לז"נ ר' אבא ז"ל בן ר' יצחק אייזיק ז"ל הי"ד
יאקאבאוויטש
והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך למען תהיה תורת הוי"ה
בפיך, כי ביד חזקה הוצאך הוי"ה ממצרים (שמות יג, ט)
Though it is not explicit in the language of the Written
Law, Chazal teach us in the Oral Law that the intent of this verse is to the
commandment of תפילין של יד ושל ראש. However, the connection of יציאת
מצרים to למען תהיה תורת הוי"ה בפיך is unclear. How will
the act of wearing תפילין ensure that the תורת ה'
will actually remain בפיך?
Rashbam, in his commentary on this verse, rouses the ire of
Ibn Ezra with a short explanation that he believes to be the פשוטו של
מקרא. Rashbam writes, לפי עומק פשוטו, יהיה לך לזכרון תמיד כאילו כתוב על ידך, כעין שימני
כחותם על לבך. According to this, the simple reading imparts to us that the
memory of the exodus from Egypt should be ingrained in our hearts as if it was
written on our hands. Ibn Ezra fiercely attacks Rashbam for this comment,
though he does not mention his name, referring only to יש חולקים על אבותינו
הקדושים. Although Ibn Ezra himself is willing, in many places, to
explain a verse כפי פשוטו של מקרא, even at variance with an interpretation
of Chazal, here he refuses to do so, because Rashbam’s interpretation is
against הלכה, thus opening the door for the Karaites to reject the commandment
to wear תפילין. However, apparently Rashbam had no
problem with this, which begs the question – why not?
Rav Shimon Schwab explains that this comment of Rashbam evokes
his general approach to פשט and דרש. (See Rashbam’s comments at the beginning of פרשת
וישב and פרשת משפטים.) When it comes to הלכה,
we always follow the Oral Law. Nevertheless, when coming to understand the
Written Law, אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, for to reject the simple reading would be
to ignore immeasurable lessons that have been imparted to us through the
Written Law. In this case, Rav Schwab notes, the פשוטו של מקרא
contains a vital lesson that applies to our life daily. The Gemara (ברכות יד:) teaches that one who recites קריאת שמע without תפילין
is akin to bearing false testimony. How
then, are we able to recite קריאת שמע at night, or on Shabbos and Yom Tov, when
we are not wearing תפילין? For this, says Rav Schwab, we require the
message of the פשוטו של מקרא, so that when we recite קריאת
שמע with the memory of יציאת מצרים ingrained in our
inner being, we will not be guilty of bearing false testimony.
I would suggest that the inverse of this concept is true as
well. In a well-known exposition on the Rambam regarding כוונה בתפילה,
Rav Chaim Soloveitchik develops the idea that תפילה,
by definition, is the encounter between man and God, and therefore, תפילה without כוונה
is a misnomer. If one is not cognizant of the fact that he is standing before
his Creator during תפילה, he is simply muttering meaningless words.
This is not תפילה; Rav Chaim terms such a person to be a מתעסק בעלמא. In a similar vein, this idea may be
applied to one who wears תפילין without internalizing the message of תפילין. (See שו"ת שאגת אריה
בענין היסח הדעת בתפילין) Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, in Horeb (page
178) notes that the words תפילין and תפילה
derive from the same root – התפלל. In his words, “The tefillin tell you by
their very name that they must achieve for you a submission of your inner self
to God through the clarifying influence of a sound judgement of the ultimate
values in life; that the content of the parshiyoth must be taken to heart in
addition to the mere act of putting the tefillin on.” (Trans. of Dayan Grunfeld)
With this we can understand the connection in the פסוק, according to Rashbam’s פשוטו של מקרא. The תפילין
are to be an אות and זכרון to be ingrained into our moral fiber. Only
if the פרשיות are “as if they are sealed on your heart”
will the act of donning תפילין engender a תורת ה' בפיך.
Perhaps we may suggest, that while Rav Schwab explains that the פשוטו של
מקרא is necessary for the moments when we are not wearing תפילין, to still have the concept of תפילין bound figuratively to
our inner essence, the inverse is true as well. Even when we perform the mere
act of donning תפילין, if that act does not carry with it the
proper frame of mind, if we are not cognizant of the symbolism of the תפילין, it is as if we are figuratively not
wearing them.
