Save "Women and Tefillin (with English) (Copy)"
Women and Tefillin (with English) (Copy)
כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ וְכוּ' תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן אֵיזוֹהִי מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ סוּכָּה וְלוּלָב שׁוֹפָר וְצִיצִית

§ The mishna teaches that women are exempt from all positive, time-bound mitzvot. The Sages taught: What is a positive, time-bound mitzva? Examples include residing in a sukka, and taking the lulav, and blowing the shofar on Rosh HaShana, all of which can be performed only at specific times of the year. And another example is donning ritual fringes, as the mitzva applies only during the daytime due to the verse which states: “Fringes, that you may look upon them” (Numbers 15:39), indicating that the fringes should be seen.

וּתְפִילִּין וְאֵיזוֹהִי מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ מְזוּזָה מַעֲקֶה אֲבֵידָה וְשִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן וּכְלָלָא הוּא הֲרֵי מַצָּה שִׂמְחָה הַקְהֵל דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא וְנָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת וְתוּ וַהֲרֵי תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן דְּלָאו מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ הוּא וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵין לְמֵדִין מִן הַכְּלָלוֹת וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ חוּץ
And the donning of phylacteries (Deuteronomy 6:8), which are not worn at night or on Shabbat and Festivals, is also a positive, time-bound mitzva. And what is a positive mitzva that is not time bound? Examples include the affixing of a mezuza (Deuteronomy 11:20), the construction of a parapet on a roof (Deuteronomy 22:8), returning a lost item (Deuteronomy 22:1–3), and the release of the mother bird from the nest, i.e., the mitzva of sending away a mother bird when one finds it sitting on chicks or eggs (Deuteronomy 22:6–7). The Gemara asks: But is this an established principle? But there are the mitzvot of eating matza on the first night of Passover (Exodus 23:15), of rejoicing on a Festival (Deuteronomy 16:9–11), and assembly on Sukkot following the Sabbatical Year (Deuteronomy 31:10–13). And each of these is a positive, time-bound mitzva, and yet women are obligated in them. And furthermore, one can raise a difficulty as follows: But there are the mitzvot of Torah study (Deuteronomy 6:7), procreation (Genesis 1:28), and redemption of the firstborn (Exodus 13:12–13), each of which is not a positive, time-bound mitzva, and yet women are exempt from them. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One does not learn practical halakhot from general statements, i.e., when a general statement appears in a mishna and uses the term: All, it is not to be understood as an all-inclusive statement without exceptions. This is the case even in a place where it says: Except, to exclude a specific matter.

וּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת מְנָלַן גָּמַר מִתְּפִילִּין מַה תְּפִילִּין נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת אַף כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת וּתְפִילִּין גָּמַר לַהּ מִתַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה מָה תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת אַף תְּפִילִּין נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת וְנַקֵּישׁ תְּפִילִּין לִמְזוּזָה תְּפִילִּין לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה אִיתַּקּוּשׁ בֵּין בְּפָרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה בֵּין בְּפָרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה תְּפִילִּין לִמְזוּזָה בְּפָרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה לָא אִיתַּקּוּשׁ וְנַקֵּישׁ מְזוּזָה לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דִּכְתִיב לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם גַּבְרֵי בָּעוּ חַיֵּי נְשֵׁי לָא בָּעוּ חַיֵּי

§The Gemara turns to the sources of this principle. From where do we derive that women are exempt from positive, time-bound mitzvot? It is derived by juxtaposition from the mitzva of phylacteries: Just as women are exempt from donning phylacteries, so too, women are exempt from all positive, time-bound mitzvot. And the exemption of women from donning phylacteries is derived from their exemption from Torah study: Just as women are exempt from Torah study, as derived from Deuteronomy 11:19, so too women are exempt from donning phylacteries, as the two issues are juxtaposed in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:7–8). The Gemara asks: And let us say the opposite and juxtapose phylacteries to mezuza, which is also mentioned in that passage. Mezuza is a mitzva in which women are also obligated. Based on this comparison, women would be obligated in phylacteries as well. The Gemara answers: Phylacteries are juxtaposed to Torah study in both the first paragraph and in the second paragraph of Shema, whereas phylacteries are not juxtaposed to mezuza in the second paragraph. It is therefore preferable to compare phylacteries to Torah study. The Gemara says: But if so, let us juxtapose mezuza to Torah study and say that women are also exempt from the obligation of a mezuza. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This could not enter your mind, as it is written with regard to the mitzva of mezuza: “That your days may be multiplied” (Deuteronomy 11:21). Can it be said that men need life but women do not need life? Since the reward for the performance of the mitzva of mezuza is extended life, this mitzva applies to women as well.

וּמַנּוּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר קְרָא וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל יָדְךָ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת ה' בְּפִיךָ הוּקְּשָׁה כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ לִתְפִילִּין מָה תְּפִילִּין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת אַף כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת וּמִדְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת מִכְּלָל דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת
The Gemara comments: And who is the scholar called by the nickname: The Sages of Paphunya? It is Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, who said as follows: The verse states with regard to phylacteries: “And it shall be a sign for you on your arm and for a memorial between your eyes, that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). In this manner the entire Torah is juxtaposed to phylacteries: Just as donning phylacteries is a positive, time-bound mitzva and women are exempt from it, so too are women exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva in the Torah. And from the fact that women are exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva, one can learn by inference that women are obligated in every positive mitzva that is not time bound.

ספר אבודרהם ברכת המצוות ומשפטיהם

והטעם שנפטרו הנשים מהמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא לפי שהאשה משועבדת לבעלה לעשות צרכיו. ואם היתה מחוייבת במצות עשה שהזמן גרמא אפשר שבשעת עשיית המצוה יצוה אותה הבעל לעשות מצותו, ואם תעשה מצות הבורא ותניח מצותו אוי לה מבעלה, ואם תעשה מצותו ותניח מצות הבורא אוי לה מיוצרה, לפיכך פטרה הבורא ממצותיו כדי להיות לה שלום עם בעלה.

Sefer Abudraham Blessings on Mitzvot, and Their Laws

The reason that women were exempted from positive time-bound commandments is because the woman is subservient to her husband to perform his needs. If she were obligated in positive time-bound commandments, it is possible that at the time for performing the mitzva the husband would command her to perform his command, and if she were to perform the command of the Creator and set aside his [the husband’s] command, woe is to her from her husband. If she were to perform his [the husband’s] command and set aside the mitzva of the Creator, woe is to her from He who formed her. Therefore, the Creator exempted her from his commands in order so that she has peace with her husband.

אגרות משה אורח חיים ד:מט

…סתם נשים בעולם אינם עשירות ועליהן מוטל גידול הילדים והילדות שהיא מלאכה היותר חשובה להשי”ת [להשם יתברך] ולהתורה… שגם טבע הנשים מסוגל יותר לגידול הילדים שמצד זה הקל עליהן שלא לחייבן בלמוד התורה, ובמ”ע שהזמ”ג, שלכן אף אם ישתנה סדור החיים בעולם גם לכל הנשים ולעשירות בכל הזמנים ואף כשאפשר למסור הגידול לאיזה אינשי ונשי כבמדינתנו לא נשתנה דין התורה ואף לא דין דרבנן…

Iggerot Moshe, OC 4:49

The average women in the world are not rich and are responsible for raising the boys and girls, which is the most important labor to God and to the Torah… For the nature of women is also more suited for child-rearing; therefore, [God] was lenient with them so as not to obligate them in learning Torah and in positive time-bound commandments. Therefore, even if the order of life in the world should change for all women, and for the wealthy in all eras, and even when it is possible to give over the child-rearing to some men and women as in our country, the law of the Torah has not changed and neither has rabbinic law.

ותפילין - וקסבר לילה לאו זמן תפילין אי נמי שבת ויו"ט לאו זמן תפילין הילכך כיון דאיכא שעתא דלא מיחייב בה זמן גרמא הוא:

