The mitzvos we wear

The following observation draws attention to a curious correlation in the (Rambams) laws of tefilin and tzitzis

Rambam codifies the following (hilchos tefilin 3:14) הָרְצוּעוֹת שֶׁלַּתְּפִלִּין, בֵּין שֶׁלָּרֹאשׁ בֵּין שֶׁלַּיָּד - פְּנֵיהֶן הַחִיצוֹנִים שְׁחֹרִים, וְזוֹ הִיא הַהֲלָכָה שֶׁלְּמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. אֲבָל אֲחוֹרֵי הָרְצוּעוֹת - הוֹאִיל וּמִבִּפְנִים הֵן, אִם הָיוּ יְרֻקּוֹת אוֹ לְבָנוֹת, כְּשֵׁרוֹת; אֲדֻמּוֹת לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁמָּא תֵּהָפֵךְ הָרְצוּעָה, וּגְנַאי הוּא לוֹ. וְלֹא יִהְיוּ אֲחוֹרֵי הָרְצוּעָה לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַקְּצִיצָה: אִם יְרֻקָּה - יְרֻקִּין; וְאִם לְבָנָה - לְבָנִים. וְנוֹאי הוּא לַתְּפִלִּין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻּלָּן שְׁחֹרוֹת, הַקְּצִיצָה וְהָרְצוּעָה כֻּלָּהּ. In other words the hilchisa that tefilin need be black only governs the front of the retzuos, the retzua back as well as the battim can be of any color (excluding red) so long as they are matching.

Interestingly we find an identical idea in hilchos tzitzis. Rambam writes that the "lavan" strands need to match the color of the talis (2:8) טַלִּית שֶׁהִיא כֻּלָּהּ אֲדֻמָּה אוֹ יְרֻקָּה אוֹ מִשְּׁאָר צִבְעוֹנִין - עוֹשֶׂה חוּטֵי לָבָן שֶׁלָּהּ כְּעֵין צִבְעָהּ: אִם יְרֻקָּה - יְרֻקִּין; וְאִם אֲדֻמָּה - אֲדֻמִּין. הָיְתָה כֻּלָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת - עוֹשֶׂה לָבָן שֶׁלָּהּ מִשְּׁאָר צִבְעוֹנִין, חוּץ מִן הַשָּׁחֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה כִּתְכֵלֶת. וְכוֹרֵךְ עַל הַכֹּל חוּט אֶחָד תְּכֵלֶת, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁאָר צִיצִיּוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן צְבוּעִין, in 3:5 he also mandates that they be of the same material: כְּסוּת שֶׁלְּצֶמֶר - עוֹשִׂין לָבָן שֶׁלָּהּ חוּטֵי צֶמֶר, וּכְסוּת שֶׁלְּפִשְׁתָּן - עוֹשִׂין לָבָן שֶׁלָּהּ חוּטֵי פִּשְׁתָּן; מִמִּינָהּ. וּשְׁאָר בְּגָדִים - עוֹשִׂין לָבָן שֶׁלְּכָל מִין וָמִין מִמִּינוֹ, כְּגוֹן חוּטֵי מֶשִׁי לִכְסוּת מֶשִׁי וְחוּטֵי נוֹצָה לִכְסוּת נוֹצָה; וְאִם רָצָה לַעֲשׂוֹת לָבָן שֶׁלִּשְׁאָר מִינִים מִצֶּמֶר אוֹ מִפִּשְׁתִּים - עוֹשֶׂה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַצֶּמֶר וְהַפִּשְׁתִּים פּוֹטְרִין בֵּין בְּמִינָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן, וּשְׁאָר מִינִין: בְּמִינָן - פּוֹטְרִין; שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן - אֵין פּוֹטְרִין.

Essentially what we have here are tefilin and tzitzis sharing a set of specific laws. Namely, both have an element (techeiles/retzua front) that is required to possess a specific color (techeiles and black respectively which Rambam explicitly says looks like the color of techeiles!). Moving on, they both have two other components (lavan & talis/retzua back & ketzitza) which per the letter of the law can be of any color (aside for red by tefilin for a non inherent reason) so long as they are matching. Not only that, but the material of the tassels and talis need to be the same for the most part as do the retzuos and battim (theyre both leather).

The techeiles and almost indistinguishable black may be about elevating our national status as followers of HaShem (pricey techeiles was certainly exclusive to the well-heeled, I dont know about black colored leather) and/or function as hiddur mitzvah, ditto for the color/material coordination.

