The Eri B. Sit edition and audio series of the Talmud Bavli discusses the requirement to place the phylacteries on the left hand. You do not want to say simply that it is the left hand; perhaps it could be the right hand. The verse says, “Yadecha,” “your hand.” From this passage, we see that the ordinary meaning of “hand” is the left hand, because the verse elsewhere says, “my hand” and “my right hand.”
It says regarding Yael, when she killed Sisera, “Her hand reached out to the tent peg, and her right hand to the workmen’s hammer.” She took the stake from the tent with one hand, and she took the hammer with her right hand. Again, we see the word “hand” used by itself. Why does the verse say, “Why do you withdraw your hand from striking the enemy?” Thus, the ordinary meaning of “hand” is the left hand.
There is a third proof from Rabbi Yosef HaChorem. “Chorem” refers to someone whose nose was sunken into his face. This is one of the blemishes of the priests; in the Torah, it is called “harum.” Therefore, they nicknamed him Rabbi Yosef HaChorem—the rabbi with the indented nose. The Sefarot objected to this. Why would they give the rabbi such a nickname? The Sefarot said that they were not nicknaming him because of his nose; “Chorem” was also the name of his place.
What does Rabbi Yosef HaChorem say? He says, do not tell me that the left hand is derived from the word “hand.” I will show you from the Torah that “hand” can also mean the right hand. Clearly, the verse says “his right hand” when Yaakov was blessing. You see that the word “hand” can also refer to the right hand.
What does the other rabbi maintain? When the verse says “his right hand,” it is specifically identifying the right hand. But the ordinary meaning of “hand” is still the left hand.
Rabbi Natan says that no proof is necessary. The verse says, “You shall bind them” and “you shall write them.” Just as writing is done with the right hand, the binding must be done with the right hand. Why is writing done with the right hand? Most people write with their right hand. Therefore, the verse’s reference to writing teaches that the phylacteries must be tied with the right hand. If you tie them with your right hand, you are placing them on your left hand. That is Rabbi Natan’s derivation from the juxtaposition of “you shall bind them” and “you shall write them.”
Rabbi Yosef HaChorem, who did not derive the left hand from the word “hand,” asks: From where does he know that the placement is on the left hand? He derives it from the same passage that Rabbi Natan used: “You shall bind them” and “you shall write them.”
Rav Asher offers another derivation. The word “yadecha,” “your hand,” is written in an unusual way in the Torah. Normally, it would be spelled with the letters yud, dalet, and final kaf. Here, however, it is written with an additional hei. Rav Asher expounds the word as “yad keihah,” the weaker hand. Normally, the weaker hand is the left hand.
He explains that the additional hei either changes the word into “the weaker hand,” or, by making the word feminine through the addition of the hei, it alludes to the weaker of the two hands. Thus, “your hand” means your weaker hand, which is the left hand.
Rabbi Abba challenged Rav Asher: How do you know that “your hand” refers to the weaker hand? Perhaps it refers to the stronger hand. Rav Asher answered that the verse does not say “yad koach,” “the strong hand.” Since it is written with the hei, it is expounded as “yad keihah,” the weaker hand. Therefore, there is no reason to interpret it as the stronger hand.
It was taught that there is another dispute concerning the additional hei in “your hand.” One interpretation is that it refers to the left, weaker hand. Another interpretation is that it teaches that even a person whose hand is damaged must put on the phylacteries on whatever part of the hand remains.
It was taught in another tradition that someone who has no arm is exempt from the phylacteries. Others say that “your hand” comes to include someone whose hand is damaged or partially missing; he must put on the phylacteries on the remaining part.
The Sages taught: What does a left-handed person do? His stronger hand is his left hand. On which hand does he place the phylacteries? He places them on his right hand, because for him the right hand is the weaker hand. In this context, “left” is a general term for the weaker hand. Thus, the left hand of a left-handed person is his stronger hand, while his right hand is his weaker hand.
The phylacteries must be placed on the same plane as the heart, though they do not touch the heart. That is exactly what emerges from the discussion.
