Wearing Phylacteries
Feb. 4th, 2009 04:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ymarkov(The Horizontal Society, appendix 9)
A fundamental act of Jewish devotion consists in ‘wearing’ (Hebrew: lovesh; Judeo-Arabic: libes; Judeo-Spanish: vestir) the ‘phylacteries’ (tefillin, singular tefilla) every weekday. One is placed on the arm and another on the forehead; see Berakhot l4b and Sha ‘are Teshuba #153. p. 16b. The phylactery of the arm is designated ‘sign’ (Ex 13:9, 16). This is not the place to launch a full-fledged analysis into Biblical semiotics. Within the limits of our subject, it would suffice to note that in Hebrew semiotics a ‘sign’ conveys both ‘difference’ and ‘meaning.’ More precisely: meaning through difference; see Golden Doves, pp. xxiv—xxv, 83. A ‘sign’ is either recognized or not, and it cannot be subjected to analysis or division; see Golden Doves, pp. 77—78. (Hence, the four sections of the Tora it contains are written on a single parchment, and its folder is not divided, see below). The phrase ‘le-ot’ - ‘for a sign’ - appears three times in Scripture. The function of these signs is to identify the Jew to others, (the circumcision, Gn 17:11; the phylactery on the arm Ex 13:9, 16: Dt 11:18; and the Sabbath, Ex 20:12, 20): cf. R. Se’adya Gaon, Commentary on Exodus, ed. and tr. Y. Ratzaby (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1998), pp. 187—188. Cyrus Gordon. Adventures in the Near East, (London: Phoenix House. 1957). p. 78, noted that the ‘seal’ was used for identification purposes. Notably, le-ot of the phylactery of the arm parallels the ‘ensign’ that the Jewish monarch wore attached to his arm: see Sanhedrin 2lb and the quotation from Philo in Section III, n. 126.
The focus of this appendix is the second phylactery, to be placed on the forehead. It is designated ‘zikhron’ (Ex 13:9). Targum: ‘dokhran’ – a ‘memorandum.’ As we hope to show in the following, its significance is its connection to the inner dynamics of Jewish memoranda and national archives. The forehead phylactery is designed as a ‘folder,’ containing four separate compartments or wallets (batim). in each of which is stored a different ‘file’(see below). Each file must be rolled from left to right (Mt Tefillin 2:1, 3:7, 5:6) so that one wishing to examine it could read it from beginning to end. Each roll is then tied with a leather strip, and the strip bound over with a string of hair (MT Tefillin 3:1, 8). [There is a picture of an ancient file from Jewish Elephantine of the 5th Century BCE; see ‘rolled and sealed,’ in the Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 3. p. 374). The file is then stored in one of the assigned compartments (batim; see MT Tefillin 3:5). The letter Shin (last letter of Qadosh ‘Holy’) on the right side of the folder serves to indicate that it contains sacred memoranda — not commercial or diplomatic documentation. The four-armed Shin on the left side (MT Tefillin 3:1, 2) indicates that there are four interconnected files (something that could not be made with either the letter Qof or Dalel of Qadosh). The term 'akhamta' in Ezra 6:2 serves to designate a royal file. This is how it is described in Midrash Daniel wu-Midrash ‘Ezra, p. 122: “It is a type of a file where they keep letters and books.” Cf. Radaq, Sefer ha-Shorashim on ‘Ezra, cl. 838. I take this term to be a metathesis of 'amtakhat' Gn 44:1,2, (root MTH 'stretch’) which is a ‘sack of leather’; see R. Jonah ibn Jannab, Sefer ha-Shorashim, p. 276, and Radaq Sefer ha-Shorashim, cl. 406.
