- In Brief
- In Depth
- Maharam’s Ruling
- Why might a woman seek a practical ruling to lay tefillin?
- Other Considerations
- How would laying tefillin present a modesty issue?
- Practical Rulings
- Can a woman rely on earlier opinions less concerned with guf naki?
- Why do tefillin not appeal to more women when they are so central to men's religious lives?
- Further Reading
- Notes
- Sources
- Q&A
- Why might a woman seek a practical ruling to lay tefillin?
- How would laying tefillin present a modesty issue?
- Can a woman rely on earlier opinions less concerned with guf naki?
- Why do tefillin not appeal to more women when they are so central to men's religious lives?
- Podcast
Dedicated in memory of Michael ben Yosef Ha-Levi
In practice, may a woman choose to lay tefillin? What are the practical halachic rulings on this?
In Brief
How does the theoretical discussion of women and guf naki become a halachic ruling?
Previously, we saw that concern for the requirement of guf naki was used to explain the views that sages protested Michal laying tefillin. Maharam of Rothenburg is especially stringent about the requirement of guf naki as it applies to men. As an extension of that concern, and of the sages’ protest, he rules against women laying tefillin.
Is this ruling authoritative?
Rema follows this ruling, writing that a woman laying tefillin should be met with protest. Among subsequent halachic authorities, his ruling has remained largely uncontested. Because we lack a definitive understanding of the particular concern about women and guf naki, it is difficult to address.
Is guf naki the only barrier to women laying tefillin?
No, there are a few other considerations:
- Keli Gever Tefillin may violate the Torah’s prohibition of keli gever, cross-dressing, especially because tefillin cannot be modified or feminized in appearance.
- Yuhara A woman’s laying tefillin may be considered an act yuhara, spiritual haughtiness, which can be halachic reason to refrain from performing an action.
- Modesty Since tefillin lie above the hairline, laying them may raise modesty concerns for married women with head-covering.
- Tradition A woman’s laying tefillin contravenes tradition, in a way that raises the issue of denominational politics.
Laying tefillin in private may alleviate some of these concerns.
What do more recent authorities say?
Most flatly prohibit a woman laying tefillin because of guf naki and the above concerns, even though some early halachic authorities would have permitted it as a voluntary fulfillment of a mitzva from the Torah in their day.
While Rav Eliezer Melamed also rules against women laying tefillin, he writes that one need not protest the act of a woman who sincerely seeks to serve God through wearing tefillin in private, since there are earlier opinions on which she may rely. This is a minority opinion.
In Depth
Rav Ezra Bick, Ilana Elzufon, Shayna Goldberg, and Rav Da’vid Sperling, eds.
Maharam’s Ruling
Why might a woman seek a practical ruling to lay tefillin?
For some women, especially young women who attend minyan regularly in camp or school, watching male peers lay tefillin can raise thoughts and feelings about what that experience is like and why women are excluded from it. A woman who takes care to recite Shema as part of prayer finds herself mentioning the significance of tefillin on a regular basis, and knows how significant voluntary mitzva performance can be. It is understandable, then, why a woman might have a sincere desire to wrap herself in tefillin as a physical expression of connection to God and Torah.
Although there are many women who do not feel this way and have no desire to lay tefillin, it is important to acknowledge with sensitivity and respect the women who have these feelings, and who may find the practical halachic rulings discussed below challenging.
We saw in Tefillin II that Maharam of Rothenburg is particularly stringent about the requirement of guf naki as it applies to men. He is also the first to translate guf naki from a theoretical explanation for protesting women’s laying tefillin to a practical halachic ruling.
In general, Maharam permits women to perform positive time-bound mitzvot voluntarily, with a beracha. He even permits women to wear tzitzit with a beracha. (See more here.) But in his great overall concern for guf naki, Maharam rules stringently against women laying tefillin.1 Maharam’s students, among them Rav Shimshon ben Tzadok, record his ruling:
תשב”ץ קטן (תלמיד מהר”ם, בשמו), ער
אין למחות בידם מלהתעטף בציצית ולברך עליו דיכולות לחייב עצמן כדמוכח בקדושין (דף לא) אמנם אין להן להניח תפילין לפי שאינן יודעות לשמור עצמן בטהרה:
Tashbetz Katan (Student of Maharam, in his name), 21
One should not protest their [women’s] wrapping themselves in tzitzit and reciting a beracha on it because they can obligate themselves, as is proven in Kiddushin (31). But they should not lay tefillin because they do not know how to keep themselves in purity.
A person in a state of ritual impurity is permitted to lay tefillin, so the use of the term “tahara” (purity) is puzzling in this context. However, since parallel quotations of Maharam substitute the term “nekiyut” (cleanliness) for “tahara,”2 we can read “tahara” here as a synonym for cleanliness.3 Why did Maharam use this synonym? Perhaps he was concerned specifically about soiling from menstruation or from post-coital discharge, both of which also generate tuma (ritual impurity).4
When Rav Yosef Karo discusses Maharam’s ruling in his Bet Yosef, he explains that, although we usually follow the Talmud Bavli, Maharam rules stringently here out of concern for the position of the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Pesikta.5
Is this ruling authoritative?
There were dissenting views on this issue at the time of the Maharam. As we have seen, Rashba, Maharam’s Sefardi contemporary, permits women to lay tefillin with a beracha, in keeping with the Bavli’s seemingly permissive stance.6 Maharam’s own student, Orchot Chayyim, questions Maharam’s ruling in light of Rashba’s, but leaves the question unresolved.7
While Shulchan Aruch does not mention Maharam’s concern here, Rema follows his ruling:
שולחן ערוך או”ח לח: ג
נשים ועבדים פטורים מתפילין, מפני שהוא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. הגה: ואם הנשים רוצין להחמיר על עצמן, מוחין בידם.
Shulchan Aruch OC 38:3
Women and bondsmen are exempt from tefillin because it is a positive time-bound commandment. Rema: If the women wish to be stringent on themselves [to lay tefillin] we protest.
Rema does not disparage women seeking to take on tefillin. On the contrary, he recognizes the impulse as a stringent one, seeking to take greater care with mitzvot. He does not use the language of prohibition. Even so, his halachic understanding is that such an act should meet with protest.
Among subsequent halachic authorities, Rema’s ruling has remained largely uncontested,8 even among Sefardim. Additionally, it seems to apply to any act of a woman laying tefillin, no matter how brief, even if she seeks only to lay tefillin during Shema and prayers.9
Other Considerations
Is guf naki the only barrier to women laying tefillin?
Aside from concerns about guf naki, halachic authorities discuss additional considerations that arise for a woman voluntarily laying tefillin: keli gever (cross-dressing), yuhara (spiritual haughtiness), and modesty.
I. Keli Gever
Tefillin may violate the Torah’s prohibition of cross-dressing:
דברים כב:ה
לא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה, כִּי תוֹעֲבַת ה’ אֱלֹקֶיךָ כָּל עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה
Devarim 22:5
A man’s article shall not be on a woman, neither shall a man wear a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.
