naturalism

The simplest solution is to accept specific exceptions to veganism.
This way, one can be vegan except for wearing tefillin, mezuzot, Torah scrolls, and scrolls.
And there is logic to this: killing an animal for selfish pleasure is fundamentally different from killing animals for the sake of God.
While the former has a certain taste for imperfection, the latter is proper from the start.

The problem is not the killing, but the torture that the animals go through during breeding.

It is true that there is a serious problem with the suffering caused in the industry, but in any case, animals are not slaughtered (or added to their suffering) to make tefillin.
Rather, animals that are slaughtered for food have their skins used for tefillin.
In other words, buying tefillin does not add suffering, not even a little.
The suffering arises only because of the enormous and demanding demand for meat to eat. Without the demand for meat to eat, there would be far fewer animals and far less demand, and conditions would be adequate.

The directive to make the parshiot and houses from animal skin was established at a time when there was almost no alternative material for making tefillin.
Today, when there are synthetic materials, using animal products is literally a ‘mitzvah that comes with transgression’.
Tefillin can be made from leather-like materials and still maintain the mitzvah. The tefillin will look exactly the same.
The idea behind the commandment is to remember the mitzvot constantly. It makes no difference whether the object that evokes and symbolizes the constant memory is made of one material or another.

Ron, demand still determines the number of animals raised, and the more profitable it is to do so, the more they raise. You are right that leather consumption is marginal, and it is likely that the increase is determined mainly by consumption for food.

Shlomi, this is a complete lack of understanding of halakhah. According to your logic, it was possible to write a passage or a poem that reminds us of the mitzvot and fulfill the obligation to wear tefillin (and tzitzit). On the contrary, it reminds us much better than tefillin, and therefore I would expect that even the sages would recommend it. Not to mention the halakhic discussions regarding the details of the laws regarding tefillin, which are completely irrelevant to your view. It is said that a reason for reading is not required, and at least according to the Maimonides this is true even when the reason is written in the Torah commentary.

Shlomi

Your solution is, I believe, offered by Rabbi Zalman Shechter Shlomi, the late, and he discusses this subject in his book that was translated into Hebrew, I don't remember his name now

He was one of the greatest thinkers in the US and a sworn spiritual guru.

He certainly has a saying on this issue and it's worth checking out

P.S. None of this is an endorsement on my part of the abrogation of the mitzvah as it is, although I believe that on the level of the text it is metaphorical. And not as a rabbinic principle that you have to remember it in your heart, but rather the intention of the Torah that you write what stirs your heart at that time: 2. Just like the mitzvah of writing the Torah on the stones in the wilderness - the intention is for selected passages or for reciting the mitzvahs. I have always had a hard time with the Shema, because if it is only about the Knesset, then there is no source for the mitzvah of studying the entire Torah, since this is taken for teaching the mitzvahs of the Knesset. And also, technically, it is difficult for the Knesset itself to be a mitzvah about the Knesset. On the other hand, if we are dealing with the Knesset, and there is a source for studying Torah, how are we supposed to write it all on the mezuzot and tefillin? And the simple solution is that according to the method of Deuteronomy, it does not matter at all, the main thing is to write reminders from the Torah - whatever you choose or the things that are defined (literally? structurally?) as essential. The main thing is to memorize and study. Thus, you can write on the mezuzot the Knesset or the Ten Commandments or the “Kredu” from chapter 6 and all the like. Evidence of this: The Torah's writing on the stones in the wilderness is intended only to recite the mitzvot or selected passages. And simple.

If the Torah were given today, it would command you: ” and set a reminder on your smartphone, and write notes on your refrigerator, and manage your day based on your diary entries” and so on. What will you write? How much and how? It is completely flexible

But as with the other mitzvot, the Torah has given clear boundaries from which there is no deviation

It is not similar.

The determination of what to write on tefillin is explicitly written in the Torah.
The norm ‘what to write about’ is a norm that has taken root, as a result of historical constraints.

Another thing, a fundamental change in the content of what is written harms the religious historical continuity, in the chain of generations. A negligible change – from what the material is made of, does not cause a sense of disconnection. It is like there is a difference between changing the symbol on the national flag, and changing the material from which it is made.

The fact that there are complicated discussions around the tip of the Yod is, of course, a rabbinical obsession. The idea of tefillin is quite simple, similar acts existed in different cultures at the time of the giving of the Torah, and the preoccupation with marginal details only empties it of its content.

Gil, your proposal has its advantages and disadvantages.

On the one hand, you point out that it turns out that the commandment in reciting the Shema will be applied to sections that cross it. And it turns out that it will be applied to the entire Torah, or to its main points (the Ten Commandments).
The weak point is that the commandment is not defined. Not the commandment of tefillin, not the mezuzah, and not the writing on the stones on Mount Gerizim and Ebal. Can we assume that the boundaries of this commandment are so flexible?