The nuances peculiar to the phylacterics conform to the norms regulating the writing and filing of sacred archives. Some of the divergences between these norms and those regulating a Scroll of the Tora (see MT Tefillin 1:16; 4:15), are clearly understood upon recalling that the Tora is a book designed for circulation — not an archived document. Because a duly archived file cannot be amended, neither the Tefillin nor Mezuza can be corrected: see MT Tefillin 1:16, 2:2. On the other hand, a Scroll of the Tora is a book for reading, and faults can be rectified; see Keluhor I 9b. and MT Tefillin 1:16; Sefer Tora 7:12-13. Therefore, unlike the Tefillin and Mezuza (see MT Tefillin 1:6—9), the Tora must be written on a different type of parchment, with wide margins, MT Sefer Tora 7:4—7; and in a special format, MT Sefer Tora 9:1—12, etc. Although the Mezuza, too, is an archived file, unlike the Tefillin, it is exposed to the outside and needs to be periodically examined, see MT Mezuza 5:9; whereas the Tefillin does not need to be periodically examined; see Mekhilta de-R. Yishma'el, p. 69; Sha‘are Teshuha #153, 16c; MT Tefillin 2:11; cf. Teshubot R. Netruna‘e Gaon, ed. Robert Brody (Ofeq Institute: Jerusalem-Cleveland, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 405—406. This explains why it must be written differently, and on a different material than the Tefillin; see MT Tefillin 1:8—9, 12. etc.
The four files of the Tefillin arc a memoranda of the whole Tora. The first file (Ex 13:1—10) records the salvation of Israel from Egypt. The second file (Ex 13:11—16) registers the connection between the Exodus and the Land of Israel: the significance of the former must be carried onto the latter. The third and fourth files establish, respectively, the cornerstone of Judaism: first, faith in and love of God (Dt 5:4-9); and second, fulfillment of His precepts (Dt 11:13—21). There is nothing in the whole Tora which is not comprehended in these memoranda. In the words of the rabbis, Qiddushin 35a: “The whole Tora has been placed side by side (huksha) with the Tefillin.” Similarly, we find in Sha'are Teshuba, #153, 16b (quoting the Mekhilta, see below): "Whoever wears Tefillin it is as if the whole Tora is (active) on his lips”; including the Oral Law, see ibid., 16c, and Yalqut Shim‘oni, Bo, #222, s.v. lema‘an. vol. 2, 69c. [This source was overlooked by R. Isaac Berakha, Berekh Yishaq (Venice, 7523/1763), 38c). To stress the parallel between the Tora and the phylacreries, both are to be sewn similarly; see Makkot 11a and Yalqut Shim‘oni, Bo, #222, s.v. lema‘an, vol. 2. 69c. The rabbis did not intend an exact parallel between the Tora and phylacteries, but to point out to a kind of symmetry between them, where one synthesizes or symbolizes the other. This critical idea was instituted in law. Judicial procedure requires that in the administration of certain oaths (sh'vuat ha-dayanim), the defendant should hold a Scroll of the Tora. If this key element is omitted, the oath is invalid and must be administered again. Could the Tefillin be used instead? The law varies. In a case in which the defendant is not a learned individual, judicial procedure requires him to hold an actual Scroll of the Tora: the Tefillin would n would be accepted only in case of an oversight. However, if the defendant is learned, judicial procedure requires him to hold only the Tefillin — not the Tora (see Shebu'ot 38b, MT Shebu'ot: 11:11—12). The underlying principle is clear. The symmetry Tora/phylacteries is approximate; ultimately, it depends on the individual making the synthesis.