Targum Yerushalmi, a translation of the Torah into Aramaic from Eretz Yisrael (precise date unknown), includes tefillin in the cross-dressing prohibition:
תרגום ירושלמי דברים כב:ה
לא יהיה גוליין דציצית ותפילין דהינון תקוני גבר על איתא:
Targum Yerushalmi Devarim 22:5
There shall not be a cloak of tzitzit and tefillin, which are men’s articles, on a woman.
However, the Babylonian Talmud’s account of Michal bat Sha’ul laying tefillin does not mention keli gever at all. If a Torah-level prohibition were involved, we would have expected the sages mentioned there to have discussed it.
Rav Yechiel Ya’akov Weinberg argues that keli gever concerns do theoretically apply to tefillin – but not when a woman lays them in order to fulfill the mitzva:
שו”ת שרידי אש ב: מא
מיכל בת שאול הניחה תפילין ולא מיחו בה חכמים. וקשה, אמאי לא מיחו בה חכמים והא אסורה ללבוש תפילין משום לא יהי כלי גבר על אשה…וע”כ [=ועל כן] שמכיון שמתכוונת לשם מצוה אין כאן איסור לא ילבש.
Rav Yechi'el Ya'akov Weinberg, Responsa Seridei Eish II:41
“Michal bat Shaul laid tefillin and the sages did not protest it.” This is difficult. Why didn’t they protest it? Is she not prohibited from wearing tefillin because of “a man’s article shall not be on a woman”? It must be that, since her intention is for the sake of the mitzva, there is no prohibition here of not wearing [a man’s garb].
On the viewpoint that there is a keli gever issue here, tefillin is more serious than tzitzit, because Halacha dictates the form and appearance of tefillin, so that tefillin cannot be modified or feminized in a readily visible way. (For more on keli gever, see here.)
Ben Ish Chai cites a kabbalistic source for the masculine nature of tefillin:
שו”ת רב פעלים א סוד ישרים סימן יב
דמצינו לרבינו ז”ל בעץ חיים שער תיקון הנוקבא פרק א’, שכתב וז”ל [=וזה לשונו] ובזה תבין למה נשים פטורות מן התפילין, כי אין לרחל בחינת אורות מקיפין שהם סוד התפילין כמו שיש ליעקב וכו’ עכ”ל [=עד כאן לשונו]… ללמדינו לעכב בידם, דאין האשה רשאה לקיים מצוה בתורת נדבה כשאר מצות שהז”ג [שהזמן גרמא], …
Responsa Rav Pe'alim I: Sod Yesharim 12
We find of our Rav [Arizal] in Etz Chayyim, Rectification of the Feminine, Chapter 1, that he wrote “From this, understand why women are exempt from tefillin, for Rachel does not have the external lights that are the secret of tefillin like Ya’akov has, etc.”…This teaches us to prevent [women from laying tefillin], for a woman is not permitted to fulfill the mitzva on a voluntary basis like other positive time-bound mitzvot.
According to Ben Ish Chai’s understanding of Arizal, there is some mystically masculine property inherent to tefillin with which women cannot connect.10
II. Yuhara We have seen that both Maharshal and Aruch Ha-shulchan raise the theoretical possibility of permitting an exceptional woman to lay tefillin, should she also be sure about guf naki. Neither, however, issues a practical halachic ruling to permit it.
Why not? Perhaps because, if only very pious women may perform the mitzva voluntarily, then a woman makes a statement about her own level of piety when she lays tefillin. If she is not well-known for her piety, this raises the concern of yuhara, spiritual haughtiness, which can be a halachic reason to refrain from performing an action.11
Maharam Schick (19th century Hungary, not to be confused with the medieval Maharam Rothenburg) argues that the Yerushalmi’s record of protest against Michal’s actions is based on yuhara.
מהר”ם שיק או”ח טו
יוהרא…יש לחוש דגם אחרות יעשו כמותה [=כמיכל בת שאול] אפילו אינן זריזות
Maharam Schick OC 15
It is yuhara…and there is a concern that also others will follow her example [Michal bat Sha’ul] although they are not scrupulous [with regard to matters of piety].
To Maharam Schick, even a woman known for being pious may be constrained by yuhara when it comes to laying tefillin. Additionally, there is a concern beyond yuhara, that an exceptionally scrupulous woman laying tefillin may lead astray other women who are less careful.
In Tzitzit II: Yuhara, we discuss how performing an act in private may alleviate the issue of yuhara, because a person’s private stringency is not yuhara, but a pious act known only to God. Rav Yitzchak Yosef rules this way with regard to a man who lays tefillin with the Torah portions arranged differently, known as tefillin shel shimusha raba, at mincha, in order to satisfy more than one opinion on which tefillin are fit for use:12
ילקוט יוסף ציצית ותפילין לז:ה
… בדרך כלל אין ראוי להניח תפילין של שימושא רבה במנחה בצבור, במקום שאין אף אחד מהצבור מניח תפילין במנחה, שיש לחוש בזה ליוהרא. אך אדם המפורסם בחסידות אמתית, מותר לו להניח תפילין של שימושא רבה במנחה, גם במקום שאין הצבור מניחין תפילין במנחה. וכל שמניחן בינו לבין עצמו אין לחוש בזה ליוהרא.
Yalkut Yosef, Tzitzit U-tfillin 37:5
…In general it is not fitting to lay tefillin shel shimusha rabba at mincha publicly, in a place where no member of the community lays tefillin at mincha, for one should be concerned for yuhara. But a person who is known for his true piety is permitted to lay tefillin shel shimusha rabba at mincha, even in a place where the community do not lay tefillin at mincha. Anyone who lays them in private need not be concerned for yuhara.
Perhaps the same could be said for a woman who lays tefillin in private.
III. Modesty Although guf naki lies at the heart of Maharam’s ruling, his student, Hagahot Maimoniyot, bases his objection to women laying tefillin on a different rationale:
הגהות מיימוניות (תלמיד מהר”ם) הלכות ציצית ג:מ
שוב מצאתי בשם גדול דכל היכא דאיכא למיחש לנדנוד עבירה כגון …בהנחת תפילין משום ערוה דשער באשה ערוה…בכל כה”ג [=כהאי גוונא] מחינן בהו…
Hagahot Maimoniyot (Student of Maharam), Laws of Tzitzit 3:40
I again found in the name of a great [scholar] that wherever there is a concern of a hint of transgression as in…laying tefillin because of uncovering erva [nakedness], since ‘a woman’s hair is [tantamount to] nakedness’…in all these types of cases we protest them [women].
Here, head-covering is the issue, not guf naki. In private, modesty would be less of a concern.
How would laying tefillin present a modesty issue?