In previous discussions, I have already mentioned Dr. Granot's method, and I recommended that you read his words (have you read them?).
According to his conclusion, we have also overcome your weak point: the boundary of the commandment in all the commandments is the same. Both in tefillin and mezuzah, in the King's Book (Mishnah Torah), in the assembly, and on Mount Gerizim and Ebal, in all of these the commandment was to write the same text: the speech of the commandments + the covenant (the blessings and curses).

Where is the place on the head and on the hand to recite the commandments + blessings and curses? Was the commandment of tefillin and mezuzah given to giants? And how can one put down a totephot, one of the sons of Lilliput, who is not a Tamir like Rabbi Granot, who is only three cubits tall 🙂

With blessings, Rabbi Sh’ Tz Levinger

You are right.
Although in the commandments of tefillin and mezuzot we would have to say that the commandment was to write only part of the speech of the commandments, or that the intention was only metaphorical, as in the kershb.
So we did not gain a precise definition in the content of these commandments, but only in others: in the king's commandment, in the commandments of the congregation and in what was written on Mount Gerizim and Ebal.
Incidentally, if I am not mistaken, Dr. Granot does not refer to tefillin and mezuzot. I mentioned it as a continuation of a previous discussion related to these commandments.

Thanks Aaron! I think I read Tamir Granot's suggestion (regarding finding the Torah scroll?), but I will answer briefly by saying that the undefined command is not flexible at all, I specifically brought examples. The idea that the Book of Deuteronomy renews is that one must study Torah in every situation and remember the love of God and His uniqueness. It is very defined. Only the specific content that must be written is not defined because it would sterilize the idea itself - if you write one given text, it may be routine, like Prayer 18 for readers of the Shalem Publishing House (laughing). Therefore, the Torah intends that you make reminders for yourself. Not necessarily something permanent. Pay attention to the words as they were understood in the tradition of the Sages: And you shall speak of them (in whatever subject you choose), when you walk on the road, and when you lie down, and when you rise up (always, always, always, meditate on the Torah, like Rabbi Steinman). This is the meaning of the scriptures according to the sages, and it is very possible that it is also according to the literal meaning of the scripture. And in this sense, the Rashbam is indeed right that this is a metaphorical commandment. Or a semi-metaphorical one, since it wants you to put the words of the Torah on your heart, and the way to do this is to physically write its words on parchment and memorize them at all times. (By the way, it is quite clear that tefillin, if they are literally meant to be an open pouch from which you can pull out the text and memorize it. Or look at it.)

On the 15th of Tevet 8th

To the age of – Peace be upon you,

The tefillin are both ‘for a memorial between your eyes, so that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth’, but also ‘for a sign upon your hand’. The sign is a symbol of the uniqueness of the bearer of the sign, and of the covenant between him and his Creator. Just as the blood was a sign upon the houses lest the destroyer come, so the Sabbath is ‘a sign of the covenant between me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you’.

And before the description of the exodus of the children of Israel with a high hand, the dimension of ‘and a sign between your eyes’ is added. Who among the Exoduses did not know the ddft, the symbol of the Aureus serpent with which the kings of Egypt adorned themselves to symbolize the protection of their idols over them? All the Exoduses of Egypt should know that they were not slaves, but kings upon whom the name of the Lord was called, the Lord who brought them out with a strong hand and prevailed over the kings of Egypt and their idols. And on their heads was not a cunning and winding serpent, but the pattern of a temple. Every Jew is a king, since his head, heart, and hands are a dwelling place for his God.

In the passages in the Book of Exodus, the phrase “Strengthen the hand” is emphasized, in which the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt. Seeing the strong hand that the Lord did in Egypt leads to “And they believed in Him and in Moses His servant.” In the passages in Deuteronomy, the dimension of love for the Lord is added. Which leads to talk about faith in all situations and dedication to His service in all situations, which will bring eternal life to the people in their land. To leave Egypt, fear is enough; to hold on to the land, we must love!

On the ddft of the kings of Egypt, see the article by Prof. Moshe Weinfeld, The Meaning of the Biblical Shema (on the website of the ‘Library of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’), Chapter 6. See also the article by D.A. Avi Dantalsky, ‘On Women and Tefillin – Stretching to the Present Day’, which quotes Rabbi Uri Sharki, who states that the square tefillin, which symbolize morality, are the antithesis of the serpent, which symbolizes the power of the forces of nature.

With greetings, S.C. Levinger

The black square reminded the Exodus Israelites of the Tabernacle, which on the outside was visible only the gloomy goatskin sheets ‘like the tents of Kedar’. The blue, the purple, and the gold were visible only to those standing inside, and the colorful dachshund skins were only above the reach of human vision. This teaches us that the glory of the tabernacle of God is in its interiority only.

