[Avodah] Tefilin bamidbor (was Lehadlik Ner (on tefilin))

[hankman]

I have since found in the sefer Yad Nasan, more in the same vein as
I found in the Mishnas Chaim from my previous post and that I repeat
below. The YN brings several more sources that also postulate that for
various reasons they had no mitzvas tefilin in the midbor or at least the
first 39 years. He brings from the Klozenberg R. that they had no tefilin
in the midbor since the last 2 parshios were only given in Devarim in
the 40th year. He also adds another reason because in the parsha they
did have in Bo, it states vehaya ki yeviacha and one could take that to
apply to the entire parsha (including tefilin) -- so that would exclude
the period bamidbor. The YN also quotes the Panim Yafos that perhaps
(ulei) they were not mekayeim tefilin because 2 parshios were only given
barvos moav (in the 40th year). He then states there are several rishonim
that also imply there was no tefilin in the midbor. The YN then brings
a Ramban that the command (tzivui) of mitzvas tefilin is "ukeshartom"
(like RZS wrote) and this word (command) only appears in the latter 2
parshios given in devarim (year 40) whereas the wording in the first 2
parshios in Bo do not use the phraseology of a command rather the word
vehaya is used.

[Email #2. -micha]

I have found one more item relevant to my last post in the sefer Devar
Yaakov on Kid 37a. while discussing the sugya of mitzvos hateluyos
ba’aretz and those that one must do bh”l. The Shita there brings in the
name of the Raved (before the gm’ comes to the idea of chovas haguf)
that since we have a hekesh of Tefilin to peter chamor, and we find that
peter chamor was done in the midbor (ie. bh”l, witness the exchange of
the animals of the leviim for those of the y-m) therefore tefilin are
also mechuyav bh”l. It would seem to me that the same hekesh would tell
us that they were also doing mitzvas tefilin in the midbor. Although you
might argue back that if it is i’efshar, since they only had 2 parshios
then, there would not be a limud from that hekesh in that respect,
just for h”l in general.

But the sefer Hamakneh writes that the exchange in the midbor with the
leviim was a one time horoas shoh so there was not a valid hekesh and
thus that would also answer my question from there.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster