Transcript of The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
Microsoft Word - 10_Adler.docThe Content and Order of the
Scriptural Passages in Tefillin:
A Reexamination of the Early Rabbinic Sources In Light of the
Evidence From the Judean Desert
Introduction
Of the epigraphic material from Qumran and the Dead Sea environs,
per- haps the most concrete representation of halakhic observance
is to be found in the tefillin from the Judean Desert.
Approximately twenty-seven deci- pherable tefillin parchment slips
have been discovered at Qumran (or are purported to have derived
from Qumran),1 and slips deriving from three additional tefillin
sets have been discovered at other Judean Desert sites.2 The Qumran
material dates roughly to the late Second Temple period, while the
exemplars from outside of Qumran date to the period of the
Bar-Kokhba Revolt—although they certainly may have been written
somewhat earlier.
Approximately twenty-five leather tefillin casings have also been
dis- covered in the Judean Desert caves, the vast majority having
derived from Qumran,3 and one from Wadi Murabba‘at.4 It should be
noted that in only
————— 1 These exemplars have been published in: D. Barthélemy,
“Textes Bibliques,” in idem and J.
T. Milik, eds., Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1; Oxford 1955) 72–76, pl. XIV;
M. Baillet, “Textes des grottes 2Q, 3Q, 6Q, 7Q, à 10Q,” in idem, J.
T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, eds., Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân
(DJD 3; Oxford 1962) 149–57, pls. VIII, XXXII–XXXIII; J. T. Milik,
“Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums,” in R. de Vaux and J. T. Milik,
eds., Qumran Grotte 4, II (DJD 6; Oxford 1977) 33–79, pl. VI–XXV;
Y. Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran (XQ Phyl 1–4) (Jerusalem 1969) = EI
9 (1969) 60–85. For a preliminary publication of four of the
exemplars later published by Milik, see K. G. Kuhn, Phylakterien
aus Höhle 4 von Qumran (Abhandl. der Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften,, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 1; Heidelberg
1957). Note that our discussion takes into consideration only the
decipherable slips that have been identified by their publishers as
“phylacteries”.
2 These exemplars have appeared in the following publications: J.
T. Milik, “Textes Hébreux et Araméens,” in H. Benoit, J. T. Milik,
and R. De Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabba‘at (DJD 2; Oxford 1961)
80–85; Y. Aharoni, “Expedition B,” IEJ 11 (1961) 22–25; M.
Morgenstern and M. Segal, “XHev/SePhylactery,” in E. Tov, ed.,
Miscellaneous Texts from the Judean Desert (DJD 38; Oxford 2000)
183–91.
3 These have been published in: G. L. Harding, “The Archaeological
Finds: Introductory. The Discovery, the Excavation, Minor Finds,”
in DJD 1, 7, pl. I 5–7; R. de Vaux, “Archéologie: les grottes 7Q à
10Q,” in DJD 3, 31, pl. VIII 5–6; J. T. Milik, “Textes de la grotte
5Q: phylactère,” in DJD 3, 178, pl. XXXVIII 8; Yadin, Tefillin from
Qumran; Milik, DJD 6, 34–5, pl. VI 1–13.
206 Yonatan Adler
two instances were decipherable parchment slips found inside of the
origi- nal tefillin casings.
The first record of prescriptive halakhic regulations regarding the
obser- vance of tefillin appears in the Mishnah, a rabbinic
compilation redacted in the first quarter of the third century CE.
Naturally there are considerable methodological problems inherent
in any attempt to compare and contrast early epigraphic material
with substantially later texts.5 The existence of a well formulated
halakhah with regard to tefillin practice in the late Second Temple
period should not be taken for granted. Even if certain regulations
recorded in later rabbinic texts were already being followed by the
end of the Second Temple period, we cannot assume that such
regulations were observed by the Jewish population at large or by
all religious factions and sects. This problem is particularly
acute with regard to any attempt at an archaeologically based study
of tefillin practice, considering the fact that all of the tefillin
exemplars that may be firmly dated to the Second Temple period
derive exclusively from Qumran. Even exemplars dating to the Bar-
Kokhba Revolt, with 135 CE as their terminus ante quem, date to no
later than the early stage of the tannaitic period, and as such may
very well pre- date halakhic regulations found in the Mishnah and
other tannaitic texts. A handful of studies that have touched upon
the interplay between the Judean Desert exemplars and the early
rabbinic halakhic regulations have not been sufficiently sensitive
to these methodological stumbling blocks.6
Rather than looking to the rabbinic literature in search of answers
to the questions posed by the earlier epigraphic material, in the
present study I propose to address the issue from the reverse
direction, focusing on the contribution that the Judean Desert
evidence may provide to our under- standing and appreciation of the
pertinent rabbinic sources. Naturally, the tannaitic sages were
called upon to address preexisting practices with re- gard to the
form and content of tefillin. Whether tannaitic halakhah was
conservative or activist, codifying earlier norms or establishing
new ones,
————— 4 R. de Vaux, “Archéologie,” in DJD 2, 44, pl. XIV 4. 5 In
this vein, one may question the identification of the parchment
slips and leather casings
under discussion as “tefillin”. Minimally, the almost microscopic
size of the text found on these slips indicates that they were
never meant to be read but rather, in all probability, were meant
to be worn on the body. As mentioned, two leather casings were
found with decipherable parchment slips in situ, and it may be
presumed that some if not all of the additional slips where
originally housed in such casings (examples of which, as we have
seen, have been found as well). The phenomenon of parchment slips
containing Pentateuchal verses which were placed in leather casings
and probably worn on the body is similar enough to the rabbinic
tefillin that the Judean Desert exemplars may be productively
compared and contrasted with the tannaitic prescriptions regarding
tefillin practice.
6 See for example S. Goren, “The Tefillin from the Judean Desert in
Light of the Halakhah,” Torat Hamoadim (Hebrew; Jerusalem 19962)
534–49.
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
207
the sages who formulated the tannaitic texts were certainly
conscious of preexisting practices. Thus, while the tannaitic texts
are written on the backdrop of earlier practice, the finds from the
Judean Desert evidence the actual observance of these
practices.7
The present study focuses on the contribution of the Judean Desert
find- ings toward enhancing our understanding of the tannaitic
prescriptions regarding the content and order of the scriptural
pericopes that are to be included in tefillin. A reexamination of
the tannaitic texts in light of the evidence supplied by the Judean
Desert tefillin can provide numerous in- sights into questions
posed by individual rabbinic passages, and may poten- tially shed
light on some broader historical questions with regard to rabbinic
literature in general.
The Boundaries of the Scriptural Portions Contained in
Tefillin
The rabbinic literature prescribes that tefillin are to contain
four scriptural pericopes. The exegetical source for this halakhah
is found in Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael:
; “ ”, “”, “ ”, “ ”: , . , – :
“ ”, “”, “ ”, “ ”: .
In four places (the Torah) records the scriptural portion of
tefillin: “Consecrate to Me,” (Exod 13:2), “And when the Lord has
brought you” (ibid. 13:11), “Hear, (O Israel)” (Deut 6:4), “If,
then, you obey” (ibid. 11:13). On this basis they have said: The
commandment of tefillin (consists of) four scriptural portions of
arm-(tefillin) which are (written on) one roll (of parchment). The
four scriptural portions of head- (tefillin) are (made as) four
totafot.8 And these are the (four scriptural portions): “Consecrate
to Me”; “And when the Lord has brought you”; “Hear, (O Israel)”;
“If, then, you obey.”9
————— 7 In this vein, it is fitting to quote the comments by H. M.
Cotton regarding the interplay be-
tween rabbinic halakhah and the epigraphic evidence of legal
documents from the Judean Desert: “Rabbinic law itself acquired its
shape in the same environment: that it reflects the documents is
only to be expected. We would be wrong, though, to assume without
compelling proof that the documents reflect the
still-to-be-codified halacha” (H. M. Cotton, “The Rabbis and the
Docu- ments,” in M. Goodman, ed., Jews in a Graeco-Roman World
[Oxford 1998] 179).
8 The term totafot here would appear to refer to individual slips
of parchment. Cf. Sifre Deut 34 (ed. Finkelstein, 63); M. Jastrow,
A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushal- mi,
and the Midrashic Literature (New York 1950) 1:523.
9 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Masekheta dePaskha 18 (ed.
Lauterbach2, 114). Regarding a tan- naitic dating of this work, see
J. Z. Lauterbach, ed., Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia, PA
20042) xxv–xxvi; J. N. Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic
Literature: Mishna, Tosephta, and Halakhic Midrashim (Hebrew;
Jerusalem 1957) 501–15. For a later dating of this work, see B.
Z.
208 Yonatan Adler
Here the Mekhilta uses keywords to identify the scriptural portions
to be included in tefillin, a method used in other tannaitic
sources as well.10 The word used here to refer to a scriptural
portion, , is a term found in rabbinic literature to describe the
division of scripture into paragraphs marked before and after by
spaces in the text.11 Such a method of paragraph division is
already found in biblical (as well as non-biblical) scrolls from
the Judean Desert. Although the existence of paragraph division is
ac- knowledged in the tannaitic and amoraic sources, the places
where these paragraph divisions are to be marked is nowhere
described in the talmudic literature. Traditions regarding the
places where paragraphs are to be marked are first discussed in the
medieval Masoretic and rabbinic litera- ture.12
As such, it remains unclear what the intention of the Mekhilta was
re- garding the exact boundaries of each of the pericopes
identified by key- words alone. It has been implicitly assumed by
both traditional commenta- tors and modern scholars alike that the
four scriptural portions referred to in these sources are identical
with the scriptural paragraphs found in the me- dieval Masoretic
tradition.13 Thus, the portion referred to in the Mekhilta (and
elsewhere in the tannaitic literature) by the keywords has been
understood as referring to Exod 13:1–10; the portion referred to as
has been understood as ;has been taken to refer to Exod 13:11–16
referring to Deut 6:4–9; the final portion named by the keywords
.has been presumed to refer to Deut 11:13–21
D. Nakman has suggested that in using these keywords, the Mekhilta
in- tended to refer to the scriptural pericopes which open with
these words and which end with the verse that is understood as
referring to the command-
————— Wacholder, “The Date of the Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael,” HUCA
39 (1968) 117–44. For a criti- cism of Wacholder’s position, see M.
Kahana, “The Editions of the Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael on Exodus in
Light of Geniza Fragments,” (Hebrew) Tarbiz 55 (1986) 515–20.
10 mShab 8.3; bMen 34b; Sifre Deut 35 (ed. Finkelstein, 63);
Treatise Tefillin 1, 9 (ed. Higger, 25).
11 See for example: Sifra Lev 1:1 (ed. Finkelstein, 6); Sifre Deut
36 (ed. Finkelstein, 65–66); yMeg 1:9 (71d); bShab 103b,
115b–116a.
12 For a general historical overview of the division of scripture
into paragraphs, see I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian
Masorah (Missoula, MT 1980) 40–42; M. Cohen, “Introduction to the
Keter Edition,” in idem, Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: A Revised and
Augmented Scientific Edition of ‘Mikra’ot Gedolot’ Based on the
Aleppo Codex and Early Medieval MSS: Joshua – Judges (Hebrew; Ramat
Gan 1992) 50*–52*; Y. Ofer, The Babylonian Masora of the
Pentateuch: Its Principles and Methods (Hebrew; Jerusalem 2001)
139–52.
13 To my knowledge, the first clear attestations to this
understanding appear in two twelfth cen- tury works: Midrash Sekhel
Tov, Exod 13:16 (ed. Buber, 161), and a work attributed to the
acade- my of Rashi, Sefer ha-Pardes (ed. Ehrenreich, 23). This
traditional assumption has carried over uncritically to modern
scholarship—see for example G. Vermes, “Pre-Mishnaic Jewish Worship
and the Phylacteries from the Dead Sea,” VT 9 (1959) 65–72.
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
209
ment of donning tefillin.14 This formula, according to Nakman, lies
behind the axiomatic assumption that the division of the four
scriptural pericopes of rabbinic tefillin parallels the medieval
Masoretic division of these para- graphs. As Y. B. Cohn has pointed
out, however, the paragraph divisions found in the Masoretic
traditions do not actually reflect this formula.15 Cohn makes the
following observations: (1) The pericope referred to as is presumed
to begin with Exod 13:1, despite the fact that only the following
verse opens with the words (2) ; The verse presumed to end the
peri- cope entitled is Exod 13:10, despite the fact that the verse
prescrib- ing the placement of “a sign on your arm” and “a reminder
between your eyes” appears in the preceding verse; (3) The verse
presumed to conclude the pericope entitled is Deut 6:9, despite the
fact that the verse pre- scribing the placement of “a sign on your
arm” and “totafot between your eyes” appears in the preceding
verse; (4) The verse presumed to end the pericope entitled is Deut
11:21, despite the fact that the verse prescribing the placement of
“a sign on your arm” and “totafot between your eyes” appears three
verses prior, in Deut 11:18.
Although the four tefillin pericopes mentioned in Mekhilta and
other tannaitic sources were almost certainly meant to include the
verses contain- ing the quoted keywords as well as the verses that
were understood as refer- ring to the commandment of donning
tefillin, it remains unclear whether passages prior to and
subsequent to these verses were also expected to be (or permitted
to be) included, and if so—what these passages may have been. The
reliance on keywords in these tannaitic sources would seem to
indicate that the boundaries of the said pericopes were well-known
at the time, and as such an examination of the tefillin exemplars
from the Judean Desert may prove useful in elucidating this issue.
