Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The Torah and the Gemara (especially in Yoma) gives us fascinating detail about the bigdei kahuna (clothes of the priests) that were worn in the Holy Temple. What is not clear is whether tefillin were worn by the kohanim when they performed their services. Do we have any sources that confirm whether or not kohanim indeed wore tefillin during their avodah?

share|improve this question
The big' kahuna. – Seth J Nov 13 '13 at 14:37
up vote 16 down vote accepted

The Talmud (Arachin 3b) informs us that the Kohanim were exempt from wearing the Tefillah shel Yad while servicing in the Temple because it would constitute a separation between the priestly garments and the skin. The Tefillah shel Rosh could still be worn, and the priestly garments on the head were worn in such a way as to leave room in the front for the Tefillah shel Rosh. However, the Talmud (Zevachim 19a) also tells us that Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim who were serving in the Temple were exempt from wearing Tefillin, as Rashi there explains, because of the principle עוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה one who is busy with one Mitzva is exempt from another. Rambam (Klei Hamikdash 10:6) says that the Kohanim could wear the Tefillah shel Rosh during the Temple service if they wanted to.

share|improve this answer
I believe its a machlokes in Zevachim – sam Jun 25 '13 at 4:09
@sam Thanks for the tip! – Double AA Jun 25 '13 at 12:31
Woohoo! I was Mechaven to Zevahim! Seriously, though, what about the fact that, since they don the Tefillin in the morning, it would come first? Hence, perhaps, they might not be Peturim? Also, I seem to recall discussions about not doing Mitzvoth from which one is Patur because of 'Osek BeMitzvah, as it causes a distraction or a Hefsek. Is that not considered by the RaMBa"M, or is this not considered to be a problem in those regards due to timing or practical application? – Seth J Jun 25 '13 at 14:34
@SethJ I'm putting Rashi and Rambam together here and assuming the two Gemaras don't argue. Your questions are good and I'm guessing there is more to this sugya. Let me know if you find anything and the same for me. – Double AA Jun 25 '13 at 15:56
@SethJ See Beis HaLevi 1:3:2 (about half way through) who argues that Rambam doesn't think Oseik beMitzva is at play here, and see Zechor leAvraham 1:64b who tries to answer why Oseik beMitzva might still result in a Reshut status here. – Double AA Jun 25 '13 at 19:13

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.