5783/2023

Jachter Women are Proud NOT to Wear Tefillin

By Rab Cha Jacr

The women in the Jachter family, as typical mainstream

Orthodox Jewish women, are proud NOT to wear Tefillin. Here is why.

Clothes of the Opposite Gender

Sefer Devarim (22:5) famously prohibits men from wearing women’s clothes and vice versa. Interestingly, the Torah condemns such behavior as a To’eiva, an abomination. The Torah rarely labels forbidden activities in such strong terms so why does it do so here?

Rashi explains that the Torah intends to prevent gaining improper access to the opposite gender. I suggest a more basic explanation based on Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel, which famously applies this Pasuk to prohibit women from wearing Tzitzit or Tefillin. Wearing these items does not help one gain wrongful access to the opposite gender. According to Targum Yonatan, something more fundamental is involved.

According to Yonatan ben Uzziel, our Pasuk prohibits blurring the lines between the genders. Tefillin and Tzitzit are male-focused Mitzvot. The right side strap (Retzu’ah) of the Tefillin Shel Rosh extends to the place of the Brit Milah since both Tefillin, and Brit Milah are Otot (signs) of our special connection to Hashem (Mishna Berura 27:41). How absurd it is for women to wear Tefillin!

Parenthetically, there is no historical basis to the claim that Rashi’s daughters wore Tefillin, as documented by Rabbi

Dr. Ari Zivotovsky.1 Rabbi Dr. Zivotovsky even cites noted Hebrew University Professor Avraham Grossman, a great expert on Rashi, confirming that there is no evidence for this myth.

However, the Gemara (Eruvin 96a) does state that Michal bat Shaul wore Tefillin. It is no coincidence that it is Michal bat Shaul who wore Tefillin. Shmuel II (6:20-23) records that Michal bat Shaul was infertile and had a difficult relationship with her husband, David HaMelech. The Kaf HaChaim presents the Kabbalistic explanation that Michal bat Shaul had a “masculine Neshama.” Those who cite Michal bat Shaul as a precedent for contemporary women wearing Tefillin are sorely mistaken. The Gemara specifically mentions her wearing Tefillin as an example for women NOT to follow!

Tzitzit corrects the Cheit HaMeraglim.

The Meraglim went “Latur Et HaAretz” (to survey the land; Bemidbar 13:2). Tzitzit teach us “Lo Taturu” (Bemidbar 15:39 with Rashi), the opposite of the Meraglim. Since women did not partake in the sin of the Meraglim (see Rashi to Bemidbar 26:64), there is no reason for women to wear Tzitzit. It is specifically a badge of honor for women not to wear Tzitzit!

No wonder why Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel objects to women wearing Tefillin and Tzitzit!

The Rama (Orach Chaim 17:2 and 38:2) writes that it is inappropriate for women to wear Tefillin. The Vilna Gaon registers his agreement to the Rama in the Biur HaGra, and none of the commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch disagree. The Kaf HaChaim (Orach Chaim 17:5 quoting the Ari and Orach Chaim 38:9 quoting the Chida) agrees. Moreover, the Kaf HaChaim clarifies that the objection to women wearing Tefillin stems greatly from Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel.

The Torah zealously establishes firm boundaries between men and women. For instance, Hebrew, the holy language of Tanach, distinguishes between male and female voices. Put simply, Hashem wants men to act like men and women to act like women. The Torah vigorously protests the blurring of the boundaries between the genders by labeling it a To’eiva.

The Torah views maintaining distinct roles for males and females to be of primary importance. However, much confusion prevails about these topics. The following discussions about Akeidat Yitzchak and Chava’s creation bring sorely-needed clarity.

Sarah Does Not Perform Akeidat Yitzchak

A student once asked why Hashem did not command Sarah Imeinu to perform Akeidat Yitzchak. I responded that to understand, one must delve deeply into a renowned comment of Rashi in Parashat Chayei Sarah.

