What is Bothering the Aruch
Hashulchan?

Women Wearing Tefillin

Michael J. Broyde

mbroyde@emory.edu

Please note that this piece isn’t meant to be construed one way or another as the view of the Seforim Blog.

Introduction

In our previous article,[1]
we focused on the view of the Mishnah Berurah concerning women wearing
tefillin.  In this article, we focus on
the Aruch Hashulchan, whose approach is also complex, reflecting the complexity
of the area.

The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 38:6) states:

נשים ועבדים פטורים מתפילין מפני שהיא מצות עשה
שהזמן גרמא דשבת ויו”ט פטור מתפילין ואם רוצין להחמיר על עצמן מוחין בידן ולא
דמי לסוכה ולולב שפטורות ועכ”ז מברכות עליהן דכיון דתפילין צריך זהירות יתירה
מגוף נקי כדאמרינן בשבת [מ”ט.] 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 ק”ש ותפלה ולכן אין מניחין כל היום
כמ”ש בסי’ הקודם וא”כ נשים שפטורות למה יכניסו עצמן בחשש גדול כזה ואצלן
בשעת ק”ש ותפלה כלאנשים כל היום לפיכך אין מניחין אותן להניח תפילין ואף על
גב דתניא בעירובין [צ”ו.] דמיכל בת שאול היתה מנחת תפילין ולא מיחו בה חכמים
אין למידין מזה דמסתמא ידעו שהיא צדקת גמורה וידעה להזהר וכן עבדים כה”ג
[עמג”א סק”ג וב”י ולפמ”ש א”ש[:

Women and slaves are
exempt from the mitzvah of tefillin since it is a positive commandment
that is time bound since tefillin are not worn on Shabbat and Yom Tov.  If they wish to adopt this as a stringency,
we should protest.  This is not
comparable to sukkah and lulav from which they are exempt, but nonetheless
recite a blessing. This is because tefillin require extra diligence
regarding cleanliness, as it states in Shabbat (49a) that tefillin need
a clean body like Elisha .In the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot) it says that
anyone who is not clean like Elisha should not wear tefillin.  Even men must be careful [with cleanliness]
when reciting the Shema and Amida which is why they do not wear them all day,
as I noted in the previous paragraph. 
If this is so, then why should women — who are exempt [from the mitzva
of tefillin] — place themselves under this great risk, since for them,
[wearing tefillin] when the Shema and the Amida are recited is comparable to
men [wearing tefillin] the entire day. 
Therefore, we do not permit them to put on tefillin.  Even though it recounts in Eruvin (96a) that
Michal bat Shaul did don tefillin, and the rabbis did not rebuke her, we
should not extrapolate from this, since they knew that she was very righteous
and could be careful.  Slaves are in the
same situation. [See the Magen Avraham 38:3 and the Bet Yosef; according to
what I have written all makes sense.]

There are a few problems with the Aruch
Hashulchan that are immediately clear. Four come to mind as requiring
resolution in order to understand the Aruch HaShulchan:

In short to understand the Aruch Hashulchan’s
approach, one must first comprehend what is bothering him about other
approaches.  In this case, he tells the
reader what is bother him when he notes in his final parenthetical note [[עמג”א סק”ג
וב”י ולפמ”ש א”ש
in which each word is abbreviate, but crucial to understanding, so we spell it
out:

[עיין
מגן אברהם סעיף קטן ג ובית יוסף ולפי מה שכתב אתיא שפיר[:

[See
the Magen Avraham call note 3, and the Bet Yoesef, and according to what I have
written all is 

logical.]

In this note, Aruch Hashulchan is claiming that
neither the Magen Avraham nor the Bet Yosef have properly solved the problem,
and he thus doing so.  This paper is an
explanation of that.

