What is a totem pole?

Enough. In the ancient East, people wore amulets on various parts of the body. And ”tetafat” was the Egyptian name for these amulets (in Semitic, on the other hand, there is no such thing as totafat). And look, it's amazing, even according to the Chazal tradition, totafat are a type of amulets worn on the body. By chance, of course.

And as for archaeology, well, I would be happy if you could tell me when in the history of research in the Land of Israel did they find any parchment skins from the days of the First Temple?!?
By the way, they also found them from the Second Temple only thanks to the quality of preservation at Qumran!
(Next to the rare skins that survived, they also found the tefillin. Both of the Rashi method and the Rabbanu Tam method)

M, from what I understand, it turned out in the end that it wasn't Rabbanu Tam's method, was it? Wasn't it a mistake in identification?

Question for M…
I follow this site and noticed that you understand the field.
Can I ask who you are? What is your education? Forgive me if you don't want to reveal personal things.. Your right..

On the 19th of Tevet 5

Lishi – Shalom Rav,

In David Nachman's article, ‘The Content and Order of the Tefillin Found at Qumran and the Halacha of Chazal– (Chair 112, pp. 19-44, cited in the link to ’Wikipedia, entry Tefillin’), on p. 39 he summarizes the differences in the order of the parshiot found at Qumran and in the Bar-Kochba Caves.

In the tefillin in which there was an expansion of the parshiot – there was no order. Regarding the tefillin in which they were careful not to add to the parshiot – there is an order to the parshiot, but with differences. Tefillin were found in which the letters of the parshas appear in order (Keresh”yi), tefillin were found in which the parshas ‘Vehiya Im Shema’ precedes the parshas ‘Vehiya Im Shema’ as Keresh”t, and parshas were found in which the letters ‘Vehiya Im Shema’ appear At the same time (according to Wikipedia, this is the method of the Rabbis.

Another type is found, in which ‘Shema and veha if Shema’ is on the right, and ’Kedesh and veha if He brings you’ on the left, as the meaning of the Passover of the Tani Ifka’ in the Sugiya and see more in ’Manhagi Yisrael’, part 6, page ’Ren (or Rena) Mish”ek in this.

With greetings, Yaron Fish”l Odner

There is a later article by David Nachman, ‘Tefillin and Mezuzot at Qumran’, in the book ‘Mechilot Qumran – Mevot ve Karkin’, published by ‘Yid Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem 2009 (can be viewed for a fee on the ‘Kother’ website).

The method of the rab’d is described differently in the ’Wikipedia’ entry ‘Seder Arba Parshiyot Tefillin’, where it is explained that his method is the same, except that the order begins on the right side of the person placing the tefillin (and not of the person standing opposite him).

All of these are place references, and one should always check the source.

With best regards, Yifa’r

You will not find parchment before the end of the First Temple period.
For the simple reason. That parchment was only invented at the end of the First Temple period. The days of Jeremiah-Aristotle…
This is another thing that proves that what the GEM’ says parchment is a law passed down to Moses from Sinai. It does not refer to Moses literally or to Sinai literally.. but rather an expression of an ancient tradition…
Moses was not commanded at Sinai about airplanes and computers. Nor was he commanded about parchment that would be invented in about 900 years…
Proven as the words of the Rishonim, Chief Hersh, and further that the LMS can be an expression of an ancient tradition…
In any case, there is not even a single drawing or something similar on the shape of tefillin…
It all starts from the days of the Pharisees…
[And in the Qumran caves they also preserved writings that were not according to their system. Overall, they practiced respect {geniza?] even for the Holy Scriptures, even though they did not believe so. All that was in it was the name of the Lord.]

M
That totefot is something that is somehow worn on the body and perhaps contains “things” for a sign or virtue, this is quite clear from the verses. “And these things shall be upon your heart.. and you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be totefot between your eyes”. And it is clear from the language of the verse that there is already something called totefot, and not that the Torah defines it now. For this, we do not need the Sages. It takes Chazal to think that the *Torah* means here simply and not in a parable way (i.e. not as in the book of *Proverbs*: bind them on your necks, write them on the tablet of your heart, wear them on your necks, bind them on your fingers. And this explains the intention of the Rabbi in Rambam Kings 12:1, which he obtained from a verse in the Torah on the Rambam's interpretation of a verse from the prophet https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=58968&st=&pgnum=209&hilite= and the Rabbis there casually pushed) and to invent that there are four parshas. Chazal said about this: Tet be Ketfei two, Pat be Afrik two, and this may or may not be true. Therefore, from the findings in the ancient East There is no assistance for the non-trivial part of the Sage tradition.

