if it does not open—it is called "old." However, this applies to those who make the ktzitzah and the ma'avarta from one leather. But those who make the ma'avarta from a separate leather—it is not relevant to say so, obviously (ibid. subsection 2). And it seems to me that for us there is another sign, for in the Gemara there they stated two signs: the first is the sign that has been explained; and the second is when one holds the leather and expands them, and when one lets go it returns and contracts—these are old, and the other is new, see there. But in truth, according to the construction of our batim, which are very hard—we are not at all expert in all these signs. And it appears that the batim in the time of the Shas were not hard at all. And know that all these distinctions apply to the shel rosh, which has four batim. But regarding the shel yad, as soon as one of the walls is damaged—they are completely pasul (Responsa Pnei Yehoshua).

The Rambam, of blessed memory, in the third chapter, law 18, has another approach to this, and he holds that the deterioration is not in the battim but rather in the sinews of the sewing. This is his wording: Tefillin whose sewing was severed, if two stitches were side by side or if three stitches were severed even if not opposite one another (and according to the Rambam this means literally side by side, and examine closely and you will find it easily) — behold, these are pasul. In what case does this apply? To old ones. But with new ones, as long as the face of the plate exists (this is the titura) — they are kosher. And these are the new ones: any where one may grasp part of the leather whose stitch was torn and hang the tefillin by it, and it is strong and does not snap — behold, these are the new ones. And if it is not fit to hang by but rather it snaps — behold, these are old ones. Thus far his words. And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, brought both approaches. And in both they were stringent in every case, because according to Rashi old ones are preferable and according to the Rambam new ones are preferable. However, according to what I wrote there is no need to say so, as I wrote in section 1. And for the halacha one should not be lenient at all, and only regarding the deterioration of the sewing is it possible to repair with new sinews and sew them. But regarding the deterioration of the battim, repair is of no use at all, because the tears testify that they have deteriorated completely, and one must make new battim (so it appears according to my humble opinion).

The leather of the רצועות must be from the skin of a pure animal, beast, or bird. And they must be processed לשמה, that is: for the sake of the רצועות of תפילין, since this is a הלכה למשה מסיני. And also that they be black is a הלכה למשה מסיני. Therefore, both regarding the processing and the blackening—it requires "לשמה," and specifically by an adult Israelite. But by a כותי—it is פסול. This is not the case regarding the blackness of the בתים, for according to the opinion of the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, they do not require blackness; therefore, even if a כותי blackened them—it is כשר. However, according to those who hold that even in the בתים blackness is required by law—their law is like the רצועות. And the blackness of the רצועות—is only required on the outer side. But on the inner side, all colors are כשרות. Nevertheless, the sages said they should not be red on the inner side, lest they say they were dyed and became red from the blood of his boils, and they will spread a bad report about him that he is afflicted with boils (Gemara 35a). And know that רצועות are כשרות whether from leather or from parchment. And the custom is to make them from the skins of calves or sheep, and those of calves are better and stronger. (And the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 7 that if a כותי blackened them and an Israelite returned and blackened them לשמן—it is כשר, see there. And if it is processed שלא לשמה—it is completely פסול. And one should not smear them with the fat of impure fish. And see Sha'arei Teshuva subsection 5.)

The Tur wrote: If the strap was severed, that which surrounds the head or the arm—there is no remedy for them, neither by knotting nor by sewing. But that which hangs from it, and that which one ties around the arm—knotting does not disqualify it. Thus far his words. Meaning: and all the more so sewing. For in the Gemara (35b) it says there that knotting is certainly forbidden, as it is written: "And you shall bind them"—we require a complete binding, meaning that the knot of the strap must be in its integrity, the whole of it a complete strap and not knotted. And regarding sewing they asked there and said: Go out and see what the people are doing. And Rashi explained it as a prohibition, because this too is not a complete binding. But Rabbeinu Tam in the Tosafot there explained it as permitted, since the sewing is from the inside and from the outside it appears complete—it is called a "complete binding." And the Tur ruled like Rashi. However, this is only regarding the strap that is required by Torah law, which is that which surrounds the head and the arm. But that which is longer than this according to our custom, if it was severed there—one may even knot it, and all the more so sew it. And also the opinion of the Rambam at the end of the third chapter is like the opinion of the Tur, see there.

And there are some among the Rishonim who were even more stringent in this, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5, and this is his wording: If the retzuah was severed – there are those who permit sewing it from the inner side (the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam). And there are those who say: the part of it that encompasses the head, and in the case of the hand-tefillin, enough to encompass the arm to tie the tefillah with the arm, and enough to stretch until the middle finger and wrap from it three wraps on that finger and tie – these have no remedy, neither by tying nor by sewing. And all the excess length that is for wrapping the retzuah several times around the arm, and in the case of the head-tefillin, that which hangs from it – sewing and tying do not disqualify it. And in a time of pressing need, one may rely on those who permit it so that he does not be nullified from the mitzvah of tefillin. Thus far his words. Meaning: to rely on Rabbeinu Tam who permits sewing even in the essential part of the retzuah. And it is good to sew with a gid and not with thread, but if he does not have a gid – he should sew with thread. And he should sew in a manner that the seam will be on the inside toward the body, so that it will not be seen from the outside. And when he relies on the view of those who permit it, there is one who says that he should not recite the blessing, for blessings are not indispensable (Taz subsection 7).

And know that there is another stringent view regarding the shel rosh as well, that regarding the strap hanging on the right until the navel and on the left until the chest—sewing is not effective (see Beit Yosef, and Taz subsection 6). However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not concern himself with it at all, for even though such is the tradition of the early authorities from Shimusha Rabba and as I wrote in siman 27, nevertheless it is obvious that this is not a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, as is proven from Menachot (35b) and Tosafot there. If so, how can we be even more stringent in this, to forbid sewing which is permitted according to Rabbeinu Tam and several of the Rishonim even regarding the primary part of the strap? And so we practice according to the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef. (And the Taz there was troubled by his words, see there. And the matter is clear as I have written.)