Come on. In the ancient Near East people wore amulets on different parts of the body. And “totafet” was the Egyptian term for those amulets (whereas in Semitic languages there is no such word as totafot). And lo and behold, according to the rabbinic tradition too, totafot are a kind of amulet worn on the body. Just a coincidence, of course.

And as for archaeology, well then, I would be happy if you could tell me when in the history of research in the Land of Israel they ever found any parchment hides from the First Temple period?!?
By the way, even from the Second Temple period they found them only thanks to the preservation conditions at Qumran!
(Alongside the rare hides that survived, they also found tefillin. Both according to Rashi’s method and according to Rabbenu Tam’s method.)

M, from what I understood, didn’t it turn out in the end that it was not Rabbenu Tam’s method? Wasn’t that a mistake in identification?

A question for M…
I follow the site here and noticed that you understand the field.
May I ask who you are? What is your education? Sorry if you do not want to reveal personal details… that is your right..

With God’s help, 19 Tevet 5781

To Yishai — greetings,

In David Nahman’s article, “The Content and Order of the Tefillin Found at Qumran and the Halakha of the Sages” (Cathedra 112, pp. 19–44, cited in the link on the Wikipedia entry for tefillin), on p. 39 he summarizes the differences in the order of the sections found at Qumran and in the Bar Kokhba caves.

In the tefillin where the sections were expanded, there was no fixed order. Regarding the tefillin in which they were careful not to add to the sections, an order of the sections was found, but with differences. Tefillin were found in which the sections appear in their standard order (like Rashi), tefillin were found in which the section “And it shall come to pass, if you listen” precedes the section “Hear” as in Rabbenu Tam, and sections were found in which “Hear” and “And it shall come to pass, if you listen” appear in parallel (according to Wikipedia this is the Raavad’s method).

Another type was found in which “Hear” and “And it shall come to pass, if you listen” are on the right, and “Sanctify” and “And it shall be when the Lord brings you” are on the left, in accordance with the straightforward meaning of the “teach it in reverse” passage in the Talmudic topic; see also in Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 6, p. 250 (or 255), what is written there on this.

Best regards, Yaron Fishel Odhner

There is a later article by David Nahman, “Tefillin and Mezuzot at Qumran,” in the book Qumran Scrolls — Introductions and Studies, published by Yad Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem 2009 (viewable for payment on the Kotar website).

The Raavad’s method is described differently on Wikipedia in the entry “The Order of the Four Tefillin Sections,” where it is explained that his view is like Rabbenu Tam, except that the order begins from the right side of the wearer (and not of the person standing opposite him).

All these are references, and one always has to check the source.

Best regards,

You will not find parchment before the end of the First Temple period.
For the simple reason that parchment was invented only at the end of the First Temple period — the days of Jeremiah-Aristotle…
That is another thing that proves that when the Talmud says parchment is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, it does not mean literally Moses and not literally Sinai… but rather an expression for an ancient tradition…
Moses was not commanded at Sinai about airplanes and computers. Nor was he commanded about parchment, which would be invented some 900 years later…
This proves the point of the medieval authorities — the Rosh, Rabbi Samson of Sens, and others — that “halakha given to Moses at Sinai” can be an expression for an ancient tradition…
In any case, there is not even one drawing or anything similar of the form of tefillin…
It all begins in the days of the Pharisees…
[And in the Qumran caves they also preserved writings not according to their own view. All in all, they treated even sacred writings they disagreed with respectfully {genizah?}, as long as they contained the Name of God.]

M
That totafot is something somehow worn on the body and perhaps containing “things” for a sign or a protective charm is pretty clear from the verses. “And these words shall be upon your heart… and you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes.” And it is clear from the language of the verse that there is already something called totafot, not that the Torah is defining it now. For that you do not need the Sages. You need the Sages in order to think that the Torah means this literally here and not metaphorically (that is, unlike in the book of Proverbs: “bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart,” “wear them on your neck,” “bind them on your fingers.” This also clarifies the Raavad’s intent against Maimonides, Laws of Kings 12:1, where he objected from a verse in the Torah to Maimonides’ interpretation of a verse from the Prophets https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=58968&st=&pgnum=209&hilite= and the Radbaz there brushed it aside casually). And you need the Sages in order to invent that there are four sections. About that the Sages said: “tat” in Katpi means two, “pat” in Afriki means two — and maybe that is true and maybe not. So the findings from the “ancient Near East” give no support to the non-trivial part of the rabbinic tradition.

