Taken from a longer blog post by Rabbi Dan Schneider all credit goes to him.
The Chabad Hasidic tefillin ritual, which has become one of the most distinctive symbols of Judaism on the modern street, is generally perceived as an act of simple "community": a Jew meets a Jew, places tefillin on him, and behold, another Jew has been granted the commandment of tefillin. However, beneath the halachic surface of this action, lies a deep question about the nature of the mitzvah and the limits of awareness required of the person who performs it. At the center of the discussion is the brilliant and unsettling question of the author of "Pahad Yitzhak", the late Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner. In a pointed letter to his friend, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Chabad, Rabbi Hutner questioned the halachic validity of placing tefillin on the masses. His argument was straightforward: If the person placing tefillin is unaware that written passages are placed inside the leather cases, then he is like someone who takes an "apple" instead of an etrog. In his opinion, this is not just a lack of "intention" (which usually does not hinder), but a lack in the very definition of the object - a situation of "meddling" who does not fulfill their obligation at all.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe's response, which sought to uphold the custom and legalize the act retrospectively and initially, was based on the assumption that "general knowledge" about the essence of tefillin is sufficient, and that the technical details of the content do not hinder the mitzvah.
I will quote here a letter from Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson regarding the campaign to place tefillin on seculars:
"B"H Or for the Day of the Second Week of Yeshiva 5728"
His Eminence, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Shlita!
In connection with the publication of the article regarding the acquittal of the many in the mitzvah of Tefillin, I find it appropriate to offer the following discussion.
Here is the opinion of our early rabbis, the decision makers, that even if a mitzvah is not required, and one who takes an etrog without a mitzvah is exempted, MM. If he takes an etrog and believes that it is a tapuah, that it did not come out because of the devacha, there is no lack of a mitzvah, but there is a law here that is preoccupied (and not only that the illustration for you is in the words of the Lord, it is in eating matzah without a mitzvah, MM. If he did not know that this night was the night of the 15th of Nissan, he is preoccupied), and simply the same law applies if he puts on tefillin and believes that he placed another object on his head, he does not depart from the mitzvah of tefillin at all. And since the mitzvah of tefillin is houses and parshiot, then the one who puts on tefillin is kosher, and believes that the houses are empty and there are no parshiot in them, he is preoccupied with tefillin, since the parshiot are placed on his head in the way of preoccupied. And this is clear to Dina.
And I know from experience that a large number of those "captured babies," who were placed in tombs through the efforts of volunteers, had no idea that anything was placed inside these houses.
In any case, it would seem highly desirable to instruct the volunteers to inform anyone who responds to their request that Torah passages are placed inside these houses. And I think that is enough (it is obvious that what the person trying to do is to assume that these passages are kosher, which is not helpful at all for the purpose of maintaining the house).
In anticipation of the acquittal of the many,
"Yitzhak Hutner"
Regarding the exchange of letters between Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson regarding the tefillin stand (mitzvahs require intention), the Rebbe's response to Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner's claims is known, and this is what he said:
"Therefore, it is clear from the Nedud that a general knowledge regarding tefillin (and the 2nd) is sufficient, and anything that adds details – the 7th is fine but does not hinder – is not mentioned in the 7th chapter that knowledge of all the above details is necessary in the 1st and 2nd chapters."
Comments
Post a Comment