Must A Kohen Wear Tefillin?

Introduction: A Talmudic Contradiction

In the second chapter of Zevachim (19a) we are taught: “Kohanim during their service, Levites [singing] on their platform, and Israelites at their station [in the Temple, while the tamid is being offered] are exempt from prayer and from tefillin.”

In the first chapter of Arachin (3b) we are taught: “Everyone is obligated to don tefillin: Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites.” According to the authoritative medieval commentary known as Tosefot, this statement in Arachin must be telling us that Kohanim are obligated to don tefillin during their service.1

Both of these texts are anonymous Baraitot, authoritative sources dating from the era of the Mishnah. The contradiction between them is clear: The first Baraita states Kohanim are exempt from wearing tefillin during their service, while the second states they are obligated.

As a general rule, this is the kind of contradiction that the Talmud itself often points out and seeks to resolve.2 In this case, however, the Talmud in both tractates follows up with a nearly identical set of discussions involving other related sources, and yet ignores the one Baraita in the other tractate that seems to stand as its most direct and glaring contradiction!

The earliest commentator to take note of this contradiction is the Shita Mekubetzet, a 16th century compilation that often includes material from earlier sources that has otherwise been lost. A comment to Arachin (ad. loc.) reads as follows: “This implies that Kohanim are obligated to don tefillin during their service. This is difficult, since we say in the second chapter of Zevachim that Kohanim during their service and Levites on their platform are exempt from tefillin!”

The Shita Mekubetzet also provides the first of a series of solutions to this contradiction. As we shall see, this solution depends on a particular understanding of why Kohanim are generally exempt from tefillin during their service in the Temple, from which it follows that under certain circumstances that exemption would not apply. We will also see that other authorities provide a different basis for the exemption, according to which we would have to find alternative paths to a resolution of our contradiction.

As is usually the case once you enter the Talmud’s labyrinths, these different paths are all subject to a plethora of related debates. For the sake of clarity, I will try and stick to the essentials. But my purpose in this article is also to highlight some key concepts relevant not only here, but to a whole host of other topics across the canons of rabbinic literature.

It’s also important to note that this article is not a how-to guide. This is an exercise in Torah study for its own sake, rather than for the sake of arriving at any practical conclusion. If you have any practical questions that relate to this discussion or arise from it, please ask a competent rabbi for guidance.

Solution 1: A Question of Timing

The first solution rests on the foundation of a general rule: “One who is busy with one mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah” (ha’osek be’mitzvah patur min ha’mitzvah). For this reason, Rashi explains, Kohanim who are busy with the service in the Temple would generally be exempt from wearing tefillin, as the Baraita in Zevachim states.3

According to some important commentaries to the Talmud, however, there is a limitation to this general rule: The exemption of ha’osek be’mitzvah only applies when it is impossible to fulfill both mitzvot. Under such circumstances, being preoccupied with one mitzvah exempts you from another. But the exemption does not apply when there is sufficient time to fulfill both mitzvot.4

***

The solution recorded by the Shita Mekubetzet rests on this question of timing:

In a case where the Kohanim are already busy with the Temple service and would have to stop engaging in that mitzvah in order to don tefillin—or in a case where they don’t have sufficient time to don tefillin and complete the service—they are exempt from tefillin. As it was taught in Zevachim: “Kohanim during their service… are exempt… from tefillin.”

But in a case where they have time to don them before busying themselves with the Temple service, they are indeed obligated to do so. As it was taught in Arachin: “Everyone is obligated to don tefillin: Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites.”

A Limitation to Solution 1

Before getting to the second solution, it is necessary to explain one of the problems with the first. In short, it only works if we take one side of a debate concerning the application of the exemption of ha’osek be’mitzvah: “One who is busy with one mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah.”

The Ashkenazic medieval authorities known collectively as Tosefot interpret it narrowly, so it applies only in cases when it is impossible to fulfill both mitzvot.5 But others, among them the great Sephardic sage known as the Ran (Rabbi Nissan of Girona, 1290–1376), applied this exemption even when both mitzvot can be fulfilled.6

According to the Ran, even if the Kohanim do have time to don Tefillin before beginning their service in the Temple, they should nevertheless be exempt from doing so. The exemption is a matter of simultaneity rather than time. Having the time and ability to do both mitzvot is not a factor. Rather, one can’t be obligated to busy oneself with two mitzvot simultaneously. So long as one is busy with one mitzvah, one is exempt from another.