The
Approach of the Bet Yosef:

Bet
Yosef (OC 38) quotes Tosafot, as well as the Pesikta to explain the reasoning
behind Chazal’s recorded disapproval of Michal bat Shaul wearing tefillin.  Bet Yosef states and elaborates:

כתב הכל בו (סי’ כא) בשם הר”ם שאם רצו הנשים
להניח תפילין אין שומעין להן מפני שאינן יודעות לשמור עצמן בנקיות עכ”ל ובספר
ארחות חיים (הל’ תפילין סי’ ג) הקשה עליו מדאמרינן בריש פרק המוצא תפילין (שם)
דמיכל בת כושי (פירוש בת שאול) היתה מנחת תפילין ולא מיחו בה חכמים. ולי נראה שטעם
הר”ם כמו שכתבו התוספות (ד”ה מיכל) דאיתא בפסיקתא (רבתי פרק כב) שמיחו
בה חכמים ופירשו הם דטעמא משום דתפילין צריכין גוף נקי ונשים אינן זריזות ליזהר
והר”מ רצה לחוש לדברי הפסיקתא:

The Kol Bo (21) writes
in the name of the Maharam that if women wish to wear tefillin, we do
not listen to them, since they do not know how to keep themselves clean.  The Orchot Chaim (Tefillin 3) questioned
this based on the Talmud in Eruvin 96a that Michal bat Kushi (daughter of Saul)
did don tefillin and the rabbis did not rebuke her.  To me, it appears that the view of the
Maharam is like that quoted by Tosafot (sv michal) as it appears in the
Pesikta that the Sages did rebuke her. They explained the reason to be that tefillin
need a clean body and women are not careful about such matters.  Maharam was concerned for the view of the
Pesikta.

The Bet Yosef is clear and simple.  He thinks that there is a dispute between
rabbinic sources about whether any women can ever wear tefillin.  The Babylonian Talmud rules that Michal bat
Shaul can wear tefillin, and she is a model for all other women; the
Pesikta states that such is prohibited to all women, even to women like Michal
bat Shaul.  Some, the Bet Yosef claims,
are concerned with the view of the Pesikta, which they think is normative.

Following his rules to resolve disputes, Rabbi
Karo in the Shulchan Aruch rules against the Peskita and like the Bavli, as
such is the resolution favored by Rambam, Rif and Rosh. Rabbi Karo states
simply:

נשים ועבדים פטורים מתפילין, מפני שהוא מצות עשה
שהזמן גרמא.

Women and slaves are
exempt from the mitzvah of tefillin since it is a positive time bound
commandment.

Nothing is codified to discourage this conduct;
only an exemption is noted.  The view of
our Talmud is codified and nothing else is cited.  According to Rabbi Karo, tefillin are like lulav, sukkah
and shofar, which women need not, but may do, and is a mitzvah for them
to do.  The Peskta is rejected.

The Approach of the Magen Avraham

The Rema, however, adds the alternative:

 הגה: ואם הנשים רוצין להחמיר על עצמן, מוחין
בידם.

If the women wish to be
strict for themselves, we protest.

The Rema seems to be adopting the view of the
Pesikta that we ought to protest such conduct, essentially prohibiting it. Much
is unclear about the Rama, including why and does he mean all women (although
logic inclines one to think that he means all women.)

To explain the position of the Rama, Magen
Avraham (38:3) write:

מוחין כו’ – מפני שצריכין גוף נקי ונשים אינם
זריזות להזהר אבל אם היו חייבים לא היו פטורין מה”ט דהוי רמי אנפשייהו
ומזדהרי כנ”ל דלא כע”ת:

We protest: Since they
need a clean body and women are not particularly careful with cleanliness; but
if they were obligated, they would not be exempt for that reason since they
would accept the mitzvah upon themselves and they would thus be
conscientious.  Such appears to me to be
the rule, and not like the Olat Tamid.

The whole thrust of the Magen Avraham is to
explain the view of the Pesikta in contrast to the Bavli.  The Magen Avraham explains that the Pesikta
rules once one is not obligated in donning tefillin, one is not careful
to be clean and only those obligated are considered careful enough to wear tefillin.  The Magen Avraham’s view is simple and
central.  The halacha follows the
Pesikta’s view which is that the Rabbis made a decree that no one may don tefillin
other than those who are obligated.  Even
Michal bat Shaul may not. The Magan Avraham explains the Rama as clearly
residing in the camp which rules that the halacha follows the Pesikta against
the Bavli.  The whole thrust of the
reasoning of the Magen Avraham is to reject the view of the Olat Tamid who
argues that Rama is codifying only the rule that women who are not clean should
be rebuked.[2]