The preceding will elucidate a number of regulations about the Tefillin. Let us point out that the Tefillin may not be worn either at night, on Holidays, and on the Sabbath. This regulation makes good sense upon realizing that archives were accessible during daylight and at weekdays only. As with archives, the files of the phylactery are positioned in reference to someone facing them, as if that individual would want to open and examine them — not in reference to the person wearing it; see MT Tefillin 3:5. cf. 3:7. Consistent with the preceding, the act of placing on the phylacteries is designated le-haniakh (root NWH) — a term standing for ‘placing’ or ‘depositing’ a valued object in a sacred place for safekeeping, see above Appendix 6. Most appropriately, the blessing for this act is le-haniakh, see MT Tefillin 4:5, and cf. Bet Yosef Orah Hayiim, XXV, 7. By depositing the phylacteries on himself the Jew becomes a national archive incarnate. Thus, the most important memoranda of Israel are secured. We can now appreciate the regulation stating that the head phylactery acquires its special status after it was duly placed on the forehead; see MT Tefillin 3:17. It is the individual Jew, in function of ‘archive,’ which is the reason for the Tefillin special sanctity -- not the other way around. Because the actual body [hence the concept of ‘wearing’ -- tahash/libes/vestir Tefillin] is archive incarnate, the fulfillment of this commandment requires the highest level of personal hygiene (see Shabbat 130a, MT Tefillin 4:15) and mental focusing (see MT Tefillin 4:14) — something not required in the performance of any other ritual. Lest the Tefillin be taken to be some sort of amulet, the rabbis stipulated that it is incumbent on the individual wearing it “to protect" it; see Tosefta Hagiga 1:2, p. 374—375; Sukkot 42a; Arakhin 2b; and Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, vol. 5, p. 1269 — rather than expect to be protected by it! (Although, I heard of butchers wearing Tefillin to insure that they would incur no harm when cutting the meat.)
Circular phylacteries and amulets on the forehead were used in Ancient Egypt for magical protection, particularly among 'theosophists.’ In Elias Bickerman and Morton Smith, The Ancient History of Western Civilization (New York: Harper & Row. 1976), after p. 50, #79, there is a picture of the bust of a theosophist from the 3rd century with a circular phylactery. (A ‘circular’ headgcar is still worn by the Japanese ‘Yamabushi’ priests). Given that this type of headgear was used for magical protection, the rabbis referred to them as amagoza, magos, ‘of’ or ‘pertaining to,’ a ‘magician’; see Mishna Megilla 3:8; and Talmud Megilla 24b. Regarding head ornaments used for decorative purposes, see Sha'are Teshuba #153, 16c.
The preceding considerations explain the original matrix of the Bar-Misva ceremony. It celebrates the child assuming personal responsibility as depositary of Israel’s sacred treasures. In the Sephardic tradition the ceremony is designated libes at-Tefillin in Judeo-Arabic, and vestir el Tefillin in Judeo-Spanish —— rather than ‘Bar-Misva.’ Usually, senior members of the family will assist the child in the task of placing the Tefillin for the first time, thus symbolizing transmittal of tradition. Those refusing to “deposit” (manakh, root NWH) Tefillin on their “cranium” — an allusion to the head phylactery — have failed to permit their bodies to act as the living-archive of Israel. Therefore, in a sense, they have “executed a transgression [against the Tora] with their own body” (poshei Yisrael be-gufam); see Rosh ha-Shana 17a. Connected to this symbolism is the custom that those directly participating in the circumcision ceremony (father, mohel and sandaq) are to wear Tefillin; see R. Joseph Hayyim David Azulal, Mar‘it ha-‘Ayyin, (Leghorn, 5564/1804), 127c.
The details surrounding the meaning and execution of duly filed memoranda are to be supplied by the archivists (see Est 6:1—3); in our case, the individual wearing the phylacteries. Therefore, the phylactery of the head is symbolically associated with learning and scholarship; see Ex 13:9, Yoma 86a, and cf. Shabbat 13a. Some maintain that as a sign of humility, it would be appropriate bra student to wear a smaller phylactery than that of a sage; see Teshubot ha-Geonim, ed. R. Jacob Musafia (Jerusalem, 5727/1967), #3, 6a-b, and ef. Mati 23:5. Some rabbinic authorities argued that it may be construed as conceit for someone who is not a sage to wear phylacteries altogether: see Newly Discovered Geonic Responsa, #161, pp. 233—237. Following this trend of thought, others proposed that since a scholar is in fact a living Tora (see Homo Mysticus, pp. 7—8), he should not be required to wear phylacteries altogether! In evidence, a paragraph was cited from Mekhilta de-R. Yishma‘el, p. 68. That may have been the reason why some rabbis from the Holy Land did not wear Tefillin: see Newly Discovered Geonic Responsa, #161, pp. 234—235. The authenticity of the citation from the Mekhilta was rejected by the Tur and Beit Yosef Orah Hayyim, XXXVIII, 6 and all subsequent authorities. On juridical principles alone, R. Samuel ben Hofni Ga’on (d. 1013) rejected the citation; see Abraham E. Harkavy, Zikhron la-Rishonim, I (Petersburg, 1880), p. 38. In fact, it is contradicted by the Yerushalmi Erubin VI, I, 26a, establishing the principle that, “whoever is required to [study] Tora is required to put on Tefillin.” Finally, as pointed out by R. Israel Moses Hazzan, 'Iyye ha-Yam, 61a, the citation from the Mekhilta is faulty. The original text read: “Whoever wears Tefillin it is as if the whole Tora is (active) on his lips.”