N — it is very simple. If in ancient times it was customary to put on amulets, and now a text from that same period comes to me whose plain meaning says the same thing — that has to be the default assumption. “Maybe” and “perhaps it is allegory” are not arguments unless there are reasons in favor of that. The rabbinic tradition fits very well both the plain meaning and what was customary at the time the Torah was written. And as for four sections etc., indeed no proof can be brought from this.

As for the claim that it turned out these were not Rabbenu Tam — I have not heard that, but it is always possible.

As an aside, ddft was not just any amulet, but the amulet worn on the forehead for protection. Other peoples also tied amulets on their arms. In Ugaritic texts too there is a hint of laying tefillin, and in Egypt they used to write protective texts on the doorposts of the house as well. Binding on the hand, on the head, and writing on the doorposts of the house are really practices (mainly Egyptian) from the period of the giving of the Torah.

M
Not true. As stated, that totafot is something containing words and worn on the body in an area near “between the eyes” is completely understandable from the text itself. Just like “and these words shall be for a sign upon your hand” — for that you do not need to know about ancient amulets or about rabbinic tradition. That follows even if the verse is metaphorical. This is only evidence that the author of the Torah knew something about the ancient Near East and was not some later tourist. But this expression is probably a common idiom meaning “these are very fundamental things,” like the three verses I brought from Proverbs (which, as is known, drew heavily from ancient literature — both content and imagery. And I also recommend taking a look at Maimonides, the Raavad, and the Radbaz there in the link). If you bring evidence from ancient times that they used to write inside the amulet contents parallel to the contents of the sections (a declaration of loyalty to the local deity), only then would that be good evidence for the part that is renewed by the rabbinic tradition and not directly understandable from the text.

I will just add that the question about the exposition dealt only with the meaning of these terms in Afriki, two and four. The question of what tefillin are is an additional and different question that came up there.

Fine, I explained everything, and I really do not understand what is still unclear, so I will stop here.

Too bad you stopped; that way we missed a clear proof for the rabbinic legend that Pharaoh was one cubit by one cubit, since there are mentions of the name Pharaoh in ancient Egypt.

What you wrote proved exactly what I thought — you do not understand what people are saying to you.
That is where the problem begins and ends.

This is funny, because I had just criticized your hasty proof-technique, and then you demonstrated it again. With you the situation is probably beyond repair (from too much dealing with fossils, apparently part of the gray matter in your skull fossilized too), but I will explain once again with vowels and illustrations for the benefit of the readers.

The author of the Torah, whoever he may be, speaks of the words being totafot between the eyes, and lo and behold it turns out (according to M) that there indeed once was something called ddft located between the eyes and perhaps containing things. That would be a very interesting detail if we were discussing evidence for the claim that the author of the Torah did not come from the steppes of Mongolia in the third century of the uncircumcised era, but unfortunately that is not the issue here. Moving on. We know that the statement “put the words as a sign upon your hand” is a common figure of speech — for the metaphorical statement “remember these things always.” First, that follows from a reasonable reading of the verses: it says there that the words should be upon the heart, tied on the hand, and as totafot between the eyes; and just as they are not really implanted on the heart, so too they are not really tied on the hand. Second, we know from the book of Proverbs that this is a natural idiom. In Proverbs there are statements such as “My son, do not forget my teaching, and let your heart keep my commandments… bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart,” “My son, attend to my words, incline your ear to my sayings; let them not depart from your eyes, keep them within your heart,” “bind them upon your heart continually, wear them around your neck.” This is a natural idiom for emphasizing the importance of things that one must constantly keep before oneself. Especially since the book of Proverbs is known for drawing from ancient Egyptian wisdom literature, both proverb content and imagery, there is nothing especially anachronistic about learning modes of expression from Proverbs to the Torah, certainly not regarding expressions of Egyptian origin.