While not central to the halachic discourse, the mention of head-covering does point to practical difficulties. In the front of the head, tefillin must be placed above the hair line.13 At the back of the head, the head strap should also be visible.14 At least the bayit (box containing scrolls) on the head should not be covered with a garment (though there is some debate about loose coverage by a tallit).15 One should not have even a thin, cloth chatzitza (barrier) between the head and either bayit or strap.16 A light cap under the tefillin may be permitted when, say, there is an open wound, but not otherwise. Wigs or toupees present a halachic difficulty as well.17 Long hair in and of itself may be a chatzitza.18
Putting these pieces together, a married woman seeking to lay the tefilla shel rosh would either have to do so with her head partially uncovered, or in private (following the opinions that a woman may freely uncover her head in private). (Alternatively, if she also wears a tallit (its own halachic discussion) she might use the tallit as a cover up above her head.19)
Laying the tefilla shel yad, on the arm above the elbow, raises another modesty issue by revealing the upper arm,20 that is, unless a woman has a very loose sleeve or a tallit to work under, or is in private.
Lack of a women’s tradition to lay tefillin translates into lack of a tradition for addressing these modesty-related concerns.
Practical Rulings
What do more recent authorities say?
Laying tefillin in private may alleviate some of the above halachic concerns. It still does not, however, mitigate the issue of guf naki. We lack a single, definitive understanding of the particular concern about women and guf naki, and that makes it more difficult for women to address.
With few exceptions,21 major halachic authorities over the past few hundred years do not permit a woman to lay tefillin.
Beyond technical halachic arguments, there is also the argument that laying tefillin contravenes tradition. This type of argument about tefillin is not of recent vintage; Shiltei Gibborim makes it five hundred years ago:
שילטי גיבורים ראש השנה ט:
וכן אסור לנשים להניח תפילין, אפילו בלא ברכה, מפני שנראה כדרך החיצונים, שעוברים על דברי חכמים ואינן רוצים לדרוש המקראות כמותן
Shiltei Gibborim Rosh Ha-Shana 9b
So too it is prohibited for women to lay tefillin, even without a beracha, for it appears like ‘the way of the separatists’ (Mishna Megilla 4:8) who transgress the words of the sages and do not wish to expound the verses according them.
Shiltei Gibborim likens women laying tefillin to denying the authority of Torah She-be’al Peh. Of all positive time-bound mitzvot, he singles out tefillin as a high-stakes religious issue that defines a person’s allegiances, and this attitude informs practical rulings.
Can a woman rely on earlier opinions less concerned with guf naki?
In a letter explaining his decision to permit two of his female students to lay tefillin, high school principal Rav Tully Harcsztark wrote:22
Rabbi Tully Harcsztark, Letter to Parents, January, 2014
“While our community has adopted as normative the view that women refrain from this act, I see the range of rishonim who allow women to don tefillin as support to give space to that practice within our community… I permitted our two female students to daven with tefillin because I believe that we should not be afraid of different forms of avodat Ha-shem when there is halakhic argument to support it.”
This statement shows great sensitivity to the students and to making room for different approaches to halachic issues in the community. At the same time, the letter lacks reference to major rabbinic figures and halachic rulings of the past five hundred years. It marshals halachic backing for the decision solely from rishonim (early halachic decisors) and from the theoretical ability to construct a halachic argument in support of it.
In her essay on women and tefillin, Rabbanit Malka Puterkovsky explains why making a ruling of this sort isn’t tenable:
רבנית מלכה פיוטרקובסקי, “דין הנשים בהנחת תפילין,” מהלכת בדרכה, עמ’ 151
שאף שבתקופת ה”ראשונים” נמצאו פוסקים רבים שהתירו לנשים לקיים מצוות תפילין…הרי שאם נוצרה אחדות דעים בתקופת האחרונים, שאין ראוי לאישה להניח תפילין, בשל כלל הפסיקה המחייב: “הלכתא כבתראי”- יש לקבל הכרעה זו כפשוטה, הלכה למעשה, אלא אם ישנם נימוקים מהותיים שבכוחם לשנותה בזמננו.
Rabbanit Malka Puterkovsky, “The Halacha of Women and Laying Tefillin,” Mehalechet Be-darkah, p. 151
Although in the era of the ”rishonim” there were many halachic authorities who permitted women to fulfill the mitzva of tefillin…if a consensus formed in the era of the acharonim [later authorities] that it is not fitting for a woman to lay tefillin, [then] because of the binding halachic principle that “halacha is in accordance with the later authorities,” one must accept this decision straightforwardly in halachic practice, unless there are qualitative rationales with the power to change it in our time
Overturning centuries of halachic rulings and tradition demands great halachic authority. Rav Herschel Schachter, a prominent halachic authority and Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva University, has taken up this theme:23
רב צבי שכטר “כל העדה כולם קדושים”
מאי קסברי המתירים בזה,…וכידוע לכל, ככה היתה ההנהגה המקובלת מדורי דורות, ומי הוא זה שיהין ויתחצף להורות נגד פסק המקובל של רבינו הרמ”…וביטוי זה שאומרים כמה מהמתירים “שע”פ [=שעל פי] הלכה” פעולה מסויימת מותרת, ושהמחמירים רק רוצים לאסרה “מטעמים פוליטיים”, איננו נכון, שגם ענין זה של שינוי המסורה מהווה חלק-עצמי מן ההלכה…
Rav Herschel Schachter, 'The Entire Assembly is Holy'
What is the rationale of those who permit? …as everyone knows, thus was the received practice from past generations, and who is he that gives the go ahead and is brazen to rule against a received ruling of our Rabbi the Rema……And the expression used by some who permit “that according to halacha” a certain action is permissible, and that those who are stringent want to forbid it only for “political reasons,” is incorrect. For this matter of changing tradition also constitutes an integral part of halacha…
Rav Schachter argues that halachic consensus going back centuries clearly prohibits women from laying tefillin – and that even constructing a convincing lenient argument based on the practice of earlier generations does not suffice to permit it.
Even were guf naki clearly understood and clearly obsolete, even were other halachic concerns addressed, Rav Schachter would be loath to permit women to lay tefillin, in light of tradition. In the case of tefillin, generations of practice and a charged history override potential arguments for leniency.
Among more recent halachic authorities, Rav Moshe Feinstein, who might allow for a woman wearing tzitzit in circumscribed cases, flatly prohibits laying tefillin.