We shall proceed by analyzing each of the four scriptural pericopes
individually, examining all of the tefillin exemplars from the
Judean Desert in which the relevant sec- tions of text have
survived sufficiently to allow for proper analysis:
-Six exemplars begin with Exod 13:1.16 An addi :(Exod 13:2) .1
tional exemplar (34SePhyl A) begins with either Exod 13:1 or Exod
13:2
————— 14 D. Nakman, “The Contents and Order of the Biblical
Sections in the Tefillin from Qumran
and Rabbinic Halakhah: Similarity, Difference, and Some Historical
Conclusions,” (Hebrew) Cathedra 112 (2004) 21 n. 8; idem, “Tefillin
and Mezuzot at Qumran,” in M. Kister, ed., The Qumran Scrolls and
their World (Hebrew; Jerusalem 2009) 143–55.
15 Y. B. Cohn, “Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin in the Graeco-Roman
World (4th Century BCE to 3rd Century CE)” (PhD diss., Univ. of
Oxford 2006) 228.
16 Scholars have used a variety of designations when referring to
the same tefillin slip. Here we shall make use of the designations
listed in the name column appearing in E. Tov, “Categorized List of
the ‘Biblical Texts,’” in idem, The Texts from the Judean Desert:
Indices and an Introduc- tion to the Discoveries in the Judean
Desert Series (DJD 39; Oxford 2002) 182–83. For publica- tion
details of the exemplars referred to here and throughout this
paper, please refer to n. 1 and n.
210 Yonatan Adler
(the parchment at this point is missing).17 In four exemplars which
display passages from Exodus chapter 12, a vacat separates between
Exod 12:51 and Exod 13:1—clearly signifying that Exod 13:1 was
viewed as beginning a new scriptural portion.18 In one exemplar
(8QPhyl III), Exod 12:43–51 is followed by an extensive vacat,
followed afterwards by Deut 5:1–14— again indicating that Exod 13:1
was considered the start of a new section.
The five exemplars which include both Exod 13:10 and Exod 13:11
con- tain a vacat between the two, indicating that Exod 13:10 was
viewed as ending a scriptural portion.19 In four additional
exemplars, the passages from Exodus ch. 13 end with Exod
13:10.20
In four exemplars, Exod 13:11 begins a :(Exod 13:11) .2 new
pericope.21 As we have just noted, the five exemplars which include
both Exod 13:10 and Exod 13:11 display a vacat between the two,
indicat- ing that Exod 13:11 was viewed as beginning a new
scriptural portion.22
In eight exemplars, the passages from Exodus ch. 13 end with Exod
13:16.23 No tefillin exemplars feature any verses of Exodus that
appear after Exod 13:16.
Four exemplars begin a new section with Deut 6:4.24 :(Deut 6:4) .3
One exemplar (XQPhyl 2) which includes Deut 5:19–6:9 contains a
vacat between Deut 6:3 and 6:4, indicating the beginning of a new
section. An additional three exemplars which include the passages
preceding Deut 6:4 conclude with Deut 6:3—presumably indicating
that Deut 6:4 was viewed as the start of a new section. In only one
exemplar (4QPhyl H) is Deut 6:3– 4 displayed with no vacat between
the two verses.
————— 2, supra. Slips 8QPhyl I, 4QPhyl C, 4QPhyl E, 4QPhyl R,
MurPhyl, and XH ev/SePhyl all begin with Exod 13:1.
17 According to Y. Aharoni’s reconstruction of the missing portion
from 34SePhyl A, this slip begins with Exod 13:2 (Aharoni,
“Expedition B” 22). This reconstruction, however, is quite
speculative considering the fact that the entire right-hand portion
of this slip (approximately 40% of the estimated original overall
length of the slip) is completely missing. As such, the lack of
Exod 13:1 should be of no surprise – contra Y. B. Cohn, Tangled Up
In Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World (Providence RI 2008)
125.
18 These are: XQPhyl 1, 4QPhyl A, 4QPhyl I, and 4QPhyl M. 19 These
are: 8QPhyl I, 4QPhyl B, 4QPhyl C, and MurPhyl. An examination of
the published
photograph of XHev/SePhyl indicates that a clear vacat was left
between verses Exod 13:10 and 11 in this exemplar as well, although
the editors of this slip neglected to note this in their publica-
tion. Cf. PAM 42.191, published in E. Tov, Miscellaneous Texts from
the Judean Desert (DJD 38; Oxford 2000) pl. XXX.
20 These are: XQPhyl 1, 4QPhyl M, 4QPhyl R, and 34SePhyl A. 21
These are: XQPhyl 3, 4QPhyl F, 4QPhyl G, and 34SePhyl B. 22 Supra
n. 19. 23 These are: 8QPhyl I, 4QPhyl C, 4QPhyl F, 4QPhyl H, XQPhyl
3, MurPhyl, 34SePhyl B, and
XHev/SePhyl. 24 These are: 8QPhyl I, 4QPhyl C, MurPhyl, and XH
ev/SePhyl.
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
211
Five exemplars conclude this pericope with Deut 6:9.25 No exemplars
were found to include any subsequent passages from this section of
Deute- ronomy.