Understanding the Aruch Hashulchan

The Aruch Hashulchan does not adopt either of
these views.  He thinks that the halacha
is balanced between two textual imperatives, and he thinks that neither the
Magen Avraham nor the Bet Yosef has balanced them correctly, since one accepts
that the Bavli is completely correct and one that the Pesikta is the rule.  Not so the Aruch Hashulchan: he accepts the
ruling of the Pesikta as codified by the Rama that one needs to rebuke women
who don tefillin, but he has to harmonize that ruling with the binding
holding of the Babylonia Talmud, which is the center of his (and our) halachic
universe that Michal Bat Shaul was not rebuked.

How does he do that?  The answer is clear.  He
quotes the Rama’s ruling (twice!) that one rebukes women and then he explains
the rule of the Rama consistent with the Talmud.  He never quotes the view of the Pesikta and explains the
halacha exclusively on the basis of the Bavli.  His logic is simple and it can be laid out in almost mathematical
form.

Thus, while he quotes the Rama’s view that we
must object to women donning tefillin, he modifies it in his last
sentence of analysis — exactly because it goes quite clearly and directly
against our Talmud (the touchstone of Jewish law).  Aruch Hashulchan wants to make it clear that we do rule exactly
like the Bavli, but as understood though the lenses of the Pesikta.  When the Peskita and the Bavli directly
conflict or seem to conflict, then we have to adopt the rule of Bavli: when
they do not, we adopt an explanation of the Bavli consistent with that of the
Pesikta.  That explanation focuses on
the rule of cleanliness, and rules that people who might be unclean and who are
not obligated ought to be rebuked when they don tefillin.  In short, the Aruch Hashulchan rules that as
a general rule women are rebuked (as the Pesikta states) but exceptional women
are not, as the Bavli rules, but even the Bavli agrees that women generally
should not don tefillin.[4]

The following things are then apparent from the
Aruch Hashulchan.

In Sum: The Aruch HaShulchan preserves the Talmudic
rule of non-rebuke in a subset of case, as that is the rule codified in the
Talmud.  This is consistent with a
proper methodological understanding of the Aruch Hashulchan, who would be very
hesitant to rule like a Pesikta against a clear Bavli.  He argues with the Magen Avraham and those
many others who codify the rule that rebukes even Michal bat Shaul.  So too, he argues with the Bet Yosef who
simply ignores the Pesikta completely. 
The Aruch Hashulchan codifies both rules while giving priority to the
Bavli when the two sources conflict. 

This approach of the Aruch Hashulchan explains
why he is also comfortable arguing with the inclination of the Magen Avraham
that even men should not wear tefillin other than during the times of
prayer.[7]
 Magen Araham is inclined to rule that
once a man has fulfilled the tefillin obligation, he should not put them
on again, since a man who has already donned tefillin is like a woman
who has not, and neither may don again, (based on the rules of the Pesikta).  Aruch Hashulchab rejects the rule of the
Pesikta as applicable to all women, treating it only as good advice and permits
both very pious and unique men and women to violate it when it is clear that
fears about cleanliness do not apply to them. 
Such men he calls יחידי סגולה and such women he calls צדקת גמורה.

There is one important thing still unclear in
the Aruch Hashulchan.  We do not know
who else fits into the Michal bat Shaul rule besides her?  He classifies women who should not be
rebuked under the heading of צדקת גמורה וידעה להזהר which literally means that “she was a
completely righteous woman who knew to be careful [about cleanliness]”[8]

What is clear, however, is a few things.

Rather, the Aruch Hashulchan codifies two simple
rules: (1) Women generally should not wear tefillin out of concerns of
cleanliness; (2) special women who are righteous and clean may do so.

Of course, to what extent this has practical
halakhic application is for a different discussion.  For example, there might be other rationales outside of tefillin
law prohibiting such conduct,[10]
or one could look to the view of the Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim and object
to women wearing tefilin due simply
to their lack of obligation.  But, the
Aruch Hahsulchan standing alone as a matter of tefillin law does not
flatly prohibit clean righteous women from wearing tefillin.