שו”ת אגרות משה או”ח ד:מט
איברא דאיכא רשות לכל אשה לקיים אף המצות שלא חייבתן תורה ויש להם מצוה ושכר על קיום מצות אלו …ורק להניח תפילין כתבו התוס’ עירובין דף צ”ו ע”א ד”ה מיכל דצריך למחות בידן משום דתפילין צריך זריזות מרובה בגוף נקי ובהיסח הדעת שמטעם זו אף אנשים שמחוייבין בתפילין נמנעין מלהניחם כל היום אלא רק זמן המועט דתפלה בשחרית, וכן איפסק ברמ”א…
Iggerot Moshe, OC 4:49
Indeed, every woman is permitted to fulfill even mitzvot in which the Torah did not obligate them, and they have performed a mitzva and receive reward when fulfilling these mitzvot…Only regarding laying tefillin did Tosafot write that one needs to protest them because tefillin require extra zealousness with a guf naki and hese’ach ha-da’at, for which reason even men – who are obligated in tefillin – refrain from laying them all day long, rather just the brief time of the shacharit prayer, and so ruled Rema…
Rav Yehuda Henkin, too, writes that women may wear tzitzit in some circumstances, but finds no opening for laying tefillin. He writes:
שו”ת בני בנים ב:ג
ואין לך להניח תפילין כמו שכתבו בפוסקים באורח חיים סימן לח סעיף ג, והתירו תלמוד תורה לאשה לצורך אבל תפילין אינם לצורך ויש לחזק את הקשר לדת באופנים אחרים:
Responsa Benei Banim II:3
You may not lay tefillin, as the halachic decisors wrote in [Shulchan Aruch] OC 38:3. They permitted Torah study for women as needed, but tefillin are not needed, and one should strengthen the connection to religion in other ways.
To the considerations we have seen, Rav Henkin adds the question of ‘need.’ A genuine need can sometimes create a halachic impetus for re-examining an issue, but it can be difficult to establish what counts as a case of genuine need. Rav Henkin does not recognize women seeking to lay tefillin as one.
In contrast, Rav Ya’akov Ariel does imagine a woman who deeply feels this need, and groups the question of tefillin with that of tzitzit as a mitzva which a woman may find support to fulfill:24
רב יעקב אריאל, “נשיות מקורית מול חיקוי”
אם אשה מרגישה צורך נפשי עמוק לקיים מצוות אלו [ציצית ותפילין], יש לה, אולי, על מי לסמוך.
Rav Ya'akov Ariel, Authentic Femininity vs. Imitation
If a woman feels a deep need in her soul to fulfill these mitzvot [tzitzit and tefillin], she has, perhaps, on whom to rely.
A more permissive recent opinion by a current halachic authority is that of Rav Eliezer Melamed, who suggests that if a woman sincerely seeks to serve God through wearing tefillin in private, she should be discouraged, but if she goes ahead, her act should not be protested:25
פניני הלכה, “נשים בתפילין”
לפיכך, אשה הרוצה להתעלות במצוות, ובאה לשאול אם טוב לה שתניח תפילין, ההוראה שלא תניח. ואם בכל זאת תשתוקק ותרצה להניחן בצנעה, אף שרבים כתבו שיש למחות בידה, מכל מקום כיוון שיש לה על מי לסמוך, אין נכון למחות בידה, שכך הוא הכלל, בכל עת שיש לנוהג על מה לסמוך, אין למחות בידו.
Peninei Halacha, 'Women and Tefillin'
Therefore, a woman who wants to elevate herself through mitzvot and asks whether she should wear tefillin should be instructed not to do so. If she nevertheless yearns to wear them in private, even though numerous authorities wrote that this is objectionable, one should not object, because there are opinions upon which she may rely. In general, whenever a practice has an authority on which to rely, one should not object to it.
Rav Melamed rules like Rema and does not question the present-day applicability of guf naki. He diverges from Rema’s ruling, however, with regard to protest: While Rav Melamed would initially rule against a woman’s laying tefillin in private, he would not protest her doing so, since there are earlier opinions on which she may rely. This remains a minority opinion in today’s halachic landscape.
Summary
Since Rema’s ruling, halachic consensus has been to protest women’s laying tefillin. For a woman to lay tefillin, she would have to be undeterred by that and by guf naki concerns. She would likely lay them in private, relying on the opinions that that would address halachic considerations of keli gever, modesty, and yuhara. Later authorities have been overwhelmingly opposed to this practice because of these other halachic concerns. This is the case even though the act of a woman laying tefillin may be considered a fulfillment of a mitzva from the Torah, and would have been permitted by many of our early halachic authorities in their day.
Why do tefillin not appeal to more women when they are so central to men's religious lives?
Tefillin are typically not of central interest to women. Here are some possible explanations for why this is the case:
The exemption from the mitzva and protest of voluntary fulfillment creates distance from the mitzva. Most women not only do not lay tefillin, but rarely see them. Outside of a co-ed school or camp setting, the vast majority of observant women do not attend daily morning prayer services with any regularity. Many women, especially mothers of young children, struggle even to make time to pray, and laying tefillin takes more time. Women are exempt from reciting the paragraphs of Shema that relate to the mitzva of tefillin, which is the time when men must lay them. Tefillin are inaccessible. There is no way to feminize them, which presents a halachic, sociological, and psychological bar to women’s laying them. They are also expensive, and wrapping them properly requires training.
Still, despite all the above, a woman may have her own sense of need that diverges from other women’s, and she may ascribe great meaning to laying tefillin. That feeling should be acknowledged, even as other halachic considerations override it.
Further Reading
- Berger, Aliza. “Wrapped Attention: May Women Wear Tefillin?” In Jewish Legal Writings by Women, edited by Micah D. Halpern and Chana Safrai, 75-118. Jerusalem: Urim, 1998.
- Brody, Rav Shlomo “Women, Tefillin, and the Halakhic Process,” Torah Musings, 2014.
- Lichtenstein, Rav Aharon. “Hands Across the Ocean.” Jewish Action, March, 2010.
- Puterkovsky, Rabbanit Malka. “Din Ha-nashim Be-hanachat Tefillin.” in Mehalechet Be-darkah, 113-152. Tel Aviv: Yedi’ot Sefarim, 2014.
- Zivotofsky, Ari. “What’s the Truth About…Rashi’s Daughters?” Jewish Action, May, 2011.
Notes
1. Maharam here follows the approach of Ri, which we discussed in Tefillin II:
תוספות עירובין צו. ד”ה מיכל
ונראה לפרש דטעמא למ”ד [=למאן דאמר] דלא הוי רשות משום דתפילין צריכין גוף נקי ונשים אין זריזות ליזהר
Tosafot Eiruvin 96a s.v. 'Michal'
It makes sense to explain that the rationale of the one who says that it was not permissible [for Michal to lay tefillin voluntarily] is because tefillin require a guf naki, and women are not scrupulous to be careful.
אורחות חיים א הלכות תפילין ג
כתב הר”ם נ”ע נשים פטורות מתפילין ואם באו להניחן אין שומעין להם לפי שאינן יודעות לשמור עצמן בנקיות.
Orchot Chayyim 1 Hilchot Tefillin 3
Maharam wrote that women are exempt from tefillin and if they come to lay them we do not listen to them, because they do not know how to keep themselves in cleanliness.
כלבו כא
כתב הר”ם נשים פטורות מתפילין מפני שהוא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה שהרי אין מניחין אותן בשבת ויום טוב ואם רצו להניח אין שומעין להן מפני שאינן יודעות לשמור עצמן בנקיות
Kol Bo 21
Maharam wrote that women are exempt from tefillin because it is a positive time-bound commandment, for we do not lay them on Shabbat and festival days. And if they [women] want to lay [tefillin], we do not listen to them because they do not know how to keep themselves in cleanliness.