N – It's very simple. If in ancient times they used to wear amulets and here comes to me a text from the same time and its Pashet says the same thing – This should be the starting assumption. If and maybe it's an allegory, they are not an argument without reasons in favor of it. The Chazal tradition is well consistent with both the Pashet and the Kabbalah at the time of the writing of the Torah. And 4 parshiyots etc. Indeed, it is not possible to bring evidence from this.

As for the fact that it turned out that these were not Rabbenu Tam – I haven't heard of it but it is always possible.

In a side note, a talisman was not just an amulet, but an amulet worn to protect the forehead. Other peoples also tied amulets to the hands. There is also a hint in Ugaritic writings about the wearing of tefillin, and in Egypt they used to write things for protection on the mezuzah of the house. Tying it to the hand, the head, and writing on the mezuzah of the house are actually customs (mainly Egyptian) from the time of the giving of the Torah.

M
Not true. As mentioned, shtotafot is something that contains words and is worn on the body in an area close to ”between the eyes” it is completely understandable from the text itself. Like “And there were – these things – for a sign by you” you don't need to know about the amulets of ancient times or the tradition of the Sages for this. This is implied even if the verse is a parable. This is just evidence that the writer of the Torah knew something about the ancient East and not some late tourist. But this expression is probably a common idiom to say that “these are very fundamental things”, like the three verses I quoted from my work (which, as is known, drew a lot from ancient literature – both in terms of content and figurative language. I also recommend taking a look at Maimonides, the Rabbah and the Radab there in the link). If you bring evidence from ancient times that they used to write in the amulet contents that correspond to the contents of the parshiot (declaration of allegiance to the local idol), only then will this be good evidence of a part that is renewed from the tradition of the Sages and not understood directly from the text.

I will just add that the question about the sermon dealt only with the meaning of these objections in Afrikaans, two and four. The question of what tefillin are is another and different question that arose there.

Okay, I explained everything and I'm really not clear on what's not understood, so I'll stop here.

It's a shame you stopped, because that's how we missed clear evidence for the sage's legend that Pharaoh was a mother to her mother, because there are mentions of the name Pharaoh in ancient Egypt.

What you wrote proved exactly what I thought – you don't understand what you're being told.
This is where the problem begins and ends.

It's funny, because I was just criticizing your rash proof technique and here you are demonstrating it again. With you, the situation is probably beyond repair (due to too much preoccupation with fossils, some of the grayish material in the skull probably fossilized as well), but I'll explain again with punctuation and illustrations for the benefit of the readers.

The writer of the Torah, whoever he is, talks about things being a "datpet" between the eyes, and it turns out, amazingly enough (according to M), that there was indeed once something called a "datpet" and that it was located between the eyes and that perhaps there were things inside it. This would be a very interesting detail if we were dealing with evidence for the claim that the writer of the Torah did not arrive from the Mongolian steppes in the third century to count the circumcised, but that's not the topic here. Onward. We know that the saying "put the things as a sign by your hand" is a common form of expression for the metaphorical statement "remember the things always." First, this is implied by a reasonable reading of the verses: It is written there that things should be on the heart and tied on the hand and on the apple of the eye, and just as they are not truly implanted on the heart, so they are not truly tied on the hand. Second, we know from the book of Proverbs that this is a natural form of expression. In the book of Proverbs there are sayings: “My son, do not forget my law, and my commandments, the work of your heart; bind them on the forehead of your son, and wear them on the tablet of your heart,” “My son, listen to the words of the Lord, let them not depart from your eyes, keep them in the midst of your heart,” “bind them on your heart always, and wear them on the forehead of your son.” This is a natural form of expression to emphasize the importance of things that should always be weighed against Him. In particular, the Book of Proverbs is known for drawing from ancient Egyptian wisdom literature, both the content of proverbs and figures of speech, and therefore there is no unusual anachronism in learning the forms of expression from the Book of Proverbs to the Book of the Torah, and certainly not with regard to expressions that have Egyptian roots.