ותפילין וציצית - אע"ג דקיימא לן בהקומץ רבה (מנחות דף לו:) דלילה זמן תפילין והלכה ואין מורין כן מ"מ שפיר הוי מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא שהרי אין נוהגין בשבתות ובי"ט כדדרשינן בפרק המוצא תפילין (עירובין דף צו.) לפי שאין צריכין אות דשבת גופא איקרי אות כדכתיב כי אות היא וציצית דחשבינן הכא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא אומר ר"י דהיינו כרבי שמעון דבפרק התכלת (מנחות דף מג.) דסבר לילה לאו זמן ציצית הוא ופוטר נשים כדאיתא התם וכן הלכה דהא בפרק במה מדליקין (שבת דף כה:) מפרש טעמא דסדין פטורה מן הציצית גזירה משום כסות לילה והיינו טעמא לרבי שמעון דוקא ועוד קאמר בפ"ב דברכות (דף יד:) דבמערבא אין אומרים פרשת ציצית בלילה ומסיק נמי אביי אנן מתחילינן מדמתחלי במערבא וכיון דמתחילינן גמרינן ותימה היכי חשיב ציצית מ"ע שהזמן גרמא למ"ד (מנחות דף מא.) ציצית חובת טלית היא כיון דכלי קופסא חייבין בציצית והתם ליכא זמן גרמא כלל דבין ביום בין בלילה חייבין ואפילו למ"ד (שם) ציצית חובת גברא הוא קשה דכמו דכסות לילה פטורה כשהוא לובשה ביום ה"נ כסות יום חייבת כשלובש בלילה דהכי אמרינן בירושלמי כסות יום שלבשה בלילה חייבת בציצית וא"כ היכי חשיב לה זמן גרמא כיון שחייבת בין ביום ובין בלילה ואומר ר"י כיון שחיובו תלי במה שהזמן גרם לבישתה ביום יש לה ליחשב זמן גרמא שזמן לבישתה גורם החיוב:

ת"ר תפילין מאימתי מברך עליהן משעת הנחתן כיצד היה משכים לצאת לדרך ומתיירא שמא יאבדו מניחן וכשיגיע זמנן ממשמש בהן ומברך עליהן ועד מתי מניחן עד שתשקע החמה רבי יעקב אומר עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק וחכמים אומרים עד זמן שינה ומודים חכמים לר' יעקב שאם חלצן לצאת לבית הכסא או ליכנס לבית המרחץ ושקעה חמה שוב אינו חוזר ומניחן אמר רב נחמן הלכה כרבי יעקב רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא מצלו בהו באורתא איכא דאמרי אין הלכה כר' יעקב
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to phylacteries, from when does one recite a blessing over them? From when the time arrives to don them. How so? If one is rising early to leave his home to travel on the road and is afraid lest his phylacteries become lost during the journey, he dons them even at night, despite the fact that this is not the proper time for the mitzva of phylacteries. And when the time for their mitzva arrives, in the morning, he touches them and recites a blessing over them. And until when does one wear them? Until the sun sets. Rabbi Ya’akov says: Until traffic in the marketplace ceases. And the Rabbis say: Until the time of sleep. And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Ya’akov that if one removed them to go out to the bathroom or to enter the bathhouse and the sun set, one does not don them again. Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov. The Gemara likewise relates that Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna would pray in the evening, i.e., the evening service, with phylacteries. Some say that Rav Naḥman ruled that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov but in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna that the mitzva of phylacteries ends at sunset.
והא רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא מצלו בהו באורתא ההוא פליגא ומי אמר רבה בר רב הונא הכי והא אמר רבה בר רב הונא ספק חשיכה ספק לא חשיכה לא חולץ ולא מניח הא ודאי חשיכה חולץ התם בערב שבת איתמר מאי קסבר אי קסבר לילה זמן תפילין שבת נמי זמן תפילין אי קסבר שבת לאו זמן תפילין לילה נמי לאו זמן תפילין דמהיכא דממעטא שבת מהתם ממעטי לילות דתניא (שמות יג, י) ושמרת את החוקה הזאת למועדה מימים ימימה ימים ולא לילות מימים ולא כל ימים פרט לשבתות וימים טובים דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי ר"ע אומר לא נאמר חוקה זו אלא לפסח בלבד נפקא ליה מהיכא דנפקא ליה לר' עקיבא דתניא ר' עקיבא אומר יכול יניח אדם תפילין בשבתות ובימים טובים ת"ל (שמות יג, טז) והיה לאות על ידך ולטוטפת בין עיניך מי שצריכין אות יצאו שבתות וימים טובים שהן גופן אות
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna would pray in the evening with phylacteries. The Gemara explains: That opinion represented in this incident disagrees with the ruling of Rav Naḥman. The Gemara asks: And did Rabba bar Rav Huna actually say this, that the mitzva of phylacteries applies at night? But doesn’t Rabba bar Rav Huna say: If it is uncertain whether it is nightfall or whether it is not nightfall, one neither removes his phylacteries, as it is not yet definitely night, nor dons them ab initio. This indicates that if it is definitely nightfall, one removes his phylacteries. The Gemara answers: Rabba bar Rav Huna’s ruling there was stated with regard to Shabbat eve, as one may not don phylacteries on Shabbat, when the mitzva does not apply. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: What does Rabba bar Rav Huna hold? If he holds that night is a time when one performs the mitzva of wearing phylacteries, then Shabbat is also a time when one performs the mitzva of wearing phylacteries. If he holds that Shabbat is not a time when one performs the mitzva of wearing phylacteries, then night is also not a time when one performs the mitzva of wearing phylacteries. The reason for this statement is that from the source where Shabbat is excluded from the mitzva of phylacteries, nights are excluded from there as well. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the end of the passage of the Torah that discusses both the mitzvot of the Paschal offering and phylacteries: “And you shall observe this ordinance in its season from year [miyamim] to year” (Exodus 13:10). This indicates that these mitzvot apply during the days [yamim] but not during the nights. Furthermore, the letter mem, meaning from, in the term: “From year [miyamim],” teaches: These mitzvot apply on some days, but not on all days. This excludes Shabbatot and Festivals, on which phylacteries are not worn. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: This verse, mentioning an ordinance, is stated only with regard to the Paschal offering, and it is not referring to phylacteries at all. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that at night one is exempt from the obligation of donning phylacteries, says that on Shabbat one is exempt as well. The Gemara answers: Rabba bar Rav Huna derives the exemption from the obligation to don phylacteries on Shabbat from a different source, the source where Rabbi Akiva derives it from, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that a person should don phylacteries on Shabbatot and Festivals. To counter this, the verse states: “And it shall be for a sign for you on your arm, and for a remembrance between your eyes, so that God’s law shall be in your mouth; for with a strong arm God brought you out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:9). This teaches that the obligation to don phylacteries applies when the Jewish people require a sign to assert their status as God’s nation, i.e., during the week. This serves to exclude Shabbatot and Festivals, as they themselves are signs of the Jewish people’s status as God’s nation and a remembrance of the exodus from Egypt. Consequently, no further sign is required on these days.
אֶלָּא הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא דְּתַנְיָא: מִיכַל בַּת כּוּשִׁי הָיְתָה מַנַּחַת תְּפִילִּין וְלֹא מִיחוּ בָּהּ חֲכָמִים, וְאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל יוֹנָה הָיְתָה עוֹלָה לָרֶגֶל וְלֹא מִיחוּ בָּהּ חֲכָמִים. מִדְּלֹא מִיחוּ בָּהּ חֲכָמִים — אַלְמָא קָסָבְרִי מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא הִיא.
Rather, we must say that it is this tanna who maintains that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries, as it was taught in a baraita: Michal, daughter of Kushi, King Saul, would don phylacteries, and the Sages did not protest against her behavior, as she was permitted to do so. And similarly, Jonah’s wife would undertake the Festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not protest against her practice. From the fact that the Sages did not protest against Michal’s donning phylacteries, it is apparent that these Sages hold that phylacteries is a positive mitzva not bound by time, i.e., it is a mitzva whose performance is mandated at all times, including nights and Shabbat. There is an accepted principle that women are obligated in all positive mitzvot not bound by time.

