B"H

Shalom Alecha HaRav Kornfeld, Shlita.

In your Insights on Yoma 8a, you ask the question how the halacha could be that heseiach hada'as is indeed prohibited while wearing tefillin when in fact R' Yehuda, who darshens "Vihaya Al Mitzcho Tamid" as the source for heseiach hada'as in the context of tefillin, can only do so because he holds that the tzitz is not meratzeh when in disuse, which in turn correlates with his view that tuma HUTRA bitzibbur, and the latter is clearly not the halacha. The Insights answer, in the name of the Sha'agas Aryeh, that even R' Shimon (R' Yehuda's interlocuter who rules that tuma dechuya bitzibur) agrees that someone wearing tefillin may not be meisiach da'as.

It follows,then, that according to the Sha'agas Aryeh's answer, the halacha follows R' Shimon, and that the latter concedes to R' Yehuda, which is why al pi halacha lima'aseh heseiach hada'as is proscribed.

However, a fundamental question remains. The Rambam indeed rules that tuma dechuya bitzibbur, just like R' Shimon (Biat Mikdash 4:14-16)So far so good. But, he also rules (Biat Mikdash 4:8) that the tzitz is NOT meratzeh when it is not worn by the KG, just like Rabbi Yehuda, the same exponent of tuma hutrah bitzibbur! So, in fact, it is easy to understand why the halacha is that heseiach hada'as is forbidden. Since the halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda that "odeihu al mitzcho miratzeh, eino al mitzcho eino miratzeh", we acceptR' Yehuda's drasha of "Vihaya al mitzcho tamid"! The question, is how come can the halacha follow Rabbi Yehuda if we accept R' Shimon's principle that tuma is dechuya bitzibur? It's a blatant stirah if the 2 issues of tuma bitizbur and ritzui hatzitz are inextruicably linked as the gemara suggests.

Perhaps we may infer the answer from the concluding remarks of Tosfot on 7b (s.v. "Miklal"). Tosfot find a problem in linking the 2 issues of tuma bitzibur and ritzui hatzitz from the hava amina of the gemara on 7a. There, the braita of "haya makriv parim.." is cited in order to refute the exponents of tuma hutra bitzibur. It seems to be talking about the mussafin of Sukkos, and despite the fact that these offerings are communal, one should try to find another animal if the korban became tamei. Tosfot ask that this braita is difficult even for R' Shimon. R' Shimon holds tuma dechuya bitzibur, and that it indeed confirmed by the braita. But R' Shimon also holds that the tzitz is always meratzeh, and so there should be no need to look for another animal! Tosfot answer: a)The Tanna of this braita holds like R' Yehuda in that "eino al mitzcho eino miratzeh", despite accepting the truth of tuma dechuya bitzibur b) Braisa refers to special case, where tzitz was broken.

Focusing on Tosfot's first answer, we see that it is indeed possible to hold like R' Yehuda on the matter of ritzui hatzitz/tefillin, but like R' Shimon on the matter of tuma bitzibbur. And since this is how the Rambam rules, it stands to reason he follows the Tana of "haya makriv parim.." as first understood by Tosfot. Thus, everything falls into place.

Thank you for continuing to educate me on the web.

Sincerely,Shalom Spira, Montreal, Canada