4. There were customs in Ashkenaz for a woman to avoid contact with the sacred while actively menstruating. But early halachic discussions of women and guf naki do not explicitly invoke these customs. While a woman in nidda is permitted to hold a sefer Torah (OC 82:9), so long as her hands are not dirty, guf naki requirements for tefillin may differ, since tefillin are bound on the body.
Note, however, Kolbo 21 (paraphrasing Semag Esin 3), who maintains that guf naki requirements for tefillin must be more lenient than those for a sefer Torah:
כלבו כא
עוד זאת דרשתי להם כי מה שאמרו רבותינו (שבת מט, א) תפילין צריכין גוף נקי כאלישע בעל כנפים שלא ישן ושלא יפיח בהם, זהו באדם שמניחן כל היום כולו כמצותן פן ישכחם עליו ויעשה בהם דבר שאינו הגון, אבל בשעת תפילה אין לך רשע שלא יהא ראוי לתפילין, קל וחומר מספר תורה שהוא מקודש יותר שיש בו כל התורה כולה ובתפילין אין בו כי אם ארבע פרשיות שהם בתוך עור, והכל אוחזין בספר תורה בשעת תפילה שהכל יכולין להתנהג בטהרה בשעת תפילה:
Kolbo 21
>This too I expounded for them, that what our sages said, that tefillin require a guf naki like Elisha Ba’al Kenafayim, is that one not sleep and should not pass gas in them, this is for a person who lays them all day long in accordance with their mitzva, lest he forget that they are on him and treat them improperly. But at the time of tefilla, there is no evil-doer who would not be fitting for tefillin, a fortiori from a Torah scroll which is more sanctified because it contains the entire Torah while tefillin only have the four portions, encased in leather. Everyone may hold a sefer Torah at the time of prayer, since everyone can conduct himself in purity at the time of prayer.
5. See Tefillin I for a full discussion of these sources.
בית יוסף לח
והר”ם רצה ליחוש לדברי פסיקתא
Bet Yosef OC 38
Maharam wanted to show concern for the words of the Pesikta.
אורחות חיים
וקשיא לי מהא דאמרינן בערובין פרק המוצא דמיכל בת שאול היתה מנחת ולא מיחו בידה חכמים. והרשב”א מתיר להן כל מצות עשה ולברך עליהן מזה המעשה ולא מיחו בידה אלא ברצון חכמים עבדא וכיון דמנחת ודאי מברכת ע”כ.
Orchot Chayyim
And it is difficult for me from that which we say in Eiruvin Perek Ha-motzei, that Michal bat Shaul would lay tefillin and the sages did not protest her. Rashba permits them [women] all positive time-bound mitzvot and to recite a beracha based on this account, and they did not protest her, but she acted according to the will of the sages. And since she laid [tefillin] she certainly recited a beracha.
8. Olat Tamid 38:4 raises the possibility that the Bavli has no unique concern for a woman’s guf naki, given that the discussion of women and tefillin does not mention it. He himself counters that it might not mention guf naki because it seeks to include bondsmen, which would not have the guf naki difficulties particular to women, in its explanation of the exemption.
Olat Tamid also suggests that a menopausal woman could lay tefillin, an argument dependent on interpreting the issue of women and guf naki as confined to menstruation.
See here.
אשל אברהם לח:ג
ומשמע אפילו להניח רק בשעת קריאת שמע ותפלה מוחין בידם, דאינם יודעים להזהר:
Eshel Avraham 38:3
And it is understood that we protest even against laying them only at the time of keri’at Shema and prayer, for they do not know how to be careful
12. We see a similar idea in Beit Yosef, who discusses the possibility of covering up the knot as a way to address a concern for yuhara:
בית יוסף אורח חיים כז
חיישינן ליוהרא ומכסין אותה [הקשר]
Beit Yosef OC 27
We are concerned for yuhara and [therefore] cover it [the knot].
שולחן ערוך או”ח כז: ט
מקום הנחת תפלה של ראש מהתחלת עיקרי השער ממצחו עד סוף המקום שמוחו של תינוק רופס.
Shulchan Aruch OC 27:9
The proper place for laying the tefilla shel rosh is from the beginning of the hair roots from his forehead until the end of the place where a baby’s head is soft.
שולחן ערוך או”ח כז: י
צריך שיהיה הקשר מאחורי הראש למעלה בעורף. צריך לכוין …וצריך שיהא המקום שבקשר שנראה כעין דל”ת לצד חוץ.
Shulchan Aruch OC 27:10
The knot behind the head must be at the high point of the back of the neck. The place of the knot that is seen must be like a dalet shape facing outward.
שו”ע או”ח כז: ד
לא יהא דבר חוצץ בין תפילין לבשרו, לא שנא של יד לא שנא של ראש
Shulchan Aruch OC 27:4
Nothing may separate between tefillin and one’s flesh, neither on the hand nor on the head.
משנה ברורה סימן כז :טז
… וכתבו תוכחת מגולה על המניחים התפילין ע”ג [=על גבי] פאה נכרית … ואפילו אם רק הרצועה מונח על הפאה נכרית. ומ”מ [=ומכל מקום] משמע מדברי המ”א והח”א [ה=מגן אברהם והחיי אדם] דאם יש לו מכה בראשו ורק במקום שהרצועות מונחים ולא במקום הקציצה מותר לו להניח הרצועות ע”ג [=על גבי] סמרטוטין שעל המכה או ע”ג [=על גבי] כובע דק ולברך …
Mishna Berura 27:16
They wrote a clear rebuke against those who lay tefillin over a wig…even if just the strap is laid on the wig. In any case it is understood from the words of Magen Avraham and Chayei Adam that if he has a wound on his head, only where the straps lay and not in the place of the bayit, he is permitted to lay the straps on bandages on the wound or on a thin cap and to recite the beracha…
משנה ברורה כז:טו
… כתב בספר מחצית השקל ורע עלי המעשה של אותן האנשים שמגדלין בלורותיהן מלבד כי הוא דרך שחץ וגאוה עיין מה שכתוב ביו”ד סימן קע”ו יש בו איסור בהנחת תפילין דכיון דגדולין הרבה ליכא למימר בהו היינו רביתייהו וחוצצים עי”ש [=עיין שם] ובלאו חציצה נמי בשביל הני שערות המרובים א”א [=אי אפשר] לצמצם שיהיו מהודקין ומונחין על מקומן כדין:
Mishna Berura 27:15
He wrote in the book Machatzit Ha-shekel, “I am displeased with the actions of those men that grow their hair long in front. Aside from this being brazen and arrogant, see what is written in Yoreh De’ah 176 that it also entails a prohibition of laying tefillin, for since [these hairstyles] are so big, one cannot say that this is [the hair’s natural] growth and they are a chatzitza (halachic barrier).” See there. Even without [the factor of] chatzitza, with so much hair it is also impossible to tighten [the straps] so that they are flush and rest in their place in accordance with the halacha.