Rashi (to Breishit 24:67, citing Bereishit Rabbah 60:17) notes that when Rivka Imeinu married Yitzchak Avinu and entered the family home, three phenomena returned that were missing since Sarah Imeinu’s death. Rashi states: “Throughout Sarah’s life, there was a candle lit from Erev Shabbat to the next Erev Shabbat, there was bracha in the dough, and a cloud was suspended on the top of the family tent. These phenomena terminated when Sarah died and returned when Rivka entered the home.”

What is the significance of the candle, dough, and cloud? To understand, we must look elsewhere in the Torah for where these three items appear together. We find a direct parallel regarding the Beit HaMikdash. In the Kodesh (also called the “Heichal”), there are three items: the Menorah, the Shulchan (table), upon which Kohanim place the special breads known as Lechem HaPanim, and a small Mizbe’ach, upon which we offer the Ketoret (incense). The Torah describes the Ketoret as creating a cloud (Anan HaKetoret, VaYikra 16:13). Thus, Sarah and Rivka's candle, bread, and cloud parallel the Beit HaMikdash’s Menorah, Shulchan, and Ketoret.

The essence of the Beit Hamikdash (as stated in the Ramban’s introduction to Parashat Terumah) is a Makom HaShechina, a place for Hashem to “reside”; in other words, a permanent Har Sinai. Accordingly, the Midrash cited by Rashi teaches the great lesson that Sarah and Rivka transformed their tent into a Makom HaShechina, similar to the Beit HaMikdash.

Famously, the Siftei Chachamim add that these three characteristics of Sarah and Rivka’s home correspond to the three Mitzvot for which women are distinguished, Nidda, Challa, and Hadlakat HaNer (Mishna, Shabbat 2:6). The candle parallels to Hadlakat Nerot, Challa matches the Bracha in the dough, and Nidda brings the cloud (i.e., the presence of the Shechina; based on Rabi Pinchas ben Yair’s teaching that Tahara generates Ruach HaKodesh, Avoda Zara 20b).

Thus, Jewish women throughout the generations transform our homes into a Makom HaShechina, following the model set by Sarah Imeinu and Rivka Imeinu.

It is remarkable that in the absence of Sarah Imeinu, Avraham Avinu and Yitzchak Avinu (described by Chazal as an Olah Temima, a pure Korban; see Rashi to Bereishit 26:2) did not elevate their home into a Makom HaShechina. Rashi/Chazal teach that a man cannot create the special place we know as a Jewish home, where Hashem becomes part of our family, no matter how righteous he is. It takes a Jewish woman to add that intangible element to our homes to create that special glow and warmth of Shabbat, Yom Tov, and even every day. Even if men regularly study Torah and attend Tefillah B’Tzibur, they cannot

transform a Jewish home into a Makom HaShechina, an abode for Hashem.

Conversely, even one thousand of the most righteous Jewish women do not constitute a Minyan. They cannot because only a Jewish man can bring the Shechina to a Beit Kenesset. Similarly, only male Kohanim generate the presence of the Shechina in the Beit HaMikdash. A Jewish woman brings the Shechina to the home, and Jewish men bring Hashem’s presence to the Beit HaMikdash and synagogue.

Returning to our student’s question, Akeidat Yitzchak was Avraham Avinu’s role. Akeidat Yitzchak creates the model for a Korban in the Beit HaMikdash (see Bereishit 22:13-14 with Rashi and Ramban to VaYikra 1:9). Sarah Imeinu brought the Shechina to the home. In contrast, Avraham Avinu brought the Shechina to the location of the Beit HaMikdash.

Neither the male role nor the female role surpasses the other in importance. Males and females are of equal existential value. What is most important is that the roles are different. The Torah views men and women as blessed with equal worth but have distinct roles whose boundaries the Torah zealously protects, as expressed in the strongly worded prohibition against donning the clothes of the opposite gender.

Hashem Created Adam and Chava Differently

Talmidim ask why in Sefer Bereishit Perek Two, we find Adam HaRishon and Chava are created differently. Adam is made from a combination of earth from the ground and Hashem breathing into Adam’s nostrils. By contrast, Chava comes from Adam’s rib (according to most opinions). Students want to know why Hashem made Adam and Chava differently.

The answer is simple. Hashem makes them different because men and women are different. Bereishit 1:26 emphasizes that both males and females are created in the image of Hashem. This Pasuk teaches that males and females are of equal existential value. Nonetheless, the genders dramatically differ; thus, the Torah assigns them different roles.