Historical circumstances following the Destruction of the Second Temple brought about the momentous significance of Tefillin. The Romans were bent not only on the physical genocide of Israel, but also on the eradication of the Tora. With this purpose in mind, after authorizing his troops “to burn and sack” Jerusalem, “on the next day,” Titus “set fire to the Archives” (Josephus, Jewish Wars, VI 354: vol. 3, p. 479). The Jews made a strategic decision: Roman brutality would be met with the Tefillin. Thus, every Jew would become the symbolic archive of Israel. It should not be surprising to discover, therefore, that the Tefillin became a target of Roman persecution. With special reference to the phylactery of the head, they decreed: “Whoever places (maniakh) Tefillin, (we shall) prick out his brain”(Shabbat 49a: cf. Megilla 24b).
There is a beautiful symbolism in the rabbinic doctrine that God, too, wears the phylactery of the head (Berakhot 6a-b; cf. Teshubot ha-Ge‘onm, ed. R. Jacob Musafia, #115, p. 35). The memoranda attesting to God’ miracles and precepts are guarded by each Jew in his own person. Reciprocally, He, too, guards the deeds and wonders wrought by Israel throughout her long and torturous history in His ‘personal archive.’ That is why, the verse in God’s Tefillin reads: “Who could compare to Israel, Your nation, a people unique in earth” (I Ch 17:21).
The preceding could shed light on the syntax underlying the concept of Rosh ha-Shana. In the Tora this Holiday is referred to as 'zikhron trua, mikra kodesh' (Lev 23:24). Here, too, the Targum rendered as 'zikhron' as 'dokhran', ‘a memorandum.’ The next term (trua) is rendered 'yevava', a ‘trumpet’ or ‘proclamation’ made at the sound of a shofar. The last two terms 'mikra' ‘a call’ and 'kodesh' ‘to the sanctuary’ specify that this is a ‘summons’ to appear at the 'kodesh', ‘sanctuary’. Before exploring the sense of the verse we should note that the prosodic marks (teamim) connect zikhron—trua as one syntactical unit, and mikra-kodesh as a second syntactical unit. Accordingly, the sense of ‘mikra-kodesh’ intersects and compliments 'zikhron-trua', as follows: A1-B2 = B1-A2 = A1+B2. Thus: zikrhon/kodesh = mikra/trua. The exact translation is “a memoranda” (A1) “at the Sanctuary”(B2); i.e.. “a summons” (A2) “with a trumpet” (B1). In plain terms, ‘A summons to be executed with a trumpet, calling to appear at the Sanctuary where the memoranda (pertaining to each individual) will be reviewed.’ Precisely and to the point, the rabbis interpreted this to mean that on Rosh ha-Shana we are to be summoned to appear at the Sanctuary, where the memoranda registering our actions (see Mal 3:16; Est 2:23, 6:1) will be examined before the Divine Tribunal. As with all memoranda, the archivists will be called on to supply the details (sec above). Hence, the motifs of ‘Divine Judgment,’ and ‘Books of Life and Death’ (see Rosh ha-Shana 16b), peculiar to the liturgy and pathos of the day.