שולחן ערוך או”ח כז:א
מקום הנחתן של יד בזרוע שמאל, בבשר התפוח שבעצם שבין הקובד”ו ובית השחי,
Shulchan Aruch OC 27:1
The proper place to lay them on the arm is on the left arm where the flesh bulges over the bone between the elbow and the armpit.
21. Masat Binyamin (end of responsum 62) has been cited by Berger and Brody as theoretically implying such permission, but that is not clear from his discussion.
As we saw in Tefillin II, note 12, Olat Tamid’s position 38:3 is summarily refuted by the Magen Avraham there.
Tehilla Le-David poses his question rhetorically, aware of Eshel Avraham’s response:
Rav Eliezer Berkovits permits women to lay tefillin in an article that calls for a wholesale reevaluation of women’s exemption from positive time bound mitzvot. R. Eliezer Berkovits, “Hit’chayvut Atzmit shel Nashim,” Sinai 100 (5747). His arguments have not found support among other halachic authorities.
תהילה לדוד לח:ג
וכיון דנשים חייבות בתפילה ע”כ [=על כרחך] דיכולין ליזהר בשעת התפילה מהפחה. וגם להסח הדעת אין לחוש בשעת תפילה…וא”כ [=ואם כן] יש לעיין אי צריך למחות בנשים כשרוצין להניחן בשעת התפילה דאפשר דהא שכתב רמ”א…היינו כשרוצין להניחן כל היום ועיין אשל אברהם ג’.
Tehilla Le-David 38:3
Since women are obligated in prayer, they must be capable of avoiding flatulence during prayer. Also regarding distraction, one need not be concerned during prayer…If so, we should investigate whether one must protest women when they want to lay them [tefillin] during prayer, for it may be that what Rema wrote…applies when they wish to lay them all day long. But see Eshel Avraham 3.
אשל אברהם לח: ג
ומשמע אפילו להניח רק בשעת קריאת שמע ותפלה מוחין בידם, דאינם יודעים להזהר:
Eshel Avraham 38:3
It implies that even [for women] to lay them just at the time of keri’at Shema and prayer, we protest, for they do not know how to be careful.
Sources
To see these sources in context on Sefaria, click here!
Maharam’s Ruling
תשב”ץ קטן (תלמיד מהר”ם, בשמו), ער
אין למחות בידם מלהתעטף בציצית ולברך עליו דיכולות לחייב עצמן כדמוכח בקדושין (דף לא) אמנם אין להן להניח תפילין לפי שאינן יודעות לשמור עצמן בטהרה:
Tashbetz Katan (Student of Maharam, in his name), 21
One should not protest their [women’s] wrapping themselves in tzitzit and reciting a beracha on it because they can obligate themselves, as is proven in Kiddushin (31). But they should not lay tefillin because they do not know how to keep themselves in purity.
שולחן ערוך או”ח לח: ג
נשים ועבדים פטורים מתפילין, מפני שהוא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. הגה: ואם הנשים רוצין להחמיר על עצמן, מוחין בידם.
Shulchan Aruch OC 38:3
Women and bondsmen are exempt from tefillin because it is a positive time-bound commandment. Rema: If the women wish to be stringent on themselves [to lay tefillin] we protest.
Other Considerations
דברים כב:ה
לא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה, כִּי תוֹעֲבַת ה’ אֱלֹקֶיךָ כָּל עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה
Devarim 22:5
A man’s article shall not be on a woman, neither shall a man wear a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.
תרגום ירושלמי דברים כב:ה
לא יהיה גוליין דציצית ותפילין דהינון תקוני גבר על איתא:
Targum Yerushalmi Devarim 22:5
There shall not be a cloak of tzitzit and tefillin, which are men’s articles, on a woman.
שו”ת שרידי אש ב: מא
מיכל בת שאול הניחה תפילין ולא מיחו בה חכמים. וקשה, אמאי לא מיחו בה חכמים והא אסורה ללבוש תפילין משום לא יהי כלי גבר על אשה…וע”כ [=ועל כן] שמכיון שמתכוונת לשם מצוה אין כאן איסור לא ילבש.
Rav Yechi'el Ya'akov Weinberg, Responsa Seridei Eish II:41
“Michal bat Shaul laid tefillin and the sages did not protest it.” This is difficult. Why didn’t they protest it? Is she not prohibited from wearing tefillin because of “a man’s article shall not be on a woman”? It must be that, since her intention is for the sake of the mitzva, there is no prohibition here of not wearing [a man’s garb].
שו”ת רב פעלים א סוד ישרים סימן יב
דמצינו לרבינו ז”ל בעץ חיים שער תיקון הנוקבא פרק א’, שכתב וז”ל [=וזה לשונו] ובזה תבין למה נשים פטורות מן התפילין, כי אין לרחל בחינת אורות מקיפין שהם סוד התפילין כמו שיש ליעקב וכו’ עכ”ל [=עד כאן לשונו]… ללמדינו לעכב בידם, דאין האשה רשאה לקיים מצוה בתורת נדבה כשאר מצות שהז”ג [שהזמן גרמא], …
Responsa Rav Pe'alim I: Sod Yesharim 12
We find of our Rav [Arizal] in Etz Chayyim, Rectification of the Feminine, Chapter 1, that he wrote “From this, understand why women are exempt from tefillin, for Rachel does not have the external lights that are the secret of tefillin like Ya’akov has, etc.”…This teaches us to prevent [women from laying tefillin], for a woman is not permitted to fulfill the mitzva on a voluntary basis like other positive time-bound mitzvot.
מהר”ם שיק או”ח טו
יוהרא…יש לחוש דגם אחרות יעשו כמותה [=כמיכל בת שאול] אפילו אינן זריזות
Maharam Schick OC 15
It is yuhara…and there is a concern that also others will follow her example [Michal bat Sha’ul] although they are not scrupulous [with regard to matters of piety].
ילקוט יוסף ציצית ותפילין לז:ה
… בדרך כלל אין ראוי להניח תפילין של שימושא רבה במנחה בצבור, במקום שאין אף אחד מהצבור מניח תפילין במנחה, שיש לחוש בזה ליוהרא. אך אדם המפורסם בחסידות אמתית, מותר לו להניח תפילין של שימושא רבה במנחה, גם במקום שאין הצבור מניחין תפילין במנחה. וכל שמניחן בינו לבין עצמו אין לחוש בזה ליוהרא.
Yalkut Yosef, Tzitzit U-tfillin 37:5
…In general it is not fitting to lay tefillin shel shimusha rabba at mincha publicly, in a place where no member of the community lays tefillin at mincha, for one should be concerned for yuhara. But a person who is known for his true piety is permitted to lay tefillin shel shimusha rabba at mincha, even in a place where the community do not lay tefillin at mincha. Anyone who lays them in private need not be concerned for yuhara.