What are the arguments against the allegorical interpretation? The main argument is that the Torah, as a law book, does not speak in metaphors. To expand, I will present explicitly Maimonides, the Raavad, and the Radbaz. Maimonides, Laws of Kings 12:1, says that in the messianic age all natural processes will continue as before, and he interprets the verse in Isaiah “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb” as an allegory — “the meaning of the matter is that Israel will dwell securely with the wicked of the nations, who are compared to a wolf.” The Raavad objects to him that after all it says in the Torah (regarding the redemption), “And I will remove evil beasts from the land.” The Radbaz waves off the Raavad on the grounds that this verse in the Torah too is a metaphor: “This is no objection, for just as the other verses are metaphor, so too this one is a metaphor about an evil nation, as they interpreted regarding ‘an evil beast has devoured him.’” So what is the Raavad really saying? Clearly, his intent is that whereas the Prophets speak metaphorically all the time, the Torah is not interpreted metaphorically unless there is necessity. It follows that there are three kinds of statements in the Torah, each higher than the previous: human speech, God’s promises, and God’s commandments. When the Torah quotes human speech, such as when Jacob’s sons said “an evil beast devoured him,” there is no problem interpreting that as a metaphor for an evil nation. When the Torah contains God’s promises, such as “I will remove beasts from the land,” Maimonides thinks one may interpret it metaphorically, while the Raavad thinks all God’s words are by default understood literally. When the Torah contains commandments, such as “and you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand,” even Maimonides agrees that the default is to interpret the command literally. Because when dealing with laws, the author bears responsibility to make his intention clear.

Now the Sages came and interpreted this commandment too as “literal.” And not only that, they also determined exactly what are the things that must be bound as a sign upon the hands. These are the only two details the Sages introduced, and they are not necessarily understandable from the Torah itself. Therefore, if we are discussing evidence for rabbinic tradition and not evidence for the knowledge of the author of the Torah, then one must bring evidence only for that part.

How does one bring historical evidence that when someone at the time the Torah was written says “and they shall be totafot between your eyes,” he means it literally and not metaphorically? If one finds historical evidence that inside totafot they wrote things that were important to remember constantly, that could support such a hypothesis. If one finds that inside totafot they customarily wrote declarations of loyalty to the local god, that would already be really good evidence that the Torah likely meant the same thing. Evidence for the part directly understandable from the Torah itself (evidence that there is an object called totafot between the eyes, or evidence that Egyptian kings were called Pharaoh) proves absolutely nothing about the part the Sages added from their tradition (evidence that the Torah intended a literal interpretation, or evidence for the legend about Pharaoh’s dimensions being one cubit by one cubit). If there is anyone besides M who still cannot understand this and answer to the point, I will try to illustrate it with pantomime and switch to hieroglyphics.

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

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

Please ask yourself why the verse “And he crossed the river and set his face toward Mount Gilead” is not a metaphor, whereas “the rivers clap their hands” is.

And then likewise why “And the Lord said to Moses, write these words for yourself” is not a metaphor, but “write them on the tablet of your heart” is.

(((((((Hint — because rivers do not clap hands, but people do(!) cross them. And because one does not write on a heart, but one does write in books(!)))))))

After you understand the obvious difference between the two things, go back and reread my messages, and everything will be clear about the required point of departure.

Good luck.

***Further, study carefully the pattern of monotheizing existing forms of worship (which the Bible does in dozens of places) and make the obvious induction from an idolatrous totafet to a monotheistic totafet.

Since I myself am a bit dense, not only can I not figure out who is right in the argument between M and N, I cannot even grasp what the basic disagreement between them is about…
If there is someone here who is a bit dense like me, he will surely understand my heart and be able to say what the argument is about.
Thanks

I wrote two arguments in favor of the allegorical interpretation. 1. It is adjacent to “and these words shall be upon your heart.” 2. An explicit comparison to Proverbs. So your comparison to “and he crossed the river” is beside the point. There are arguments against an allegorical interpretation, but they do not rest on findings. I did not argue on the substantive issue of whether the interpretation is literal or not, but only regarding the connection between the findings and your statement that this fits the rabbinic tradition (that is, the part the Sages introduced and is not directly understandable from the Torah).

And I said that when a verse describes a common reality (and in fact that was the case — at least that is what the findings teach us), one should not remove it from its plain meaning.
Proverbs must be turned into allegory because it describes something absurd — but the commandment in the Torah describes an ancient ritual practice. In any case, even if you are not convinced that this is a proof, once the verse describes an existing concept, the burden of proof is on the one claiming that the intention here is not the existing concept. The fact that somewhere else, or later in the verse, allegory was used does not help or hurt regarding descriptions that do match an ancient religious practice.
On that same basis I remind you that it is not only the eyes — writing on the hand, on the head, and on the doorposts of houses was also common practice. So this is really not only about the totafot but about this whole triad. Therefore writing on the heart (something people did not do) must be made allegorical, but one may not infer from that to the rest, where the text describes a reality no different from that of ancient peoples.