There seems to be a single framework that is applied to both of these religious symbols to similar effect.

Both tefilin and tzitzis have in common that they are worn on the body and serve as tangible reminders of Torah (bamidbar 15:39 וְהָיָ֣ה לָכֶם֮ לְצִיצִת֒ וּרְאִיתֶ֣ם אֹת֗וֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם֙ אֶת⁠־כׇּל⁠־מִצְוֺ֣ת י"י֔ וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑ם וְלֹֽא⁠־תָת֜וּרוּ אַחֲרֵ֤י לְבַבְכֶם֙ וְאַחֲרֵ֣י עֵֽינֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁר⁠־אַתֶּ֥ם זֹנִ֖ים אַחֲרֵיהֶֽם׃; shemos 13:9 וְהָיָה֩ לְךָ֨ לְא֜וֹת עַל⁠־יָדְךָ֗ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן֙ בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֔יךָ לְמַ֗עַן תִּהְיֶ֛ה תּוֹרַ֥ת י"י֖ בְּפִ֑יךָ כִּ֚י בְּיָ֣ד חֲזָקָ֔ה הוֹצִֽאֲךָ֥ י"י֖ מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃)

Theres actually a gemara that connects techeiles and retzuos (bavli sotah 17a) דרש רבא בשכר שאמר אברהם אבינו אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל זכו בניו לב' מצות חוט של תכלת ורצועה של תפלין (agav, see meshech chochmah to that pasuk—Bereishis 14:23—where he writes ובחולין (דף פ"ט ע"א) בשכר כו' זכו בניו לחוט כו' ורצועה ויתכן שבתפילת שחרית שאברהם תיקנה כל ישראל מלובשים בתפילין וטלית גדול משום זה.)

In any event, my attempt at unifying explanations aside, the uncanny similarity of some of the laws of tefilin and tzitzis seem to indicate some deep nexus between them, which accounts for them sharing these unique characteristics.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sukkos: Pesach in the fall

This piece attempts to uncover an entirely new way of looking at the significance of Sukkos in what essentially amounts to a paradigm shift about the chag Vayikra 23:42-43 בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כׇּל הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת. לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. There is no other biblical record of our forefathers ever having stayed in booths, certainly not immediately after the exodus. The rishonim (ad loc) quote a disagreement (bavli sukkah 11b) between R Eliezer and R Akiva as to the identity of the pasuk's obscure referent: כי בסכות הושבתי – איזו סכות היו, ר' אליעזר אומר ענני כבוד היו, ר' עקיבא אומר, סכות ממש then saying that it works out acc to R Eliezer but acc to R Akiva what exactly are we celebrating?; see there for various solutions. The rishonim have in common an understanding that the holiday is somehow related to hitherto un
Read more

Are Jews innately unique

This write up attempts to explain why Haman planned for genocide whereas the Greeks opted for religious suppression As reflected in the differing formulations of al hanissim for Purim and Chanuka respectively, Haman was out for Jewish blood whereas Antiochus was for eradicating Jewish rites and rituals.  Practically speaking, Judaism would have been a relic of the past had either of them had their way.  That different approaches were employed may have been a function of most Jews having been religiously observant during the Purim story as opposed to during the Chanukah story when most were already hellenized—easier to annihilate a people than to get them all to change their ways as opposed to by the Chanukah where only a minority were still practicing it made more sense to just stamp out what remaining observance there was than to exterminate an already mostly hellenized nation.   Perhaps a more philosophical approach can be suggested: There's a well known divide amongst Jewish thi
Read more

Zionism done right

This piece attempts to provide some color to a comment of Chazal regarding the Bnos Tzelafchad's חיבת הארץ as well as explain away an apparent inconsistency in a specific Amora's approach to it Bamidbar 27 opens with the daughters of Tzelafchad making their case to share in the distribution of EY by inheriting their sonless father Tzelafachad's portion instead of his brothers. Chazal posit a love for the land of Israel as their motivation, explaining that the reason this narrative is juxtaposed with the previous chapter owes to it being illustrative of an inferred contrast therein that only the men died out in the midbar as only they had cast aspersions on the land (to the extent of wanting to return to Egypt) as opposed to the women that were lovers of the land and wanted to proceed apace even after the report of the spies. Namely, ibid 26:64: וּבְאֵלֶּה לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּקְדוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי with Rash
Read more