Women and Tefillin (Copy)

Mekhilta of R. Yishmael, Bo, Massekhta de-Pisha Parashah 17

“So that God’s teaching will be in your mouth.”—Why was this said? From the statement “It shall be for you a sign,” I might have thought that women are included [in the obligation to wear Tefillin]. Indeed, it would be logical: given that mezuzah and Tefillin are both positive commandments, if mezuzah is gender blind [because it applies to anyone who lives in a Jewish home], ought not Tefillin also be gender blind? Therefore, the verse says: “So that God’s teaching will be in your mouth”—[to teach that Tefillin only applies] to one who is obligated in Torah study. This is the basis for saying that all are obligated in Tefillin except for women and slaves.

Michal bat Kushi used to put on Tefillin, Yonah’s wife used to make the festival pilgrimage, Tavi, Rabban Gamliel’s slave used to put on Tefillin.

“As a reminder between your eyes, so that God’s teaching will be in your mouth”—This is the basis for saying that putting on Tefillin is like reading from the Torah and one who reads from the Torah is exempt from Tefillin.

Talmud Yerushalmi, Brachot 2:3, fol. 4c (30)

All who are not like Elisha the Winged One should not wear Tefillin

Kol Bo (The Laws of Tefillin, Section 21)

The Maharam writes that women are exempt from Tefillin because it is a positive time-bound commandment, since we don’t wear it on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And if they want to wear it, we don’t allow them to, because they don’t know how to keep themselves in nekiut

Rashba, Teshuva 1:123

I agree with those who say that if they desire they can do all such mitzvot and recite the blessings, on the basis of Michal bat Shaul who used to wear Tefillin and they did not protest; indeed she did so in accordance with the will of the Sages and by the nature of the matter since she puts on Tefillin she makes the blessing

Chatam Sofer, Shabbat 49a:

This requires explanation: What is the reason that we take Tefillin off [outside of prayers]; why, [Rav Yosef says in the Gemara] "When one is engaged in a mitzvah it protects and saves them" (see Sotah 21a). And even more so for Tefillin, with regards to which it is written (Deuteronomy 28:10): "Then all the nations of the world will see that you are called by the name of God and they will fear you" (see Brachot 6a). And it seems that according to what Rabbeinu Yonah wrote in the name of the Rambam in the Laws of Tefillin 4:14-15, as brought in the Rosh's Laws of Tefillin (Section 21), that they need guf naki, [meaning that] one should not be frivolous (lit. Light-headed) [when they are wearing] them...

Olat HaTamid 38:4

The Kolbo writes that the reason is because women do not know how to guard themselves with cleanliness. I was amazed at this, as if that is the case, why does the Talmud in chapter me shemeto need to explain that women are exempt from Tefillin because it is a time-caused positive commandment - Wouldn’t it be true [according to Kolbo] that even if they wish to be strict on themselves, it is prohibited for them to wear Tefillin since they do not know how to keep themselves clean! Rather, it must be that this reason [i.e., that women may not wear Tefillin due to cleanliness issues] is not correct according to the Talmudic text. So too, it says in the beginning of the chapter Hamotzee Tefillin that Michal Bat Shaul donned Tefillin and the Rabbis did not rebuke her; even though one Pesikta says the opposite, that they did rebuke her, nonetheless, we follow our Talmudic source. However, one could rebut the [previous] proof, [because perhaps] our Talmud [in me shemeto] does not give this explanation [cleanliness] since it wants to offer a reason why slaves are also exempt. And if it were for this reason [cleanliness] alone, it would appear that slaves are obligated in donning Tefillin, since they certainly know to keep themselves clean. Therefore the Talmud explains [that women are exempt from Tefillin] because of the principle of time bound positive commandments, since it is for this reason that slaves are also exempt. Nevertheless, the source that says the Rabbis did not rebuke Michal does imply that if a woman is elderly [i.e., post-menopausal] and we know that she is capable of watching herself [to stay clean], one should not rebuke her. And it is such a case that the Talmud has in mind there [i.e. in me shemeto, where women are said to be exempt from wearing Tefillin, not categorically forbidden from doing so].

Peninei Halakha, 1:9:13:

Practically speaking, the law is that they shouldn't wear [Tefillin], and many write that we should object to those who want to wear [Tefillin], and the Rema writes this as well as the M"B 38, 13, KH"C 38, 9, and many more. But as I have written, those who want to wear [Tefillin] have [lenient opinions] to rely upon, since there is the Orchot Chaim and the Olat Tamid, and even the ruling of the Aruch HaShulchaan explains that we don't object to [women wearing Tefillin] where it is known that they are righteous. And therefore, practically speaking, we don't object. But this is on condition that they are careful not to wear it during their period, and [likewise] that they are careful to only wear it in private, since only then will it be clear that they are wearing it for the sake of Heaven, and also because they need to be private with regards to their time of purity and impurity.

Tehilla l'David, Orach Chayyim 38:1

According to the Rosh who explains the need for a guf naki, since women are obligated in tefillah they are [clearly] able to be careful at a time of davening mehafacha. And similarly [with regards to the concern for] lacking concentration, there is no concern at a time of davening. From this reasoning, it's possible for them to touch them during prayer like the Magen Avraham says in Section 44, Sub-Section 2. And if so, there is room to investigate if one needs to object to women who want to wear [Tefillin] during prayers, for it is possible that [when] the Rema (Z"L) wrote in Section 3 that we protest, [this is only] when they want to wear [Tefillin] all day. And see AA, Sub-Section 3.

Igerot Moshe, 4:49:

...However, it is obvious that this applies only if her soul yearns to perform mitzvot, notwithstanding the fact that she is not commanded to perform them. However, since it is not with this intent, but rather stems from her protest against God and God's Torah, this is not the act of a mitzvah at all; on the contrary, [it is] a forbidden act, since she commits heresy by thinking that it is possible for the laws of the Torah to be changed even in this weighty matter.