There is an opinion that a left-handed person places the phylacteries on the left hand, just as everyone else does. A left-handed person looks like everyone else, and perhaps he places them on the left hand—the left hand of every other person. So which is it? What does a left-handed person do?
The answer is that this applies to someone who is ambidextrous, who writes with both hands. Such a person is treated according to the majority. Although he is a left-handed person, he is also right-handed, and he uses both hands. Therefore, he places the phylacteries on the regular side, as everyone else does: the left hand.
A person who is purely left-handed, however, places the phylacteries on the right hand, which is his weaker hand.
The verse also indicates the location on the arm. The phylacteries are placed on the upper part of the arm, near the muscle. When the verse says that they are placed on the head, it means on the head itself, not between the eyes.
Where on the head? The School of Rabbi Yannai says that it is the place where the soft spot of a one-year-old child pulses.
Someone once asked Rabbi Meir: We have already discussed a person who has two hands and uses both of them. On which hand does he place the phylacteries? Now let us discuss a person who has two heads. Does he place the phylacteries on the right head or on the left head?
Rabbi Meir did not appreciate the question. He told the person either to leave and go into exile for asking such a foolish question or to accept excommunication. He was mocking him: What kind of case is this? Does a person really have two heads?
While they were discussing the matter, a man arrived. He said that a baby boy had just been born to him, and the child had two heads.
Of course, the question was not yet about the phylacteries, because the child had just been born. The question concerned redemption of the firstborn. How many redemptions must be performed? How much must be given to the priest? Is it determined by the child, or by the number of heads? If it is determined by the heads, the father would have to give ten coins instead of five.
There is an old teaching in the Midrash that the payment is ten coins because the calculation is made per head. The person is one child, but because he has two heads, he is counted as two. With a firstborn, the determination follows the heads.
This is different from twins. In the case of twins, the determination follows the first child to emerge because they are two separate bodies: one emerged first and the other emerged second. Here there are two heads but one body, and both emerged at the same time. The explanation is that the case of twins is different because they are separate bodies. If it were possible to determine precisely who emerged first and who emerged second, that would establish the order. Here, however, there is one child with two heads.
There is a difficulty: the teaching says that the father must make two redemptions. Why should he be required to redeem two heads?
The answer is that one might regard one of the heads as though it were missing. The general rule is that an extra limb or organ is considered as though it were not present. If one head were removed, the person could not live for more than thirty days; he would be considered a tereifah, someone unable to survive. Therefore, just as one does not redeem a child who would have been capable of living but died within thirty days, certainly one would not redeem a child who could not survive for thirty days.
The verse uses a doubled expression concerning redemption. It says that the firstborn of a person must be redeemed, and the repetition teaches that even if the child was killed within thirty days, he must still be redeemed—provided that he would otherwise have lived. In other words, he was a healthy child who was killed by some external force. One might think that he must still be redeemed because, had he not been killed, he would have lived for thirty days.
The word “only,” however, limits that teaching. It tells us that redemption is performed only when the child reaches thirty days. Since this child has two heads and, if one head is considered missing, he would not be able to survive for thirty days, one might think that he should not be redeemed.
Why, then, did the rabbi say that the father must perform two redemptions? The answer is that with regard to redemption, the Torah says that one follows the head. Since there are two heads, and the child is presently alive, he is judged according to the heads. If he dies within thirty days, that is a different matter. But while he is alive within the thirty-day period, the calculation follows the two heads, and the father must perform two redemptions.
Mar said: What is the location of the phylacteries on the hand? The answer is that they are placed on the elevated part of the arm, the muscle. Perhaps they should be placed on the palm, since the Torah says to place them on the hand and on the head.
Just as the phylacteries of the head are placed on the elevated part of the head, so too the phylacteries of the hand are placed on the elevated part of the arm. Rabbi Eliezer says that no derivation is necessary. The verse says that the phylacteries are to be a sign for you, not for others. When they are placed on the upper arm, they can be covered by one’s shirt. If they were placed on the palm, they would be visible to everyone and would not be a sign intended for you.