שו"ת הרשב"א חלק א סימן קכג

והסכמתי כדברי מי שאומר שאם רצו עושות כל מצות עשה ומברכות, ממעשה דמיכל בת שאול שהיתה מנחת תפילין. דלא מיחו בידה, אלא כרצון חכמים עבדא, וסתמא דמילתא כיון דמנחת, מברכת.

Rashba, Teshuva 1:123

I agree with those who say that if they desire they can do all such mitzvot and recite the blessings, on the basis of Michal bat Shaul who used to wear Tefillin and they did not protest; indeed she did so in accordance with the will of the Sages and by the nature of the matter since she puts on Tefillin she makes the blessing.

(ט) ונוהגת מצוה זו בכל מקום ובכל זמן בזכרים, אבל לא בנקבות, לפי שהיא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, ומכל מקום אם רצו להניח אין ממחין בידן, ושכר יש להן, אבל לא כשכר האיש, שאינו דומה שכר המצוה ועושה, כשכר שאינו מצוה ועושה (קידושין לא א). ובמסכת ערובין בריש פרק המוצא תפלין (צו, א) אמרו זכרונם לברכה, שמיכל בת שאול היתה מנחת תפלין ולא מחו בידה חכמים ושם אמרו, אשתו של יונה, היתה עולה לרגל ולא מחו בידה חכמים. והעובר על זה, ואינו מניח תפלין של יד ושל ראש בטל שמנה עשה (מנחות מד א), שהרי בארבע פרשיות צוה הכתוב על תפלין של יד ושל ראש.