הגהות מיימוניות (תלמיד מהר”ם) הלכות ציצית ג:מ
שוב מצאתי בשם גדול דכל היכא דאיכא למיחש לנדנוד עבירה כגון …בהנחת תפילין משום ערוה דשער באשה ערוה…בכל כה”ג [=כהאי גוונא] מחינן בהו…
Hagahot Maimoniyot (Student of Maharam), Laws of Tzitzit 3:40
I again found in the name of a great [scholar] that wherever there is a concern of a hint of transgression as in…laying tefillin because of uncovering erva [nakedness], since ‘a woman’s hair is [tantamount to] nakedness’…in all these types of cases we protest them [women].
Practical Rulings
שילטי גיבורים ראש השנה ט:
וכן אסור לנשים להניח תפילין, אפילו בלא ברכה, מפני שנראה כדרך החיצונים, שעוברים על דברי חכמים ואינן רוצים לדרוש המקראות כמותן
Shiltei Gibborim Rosh Ha-Shana 9b
So too it is prohibited for women to lay tefillin, even without a beracha, for it appears like ‘the way of the separatists’ (Mishna Megilla 4:8) who transgress the words of the sages and do not wish to expound the verses according them.
Rabbi Tully Harcsztark, Letter to Parents, January, 2014
“While our community has adopted as normative the view that women refrain from this act, I see the range of rishonim who allow women to don tefillin as support to give space to that practice within our community… I permitted our two female students to daven with tefillin because I believe that we should not be afraid of different forms of avodat Ha-shem when there is halakhic argument to support it.”
רבנית מלכה פיוטרקובסקי, “דין הנשים בהנחת תפילין,” מהלכת בדרכה, עמ’ 151
שאף שבתקופת ה”ראשונים” נמצאו פוסקים רבים שהתירו לנשים לקיים מצוות תפילין…הרי שאם נוצרה אחדות דעים בתקופת האחרונים, שאין ראוי לאישה להניח תפילין, בשל כלל הפסיקה המחייב: “הלכתא כבתראי”- יש לקבל הכרעה זו כפשוטה, הלכה למעשה, אלא אם ישנם נימוקים מהותיים שבכוחם לשנותה בזמננו.
Rabbanit Malka Puterkovsky, “The Halacha of Women and Laying Tefillin,” Mehalechet Be-darkah, p. 151
Although in the era of the ”rishonim” there were many halachic authorities who permitted women to fulfill the mitzva of tefillin…if a consensus formed in the era of the acharonim [later authorities] that it is not fitting for a woman to lay tefillin, [then] because of the binding halachic principle that “halacha is in accordance with the later authorities,” one must accept this decision straightforwardly in halachic practice, unless there are qualitative rationales with the power to change it in our time
רב צבי שכטר “כל העדה כולם קדושים”
מאי קסברי המתירים בזה,…וכידוע לכל, ככה היתה ההנהגה המקובלת מדורי דורות, ומי הוא זה שיהין ויתחצף להורות נגד פסק המקובל של רבינו הרמ”…וביטוי זה שאומרים כמה מהמתירים “שע”פ [=שעל פי] הלכה” פעולה מסויימת מותרת, ושהמחמירים רק רוצים לאסרה “מטעמים פוליטיים”, איננו נכון, שגם ענין זה של שינוי המסורה מהווה חלק-עצמי מן ההלכה…
Rav Herschel Schachter, 'The Entire Assembly is Holy'
What is the rationale of those who permit? …as everyone knows, thus was the received practice from past generations, and who is he that gives the go ahead and is brazen to rule against a received ruling of our Rabbi the Rema……And the expression used by some who permit “that according to halacha” a certain action is permissible, and that those who are stringent want to forbid it only for “political reasons,” is incorrect. For this matter of changing tradition also constitutes an integral part of halacha…
שו”ת אגרות משה או”ח ד:מט
איברא דאיכא רשות לכל אשה לקיים אף המצות שלא חייבתן תורה ויש להם מצוה ושכר על קיום מצות אלו …ורק להניח תפילין כתבו התוס’ עירובין דף צ”ו ע”א ד”ה מיכל דצריך למחות בידן משום דתפילין צריך זריזות מרובה בגוף נקי ובהיסח הדעת שמטעם זו אף אנשים שמחוייבין בתפילין נמנעין מלהניחם כל היום אלא רק זמן המועט דתפלה בשחרית, וכן איפסק ברמ”א…
Iggerot Moshe, OC 4:49
Indeed, every woman is permitted to fulfill even mitzvot in which the Torah did not obligate them, and they have performed a mitzva and receive reward when fulfilling these mitzvot…Only regarding laying tefillin did Tosafot write that one needs to protest them because tefillin require extra zealousness with a guf naki and hese’ach ha-da’at, for which reason even men – who are obligated in tefillin – refrain from laying them all day long, rather just the brief time of the shacharit prayer, and so ruled Rema…
שו”ת בני בנים ב:ג
ואין לך להניח תפילין כמו שכתבו בפוסקים באורח חיים סימן לח סעיף ג, והתירו תלמוד תורה לאשה לצורך אבל תפילין אינם לצורך ויש לחזק את הקשר לדת באופנים אחרים:
Responsa Benei Banim II:3
You may not lay tefillin, as the halachic decisors wrote in [Shulchan Aruch] OC 38:3. They permitted Torah study for women as needed, but tefillin are not needed, and one should strengthen the connection to religion in other ways.
רב יעקב אריאל, “נשיות מקורית מול חיקוי”
אם אשה מרגישה צורך נפשי עמוק לקיים מצוות אלו [ציצית ותפילין], יש לה, אולי, על מי לסמוך.
Rav Ya'akov Ariel, Authentic Femininity vs. Imitation
If a woman feels a deep need in her soul to fulfill these mitzvot [tzitzit and tefillin], she has, perhaps, on whom to rely.
פניני הלכה, “נשים בתפילין”
לפיכך, אשה הרוצה להתעלות במצוות, ובאה לשאול אם טוב לה שתניח תפילין, ההוראה שלא תניח. ואם בכל זאת תשתוקק ותרצה להניחן בצנעה, אף שרבים כתבו שיש למחות בידה, מכל מקום כיוון שיש לה על מי לסמוך, אין נכון למחות בידה, שכך הוא הכלל, בכל עת שיש לנוהג על מה לסמוך, אין למחות בידו.
Peninei Halacha, 'Women and Tefillin'
Therefore, a woman who wants to elevate herself through mitzvot and asks whether she should wear tefillin should be instructed not to do so. If she nevertheless yearns to wear them in private, even though numerous authorities wrote that this is objectionable, one should not object, because there are opinions upon which she may rely. In general, whenever a practice has an authority on which to rely, one should not object to it.
Q&A
Sometimes a quick exchange communicates more effectively, and more personally, than an article. Sometimes, just seeing that others share our questions can make us feel more connected.