A fundamental act of Jewish devotion consists in ‘wearing’ (Hebrew: lovesh; Judeo-Arabic: libes; Judeo-Spanish: vestir) the ‘phylacteries’ (tefillin, singular tefilla) every weekday. One is placed on the arm and another on the forehead; see Berakhot l4b and Sha ‘are Teshuba #153. p. 16b. The phylactery of the arm is designated ‘sign’ (Ex 13:9, 16). This is not the place to launch a full-fledged analysis into Biblical semiotics. Within the limits of our subject, it would suffice to note that in Hebrew semiotics a ‘sign’ conveys both ‘difference’ and ‘meaning.’ More precisely: meaning through difference; see Golden Doves, pp. xxiv—xxv, 83. A ‘sign’ is either recognized or not, and it cannot be subjected to analysis or division; see Golden Doves, pp. 77—78. (Hence, the four sections of the Tora it contains are written on a single parchment, and its folder is not divided, see below). The phrase ‘le-ot’ - ‘for a sign’ - appears three times in Scripture. The function of these signs is to identify the Jew to others, (the circumcision, Gn 17:11; the phylactery on the arm Ex 13:9, 16: Dt 11:18; and the Sabbath, Ex 20:12, 20): cf. R. Se’adya Gaon, Commentary on Exodus, ed. and tr. Y. Ratzaby (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1998), pp. 187—188. Cyrus Gordon. Adventures in the Near East, (London: Phoenix House. 1957). p. 78, noted that the ‘seal’ was used for identification purposes. Notably, le-ot of the phylactery of the arm parallels the ‘ensign’ that the Jewish monarch wore attached to his arm: see Sanhedrin 2lb and the quotation from Philo in Section III, n. 126.
The focus of this appendix is the second phylactery, to be placed on the forehead. It is designated ‘zikhron’ (Ex 13:9). Targum: ‘dokhran’ – a ‘memorandum.’ As we hope to show in the following, its significance is its connection to the inner dynamics of Jewish memoranda and national archives. The forehead phylactery is designed as a ‘folder,’ containing four separate compartments or wallets (batim). in each of which is stored a different ‘file’(see below). Each file must be rolled from left to right (Mt Tefillin 2:1, 3:7, 5:6) so that one wishing to examine it could read it from beginning to end. Each roll is then tied with a leather strip, and the strip bound over with a string of hair (MT Tefillin 3:1, 8). [There is a picture of an ancient file from Jewish Elephantine of the 5th Century BCE; see ‘rolled and sealed,’ in the Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 3. p. 374). The file is then stored in one of the assigned compartments (batim; see MT Tefillin 3:5). The letter Shin (last letter of Qadosh ‘Holy’) on the right side of the folder serves to indicate that it contains sacred memoranda — not commercial or diplomatic documentation. The four-armed Shin on the left side (MT Tefillin 3:1, 2) indicates that there are four interconnected files (something that could not be made with either the letter Qof or Dalel of Qadosh). The term 'akhamta' in Ezra 6:2 serves to designate a royal file. This is how it is described in Midrash Daniel wu-Midrash ‘Ezra, p. 122: “It is a type of a file where they keep letters and books.” Cf. Radaq, Sefer ha-Shorashim on ‘Ezra, cl. 838. I take this term to be a metathesis of 'amtakhat' Gn 44:1,2, (root MTH 'stretch’) which is a ‘sack of leather’; see R. Jonah ibn Jannab, Sefer ha-Shorashim, p. 276, and Radaq Sefer ha-Shorashim, cl. 406.
