פלפול לכבוד הבר מצוה של צמח דוד שיחי' בסמן

מחלוקת between רש"י and תוספות regarding the ברכות one says when putting on תפילין

1)  The גמרא inמנחות דף לו, א  quotes the דין of רב חסדא in which he discuses how many ברכות one makes when he puts on תפילין. The גמרא clearly states that if one interrupts between the putting on of the של יד  תפיליןand the של ראש  תפיליןan additional ברכה must be made.

The details are disputed in the ראשונים. רש"י holds that if one didn’t interrupt between the putting on of the  תפילין של ידand the  תפילין של ראש only one ברכה is made, before putting on the של יד תפילין, the לשון of the ברכה is"להניח תפילין". But, if one interrupted, he needs to also make a second ברכה on the תפילין של ראש. The לשון is "על מצוות תפילין".

תוספות quotes רש"י but also brings the opinion of רבינו תם. רבינו תם is of the opinion that the גמרא always requires a separate ברכה for the תפילין של יד and the תפילין של ראש, even if one did not interrupt. The גמרא is saying, if one interrupted, he needs to make two ברכות on the תפילין של ראש, not just the ברכה of "על מצוות תפילין" but also the ברכה of "להניח תפילין", a total of two ברכות.

Explanation of רש"י'ס  opinion, attempt to explain the opinion of תוס', refutation of that explanation

2)  רש"י'ס opinion that one normally makes only one ברכה and that it includes theתפילין של יד ושל ראש is explained by the מרדכי as follows. רש"י holds that the תפילין של יד ושל ראש are one מצווה, and therefore all you need is one ברכה for both. (If you interrupt, then the תפילין של ראש require it’s own ברכה).

At first glance one can suggest that תוס' holds like the opinion of the רמב"ם which counts the מצוות of תפילין של יד ושל ראש as two separate מצוות, מצוה יב' ויג', clearly, not like רש"י. If one would say that תוספות sides with the רמב"ם in regard to this, then one can understand why תוספות always requires a separate ברכה for the תפילין של יד ושל ראש.

But, תוספות clearly does not hold like the רמב"ם, since in regards to a different discussion תוספות states that the תפילין של יד ושל ראש are one מצווה, if so one needs to still delve deeper to understand the opinion of תוספות.

The explanation of תוספות by the  ראגעטשאווער גאון

3)  One approach to understanding תוספות is brought by the ראגעטשאווער גאון. He is מחדש that the קיום of the מצוה of the תפילין של יד is very different then that of the תפילין של ראש .

The מצוה of the תפילין של יד is to put it on, as opposed to the מצוות תפילין של ראש is that it should be on.

To illustrate this, the ראגעטשווער brings a practical difference in הלכה between the two תפילין. If one puts on his תפילין before the time of תפילין starts, the גמרא says in מנחות דף לו עמוד א that once the time of תפילין starts one needs to move around his  תפילין so it will be considered as if he put them on at the right time. Theראגעטשאווער  says that one only needs to move his תפילין של יד, since they need to be put on, as opposed to the תפילין של ראש which only need to be on.

Based on this concept he explains תוספות. תוספות states clearly that they are both one מצוה like he states so clearly. Nevertheless they are two distinct parts of this one מצוה, because of the fact that the nature of each is different then the other, they each require their own ברכה.

[It’s interesting to note that the רבי and others bring a source to the idea of the ראגאטשווער from the לשון of the פסוקים. By the תפילין של יד it says "וקשרתם" the   מצווה is to put them on, as opposed to the תפילין של ראש it says "והיו לטוטפות בין עיניך" that it should be for a sign between you eyes, should be on].

סתירה in the רמב"ם as to how he holds

4)  We mentioned that the רמב"ם is of the opinion that they are not just two parts of one מצווה, but they are actually two separate מצות. The ראגאטשווער explains the רמב"ם as well with the above mentioned explanation. The only difference between  תוס' and the רמב"ם is that the רמב"ם takes it a step further and says that because of their differences they are counted as two מצוות.

The רבי in לקו"ש חל"ט pg. 24 in הערה 27 asks on this explanation of the רמב"ם because the רמב"ם in ספר המצוות uses the term"להניח"  to put on the תפילין של ראש. This implies that the תפילין של ראש are similar to the תפילין של יד since they both have this concept of needing to be put on. But, on the other hand, the רמב"ם in the beginning of הל' תפילין does say that the idea of the תפילין של ראש is that it “should be on”, as opposed to the תפילין של יד which is “the putting on”. So how are the תפילין של ראש defined, as “putting on” or as “being on”? The רבי leaves it as a question.

Possible answer to the סתירה in the רמב"ם

5)  Possibly we can suggest that the תפילין של ראש have in it both ideas “putting them on” and that they should “be on”. However, what remains to be explained is why the רמב"ם didn’t make both points together, why did he say one idea in ספר המצוות and one in משנה תורה).

Based on the above we can explain a puzzling idea in the רמב"ם. The רמב"ם holds like רש"י that normally one makes one ברכה on the תפילין של יד and that is מוציא the תפילין של ראש as well. But seemingly the רמב"ם holds unlike רש"י that they are two different מצוות so why is there one ברכה for both.

But based on the above possibility we can explain that even though they are two separate מצוות being that in nature they have similarities in that they both are the idea of putting (only that the תפילין של ראש have an additional idea of being), therefore they can work together with one ברכה. 

Based on the above an additional point in the רמב"ם can be explained

6)  If this is true then one can explain another idea in theרמב"ם . Many אחרונים ask why the רמב"ם prefaces the דינים of תפילין של ראש before the תפילין של יד, if the  תורה placed them in the opposite order.

The חמדת שלמה and others explain that it based on the idea that the קדושה of the תפילין של ראש is greater then that of the תפילין של יד.

Based on the above we can possibly add some understanding to the greatness of קדושה that is attributed to the תפילין של ראש and it is since it has a dual קדושה in this that it has two parts to it.