This accords very well with the blanket ruling in Zevachim: “Kohanim during their service… are exempt… from tefillin.” But what are we to make of the ruling in Arachin: “Everyone is obligated to don tefillin: Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites”? Under what circumstances would a Kohen be obligated to don tefillin?

Solution 2: Certainty vs. Uncertainty

This question was raised by Rabbi Aryeh Leib Ginzburg (1695–1785), better known by the title of his famous work of responsa, Shaagat Aryeh. He answered it by turning to the classical rabbinic category of uncertainty.7 Here too, we find a general rule that can help us resolve the contradiction between Zevachim and Arachin, even according to the Ran: “In a case of uncertainty regarding a Biblical law we must err on the side of stringency” (sfaika de’orayta lechumra).

In most cases, the service performed by the Kohanim in the Temple is not subject to uncertainty. If, for example, the Kohen is offering the mandated daily sacrifice (the tamid), it is certain that the Kohen is busy with a mitzvah, and it is likewise certain that he is exempt from other mitzvot.

But there are cases when an uncertainty arises as to whether a sacrifice is Biblically required or not. In such cases (referred to as avodat safek, uncertain service) one must err on the side of stringency in every respect. Since it is possible that a sacrifice is required, the Kohen must perform the service in the prescribed way. But it remains possible that this does not actually constitute a prescribed mitzvah at all, and therefore his exemption from other mitzvot is subject to uncertainty too. Must he wear tefillin while performing this service? Yes! After all, tefillin are Biblically mandated, and “in a case of uncertainty regarding a Biblical law we must err on the side of stringency.”

***

The solution of the Shaagat Aryeh rests on the above distinction between certainty and uncertainty:

In a case where the Kohanim are busy with a Temple service that is mandated with certainty, they are exempt from tefillin. As it was taught in Zevachim: “Kohanim during their service… are exempt… from tefillin.”

But in a case where the Temple service is subject to uncertainty they are indeed obligated to don tefillin. As it was taught in Arachin: “Everyone is obligated to don tefillin: Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites.”8

A Challenge to Solutions 1 and 2

Before getting to the third solution, it is necessary to explain a problem which threatens both solutions offered above. In short, both depend on Rashi’s explanation in Zevachim that a Kohen is exempt from tefillin due to the principle of ha’osek be’mitzvah: “one who is busy with one mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah.” The Rambam, however, gives a different reason for the exemption, which has nothing to do with whether or not the Kohen is doing a mitzvah or not. The exemption, rather, is due to the prohibition of allowing yourself to become distracted (hesech hadaat) while wearing tefillin.

As we will soon explain, if this is the reason for the exemption recorded in Zevachim the above explanations of the obligation recorded in Arachin fall away. This challenge to the solutions proposed by the Shita Mekubetzet and the Shaagat Aryeh comes from Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik of Brisk (1820–1892), in the work by whose title he is known, Beit Ha’levi. The Rambam, he points out, places the exact words of the Baraita in Zevachim at the end of a list of those who are exempt from donning tefillin because they are liable to be distracted:

Anyone exempt from the Shema is exempt from tefillin... those with intestinal illness, and anyone who cannot control their bowels except with great pain, are exempt from tefillin... one who is in pain, and one whose mind is not settled or composed, is exempt from tefillin, for it is forbidden for one wearing tefillin to be distracted from them. Kohanim during their service, Levites while singing on the platform, and Israelites while standing in the Temple are exempt from prayer and from tefillin.9

This changes everything. If the Kohen is exempt from tefillin due to hesech hadaat the exemption should stand even if he has time to don tefillin before beginning the temple service (as in solution 1), and even if the service he is performing is subject to an uncertainty (as in solution 2). This exemption isn’t inhibited by the parameters and limitations of ha’osek be’mitzvah at all! Rather it applies in any case when you are liable to be distracted, whether because you are in pain, or mentally unsettled, or because you are preoccupied with the demanding tasks of the Temple service.

This accords very well with the blanket ruling in Zevachim: “Kohanim during their service… are exempt… from tefillin.” But what are we to make of the ruling in Arachin: “Everyone is obligated to don tefillin: Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites”? Under what circumstances would a Kohen be obligated to don tefillin?