The nuances peculiar to the phylacterics conform to the norms regulating the writing and filing of sacred archives. Some of the divergences between these norms and those regulating a Scroll of the Tora (see MT Tefillin 1:16; 4:15), are clearly understood upon recalling that the Tora is a book designed for circulation — not an archived document. Because a duly archived file cannot be amended, neither the Tefillin nor Mezuza can be corrected: see MT Tefillin 1:16, 2:2. On the other hand, a Scroll of the Tora is a book for reading, and faults can be rectified; see Keluhor I 9b. and MT Tefillin 1:16; Sefer Tora 7:12-13. Therefore, unlike the Tefillin and Mezuza (see MT Tefillin 1:6—9), the Tora must be written on a different type of parchment, with wide margins, MT Sefer Tora 7:4—7; and in a special format, MT Sefer Tora 9:1—12, etc. Although the Mezuza, too, is an archived file, unlike the Tefillin, it is exposed to the outside and needs to be periodically examined, see MT Mezuza 5:9; whereas the Tefillin does not need to be periodically examined; see Mekhilta de-R. Yishma'el, p. 69; Sha‘are Teshuha #153, 16c; MT Tefillin 2:11; cf. Teshubot R. Netruna‘e Gaon, ed. Robert Brody (Ofeq Institute: Jerusalem-Cleveland, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 405—406. This explains why it must be written differently, and on a different material than the Tefillin; see MT Tefillin 1:8—9, 12. etc.
The four files of the Tefillin arc a memoranda of the whole Tora. The first file (Ex 13:1—10) records the salvation of Israel from Egypt. The second file (Ex 13:11—16) registers the connection between the Exodus and the Land of Israel: the significance of the former must be carried onto the latter. The third and fourth files establish, respectively, the cornerstone of Judaism: first, faith in and love of God (Dt 5:4-9); and second, fulfillment of His precepts (Dt 11:13—21). There is nothing in the whole Tora which is not comprehended in these memoranda. In the words of the rabbis, Qiddushin 35a: “The whole Tora has been placed side by side (huksha) with the Tefillin.” Similarly, we find in Sha'are Teshuba, #153, 16b (quoting the Mekhilta, see below): "Whoever wears Tefillin it is as if the whole Tora is (active) on his lips”; including the Oral Law, see ibid., 16c, and Yalqut Shim‘oni, Bo, #222, s.v. lema‘an. vol. 2, 69c. [This source was overlooked by R. Isaac Berakha, Berekh Yishaq (Venice, 7523/1763), 38c). To stress the parallel between the Tora and the phylacreries, both are to be sewn similarly; see Makkot 11a and Yalqut Shim‘oni, Bo, #222, s.v. lema‘an, vol. 2. 69c. The rabbis did not intend an exact parallel between the Tora and phylacteries, but to point out to a kind of symmetry between them, where one synthesizes or symbolizes the other. This critical idea was instituted in law. Judicial procedure requires that in the administration of certain oaths (sh'vuat ha-dayanim), the defendant should hold a Scroll of the Tora. If this key element is omitted, the oath is invalid and must be administered again. Could the Tefillin be used instead? The law varies. In a case in which the defendant is not a learned individual, judicial procedure requires him to hold an actual Scroll of the Tora: the Tefillin would n would be accepted only in case of an oversight. However, if the defendant is learned, judicial procedure requires him to hold only the Tefillin — not the Tora (see Shebu'ot 38b, MT Shebu'ot: 11:11—12). The underlying principle is clear. The symmetry Tora/phylacteries is approximate; ultimately, it depends on the individual making the synthesis.