What are the arguments against the allegorical interpretation? The main argument is that the Torah as a book of laws does not speak in parables. For the sake of expansion, I will explicitly present the Maimonides, the Rabbah, and the Radab, 7. The Maimonides, 1 Kings 12:1, says that in the days of the Messiah, all natural conduct will continue the same, and interprets the verse in Isaiah, “A wolf will dwell with a lamb,” which is an allegory – and the point is that Israel will dwell securely with the wicked of the nations, who are likened to a wolf. The Rabbi is correct in that it is written in the Torah (at the time of the redemption) “And I will bring back the evil beast from the land.” The Radbz dismisses the Rabbi by claiming that this verse in the Torah is also a parable: “And this is not a conclusion, as the rest of the scriptures are parables – this too is a parable about an evil nation, as they said about an evil beast, ‘You have eaten it.’” And what is the Rabbi’s real intention? It is clear that the Rabbi’s intention is that although the prophets speak metaphorically all the time, the Torah is not interpreted in parable form unless there is a necessity. It turns out that there are three types of statements in the Torah, one above the other: human words, promises of God, and commandments of God. When the Torah quotes a person's words, such as the sons of Jacob said, "You ate an evil animal," then there is no problem interpreting this as a parable about an evil nation. When the Torah contains promises from God, such as "And I will bring back an animal from the earth," then the Maimonides believes that it is possible to interpret this in the form of a parable, and the Rabbis believe that we by default understand all of God's words literally. When the Torah contains a commandment, such as "And bind them to a sign by your hand," then the Maimonides also admits that the default is to interpret the commandment literally. Because when dealing with laws, the writer has a responsibility to clarify his opinion.

Now the Sages came and interpreted this commandment as "plain". And not only that, but they also determined exactly what things should be associated with the sign on the hands. These are the only two details that the Sages innovated and they are not necessarily understood from the Torah itself. Therefore, if we are dealing with evidence for the tradition of the Sages and not evidence for the knowledge of the writer of the Torah, then we need to bring evidence for this part only.

How do you bring historical evidence that when someone at the time of writing the Torah says "and let them be like daisies between your eyes", he means it literally and not in the form of a parable? If we find historical evidence that things were written within the daisies that are important to always remember, then this can confirm this hypothesis. If we find that inside the totefets they were used to write declarations of allegiance to the local god, then this is already very good evidence that the Torah probably intended the same thing. Evidence for the part that is directly understood from the Torah itself (evidence that there is an object called totefets between the eyes, or evidence that the kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh) does not prove anything about the part that the Sages added from their tradition (evidence that the Torah intended a literal interpretation, or evidence of a legend about the dimensions of Pharaoh cubit by cubit). If there is anyone else besides M who still cannot understand and answer the question, then I will try to illustrate it with a pantomime and move on to hieroglyphic writing.

Well, the fact that this is what you claim has long been understood.
The inference you are making is exactly the problem here, and I have also explained why.

I will try one last time. If you do not understand / agree – then do not.

Please ask yourself why the verse: “And he crossed the river and set his face to Mount Gilead” is not a parable. On the other hand: “The rivers will clap their hands” – is.

And further why – “And the Lord said to Moses, Write these words for you– is not a parable. But: “Write them on the tablet of your heart” – is.

(((((((Hint – Because rivers don't wave their palms – But people did(!) used to cross them. And because they don't write on the heart – But books do(!))))))

After you understand the clear difference between the two things, go back and read my messages again and everything will be clear about the obvious starting point.

Good luck.

***Next, carefully examine the pattern of monotheization of existing forms of worship (which the Bible does in dozens of places) and make the necessary induction for the transition between paganism and monotheism

Since I myself am a bit closed-minded, not only do I fail to understand who is right in the argument between M and N, but I don't even grasp what the basic disagreement between them is about…
If there is someone here who is a bit closed-minded like me, he will probably understand my heart and be able to tell me what the argument is about.
Thank you

I wrote two arguments in favor of the allegorical interpretation. 1. Next to ’And these words were on your heart’. 2. An explicit comparison to parables. Therefore, your comparison to ’And he crossed the river’ is likened to a thorn in the flesh. There are arguments against an allegorical interpretation, but they are not based on findings. I did not argue on the merits of the matter whether the interpretation is literal or not, but rather on the connection between the findings and your statement that it is in accordance with the tradition of the Sages (i.e., the part that the Sages renewed and is not understood directly from the Torah).

And I said that when a verse describes a common reality (and that is how it actually was. At least that is what the findings teach us) – it should not be taken out of context.
The parable should be turned into an allegory because it describes something absurd – but the commandment in the Torah describes an ancient form of worship. In any case, even if you are not convinced that this is proof, as soon as the verse describes an existing concept – the burden of proof is on the one who claims that the intention here is not the existing concept. And the fact that in another place, or later in the verse, allegory was used does not increase or decrease in favor of the descriptions, since it is appropriate for ancient religious practice.
On the same note, I mention that it is not only the eyes – writing on the hand, both on the head and on the mezuzahs of houses was a common practice, it is really not just about the totefets but about this entire trio. Therefore, we must turn the writing on the heart (something people would not do) into an allegory, but we must not ignore the rest of the scripture, which describes a reality that is no different from that of the ancient peoples.