The verse says, “You shall place these words upon your heart, and you shall bind them.” This means that the words must be tied next to the heart. Therefore, the phylacteries must be placed on the muscle, corresponding to the location next to the heart.
They were careful to place the phylacteries on the arm corresponding to the heart. Someone was sitting before one of the Sages, and it appeared that he had a wound near the muscle. He did not want his shirt to rub against the wound, since that would presumably cause him pain. As a result, there was a tear in his shirt in that spot, and the phylacteries of the hand were visible.
The Sage asked him why his phylacteries were visible. He said, “We did not understand the verse to mean that the phylacteries must be visible to you and not to others.” The verse says that they are to be a sign for you, not for others. The Sage answered that this means they must be placed in a location where they can be hidden. It does not mean that they must actually be hidden at every moment; they must be in a place where they are capable of being covered.
How do we know that the phylacteries of the head must be placed on the upper part of the head? The verse says, “Between your eyes.” One might understand this literally, as the area between the eyes. But it also says that when a person dies, he must not make a bald spot between his eyes. This refers to a place on the head where there is hair, a place where making a bald spot is possible.
We therefore need a location for the phylacteries that corresponds to the place where a bald spot can be made. The teaching explains that the phylacteries are placed on the head, at the upper part of the head. They are not placed literally between the eyes.
We have one verse that says to place the phylacteries on the arm and another that says to place them on the head. The Torah’s discussion of skin afflictions helps clarify the location. On the arm, only one type of affliction applies, because the arm is flesh without hair. On the head, the phylacteries must likewise be placed in a location where only one type of affliction applies.
If they were placed literally between the eyes, both types would apply, because there is flesh as well as hair. One type of affliction involves the flesh turning white, while another involves the hair turning yellow. Therefore, the phylacteries must be placed on the part of the head where only one of these types applies, rather than literally between the eyes.
The Mishnah says that the four ritual fringes are mutually essential: each one is necessary for the others, because all four are considered one commandment. Rabbi Ishmael says in the Mishnah that each one of the four fringes is a separate commandment.
What is the practical difference between these opinions? Rav Yosef says that the difference concerns a linen garment with woolen fringes dyed blue. The Torah permits this mixture in the case of the ritual fringes: the garment may be linen, while the fringes may be wool.
According to the first opinion, if a person has fringes on only three corners, he has not fulfilled the commandment, because all four corners constitute one commandment. If he has not fulfilled the commandment, then he is wearing a prohibited mixture of wool and linen without the justification of the commandment.
According to Rabbi Ishmael, each corner is its own commandment. Even if only three corners have proper fringes, he has fulfilled three commandments. Therefore, he is not wearing the prohibited mixture, because the woolen fringes serve a commandment on those three corners.
What is the practical difference regarding a garment with five corners? If a person has a garment with five corners, he must put fringes on four corners. The verse says to place them on the four corners of the garment, not on the fifth corner. According to the opinion that each corner is a separate commandment, one might think that he should place fringes on all five corners in order to fulfill a separate commandment on each one. According to the other opinion, the commandment is specifically four fringes on four corners.
The verse says to place them on the four corners, and not on the fifth corner. Thus, the verse is teaching that the commandment of ritual fringes applies to four corners. The fact that the garment has five corners does not mean that one should place fringes on all five.
There is also a difference concerning carrying such a garment on Shabbat. Suppose a person goes out on Shabbat wearing a prayer shawl whose fringes are not properly made and are therefore invalid. Is he liable for carrying?
The garment itself is not the problem. When the fringes are valid, they are considered accessories or ornaments of the garment, just as buttons and other attached decorations are part of what one wears. But once the fringes are invalid, they are no longer accessories to the garment. They have no purpose, and carrying them may therefore constitute carrying on Shabbat.
Here too there is a practical difference between the opinions. If a garment has proper fringes on only three corners, according to the first rabbi the fringes are invalid, because all four are required for one commandment. Therefore, if he wears that garment on Shabbat, he is liable for carrying. According to Rabbi Ishmael, however, he has fulfilled three separate commandments, and the fringes are still accessories to the garment.
Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, discusses someone who deliberately alters a garment. Suppose he cuts or folds one of the corners diagonally in order to create another corner, making a garment with five corners. He then wants to place the fringes on the sides of the garment.
One might think that he is exempt because the garment now has a different shape. But that is not sufficient. If he merely folds the corner over, it remains part of the garment. Since the alteration is temporary and he can easily unfold it, the corner is still considered present. It is not the same as cutting the corner off permanently.
The same principle applies to a leather canteen. In earlier times, a canteen could be made from a piece of leather by folding it and tying a knot to keep the base intact. Before it is tied, it is merely a flat piece of leather and is not a vessel. Even after it is tied, however, it may still not be considered a vessel if the knot can be undone very easily.
Although it presently has a base and appears to be a vessel capable of becoming impure or receiving impurity, it is not considered a permanent vessel if it can be undone immediately. This is the same logic as the folded corner of the prayer shawl.
It was taught that all leather canteens that are tied are considered vessels, except those of the Arabs. Rashi explains that this is their regular method: they leave them in that form because that is how they maintain them. A regular temporary leather canteen, however, remains unfinished because it can easily be untied.
The same applies to the prayer shawl. Folding the corner does not eliminate the corner, because the alteration is not permanent. If he truly wanted to eliminate the fringes, he should have cut off the corner or removed the fringes. The fact that he left them attached shows that he might later unfold the corner, and therefore the garment remains obligated in ritual fringes.
We said that each set of fringes is a separate commandment, but the halachah does not follow that opinion. We hold that all four corners together are considered one commandment.
Rabbi Nava was walking on the Shabbat before the festival, the Shabbat on which people would ask about the laws of Passover. He saw a man walking in a public thoroughfare with one of the fringes on his garment torn. The garment now had only three valid fringes, but Rabbi Nava did not say anything to him.
When the man arrived home, Rabbi Nava told him that the fringe had been torn. The man replied, “If you had told me when it happened, I would have removed the garment immediately.” Apparently, Rabbi Nava accepted the opinion that each fringe is a separate commandment, and therefore the remaining three fringes still served a purpose. But we do not follow that opinion. Since all four are one commandment, the garment with only three valid fringes is no longer properly fulfilled and should have been removed.
The man challenged Rabbi Nava: “Did you not teach us that the honor of a person is so great that it can override a negative commandment of the Torah?” This refers to the law of returning lost objects. The Torah says that one may not pass by an object and pretend not to have seen it. Nevertheless, the Talmud says that there are situations in which one may pass by it—for example, if the person is a scholar or an elder and it is not his honor to involve himself with that object.
The principle is that human dignity is great enough to override a rabbinic prohibition. In this case, however, the person was wearing a garment with invalid fringes in the street. It would not be dignified for a rabbi to remove his garment in the middle of the street. That was Rabbi Nava’s reasoning: human dignity overrides the rabbinic prohibition.
The man answered that this was not the same as the law of returning a lost object. The prohibition against ignoring a lost object is a negative commandment of the Torah, and the principle of human dignity does not permit one to override a Torah prohibition. Rabbi Nava replied that the man was carrying in a semi-public domain, a rabbinic domain, rather than in a fully public domain. Therefore, the issue here involved a rabbinic prohibition, which human dignity can override.
That was Rashi’s explanation. There is, however, a strong question: even if the place where he was carrying was a semi-public domain, wearing a garment that no longer has proper fringes may still involve a Torah prohibition. The Torah requires the garment to have fringes, and he was wearing it without being able to fulfill that requirement.
The answer is that the issue with wearing such a garment concerns a person who has the ability to attach the proper fringes and nevertheless does not do so. On Shabbat, however, he does not have the ability to attach them, because tying or repairing the fringes is prohibited on Shabbat. When one cannot attach the fringes and is prevented from doing so by the day itself, the same obligation is not applied in the same way.
That was the answer given there: he was not wearing the garment while refusing to attach the fringes. He could not attach them because it was Shabbat. Therefore, the remaining question was the rabbinic prohibition of carrying in a semi-public domain, and human dignity could override that prohibition.