(9) And it is practiced in every place and at all times by males, but not by females; because it is a positive commandment determined by time. And nonetheless, if they want to lay tefillin, we do not protest [against them] and there is reward for them; but not like the reward of a man - as the reward of someone who is commanded [something] and does [it] is not similar to the reward of someone who is not commanded [it] and does [it] (Kiddushin 31a). And in Tractate Eruvin 31a in the chapter [entitled] Hamotseh Tefillin, they, may their memory be blessed, said that Michal the daughter of Shaul would lay tefillin and the Sages did not protest [against her]. And there they [also] said the wife of Yonah would go up in pilgrimage and the Sages did not protest [against her]. And one who transgresses this and does not lay tefillin of the arm and of the head has violated eight positive commandments (Menachot 44a); as behold, Scripture commanded about the tefillin of the arm and of the head in four sections.

(ט)...נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורין מן הציצית מן התורה ומדברי סופרים...ונשים ועבדי' שרצו להתעטף בציצית מתעטפים בלא ברכה וכן שאר מצות עשה שהנשים פטורות מהן אם רצו לעשות אותן בלא ברכה אין ממחין בידן.

...Women, slaves and children are exempt from [the mitzvah of] tzitzit [both] from the Torah and from the Rabbis...but women and slaves who wish to wear tzitzit may wear [them] without a blessing, and so too for other mitzvot where women are exempt, if they wish to do them without a blessing, we do not protest.

א"ר ינאי תפילין צריכין גוף נקי כאלישע בעל כנפים

מאי היא? אביי אמר שלא יפיח בהן רבא אמר שלא יישן בהן

Rabbi Yannai said Tefillin need a guf naki [in order to be worn], like Elisha the Winged One [had].

What is [guf naki]? Abaye says not passing wind with them on, Rava says not sleeping with them on

מאירי ברכות יד:

שהן צריכין גוף נקי מעבירות ומהרהורים ואין ראוי להניחם אלא לאחר התשובה וקצת חכמים נוהגים להניחם בימים שבין ר"ה ליום הכפורים אחר התשובה והטבילה והוודויין וכן הדבר נכון בעיני

Meiri Brakhot 14b

...that they need a "clean body" from transgression and impure thoughts, and so it is not proper to put on tefillin until after one's repentance. And there was a custom for a few of the sages to put on tefillin during the Days of Awe after repenting, immersing in a mikveh, and saying vidduy, and this is the proper way in my opinion.

כל בו הלכות תפילין סי' כא

כתב הרם נשים פטורות מתפילין מפני שהיא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, שהרי אין מניחין אותן שבת ויום טוב. ואם רצו להניח אין שומעין להן מפני שאין יודעו' לשמור עצמן בנקיות.

Kol Bo (The Laws of Tefillin, Section 21)

The Maharam writes that women are exempt from Tefillin because it is a positive time-bound commandment, since we don’t wear it on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And if they want to wear it, we don’t allow them to, because they don’t know how to keep themselves in nekiut.

(ו) ואם רוצין להחמיר על עצמן – מוחין בידן. ולא דמי לסוכה ולולב שפטורות ועם כל זה מברכות עליהן. דכיון דתפילין צריך זהירות יתירה מגוף נקי, כדאמרינן בשבת (מט א): תפילין צריכין גוף נקי כאלישע בעל כנפים. ובירושלמי ברכות שם אמרו: תמן אמרין "כל שאינו כאלישע בעל כנפים אל יניח תפילין". אך אנשים שמחויבים – בהכרח שיזהרו בהם בשעת קריאת שמע ותפילה. ולכן אין מניחין כל היום, כמו שכתבתי בסימן הקודם. ואם כן נשים שפטורות, למה יכניסו עצמן בחשש גדול כזה? ואצלן בשעת קריאת שמע ותפילה כלאנשים כל היום, לפיכך אין מניחין אותן להניח תפילין. ואף על גב דתניא בעירובין (צו א) דמיכל בת שאול היתה מנחת תפילין, ולא מיחו בה חכמים – אין למידין מזה, דמסתמא ידעו שהיא צדקת גמורה וידעה להזהר...(עיין מגן אברהם סעיף קטן ג' ובית יוסף. ולפי מה שכתבתי אתי שפיר.)