Five exemplars begin a new section with :(Deut 11:13) .4 Deut
11:13.26 One slip (4QPhyl K) displays only Deut 10:12–11:12,
indicat- ing that Deut 11:13 was viewed as beginning a new
section.27
Seven exemplars conclude this section with Deut 11:21.28 No
tefillin ex- emplars include any passages appearing after
this.
From the preceding analysis, it is clear that scribes preparing
tefillin dur- ing the late Second Temple period through the early
second century CE divided the scriptural pericopes in their
tefillin along exactly the same lines as the paragraph divisions
found in the significantly later medieval Maso- retic texts. The
evidence clearly indicates that each of the following was viewed as
an individual scriptural pericope: Exod 13:1–10, Exod 13:11–16,
Deut 6:4–9,29 and Deut 11:13–21. The tannaitic sources surely
relied on this common practice in using keywords to refer to the
four tefillin pericopes, and as such had no need to delineate the
boundaries of the scriptural sec- tions prescribed to be included
in tefillin. It is worth noting that even though many tefillin
exemplars from Qumran evidence a practice of includ- ing certain
scriptural sections immediately preceding the four rabbinically
prescribed pericopes, the paragraph divisions evidenced in these
exemplars indicates that the Qumranic practitioners clearly viewed
these “extra- rabbinic” passages as distinct from the four
pericopes specified in the rab- binic sources .30
————— 25 These are: 8QPhyl I, XQPhyl 2, 4QPhyl C, MurPhyl, and XH
ev/SePhyl. 26 These are: 8QPhyl I, 4QPhyl C, 4QPhyl D, MurPhyl, and
XH ev/SePhyl. 27 The same appears to be the case with 8QPhyl IV. 28
These are: 8QPhyl I, 4QPhyl A, 4QPhyl C, 4QPhyl D, 4QPhyl I,
MurPhyl, and
XHev/SePhyl. 29 With one exception, 4QPhyl H, noted above. 30 This
conclusion may call into question the claim that the
“extra-rabbinic” passages found in
many of the Qumran tefillin exemplars were simply “extended”
versions of the four “traditional” pericopes. This position has
been most clearly argued by Nakman (“Contents”), although it has
been suggested previously by other scholars as well. See J. H.
Tigay, “Tefillin,” in Encyclopaedia Biblica (Hebrew; Jerusalem
1982) 8:888–89; D. Rothstein, “From Bible to Murabba‘at: Studies in
the Literary, Textual, and Scribal Features of Phylacteries and
Mezuzot in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism” (PhD diss. UCLA 1992)
363. A proper study of this question lies beyond the scope of this
paper.
212 Yonatan Adler
The Order of the Scriptural Portions Contained in
Head-Tefillin
A well-known dispute between the medieval commentators R. Solomon
b. Isaac (Rashi) and his grandson R. Jacob b. Meir (Rabbeinu Tam)
concerns the order of the scriptural passages that are to be placed
in tefillin.31 Numer- ous modern scholars have analyzed the order
of the scriptural portions in the exemplars from the Judean Desert
in light of this debate, with some suggesting that the dispute
between the medieval commentators had an historical foundation in
ancient competing traditions evidenced in the Dead Sea tefillin.32
Y. B. Cohn has recently contested such claims, arguing that the
medieval dispute was rooted in exegetical considerations and not in
earlier traditions of tefillin praxis.33
We have already highlighted the methodological pitfalls inherent in
any attempt to interpret earlier material remains on the basis of
later rabbinic sources. It goes without saying that extreme caution
must be exercised when attempting to interpret Judean Desert finds
dating to the Second Tem- ple period and to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt
on the basis of medieval rabbinic writings which postdate the
archaeological finds by some one thousand years. As such, the
present study will avoid addressing the medieval debate on this
issue, focusing instead on the contribution that the Judean Desert
finds may potentially bring to the interpretation of difficult
passages in the tannaitic literature which deal with the order of
the scriptural portions that are to be included in tefillin.
The first passage that we shall explore is a baraita quoted in the
Babylo- nian Talmud:
“ “ ””, “ “ ” ”?
————— 31 Rashi, bMen 34b, s.v. “ ”; Tosafot, ad loc., s.v. “ ”. 32
Vermes, “Pre-Mishnaic Jewish Worship” 66–67; Milik, “Textes Hébreux
et Araméens,” 81;
Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran 14–15; Goren, “The Tefillin from the
Judean Desert”; Tigay, “Tefil- lin” 889–90; E. Tov, “Tefillin of
Different Origin from Qumran?” in Y. Hoffman and F. H. Polak, eds.,
A Light for Jacob: Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in
Memory of Jacob Shalom Licht (Jerusalem 1997) 48*; L. H. Schiffman,
“Phylacteries and Mezuzot,” in EDSS 2.676–77; E. Tov, “Further
Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School,” in L. H.
Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls:
Fifty Years after their Discovery (Jerusa- lem 2000) 215 n. 31; E.
Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found
in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden/Boston 2004) 271 n.
332.
33 Y. B. Cohn, “Rabbenu Tam’s ‘Tefillin’: An Ancient Tradition or
the Product of Medieval Exegesis?” JSQ 14 (2007) 19–327. It is
worthwhile to note the brief comment made by D. Roth- stein
regarding this issue: “Historically, the notion that divergent DS
practices are to be explained on the basis of two mutually
exclusive medieval interpretations of an amoraic passage is
patently absurd” (Rothstein, From Bible to Murabba‘at 370 n.
193).
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
213
What is their order? “Consecrate to Me” and “And when the Lord has
brought you” are on the right, (while) “Hear, (O Israel)” and “If,
then, you obey” are on the left.34
The Talmud then notes that a different baraita has the order
reversed:
! “But there has been taught just the reverse!”35
In turn, the Babylonian amoraic sage Abaye is quoted as harmonizing
the two sources:
– , – :
Abaye said: “This is no contradiction, for in the one case the
reference is to the right of the reader, whereas in the other it is
to the right of the one that wears them; the reader thus reads them
according to their order.” 36
The first question we may ask is if the referent here is to
head-tefillin, to arm-tefillin, or perhaps to both. As we have seen
in the passage from the Mekhilta quoted above, head-tefillin is
constructed differently than arm- tefillin. The scriptural portions
in head-tefillin are written on four parch- ment slips and placed
in four separate compartments in the tefillin casing. Accordingly,
the terms “right” and “left” are certainly applicable. The
scriptural portions in arm-tefillin, however, are written on one
slip and placed in a tefillin casing comprised of a single
compartment. In modern- day tefillin, the scriptural portions of
the arm-tefillin are written side-by- side in four columns, and as
such a reference to the directions “left” and “right” would be
appropriate in such a format. In antiquity, however, it appears
that arm-tefillin were regularly written in a single-column format.
That such a practice was current at the close of the tannaitic
period is taken for granted by R. Joshua b. Levi, a prominent first
generation amoraic sage from the Land of Israel:
’: ”: ' : ' ' ‘“? , –
R. Judah b. Pazi said: R. Joshua b. Levi asked: “Why does (the
Mishnah) not teach: ‘This is a feature of scrolls which does not
apply to tefillin and mezuzot—that scrolls
————— 34 bMen 34b. Note that all English translations of the BT are
based on the Soncino Press edi-
tion, with slight emendations. Although recent scholarship has
shown evidence of active editing and even “fabrication” of baraitot
in the BT, there are no indications of such reworkings in this
passage (see L. Jacobs, “Are There Fictitious Baraitot in the
Babylonian Talmud?,” HUCA 42 [1971] 185–196; S. Friedman, “Towards
a Characterization of Babylonian Baraitot: ‘ben Tema’ and ‘ben
Dortai’,” in Y. Elman, E. B. Halivni and Z. A. Steinfeld, eds.,
Neti‘ot Ledavid: Jubilee Volume for David Weiss Halivni [Hebrew;
Jerusalem 2004] 195–274). Significantly, the third– fourth century
CE amoraic sage Abaye is quoted as commenting on this passage, a
clear indication that the tradition predates Abaye’s
generation.
35 ibid. 36 ibid.
214 Yonatan Adler
are written on two columns, whereas tefillin and mezuzot are
written on only one column?’”37
Significantly, the practice of writing arm-tefillin in a
single-column format is also evidenced in the Judean Desert
tefillin exemplars, which without exception are arranged in a
vertical one-column format.38 Accordingly, we should conclude that
the passages quoted in bMenahot refer specifically to head-tefillin
and not to arm-tefillin.39
Having determined the referent of these passages, we may now turn
to investigate the meaning of these two baraitot. The prescription
found in the first baraita is rather unclear, and this ambiguity
has in fact provided fodder for debate amongst the medieval
Talmudic commentators (most saliently Rashi and Rabeinu Tam, as
mentioned supra). In order to properly under- stand the difficulty
involved, we must preface a brief description of the structure of
the head-tefillin casing. The rabbinic sources indicate that the
head-tefillin casing is to be constructed from a piece of leather
folded in two (or two pieces of leather stitched together), and
then divided into four compartments along the length of the
fold/seam. A leather strap used for binding the tefillin case to
the head was passed through the space created by the fold/seam in
the leather (called in Talmudic terminology). Leather casings
fitting these exact prescriptions have been found in the Judean
Desert.40 With this description in mind, we may now proceed to
posit four possible ways of interpreting the first baraita.41
1. The scriptural pericopes are to be placed in the tefillin
casing, from right to left, in the sequential order in which they
are found written in the Torah. Viewed from above, with the
head-strap on the far end, this ar- rangement can be shown
graphically as follows:
strap
————— 37 yMeg 1.8 (71c). Cf. Rothstein, From Bible to Murabba‘at
289–91. 38 This point has already been aptly noted in Rothstein,
From Bible to Murabba‘at 292–93;
Cohn “Rabbenu Tam’s ‘Tefillin’” 320–21. See infra for a discussion
of tefillin slip 8QPhyl I, which displays a slight variation of
this format.