The preceding will elucidate a number of regulations about the Tefillin. Let us point out that the Tefillin may not be worn either at night, on Holidays, and on the Sabbath. This regulation makes good sense upon realizing that archives were accessible during daylight and at weekdays only. As with archives, the files of the phylactery are positioned in reference to someone facing them, as if that individual would want to open and examine them — not in reference to the person wearing it; see MT Tefillin 3:5. cf. 3:7. Consistent with the preceding, the act of placing on the phylacteries is designated le-haniakh (root NWH) — a term standing for ‘placing’ or ‘depositing’ a valued object in a sacred place for safekeeping, see above Appendix 6. Most appropriately, the blessing for this act is le-haniakh, see MT Tefillin 4:5, and cf. Bet Yosef Orah Hayiim, XXV, 7. By depositing the phylacteries on himself the Jew becomes a national archive incarnate. Thus, the most important memoranda of Israel are secured. We can now appreciate the regulation stating that the head phylactery acquires its special status after it was duly placed on the forehead; see MT Tefillin 3:17. It is the individual Jew, in function of ‘archive,’ which is the reason for the Tefillin special sanctity -- not the other way around. Because the actual body [hence the concept of ‘wearing’ -- tahash/libes/vestir Tefillin] is archive incarnate, the fulfillment of this commandment requires the highest level of personal hygiene (see Shabbat 130a, MT Tefillin 4:15) and mental focusing (see MT Tefillin 4:14) — something not required in the performance of any other ritual. Lest the Tefillin be taken to be some sort of amulet, the rabbis stipulated that it is incumbent on the individual wearing it “to protect" it; see Tosefta Hagiga 1:2, p. 374—375; Sukkot 42a; Arakhin 2b; and Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, vol. 5, p. 1269 — rather than expect to be protected by it! (Although, I heard of butchers wearing Tefillin to insure that they would incur no harm when cutting the meat.)
Circular phylacteries and amulets on the forehead were used in Ancient Egypt for magical protection, particularly among 'theosophists.’ In Elias Bickerman and Morton Smith, The Ancient History of Western Civilization (New York: Harper & Row. 1976), after p. 50, #79, there is a picture of the bust of a theosophist from the 3rd century with a circular phylactery. (A ‘circular’ headgcar is still worn by the Japanese ‘Yamabushi’ priests). Given that this type of headgear was used for magical protection, the rabbis referred to them as amagoza, magos, ‘of’ or ‘pertaining to,’ a ‘magician’; see Mishna Megilla 3:8; and Talmud Megilla 24b. Regarding head ornaments used for decorative purposes, see Sha'are Teshuba #153, 16c.
The preceding considerations explain the original matrix of the Bar-Misva ceremony. It celebrates the child assuming personal responsibility as depositary of Israel’s sacred treasures. In the Sephardic tradition the ceremony is designated libes at-Tefillin in Judeo-Arabic, and vestir el Tefillin in Judeo-Spanish —— rather than ‘Bar-Misva.’ Usually, senior members of the family will assist the child in the task of placing the Tefillin for the first time, thus symbolizing transmittal of tradition. Those refusing to “deposit” (manakh, root NWH) Tefillin on their “cranium” — an allusion to the head phylactery — have failed to permit their bodies to act as the living-archive of Israel. Therefore, in a sense, they have “executed a transgression [against the Tora] with their own body” (poshei Yisrael be-gufam); see Rosh ha-Shana 17a. Connected to this symbolism is the custom that those directly participating in the circumcision ceremony (father, mohel and sandaq) are to wear Tefillin; see R. Joseph Hayyim David Azulal, Mar‘it ha-‘Ayyin, (Leghorn, 5564/1804), 127c.
The details surrounding the meaning and execution of duly filed memoranda are to be supplied by the archivists (see Est 6:1—3); in our case, the individual wearing the phylacteries. Therefore, the phylactery of the head is symbolically associated with learning and scholarship; see Ex 13:9, Yoma 86a, and cf. Shabbat 13a. Some maintain that as a sign of humility, it would be appropriate bra student to wear a smaller phylactery than that of a sage; see Teshubot ha-Geonim, ed. R. Jacob Musafia (Jerusalem, 5727/1967), #3, 6a-b, and ef. Mati 23:5. Some rabbinic authorities argued that it may be construed as conceit for someone who is not a sage to wear phylacteries altogether: see Newly Discovered Geonic Responsa, #161, pp. 233—237. Following this trend of thought, others proposed that since a scholar is in fact a living Tora (see Homo Mysticus, pp. 7—8), he should not be required to wear phylacteries altogether! In evidence, a paragraph was cited from Mekhilta de-R. Yishma‘el, p. 68. That may have been the reason why some rabbis from the Holy Land did not wear Tefillin: see Newly Discovered Geonic Responsa, #161, pp. 234—235. The authenticity of the citation from the Mekhilta was rejected by the Tur and Beit Yosef Orah Hayyim, XXXVIII, 6 and all subsequent authorities. On juridical principles alone, R. Samuel ben Hofni Ga’on (d. 1013) rejected the citation; see Abraham E. Harkavy, Zikhron la-Rishonim, I (Petersburg, 1880), p. 38. In fact, it is contradicted by the Yerushalmi Erubin VI, I, 26a, establishing the principle that, “whoever is required to [study] Tora is required to put on Tefillin.” Finally, as pointed out by R. Israel Moses Hazzan, 'Iyye ha-Yam, 61a, the citation from the Mekhilta is faulty. The original text read: “Whoever wears Tefillin it is as if the whole Tora is (active) on his lips.”