If they want to be strict with themselves we protest. And it's not like Succah and Lulav where [women are also] exempt but they can [do them] and make blessings over them. [By contrast,] because Tefillin need more caution for guf naki, as we say in Shabbat (49a), "Tefillin need a guf naki like Elisha the Winged One". And in the Yerushalmi Brachot there they said: "Everyone who isn't like Elisha the Winged One should not wear Tefillin". But men, [since] they are obligated, are forced to be careful with them during the reading of the Shema and the Amidah. And therefore we don't wear them all day, as I wrote in the previous section. And according to this logic, [since] women are exempt, why would they take on this great risk? [Since] for them, the time [when they are] reading the Shema and the Amidah is comparable to the [rest of] the day for men, therefore they don't wear Tefillin. And even though it was taught in a Baraita in Eiruvin (96a) that Michal bat Shaul wore Tefillin, and the Sages didn't protest, we don't learn [the law] from that, since seemingly they knew that she was a complete tzadeket and knew to be cautious....(See Magen Avraham Section 3 and the Beit Yosef. And according to what I have written here it all makes sense)

Levush

[It is legally permitted for women to wear tzitzit] but it is still foolish and arrogant to do so. Despite the fact that with other time bound positive commandments women have been accustomed to observing them and reciting the blessing, what they are used to doing, they do; what they are not used to doing, they do not do. And with tzitzit, we do not find it, except for one in a thousand, like Michal the daughter of Saul and others; therefore, the should not wear tzitzit.

שלטי גיבורים

אסור לנשים להניח תפלין אפי' בלא ברכה, מפני שנראה כדרך החיצונים שעוברים על דברי חכמים, ואינן רוצים לדרוש המקראות כמות

Shiltei Giborim

It is forbidden for women to don tefillin, even without making a blessing, because it looks like the manner of the sects who disregarded the words of the Sages and disputed their traditions.