39 It is interesting to note that Maimonides came to the same
conclusion on the basis of exeget- ical reasoning. See R. Moses b.
Maimon, Responsa, 289 (ed. Blau, 543–44).
40 Supra n. 3 and n. 4. 41 Each of these four interpretations has
been put forth in the past by various medieval Talmud-
ic commentators. A good summary of the medieval approaches may be
found in R. Menahem Azariah da Fano, Responsa, 107 (ed. Ovadiah,
216–24).
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
215
strap
strap
2. The baraita can be understood the same way as in (1), but with
the point of reference reversed—with the head-strap on the opposite
end. Viewed from above, this arrangement can be shown graphically
as follows:
strap
3. The baraita can be understood as prescribing the arrangement of
two sets of pericopes, one ( and ) from right to left, and the se-
cond ( and ) from left to right. This interpretation produces the
following arrangement (viewed from above, with the head-strap on
the far end):
strap
4. Alternatively, the baraita can be understood in the same fashion
as in (3), but with the point of reference reversed—with the
head-strap on the oppo- site end. Viewed from above, this
arrangement can be shown graphically as follows:
strap
As we have seen, the Talmud notes the existence of an alternative
baraita which reverses the order of the slips: ! (“But was it not
taught the opposite!”). This competing baraita, although not
actually quoted, can be reconstructed as reading:
“ ”,“ ”, “ “ ””?
What is their order? “Hear, (O Israel)” and “If, then, you obey”
are on the right, (while) “Consecrate to Me” and “And when the Lord
has brought you” are on the left.
216 Yonatan Adler
strap
Although, as we have seen, the third–fourth century CE Babylonian
sage Abaye is quoted as reconciling the two baraitot, this should
probably be viewed as a legalistic harmonization of two competing
tannaitic passages with the aim of explaining contemporary practice
in light of a contrary tannaitic tradition.42 Viewing this second
baraita as an independent tannai- tic tradition, we may posit four
possible ways to understand its prescrip- tion:43
1. The four scriptural pericopes are to be placed in the
compartments of the tefillin casing in the order prescribed by the
baraita, from right to left. Viewed from above, with the head-strap
on the far end, this arrangement can be shown as follows:
strap
2. The baraita can be understood the same way as in (1), but with
the point of reference reversed—with the head-strap on the opposite
end:
strap
3. The baraita can be understood as prescribing the arrangement of
two sets of pericopes, one ( and ) from right to left, and the
second from left to right. Note that this understanding ( and )
produces the same arrangement as in the fourth interpretation
posited above for the first baraita:
strap
————— 42 Rothstein, From Bible to Murabba‘at 369–70. 43 Cf. Nakman,
“Contents” 25–26 n. 28, 39–40, 43. It is unclear why Nakman
considered only
one possible interpretation of this alternative baraita (the first
interpretation listed here).
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
217
strap
4. Alternatively, the baraita can be understood the same way as in
(3), but with the point of reference reversed – with the head-strap
on the opposite end. Note that this arrangement follows the same
order as found in the third interpretation suggested here for
understanding the first baraita:
strap
We thus have four different possible ways to understand the first
baraita, and four viable alternatives to interpret the second
tradition.44 We may now proceed by turning to the tefillin
exemplars from the Judean Desert in order to explore how this
evidence may aid in shedding light on this difficult Talmudic
passage.
Five tefillin casings have been discovered with parchment slips
found in situ in their compartments.45 Of these, only two casings
were found with slips sufficiently preserved to allow deciphering.
The first, which was pur- chased from an antiquities dealer and is
purported to have derived from Qumran, was published by Y. Yadin in
1969. This tefillin casing contains four compartments,46 three of
which were found to house the original par- chment slips. Each of
these three slips contains one of the scriptural por- tions
prescribed in the rabbinic sources ( , , and ), as well as
additional scriptural portions not prescribed in the rabbinic
litera- ture. A fourth slip (XQPhyl 4), purchased together with the
tefillin casing, did not originate in this casing but rather was
placed inside the fourth com-
————— 44 J. Mann (“Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue
Due to Religious Persecutions,”
HUCA 4 [1927] 292 n. 106) speculated that the second baraita
represents the original form of the tefillin, and that the desire
to have the sections placed in the order of their occurrence in the
Torah resulted in a later shifting of the pericopes. Mann suggested
that the order of the pericopes accord- ing to the second baraita
would have been (from right to left, apparently with the strap on
the close side): (1) (3) , (2) ,, and (4) . It remains unclear,
however, how Mann came to this conclusion, which appears completely
unsupported by the Bavli Menahot passage.