Either way, your words about the irrelevance of the existence of a religious practice that is parallel to what the Torah describes are problematic. The fact that the verse describes an ancient religious reality (and unfortunately, you would not know this without research from Egypt or Ugric) certainly makes it simple until proven otherwise. And the arguments you have made fail to prove otherwise. If you have other proofs – you are welcome to bring them here and we will discuss them.

By the way, if you notice, as the Bible does to the Totefot, it also converts things in exactly the same way in other places. For example, in ancient times, in the middle of the temple stood a statue of God. Biblical law takes the same temple exactly, only instead of the statue of God – it puts the *book* of the laws. And there are other examples of a similar conversion algorithm (i.e. taking an existing religious practice and adopting it in accordance with monotheistic theology).

And another thing – I did not claim that the tradition of ignoring 2 parashits arises from this (see this in my words “Parashits etc. indeed cannot be proven from this”) – but rather their tradition that it is a practice as such.

In any case, it seems to me that the point of disagreement between us on this point has been clarified, and the reader will judge.

On the third day of the month of Ramadan, you shall take this staff in your hand, with which you shall make the sign

To N and M – Greetings,

In addition to the fact that every Egyptian woman knew the ddft worn by the Egyptian royal family as a symbol of their greatness – the equivalent expression ‘to the letter’ also indicates something tangible. ‘letter’ is always a ‘sign’, a tangible expression of an idea.

Best regards, O

M. It was indeed clarified.
O. If someone tells you “I was between a hammer and an anvil” then it is clear from his words that there is such a thing as a hammer and there is such a thing as an anvil and it is possible to be between the two, but it is not clear whether he means it literally or figuratively. If you find hammers and anvils, that is, you discover that the building blocks of the parable are simple realities, this will not help you to resolve the doubt whether it is a parable or literal. Even for the purpose of a parable, existing means are used if they are suitable. Therefore, even if a letter and a totep are tangible things, this is irrelevant.

On the third day of the month We know from the prohibition ‘You shall not put a bald spot between your eyes and the dead’, unless you claim that this is also an allegory 🙂

Just as the bald spot between the eyes expresses the feeling of lowliness – so the totfot at head height ‘between the eyes’ expresses the pride of the believer in his faith.

With greetings, P

It is worth noting that the Pharisees' tradition that ’ot’ and ’tfot’ are tefillin – is also shared by their bitter rivals, the members of the Dead Sea sect, who were not at all their fans but called them ‘demanders of the flats’. In other words: this is a tradition that long preceded the establishment of the sect

I don't want to get into the mountains, but N's parable is strange to me. What you say is true, unless it turns out that not only were there a hammer and anvil, but that people also used to be between them, which seems to me to be what they claimed here.

I don't understand what you're saying. I'm telling you that using a realistic and existing drawing to express an idea doesn't mean that this drawing is meant literally. Obviously, if things are commanded to be a slur between the eyes, then there is such a tangible thing as a slur between the eyes that was familiar to all readers and listeners. But it's still not clear whether they intend to use it as a metaphor or as a literal command. You could say, like M, that as long as there is a possibility of interpreting it literally, then they interpret it literally (and I didn't disagree with that at all here, even though I personally do disagree with it). But the fact that a slur and between your eyes are tangible things is irrelevant, as stated. I quoted a book of Proverbs, and I'm allowed to guess that even tying on grains of wheat does not appear “anywhere in the Bible” in allegorical use (except for the appearances in the book of Proverbs itself).

In 2 Tevet 5

Apart from the historical context, which M pointed out to the Bible – the use of placing symbols on the arm and at the height of the head to symbolize one's faith and status; and apart from the fact that ’a sign’ is always a tangible expression of an idea; and apart from the fact that in order to express an allegorical idea – it would be better to say ‘in front of your eyes’ rather than ‘between your eyes’; and apart from the tradition shared by both the Pharisees and their sectarian opponents, and hence evidence of its antiquity – the textual context also reinforces this direction.

The commandment ‘and you shall have it as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes’ It does not appear in the book of Proverbs, which is by nature full of Proverbs, but rather in clear mitzvot parshiot, along with the mitzvot of sacrificing the firstborn and the Passover sacrifice, and the mitzvot of redeeming the firstborn of a person and a donkey, and the mitzvot of beheading a donkey that has not been redeemed. Are all of these also ‘allegories’? 🙂

With blessings, El Gur, known as QRST