Our posted questions and answers are an opportunity to learn from each other. To ask a question of your own, click here!
Hashkafic Q&A
Why might a woman seek a practical ruling to lay tefillin?
For some women, especially young women who attend minyan regularly in camp or school, watching male peers lay tefillin can raise thoughts and feelings about what that experience is like and why women are excluded from it. A woman who takes care to recite Shema as part of prayer finds herself mentioning the significance of tefillin on a regular basis, and knows how significant voluntary mitzva performance can be. It is understandable, then, why a woman might have a sincere desire to wrap herself in tefillin as a physical expression of connection to God and Torah.
Although there are many women who do not feel this way and have no desire to lay tefillin, it is important to acknowledge with sensitivity and respect the women who have these feelings, and who may find the practical halachic rulings discussed below challenging.
How would laying tefillin present a modesty issue?
While not central to the halachic discourse, the mention of head-covering does point to practical difficulties. In the front of the head, tefillin must be placed above the hair line.13 At the back of the head, the head strap should also be visible.14 At least the bayit (box containing scrolls) on the head may not be covered with a garment (though there is some debate about loose coverage by a tallit).15 One should not have even a thin, cloth chatzitza (barrier) between the head and either bayit or strap.16 A light cap under the tefillin may be permitted when, say, there is an open wound, but not otherwise. Wigs or toupees present a halachic difficulty as well.17 Long hair in and of itself may be a chatzitza.18
Putting these pieces together, a married woman seeking to lay the tefilla shel rosh would either have to do so with her head partially uncovered, or in private (following the opinions that a woman may freely uncover her head in private). (Alternatively, if she also wears a tallit (its own halachic discussion) she might use the tallit as a cover up above her head.19)
Laying the tefilla shel yad, on the arm above the elbow, raises another modesty issue by revealing the upper arm,20 that is, unless a woman has a very loose sleeve or a tallit to work under, or is in private.
Lack of a women’s tradition to lay tefillin translates into lack of a tradition for addressing these modesty-related concerns.
Can a woman rely on earlier opinions less concerned with guf naki?
In a letter explaining his decision to permit two of his female students to lay tefillin, high school principal Rav Tully Harcsztark wrote:22
Rabbi Tully Harcsztark, Letter to Parents, January, 2014
“While our community has adopted as normative the view that women refrain from this act, I see the range of rishonim who allow women to don tefillin as support to give space to that practice within our community… I permitted our two female students to daven with tefillin because I believe that we should not be afraid of different forms of avodat Ha-shem when there is halakhic argument to support it.”
This statement shows great sensitivity to the students and to making room for different approaches to halachic issues in the community. At the same time, the letter lacks reference to major rabbinic figures and halachic rulings of the past five hundred years. It marshals halachic backing for the decision solely from rishonim (early halachic decisors) and from the theoretical ability to construct a halachic argument in support of it.
In her essay on women and tefillin, Rabbanit Malka Puterkovsky explains why making a ruling of this sort isn’t tenable:
רבנית מלכה פיוטרקובסקי, “דין הנשים בהנחת תפילין,” מהלכת בדרכה, עמ’ 151
שאף שבתקופת ה”ראשונים” נמצאו פוסקים רבים שהתירו לנשים לקיים מצוות תפילין…הרי שאם נוצרה אחדות דעים בתקופת האחרונים, שאין ראוי לאישה להניח תפילין, בשל כלל הפסיקה המחייב: “הלכתא כבתראי”- יש לקבל הכרעה זו כפשוטה, הלכה למעשה, אלא אם ישנם נימוקים מהותיים שבכוחם לשנותה בזמננו.
Rabbanit Malka Puterkovsky, “The Halacha of Women and Laying Tefillin,” Mehalechet Be-darkah, p. 151
Although in the era of the ”rishonim” there were many halachic authorities who permitted women to fulfill the mitzva of tefillin…if a consensus formed in the era of the acharonim [later authorities] that it is not fitting for a woman to lay tefillin, [then] because of the binding halachic principle that “halacha is in accordance with the later authorities,” one must accept this decision straightforwardly in halachic practice, unless there are qualitative rationales with the power to change it in our time
Overturning centuries of halachic rulings and tradition demands great halachic authority. Rav Herschel Schachter, a prominent halachic authority and Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva University, has taken up this theme:23
רב צבי שכטר “כל העדה כולם קדושים”
מאי קסברי המתירים בזה,…וכידוע לכל, ככה היתה ההנהגה המקובלת מדורי דורות, ומי הוא זה שיהין ויתחצף להורות נגד פסק המקובל של רבינו הרמ”…וביטוי זה שאומרים כמה מהמתירים “שע”פ [=שעל פי] הלכה” פעולה מסויימת מותרת, ושהמחמירים רק רוצים לאסרה “מטעמים פוליטיים”, איננו נכון, שגם ענין זה של שינוי המסורה מהווה חלק-עצמי מן ההלכה…
Rav Herschel Schachter, 'The Entire Assembly is Holy'
What is the rationale of those who permit? …as everyone knows, thus was the received practice from past generations, and who is he that gives the go ahead and is brazen to rule against a received ruling of our Rabbi the Rema……And the expression used by some who permit “that according to halacha” a certain action is permissible, and that those who are stringent want to forbid it only for “political reasons,” is incorrect. For this matter of changing tradition also constitutes an integral part of halacha…
Rav Schachter argues that halachic consensus going back centuries clearly prohibits women from laying tefillin – and that even constructing a convincing lenient argument based on the practice of earlier generations does not suffice to permit it.
Even were guf naki clearly understood and clearly obsolete, even were other halachic concerns addressed, Rav Schachter would be loath to permit women to lay tefillin, in light of tradition. In the case of tefillin, generations of practice and a charged history override potential arguments for leniency.
Why do tefillin not appeal to more women when they are so central to men's religious lives?
Tefillin are typically not of central interest to women. Here are some possible explanations for why this is the case:
The exemption from the mitzva and protest of voluntary fulfillment creates distance from the mitzva. Most women not only do not lay tefillin, but rarely see them. Outside of a co-ed school or camp setting, the vast majority of observant women do not attend daily morning prayer services with any regularity. Many women, especially mothers of young children, struggle even to make time to pray, and laying tefillin takes more time. Women are exempt from reciting the paragraphs of Shema that relate to the mitzva of tefillin, which is the time when men must lay them. Tefillin are inaccessible. There is no way to feminize them, which presents a halachic, sociological, and psychological bar to women’s laying them. They are also expensive, and wrapping them properly requires training.
Still, despite all the above, a woman may have her own sense of need that diverges from other women’s, and she may ascribe great meaning to laying tefillin. That feeling should be acknowledged, even as we recognize the consensus that other halachic considerations override it here.
Reader Q&A
Podcast
Hukdash le-zecher Yehudit Raizel bat Eliezer ve’Esther a”h Dedicated in memory of Mrs Anita Hirsch Silverman ob”m