Solution 3: The Kohen Gadol’s Exception

The Beit Ha’levi answers this question by turning our attention to a rather exceptional case, which actually lies outside of the ordinary Temple service, and which is only relevant to the Kohen Gadol, the High-Priest, rather than to ordinary Kohanim.

While ordinary Kohanim wear four priestly garments, the Kohen Gadol wears eight. One of these is the tzitz, a gold headplate inscribed with G‑d’s name. One of the qualities of the tzitz is that it atones for any ritual impurity (tumah) that might taint the Temple service performed by the Kohanim. The Talmud in Yoma (7b) records an opinion that such atonement only occurs when the tzitz is on the Kohen Gadol’s forehead. According to the Beit Ha’levi, moreover, atonement only occurs when the Kohen Gadol is also dressed in all the priestly garments along with the tzitz.

This would result in a need for the Kohen Gadol to wear the priestly garments even when he is not actively performing any service, in order for the tzitz to atone for any tumah that might befall other Kohanim while they are performing the service. At such a time, the Kohan Gadol would neither be busy with the service himself, nor subject to distraction, and would therefore be obligated to don tefillin.

***

If we accept this hypothesis, argues the Beit Ha’levi, our contradiction between Zevachim and Arachin is resolved:

Kohanim who are engaged in the Temple service are always exempt from tefillin. As it was taught in Zevachim: “Kohanim during their service… are exempt… from tefillin.”

But when the Kohen Gadol is merely wearing the priestly garments for the sake of atonement, he is obligated to don tefillin. As it was taught in Arachin: “Everyone is obligated to don tefillin: Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites.”10

Why Solutions 3, 2, and 1 Are Unsatisfying

The above solutions are ingenious, and yet they are unsatisfying. Simply put, it’s hard to square any of them with the plain sense of the Baraita in Arachin. The statement is explicit and unequivocal: “Everyone is obligated to don tefillin: Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites.”

It seems quite a stretch to say that by “everyone” and “Kohanim” (plural) the Baraita is not actually referring to all Kohanim, but exclusively to the Kohen Gadol, and moreover, specifically when he is not actually engaged in the Temple service but nevertheless wearing the priestly garments for the sake of atonement—as in solution 3.

It also seems a stretch to argue that by “everyone” and “Kohanim” the Baraita is not actually referring to all Kohanim, but exclusively to Kohanim who are engaged in avodas safek, uncertain service—as in solution 2.

Though not as big a stretch, it is similarly dissatisfying to conclude that by “everyone” and “Kohanim” the Baraita is not actually referring to all Kohanim, but specifically to Kohanim who are already wearing Tefillin, or have sufficient time to don them, before they start engaging in the Temple service—as in solution 1.

If the Baraita’s statement pertained only to such specific scenarios as these, why was it phrased in such inclusive and ambiguous terms? Moreover, the Talmud’s discussion of the Baraita also fails to clarify that it should be understood as pertaining specifically to one of these three scenarios.

Solution 4: Hand vs. Head

A fourth possible solution implicitly emerges from the Talmud’s own discussions, in Zevachim and Arachin respectively, of each of these apparently conflicting Baraitot. This approach was discussed by Rabbi Yosef Shaul Nathanson (1825–1865), in his work Sho’el Umeishiv.

Let’s take a closer look at these Talmudic discussions:

In Zevachim, the Talmud follows the statement of the Baraita, “Kohanim during their service… are exempt… from tefillin,” with a question: “Does this not mean that if they donned them, they would not constitute an interposition (chatzitza)?”

Though phrased somewhat cryptically, the Talmud’s question rests on the implication that although the Kohanim are exempt from tefillin while performing the Temple service, they are not prohibited from donning them if they so wish. It follows that a Kohen would be allowed to perform the Temple service with tefillin bound to his arm underneath his tunic (ketonet), despite the general rule that nothing may interpose between the priestly garments and the Kohen’s skin. This can only be upheld if tefillin are not considered an invalidating interposition, a chatzitza.

