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. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

In most siddurim right after the berachot of the tefillin you will find the two parshiot "Kadesh" and "Vehaya ki yeviacha," which are also contained in the tefillin.

Is there an obligation to say these parshiot when wearing the tefillin, or is it just a good recommendation?

share|improve this question
As I understand it, the obligation of the parshiot is "reversed". In other words, while saying the morning Shema, you should be wearing your tefillin, not that wearing tefillin obligates you to recite the Shema. At any rate, there is an obligation to recite 3 of the parshiot in the tefillin. I'm unaware of any obligation to recite the other two that you mentioned. It appears to be minhag. – DanF Jun 25 '14 at 13:17
DanF, I believe "Shema" and "veahavta" is considered 1 parsha, and "vayomer hashem el moshe" is not in the tefillin. ott.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/tefillin_yad.png – Ani Yodea Jun 25 '14 at 13:24
I think you will find it is. Which 3 are you referring to. – preferred Jun 25 '14 at 13:27
@ramin - Oops! Thanks for the correction. I was thinking that parshat tzitzit were in the tefillin, as I was discussing the Shema. You're right, only 2 of the Shema parshiot are in the Tefillin. – DanF Jun 25 '14 at 13:28
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Bach - Tur Orach Chaim 38 - 6 says that he saw a Maaseh Rav from a Rav Weiss Z'L who would say these 2 Parshios while he was wearing Tefilin. This would indicate to me that it is only a Minhag and not a Halacha.

share|improve this answer
Gershon, any clue for the source of this minhag? What's its significance? – Ani Yodea Jun 25 '14 at 14:07
Bach compares it to reading in the Torah as it has the verse "Lmaan Tiye Toras Hashem Bficha". Do not understand it exactly. Perhaps someone can look at the Bach and elaborate. – Gershon Gold Jun 25 '14 at 14:11

It cannot be an obligation as it's not mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch nor in the Rambam.

share|improve this answer
Are there no "halachot" that we practice today that are in neither of those works? – Ani Yodea Jun 25 '14 at 14:26
@Ramin- define "halachot" - they can't be obligations unless they have a primary source. Maximum they could be a Minhag of late origin. – Danny Schoemann Jun 26 '14 at 8:45
Danny, for example, the Ari came along after the Shulchan Aruch and added a bunch of "halachot" (or most probably "minhagim") that sometimes even contradicted the shulchan aruch. – Ani Yodea Jul 4 '14 at 17:10
@Ramin - i chaked again this morning and the 13 principles of our faith still claim that "the entire Torah was given to Moshe Rabeinu" and "the Torah will not be changed". The Ari z"l could not add new obligations - and many communities did not accept his customs. We cannot invent new obligations. (We can invent new customs which may be "obligations" on those who accept them - because of the Halachot of "Neder". But all others have no obligation to keep them.) – Danny Schoemann Jul 14 '14 at 8:59

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.