Rebbe,

I thought someone more learned than I would bring this up, and phrase the question properly, but alas the days are passing and my curiosity has gotten the better of me:

(a) Does R' Yehuda conclude that tefillin is NOT a time-bound mitzvah, and therefore we ought to don tefillin on Shabbes, and moreover, that women are also obligated to don tefillin?

(b) This view is described as an anonymous Sifra. Are we to learn that anonymous Sifras do not represent the view of the majority like anonymous Mishnas?

(c) And why is the Halacha different? Does the Gemara tell us the Halacha on this subject or was it determined later?

I'm so sorry if my questions are silly, but I'm enjoying learning so much and I pray no one will rejoice as I stumble, nor take offense if I have misspoken.

Sincerely,

Sal Litvak

?----------------------------------------------?

?The Kollel replies?:

Even if your questions were silly, not only would you not be wrong to ask, but you would be wrong not to ask.

Chazal have only praise for people who ask in order to understand what they are learning (even if in the process, they make fools of themselves). And it is about those who fail to ask that they said 'Lo ha'Bayshan Lameid' (Someone who is shy [to ask] will never be able to learn).

In fact, your questions are relevant and to the point, and need to be addressed.

(a) You are quite right. R. Yehudah (and R. Meir) do indeed hold that Tefillin is not a time-bound Mitzvah, and therefore we ought to don Tefillin on Shabbos, and moreover, women are also obligated to don Tefillin (only it is not R. Yehudah who concludes this, but the Gemara, which concludes that this is R. Yehudah's opinion).

(b) Anonymous Mishnahs are considered the majority view, due to the decision of Rebbi (who collated them) to present them without a name. To my knowledge, this principle does not extend to Beraisos, particularly those that have known authors, such as Sifras, which were compiled by R. Yehudah, and which obviously convey his personal opinion.

In any event, the S'tam Sifra to which you are referring has no direct connection with Tefilin, and is only cited to teach us that R. Yehudah cannot hold like R. Yossi, with regard to 'Nashim Somchos'. And this, in turn, forces us to conclude that, in connection with the Beraisa cited earlier, R. Yehudah must obligate women to bring in the Tefilin that she finds, because she is included in the Mitzvah of Tefilin.

Remember also, that even a Stam Mishnah is only Halachah if it precedes the Machlokes. So which Beraisa would you consider as having come first, assuming that one is a Sifra and the other, say, a Tosefta?

(c) Regarding your third point, the Gemara does not determine the Halachah, but the Rambam does. Let's see how the Kesef Mishnah (Rambam Hilchos Tefilin 4:10) explains the Rambam's ruling. Based on a Beraisa (cited in Menachos), where all three Tana'im cited there rule 'Laylah La'av Z'man Tefilin', he explains that the Rambam rules like R. Yossi ha'Gelili (automatically exempting women from putting on Tefilin) despite the fact that R. Akiva rules otherwise.

On the other hand, he rules like R. Akiva, who precludes Shabbos from Tefilin from the Pasuk 'Ve'hayah Lecha le'Os ... '), and not like R. Yossi ha'Gelili (who learns it from the Pasuk "Ve'shamarta ... mi'Yamim Yamimah").

These two rulings are based on the principle 'Halachah ke'R. Akiva me'Chaveiro, ve'Lo me'Chaveirav' (the Halachah is like R. Akiva when he argues with one coleague, but not when he argues against a majority).

We have another principle 'Ein Halachah ke'Talmid be'Makom ha'Rav' (We do not rule like a disciple when he argues with his Rebbe), and that will explain why the Halachah cannot be like R. Meir and R. Yehudah against R. Akiva.

be'Virchas Kol Tuv

Eliezer Chrysler.