Similarly, at Har Sinai (Shemot 19:3), Hashem instructs Moshe Rabbeinu, “Ko Tomar L’Veit Yaakov V’Tageid Livnei Yisrael. Rashi (quoting Shabbat 87a) explains that Beit Yaakov refers to women, and Bnei Yisrael addresses men. Rashi explains that we must teach women gently (Tomar) and men in a tougher tone (Taged). Both men and women are of equal value regarding the Torah, but we must teach the genders differently. It is for this reason why (Rashi to Breishit 12:5) Avraham Avinu brought men to Hashem while Sarah Imeinu reached out to women. One reaches out differently to the respective genders.

Once again, we see the genders as equally valuable but play very different roles. Therefore we must carefully uphold the boundaries between the two groups.

Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education

The curious argument is advanced that the Torah’s treating the genders equally but differently violates the American Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. The American highest court rejected the notion of separate but equal schools for black and white children.

However, the comparison between Torah and Brown makes little sense. The Brown decision was a just and sensible rejection of the horrific and unnecessary segregation of Black and White Americans. However, men and women are necessarily seated separately but equally in a synagogue, reflecting our ancient tradition and expressing that men and women relate to Hashem differently.

The plummeting numbers of non-traditional Jewish movements in the decades following their embrace of egalitarianism (contrasted by great growth in traditional Jewish communities) is a sober reminder that we can ensure a Jewish future only by upholding traditional Torah values and behaviors. There is no compelling reason for Orthodoxy to dabble in egalitarianism, as the failed experiment of the non-traditionalists demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt. On the contrary, their failure proves that upholding traditional practices, including distinguishing between the genders, is essential to Jewish survival.

Thanking Hashem for Making Us a Girl

I was horrified to hear of a mainstream Orthodox Jewish North American elementary school Yeshiva, eliminating the Bracha of Shelo Asani Isha's recital due to parental objections voiced during the Covid-19 pandemic. Kudos to a female staff member who raised her voice and eventually restored the Bracha to the children’s Tefilla. We should never be ashamed of our liturgy. God forbid to raise a hand against our holy Siddur!

My youngest daughter reported in first grade that her (female) teacher led them each morning to sing before the girls recited SheAsani Kirtzono. “And now we will thank Hashem for (yes!) making us a girl.” This policy reflects proper Jewish education that promotes a healthy sense of self. Girls should be thrilled to be girls, and boys should be ecstatic to be boys. Feeling good about how Hashem made us is an essential building block of a healthy sense of self. We dare not deprive any child of such a wholesome feeling. Kudos to my youngest daughter’s teacher and the staff member for restoring Shelo Asani Isha and Sheasani Kirtzono to these precious Jewish children!

The students’ questions stem from the assumption that women are identical to men. However, the Torah emphatically rejects
this mindset. The women in the Jachter family are happy to be women
and embrace the Torah’s expectations and framework that distinguishes them as women. Such an attitude builds strong individual self-esteem, firm families, and solid communities. Our quality of life exponentially increases when we follow Hashem’s will
as outlined in the Torah. After all, the Creator of the universe knows what serves our best interest. Why would anyone wish to act differently?

Rav Hershel Schachter’s ruling strictly forbidding women to wear Tefillin following the unanimously supported Rama and Kaf HaChaim undoubtedly must be honored by Jewish individuals and communities aspiring to retain a Jewish future. Rav Schachter makes compelling Halachic arguments, and his approach is well-founded in Tanach and Torah Hashkafa.2

Conclusion

Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel’s forbidding women to wear Tefillin and Tzitzit stems from Hashem’s demand that men and women embrace their roles in Jewish life. Hashem despises breaches in the fundamental distinction between women's and men’s behavior. The Jachter women proudly refrain from wearing Tefillin and proudly embrace their feminine role. They see no need to wear a set Tefillin or a Tallit. While Hashem regards blurring the gender boundaries as a To’eiva, he extols passionate guarding and respect for these boundaries as crucial for Torah life and the only way to ensure our people’s continued survival and thriving.