To this inference the Talmud responds: “No. If he wore them, they would constitute an interposition. If so, why does the Baraita say they are exempt? It should have said they are forbidden! Since the Baraita also includes Levites and Israelites—to whom the prohibition of chatzitza does not apply—it used the term exempt.” The Talmud, in other words, clarifies that Kohanim are indeed forbidden from wearing Tefillin during their service, as they constitute a chatzitza and invalidate the priestly garments. The use of the term “exempt” sacrifices accuracy for the sake of brevity.

The Talmud follows up with an apparent refutation drawn from another Baraita: “But hasn’t it been taught in a Baraita: ‘If he wore them, they do not constitute a chatzitza’? This is not a difficulty; one [the first Baraita] refers to the arm-tefillin, and the other [the second Baraita] refers to the head-tefillin.” The Talmud goes on to cite another source proving that, in contrast to the hand Tefillin, the head Tefillin do not involve the problem of chatzitza: “A Tanna taught: The Kohen’s hair was visible between the headplate (tzitz) and the turban (mitznefes), and it is there that the tefillin are placed.”

It turns out, per the Talmud’s discussion in Zevachim, that the Baraita cited at the outset, “Kohanim during their service… are exempt… from tefillin,” refers specifically to the arm Tefillin, which constitute a chatzitza, and not to the head tefillin, which don’t involve this problem. For that reason, the Baraita should have used the term “prohibited.” The term “exempt” was used because this term applies to Levites and Israelites as well, who are also mentioned in the Baraita. They do not wear priestly clothes and consequently are not prohibited from wearing the arm tefillin; they are merely exempt from doing so while accompanying or observing the priestly service.

***

Now let’s turn to the Baraita in Arachin: “Everyone is obligated to don tefillin: Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites.”

The Talmud asks: “Isn’t this obvious?”—and answers—“It was necessary in order to explicitly include the Kohanim. You might have thought: Since it is written, ‘And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes’ (Devarim 6:8), anyone who is included in the mitzvah of the arm is included in the mitzvah of the head. Since these Kohanim are excluded from the mitzvah of the arm, as it is written, ‘He shall put [the tunic] upon his flesh’ (Vayikra 6:3), meaning that nothing may intervene between the garment and his flesh, I might have said that they are not obligated by the mitzvah of the head either. The Baraita therefore comes to teach us that the two tefillin do not depend on one another, as we have learned in a Mishnah: ‘The [absence of] arm-tefillin does not prevent [the wearing of] the head-tefillin, and [absence of] head-tefillin does not prevent [the wearing of] the arm-tefillin.’”

In other words, the Talmud understands the Baraita in Arachin to be teaching us that the Kohanim are obligated to wear head-tefillin even though they may not wear arm-tefillin. This reading of the Baraita is maintained all the way to the conclusion of the discussion, even as several other questions are raised and answered.

***

The contradiction between the Baraita in Zevachim and the Baraita in Arachin is neatly resolved if we take into account the distinction between the arm and the head tefillin that emerges from the Talmudic discussion in both places:

Kohanim who are engaged in the Temple service are “exempt,” or rather forbidden, from wearing tefillin on their arms. This is the meaning of the Baraita in Zevachim: “Kohanim during their service… are exempt… from [arm] tefillin.”

But they are nonetheless obligated to wear tefillin on their heads. This is the meaning of the Baraita in Arachin: “Everyone is obligated to don [head] tefillin: Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites.”11

A Maimonidean Rebuttal to Solution 4

On the face of it, the above solution seems to emerge seamlessly from a careful reading of the relevant Talmudic discussions. The practical upshot of this solution would be that Kohanim engaged in the Temple are forbidden from wearing tefillin on their arms, and obligated to wear tefillin on their heads. There is no case in which wearing tefillin is left to their discretion, as a matter of mere exemption and permissibility rather than a matter of prohibition and obligation.

However, the Rambam is quite clear that the Kohanim are exempt from wearing the head tefillin, and not obligated! Here’s his ruling in the Laws of the Temple Vessels:

With regard to the priestly garments… nothing should interpose between his flesh and the garments… Therefore a Kohen cannot serve while wearing arm tefillin, because they interpose. But the head tefillin do not interpose, and if he desires to wear them during service, he may wear them.12

On the one hand, the Rambam seems to take on board the conclusion of the Talmud’s discussion in Arachin, according to which the Kohen is indeed prohibited from wearing the hand tefillin during the Temple service. On the other hand, he seems to ignore the Baraita and Talmudic discussion in Arachin entirely, and writes unequivocally that the Kohen is exempt from wearing head tefillin during the service, but is permitted to do so if he so desires.