In any event, your claim about the irrelevance of the existence of a religious practice parallel to what the Torah describes is problematic. The fact that the verse describes an ancient religious reality (and this, unfortunately, you would not know without research from Egypt or Ugarit) certainly makes its plain meaning literal unless proven otherwise. And the arguments you gave do not succeed in proving otherwise. If you have other proofs, you are welcome to bring them here and we will discuss them.

By the way, if you notice, just as the Bible does with totafot, so it also “converts” things in exactly the same way in other places. For example, in ancient times there would stand in the middle of the temple a statue of the god. Biblical law takes exactly that same temple, only instead of the statue of the god it places the book of laws. And there are more examples of a similar “conversion algorithm” (that is, taking an existing religious practice and adopting it with adjustments to monotheistic theology).

And one more thing — I did not claim that the rabbinic tradition about two sections comes from here (see what I wrote: “as for four sections etc., indeed no proof can be brought from this”) — only their tradition that this is a literal practice.

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

With God’s help, Tuesday in the weekly portion “And this staff you shall take in your hand, with which you shall perform the signs”

To N and M — greetings,

Aside from the fact that every one of those who left Egypt knew the ddft worn by members of the Egyptian royal household as a symbol of their greatness — the parallel expression “for a sign” also indicates something tangible. “Sign” always means a “mark,” a concrete expression of an idea.

Best regards, O

M. Indeed, it has been clarified.
O. If someone tells you “I was between the hammer and the anvil,” it is clear from his words that there is such a thing as a hammer and such a thing as an anvil and one can be between them, but it is still not clear whether he means it literally or metaphorically. If you find hammers and anvils, meaning you discover that the building blocks of the metaphor are part of ordinary reality, that will not help you resolve whether this is metaphor or literal. Even for a metaphor one uses existing means if they fit. Therefore even if a sign and totafot are tangible things, that is not relevant to the matter.

With God’s help, Tuesday in the weekly portion “And this shall be the sign,” 5781

To “Eye” — greetings,

As I noted, nowhere in the Bible do we find allegorical use of “sign.” “Sign” is always something tangible symbolizing an idea. Nor do we find allegorical use of “between your eyes.” If the Torah had wanted to express an allegory, it would have said “before your eyes,” but the Torah uses the term “between your eyes,” known to us from the prohibition “you shall not make a bald spot between your eyes for the dead” — unless, of course, you want to claim that there too it is allegory 🙂

Just as the baldness between the eyes expresses a feeling of abasement, so the totafot at the height of the head “between the eyes” expresses the believer’s pride in his faith.

Best regards, P

It is worth noting that the Pharisaic tradition that “sign” and “totafot” are tefillin was shared also by their bitter opponents, the men of the Dead Sea sect, who were certainly not their admirers but called them “seekers of smooth things.” That is to say: this is a tradition that long predates the founding of the sect.

I do not want to get between the mountains, but N’s parable seems odd to me. What you say is true, except if it turned out that not only were there hammers and anvils, but people also used to stand between them — which seems to me to be what was claimed here.

I do not understand what you are answering. I am telling you that using a realistic, existing image in order to express an idea does not mean one intends that image literally. Obviously, if one commands that the words should be totafot between the eyes, then there is some tangible thing called totafot between the eyes that was familiar to all the readers and listeners. But it is still not clear whether the intent is to use it as a metaphor or to command it literally. You can say, like M, that as long as it is possible to interpret it literally, one interprets it literally (and I did not dispute that here at all, though personally I do disagree with it). But the fact that “sign” and “between your eyes” are tangible things has no bearing on the issue, as stated. I quoted from Proverbs, and let me guess that tying around the neck also appears “nowhere in the Bible” in allegorical use (except in the occurrences in Proverbs itself).

With God’s help, 21 Tevet 5781

Aside from the historical context M pointed to in the Bible — the use of placing symbols on the arm and at the height of the head to symbolize a person’s faith and status; and aside from the fact that “sign” is always a tangible expression of an idea; and aside from the fact that to express an allegorical idea it would have been preferable to say “before your eyes” and not “between your eyes”; and aside from the tradition shared by both the Pharisees and their sectarian opponents, from which there is evidence of its antiquity — even the textual context strengthens this direction.

The command “and it shall be for a sign upon your hand and for a memorial between your eyes” appears not in the book of Proverbs, which by its nature is full of parables, but in clearly legal sections, together with the commandments of offering the firstborn and the Passover offering, and the commandments of redeeming the firstborn of man and the firstborn donkey, and the commandment of breaking the neck of the firstborn donkey if it is not redeemed. Are all those too “allegories”? 🙂

Best regards, Al Gore, nicknamed QRST