Letter from the Principal of SAR High School (2014)
Dear Parents,
The issue of women and Tefillin resurfaced this week in light of the Boiling Point article recently published at Shalhevet High School in Los Angeles and circulated on Facebook. It has since become an international topic of discussion. I imagine that many of you have read the articles and have had many conversations on the issue. Over the course of December, I spoke with students and faculty but I did not communicate directly with the parent body on the topic. Given the international publicity of this week, I would like to share my thoughts directly with you.
Two girls who have put on Tefillin since their bat mitzvah approached me months ago to ask permission to put on Tefillin in school. Both students, in their respective ways, have shown real commitment to this mitzvah. Since their bat mitzvah, they have been taught, in accordance with their family practice, to daven each day with Tefillin. For me, this was a question of whether I could allow a young woman to practice as she had been taught – to daven each and every day in a meaningful way wearing Tefillin as an expression of her עבודת השם. I felt that my responsibility was to consider the person before me and the halakha, before considering the political fallout of the decision.
In my opinion, the practice of these families has support in halakha. It has basis in the Rishonim (רמב״ם, רשב״א וספר החינוך) – and R. Yosef Karo, the מחבר שולחן ערוך, seems to follow that opinion. I felt it appropriate to see this as a legitimate practice albeit different than our communal practice – but one that has halakhic justification. As such, I granted the two girls permission in the context – in a tefilah setting – of a group of girls who were supportive of their practice. I felt it appropriate to create space at SAR for them to daven meaningfully. I explained this to our students in this way: it is a halakhically legitimate position despite it not being our common communal practice. But since there is support for it, I would be willing to create such space in the school. I did not, in so doing, create new policy nor invite any female student who wanted to don tefillin to do so. These are girls who, I believe, have been מוסר נפש (for a teen to get up at 6:20 each morning is meaningful commitment) for this מצוה. At its core, women donning Tefillin is a discretionary act in Jewish law. While our community has adopted as normative the view that women refrain from this act, I see the range of rishonim who allow women to don tefillin as support to give space to that practice within our community. One can disagree with this decision on halakhic and public policy grounds. But the position is a coherent one and deserves careful consideration.
But why? What was so important about this? As the weeks passed and I heard the various reactions and responses, my feelings on the issue became increasingly clear to me. Perhaps this is best expressed by way of a story. I daven in R. Yosef Adler’s shul, Congregation Rinat Yisrael, in Teaneck. Many of you know Rabbi Adler as the principal of TABC. On that day back in December when I emailed the faculty, I met Rabbi Adler at a community event. He crossed the room and came over to me, took my hand in his two hands and said, “yasher koach, you made the right decision. In a world where there are so many things that distract our teens from focusing on mitzvot, we should support teenagers who seek to strengthen their connection to Hashem and to a life of mitzvot. If I taught girls in my school, I would make the same decision.” In fact, as he subsequently shared with me, he had made the same decision. A few years back, a woman from the community asked if she could daven at the morning minyan at Rinat – but, she said, I wear tallis and tefillin when I daven. Rabbi Adler permitted her to daven in shul. A number of men in the community came over to him and said that they refused to daven in such a minyan. That story crystallized it all for me. I told my students (and I went to each of our four grades for a community meeting to explain the decision – as well as giving two faculty shiurim for staff) that I am not committed to the idea of SAR girls putting on tefillin. I am not encouraging our girls to do so. But I am committed to having our boys and girls be able to daven in the same shul where a woman might be doing so. That when they see something different, even controversial, before deciding in which denomination it belongs, they must first take a serious look at the halakha and ask their Rabbi whether there is basis for such practice. I suspect that I would not differ much regarding normative halakha with most people in our community. But I would differ strongly with someone who thought this was cause for that person to be removed from the community – or that such practice could not be supported within the community shul. I permitted our two female students to daven with tefillin because I believe that we should not be afraid of different forms of עבודת השם when there is halakhic argument to support it. I permitted the young women to daven with tefillin because we should be proud, as a Modern Orthodox community, that we recognize the sanctity and dignity of each person and we find ways to support their spiritual growth in different ways.
I am proud to say that many students have taken this as an opportunity to learn about their classmates and to learn the sources more carefully. They have engaged each other seriously and respectfully. They have helped shape an atmosphere of support, of care, of אהבת ישראל.
And here is what we do not do: we do not loosely and without basis malign other Jews, call them names, disparage their motivations and their divine service in the name of…what? I am not sure. I have been reading social media (a new practice for me) and I have been appalled. I have read people maligning these two fine young women with insults and false characterizations based on…nothing. It is awful; it is abominable; it is unacceptable. Two girls who are שומרי שבת וכשרות, גומלי חסד,and בנות תורה. It has been awful to watch. It is מוציא שם רע at its worst (of kids, no less). We should be proud to be stringent in recognizing the dignity of others and valuing their divine service and stringent about how we talk about others, especially children.
I know that not everyone agrees with my decision. I expect that and I respect that. It is my hope that we can champion, together, ahavat yisrael, love for each Jew; that we can come together as a community even when we disagree; that we can deeply respect each other with pride as we create space for us to work together, as a community, to strengthen ourselves in our עבודת השם.
With respect and appreciation,
Rabbi Tully Harcsztark
Principal
SAR High School
Emeritus Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, The Heroism of Tamar
On the morning after our arrival, however, an event occurred that left a deep impression on me. The sponsoring body, a global Jewish organisation, was a secular one, and to keep within their frame of reference the group had to include at least one non-orthodox Jew, a woman studying for the rabbinate. We, the semikhah and yeshiva students, were davenning the morning service in one of the lounges in the chateau when the Reform woman entered, wearing tallit and Tefillin, and sat herself down in the middle of the group.
This is something the students had not encountered before. What were they to do? There was no mechitzah. There was no way of separating themselves. How should they react to a woman wearing tallit and Tefillin and praying in the midst of a group of men? They ran up to the Rav in a state of great agitation and asked what they should do. Without a moment’s hesitation he quoted to them the saying of the sages: A person should be willing to throw himself into a furnace of fire rather than shame another person in public. With that he ordered them back to their seats, and the prayers continued.
The moral of that moment never left me. The Rav, for the past 32 years head of the yeshiva in Maaleh Adumim, was and is one of the great halakhists of our time. He knew immediately how serious were the issues at stake: men and women praying together without a mechitzah between them, and the complex question about whether women may or may not wear a tallit and tefillin. The issue was anything but simple.
But he knew also that halakhah is a systematic way of turning the great ethical and spiritual truths into a tapestry of deeds, and that one must never lose the larger vision in an exclusive focus on the details. Had the students insisted that the woman pray elsewhere they would have put her to shame, the way Eli did when he saw Hannah praying and thought she was drunk. Never, ever shame someone in public. That was the transcending imperative of the hour. That is the mark of a great-souled man. To have been his student for more than a decade I count as one of the great privileges of my life.