Halakhah for Sanhedrin 176:19

בציצית מאי סבירא לן אי סבירא לן דקשר העליון לאו דאורייתא האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי ואי סבירא לן

[BUT IF HE RULES THAT THE TEFILLIN MUST CONTAIN] FIVE COMPARTMENTS, <font>THUS ADDING TO THE WORDS OF THE SCRIBES</font>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who required only four in the head-tefillin. ');">¹⁵</span> HE IS LIABLE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Eleazar said in R. Oshaia's name: He is liable only for a matter of which the fundamental law is Biblical, whilst its interpretation is of the Scribes, and in which there is room for addition, which addition, however, is the equivalent of subtraction. Now, the only precept [fulfilling these conditions] is that of tefillin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fundamental law of wearing tefillin is Biblical. By Rabbinic interpretation, the head-tefillin must contain four compartments, with inscriptions in each. Hence it is possible to rule that it should consist of a greater number. But if this is done, the tefillin is unfit, so that the addition amounts to subtraction of its fitness. ');">¹⁶</span> Now, this statement was made according to R. Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 87a. where R. Meir, R. Judah, and R. Simeon are in dispute. ');">¹⁷</span> But is there not the lulab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The palm branch, which was to be taken with other species of plant life on the Festival of Tabernacles. ');">¹⁸</span> the fundamental law of which is Biblical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 40. ');">¹⁹</span> the interpretation Rabbinical,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that it must be taken together with three other species, viz., the citron, myrtle, and willow. ');">²⁰</span> there being room for addition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., more than three species can be added. ');">²¹</span> which addition amounts to subtraction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if there are more than three species in all, the combination is invalid for the fulfilment of the precept. ');">²²</span> — Now, what is our opinion? If we hold that the lulab need not be bound [with the other two species],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The citron, though taken together with the other species, is not bound with them. ');">²³</span> each stands apart.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the combination is quite valid. ');">²⁴</span> Whilst if we maintain that the lulab needs binding, it is defective from the very outset.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as soon as more than the three species are bound together, the combination is invalid. But in the case of phylacteries, when four compartments are made, the head-tefillin is valid; when a fifth is added, it becomes invalid. ');">²⁵</span> But is there not the law of fringes, the basic precept of which is Biblical,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 38f. ');">²⁶</span> the interpretation Rabbinical, there is room for addition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By placing more than the requisite number of threads. ');">²⁷</span> whilst such addition amounts to subtraction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the fringes become invalid thereby. ');">²⁸</span> — What is our opinion? If we maintain that the upper knot is not required by Biblical law, they are separate from each other;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fringes are inserted through a hole and knotted near the edge of the garment. It is disputed whether this is really necessary by Biblical law. If not, then even when made the fringes are regarded as hanging apart and distinct. Consequently, if five instead of four were inserted and knotted, four fulfil the precept, whilst the fifth may be disregarded entirely, without rendering the rest invalid. ');">²⁹</span> whilst if we hold

Sefer HaChinukh