In response to ‘citation’, paragraph 1, lines 2-3:
… In Dr. Avi Dentalsky's article, ‘On Women and Tefillin – From the Beginning to the Present’ (on his blog ‘Eretz Hevrim’, which brings…

Why do you ask my name, and it is wonderful (Judges 13:3).
And in the Midrash:
The angel said to him, I do not know how to tell you that the one who, according to the mission that the Holy One sends us, calls us by name, oh and it is wonderful, according to the wonder and wonder that He does through us, He calls us by name.

So also in our angel Levinger, in response to the question of the site: ?your name, he answers according to the case, once: ‘And all this will be placed on the head and on the hand’, once: ‘Not only a reminder’, once: ‘A reference to the source’, and once: ‘Corrections’.

Oh, and it is wonderful.

We have come to the conclusion that it cannot be said that ’and you bound them to a sign’ is an allegorical expression, since in all the places in the Bible where a word is used as a ’sign’ – it is a tangible thing.
So is the bow that is a sign. So is ‘and this is the sign to you that I sent you when you came out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain’ and so are the signs that Moses performs before the children of Israel and before Pharaoh. So is the Sabbath a sign between the children of Israel and the children of Israel, and so were the incense burners of the congregation of Korah placed as a covering for the altar ‘as a sign to the children of Meri’. So is a prophet performing a ‘sign or miracle’ so that they may believe him (Deuteronomy 13). Thus Isaiah gives a sign to Ahaz: “Behold, the virgin is with child, and has borne a son” (7:14), and to Hezekiah: “And this is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing which He has spoken: behold, I will bring back the shadow of the steps” (33:7-8).
With blessings, S.C. Levinger

Certainly the Rashba also believed that the commandment of tefillin is from the Torah, and his intention is that putting on tefillin is not a purely technical act, but is intended to internalize faith in the heart and head.

In your opinion, Rabbi, is there justification for the custom of wearing the shtreimel "in honor of Shabbat," or is it a mitzvah that comes with transgression, because of the sorrow of the dozens of animals that are killed to observe this custom?

Obviously, if it causes suffering to animals, there is no justification for it, nor is there a permit. Eating Ka's is forbidden, so wearing a shtreimel?! It is true that the actual killing is difficult to prohibit, because killing animals is permitted for human use. But causing suffering is absolutely not.

Do you remember the controversy surrounding the fur and shtreimel law in 2009?

In my opinion, whether on the issue of shtreimel or tefillin, religious fundamentalism does not allow for a rethinking and finding alternative solutions to the issue of tseb”ch.

With a little goodwill, a way could be found to create shtreimel and tefillin from synthetic materials, and prevent unnecessary suffering from masses of animals.

Shtreimels are fine, but is there a settled law that tefillin are made of leather?!

In general, throughout the entire discussion, His Honor assumes that killing animals is the main and most important prohibition, and that “the tefillin will find a way to get by.” Do you have a practical (halachically kosher) suggestion for making tefillin from synthetic materials?

A”H (friend's wife?),

You are right, let's see the Hasidim from Agudat Yisrael agree on the issue of shtreimel, and then we can discuss the issue of tefillin.

In the shtreimel controversy, they stood on their hind legs and fought against the idea of banning the creation of shtreimel from animals with ferocity.

Why not “love animals”? 🙂

Let's say I agree on the Shtreimel issue. What's next? Do you have a suggestion for making tefillin?

I don't understand – If it is agreed that tefillin are produced by the very fact that there are cows and meat is consumed, what is the problem? What additional suffering is caused to the skin of the carcasses? And even if they are actually slaughtered just for this, it is a mitzvah from the Torah and I do not accept the claim of “rabbinic obsession”.

The question is what is the sudden aversion to thousands of years of meat consumption and its foundation in human existence, to the point of man becoming the supreme judge, even over what is permitted, called meat, that enters his mouth?

And is using a donkey to plow also suffering?

Is a tiger that eats a newborn calf cruel?

There is no end to these things and it is too short to even begin to talk biologically about the basic need for meat.

According to this logic, there is no problem with consuming meat either. But vegans (and not only them) think there is, because it is aiding a very cruel and problematic industry. This method (which I agree with) has a problem with consuming leather as well as with consuming meat.
What level of suffering justifies it is a different question. It depends on how much you need the thing, how much suffering it involves, whether it is possible to do without suffering and what the price of giving it up is, and so on. But even if you don't have a definition, it doesn't exempt you from the obligation not to assist cruelty.
And of course there is no ethics for tigers. Therefore, the discussion of whether a tiger is cruel or not is worthless and meaningless.