Historical circumstances following the Destruction of the Second Temple brought about the momentous significance of Tefillin. The Romans were bent not only on the physical genocide of Israel, but also on the eradication of the Tora. With this purpose in mind, after authorizing his troops “to burn and sack” Jerusalem, “on the next day,” Titus “set fire to the Archives” (Josephus, Jewish Wars, VI 354: vol. 3, p. 479). The Jews made a strategic decision: Roman brutality would be met with the Tefillin. Thus, every Jew would become the symbolic archive of Israel. It should not be surprising to discover, therefore, that the Tefillin became a target of Roman persecution. With special reference to the phylactery of the head, they decreed: “Whoever places (maniakh) Tefillin, (we shall) prick out his brain”(Shabbat 49a: cf. Megilla 24b).
There is a beautiful symbolism in the rabbinic doctrine that God, too, wears the phylactery of the head (Berakhot 6a-b; cf. Teshubot ha-Ge‘onm, ed. R. Jacob Musafia, #115, p. 35). The memoranda attesting to God’ miracles and precepts are guarded by each Jew in his own person. Reciprocally, He, too, guards the deeds and wonders wrought by Israel throughout her long and torturous history in His ‘personal archive.’ That is why, the verse in God’s Tefillin reads: “Who could compare to Israel, Your nation, a people unique in earth” (I Ch 17:21).
The preceding could shed light on the syntax underlying the concept of Rosh ha-Shana. In the Tora this Holiday is referred to as 'zikhron trua, mikra kodesh' (Lev 23:24). Here, too, the Targum rendered as 'zikhron' as 'dokhran', ‘a memorandum.’ The next term (trua) is rendered 'yevava', a ‘trumpet’ or ‘proclamation’ made at the sound of a shofar. The last two terms 'mikra' ‘a call’ and 'kodesh' ‘to the sanctuary’ specify that this is a ‘summons’ to appear at the 'kodesh', ‘sanctuary’. Before exploring the sense of the verse we should note that the prosodic marks (teamim) connect zikhron—trua as one syntactical unit, and mikra-kodesh as a second syntactical unit. Accordingly, the sense of ‘mikra-kodesh’ intersects and compliments 'zikhron-trua', as follows: A1-B2 = B1-A2 = A1+B2. Thus: zikrhon/kodesh = mikra/trua. The exact translation is “a memoranda” (A1) “at the Sanctuary”(B2); i.e.. “a summons” (A2) “with a trumpet” (B1). In plain terms, ‘A summons to be executed with a trumpet, calling to appear at the Sanctuary where the memoranda (pertaining to each individual) will be reviewed.’ Precisely and to the point, the rabbis interpreted this to mean that on Rosh ha-Shana we are to be summoned to appear at the Sanctuary, where the memoranda registering our actions (see Mal 3:16; Est 2:23, 6:1) will be examined before the Divine Tribunal. As with all memoranda, the archivists will be called on to supply the details (sec above). Hence, the motifs of ‘Divine Judgment,’ and ‘Books of Life and Death’ (see Rosh ha-Shana 16b), peculiar to the liturgy and pathos of the day.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-01-06 10:40 am (UTC)the sacred square and tefilin
Date: 2015-01-15 10:33 am (UTC)