So the question that remains for us to answer is the following: Is there a way to reconcile the Baraita in Zevachim and the Baraita in Arachin that would also conform with the Rambam’s ruling that Kohanim are not obligated to wear head tefillin during the temple service, but merely exempt?

This brings us to a fifth solution, with which this article will conclude.

Solution 5: Exemption vs. Inclusion

This fifth solution takes a very different form than the others proposed so far. Our previous solutions all left intact the original assumption that these two Baraitot are in conflict, but sought to find ways around the conflict. Similarly, these solutions were all achieved by qualifying the statements of each Baraita and interpreting them as referring to specific cases, which are by no means explicit in the original text.

To refresh our memories:

• In solution 1, the Baraita in Arachin is interpreted to mean that only Kohanim who have time to don tefillin and still perform the Temple service are obligated to do so.
• In solution 2, it is interpreted to mean that only those performing an “uncertain service” are obligated to don tefillin.
• In solution 3, it is further narrowed to a highly specific circumstance applicable only to the Kohen Gadol.
• In solution 4, the Baraita in Arachin is understood to refer only to the head tefillin, while the Baraita in Zevachim refers only to the hand tefillin.

By contrast, this fifth solution undoes the original assumption that the two Baraitot stand in conflict with one another, by explaining that they are actually addressing two completely different questions. Moreover, this approach does not attempt to constrain the meaning of the Baraita in Arachin at all. On the contrary, it takes it at face value, and in doing so gives it even more sweeping weight than might intuitively be assumed.

This fifth solution arises from a straightforward comparison of the two Baraitas, read side by side.

There is a very obvious difference between these two texts:

The Baraita in Zevachim tells us explicitly that its exemption applies specifically under a particular set of circumstances. When the Kohanim are performing the service they are exempt from tefillin.

The Baraita in Arachin, by contrast, does not tell us of any particular set of circumstances when its obligation applies. It simply states that all three groups among the Jewish people—Kohanim, Levites, and Isrealites—are included in the obligatory mitzvah of tefillin.

Let me explain this point a little better:

There are mitzvot, such as the obligation to redeem one’s firstborn son, which only obligate Israelites. Similarly, the Levites alone are obligated by the mitzvah to donate a tithe known as terumat maaser. There are other mitzvot that only obligate Kohanim, such as the obligation to eat the meat of certain sacrifices to atone for the sins of those who bring them. Many more mitzvot, however, obligate Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites without distinction. The Baraita in Arachin is simply telling us that the mitzvah of tefillin is in the latter category. It says nothing about whether or not this obligation remains in place while a Kohen is engaged in the Temple service.

Indeed, the Talmud in Arachin has similar discussions about whether or not Kohanim are included in the mitzvot of Sukkah, Tzitzit, and Shofar. In each case the Talmud cites Braitot with similarly sweeping formulations and concludes in the affirmative.13

***

The contradiction between the Baraita in Zevachim and the Baraita in Arachin is neatly resolved once we realize they are actually addressing two entirely different questions:

The more fundamental question is whether Kohanim, in general, are included in the obligation to wear tefillin: Must a Kohen wear tefillin? This question is answered by the Baraita in Arachin: “Everyone is obligated to don tefillin: Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites.”

A secondary question is if this obligation remains in force even while they are engaged in the Temple service, or are they exempted? This question is answered by the Baraita in Zevachim: “Kohanim during their service… are exempt… from tefillin.”

***

This solution nicely explains why the Rambam didn’t rule that Kohanim are obligated to wear head tefillin while performing the Temple service:

After all, the source in Arachin which speaks of the Kohen’s obligation to wear tefillin is not referring to the Temple service at all. It is rather making the more fundamental point that Kohanim are included in the general obligation to don tefillin.

The question of whether this obligation remains in force even while they are engaged in the temple service is not taken up in Arachin, but in Zevachim. There the conclusion is reached that they are actually forbidden to don the arm tefillin, as they constitute an invalidating interposition. As to the head tefillin, the Talmud there continues, “if they donned them they do not interpose.” The word “if” implies that this is a matter of discretion; they are not obligated to don them, but may do so if they wish—exactly as the Rambam ruled!