45 Three casings with parchment rolls found in situ were discovered
in Qumran Cave 4 (Milik, DJD 6, 34–5), one casing was discovered in
Qumran Cave 5 (Milik, “Textes de la grotte 5Q” 178), and one is
presumed to have derived from one of the caves at Qumran (Yadin,
Tefillin from Qu- mran).
46 Cohn (Tangled Up in Text 58), questioned the publishers’
methodology in identifying tefillin casings as belonging to
head-tefillin or arm-tefillin, as this classification rests
entirely on later rabbinic texts. For our purposes, it will suffice
to note that a tefillin casing consists of multiple compartments
since, as we have shown, the discussion in bMen 34b revolves around
this type of tefillin.
218 Yonatan Adler
partment at some later date—probably by the dealer who sold the
casing. Yadin conjectured that the original fourth slip contained
the scriptural por- tion . The order of the scriptural pericopes
found in this casing is as follows:
strap
+
As can be clearly seen, this order does not conform to any of the
interpreta- tions of either baraita suggested above. Yadin claimed
that the order of the slips found in his exemplar: “is nevertheless
most similar to that of Rashi”, i.e. the second of the four options
listed here as possible ways to understand the first baraita.47
Although Yadin admitted that the order of the slips in his exemplar
does not fully accord with the tannaitic prescription found in the
first baraita, as the two inner portions are reversed, he proffered
that in fact such an order would have been acceptable in the
opinion of the amoraic sage Abaye (bMen 34b–35a), who held that a
change in the order of the scriptural sections in a tefillin casing
disqualifies the tefillin only if a sec- tion that should have been
placed in one of the outer cells has been switch- ed with a section
which belongs in one of the inner cells.48 Yadin’s resort to the
legal opinion of a third–fourth century CE Babylonian sage in his
inter- pretation of material finds from Qumran is of course highly
problematic, and clearly does not stand up to critical scrutiny.
The inevitable conclusion is that the order of the scriptural
sections found in Yadin’s exemplar does not accord with the
tannaitic prescriptions preserved in bMen 34b.49
The second casing found to contain parchment slips was discovered
in situ in Cave 4 at Qumran.50 In this exemplar, three compartments
and the space presumably intended for the passage of a leather
strap have survived, with one parchment slip found in each
compartment (4QPhyl D–F).51 In a
————— 47 Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran 14. It seems that Yadin
misunderstood the opinion of Rashi as
formulated in his commentary on bMen 34b (s.v. and s.v. Rashi’s
opinion, in fact, coincides with the first of the four options
listed here .( as possible ways to understand the first
baraita.
48 Ibid. 15. Elsewhere (ibid. 32) Yadin suggested that the two
inner slips may have been inter- changed in error!
49 C.f. Cohn, Tangled Up in Text 321–2. 50 The tefillin casing
under discussion is the first in Milik’s list of tefillin casings
discovered in
Qumran Cave 4 (Milik, DJD 6, 35). 51 Milik, DJD 6, 55–7.
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
219
strap
recent article, D. Nakman has suggested that the remains of a
fourth com- partment, which has not survived, are still
discernable.52
Unfortunately, Milik’s description of the order of the 3 slips that
were found is ambiguous: “Le fait d’avoir trouvé ce tefillin du
front encore scellé dans son étui, assure l’ordre dans lequel on
mettait les trois (ou quatre) morceaux de phylactère dans leurs
compartiments: les sections de l’Ex. après celles du Deut”.53 Milik
did not note which direction the casing was facing when the slips
were removed from it for examination. Accordingly, Milik’s
description that the Exodus sections appear after those of
Deuteron- omy can be understood in one of two ways:
strap
If, as Nakman has suggested, we are to reconstruct a fourth
compartment which presumably housed a slip containing the section,
the order of slips in this casing would have been either:
strap
or
strap
While neither of these arrangements conforms to any of the
suggested pos- sibilities for interpreting the first baraita, the
first arrangement conforms exactly to one possible understanding of
the second baraita (the first in our list above). It remains
possible, however, that the slips 4QPhyl D–F were in fact arranged
according to the second sequence delineated above, an ar- rangement
which does not conform to the prescriptions found in either of the
two baraitot.
In summary, an examination of the tefillin exemplars from the
Judean Desert indicates that slips containing multiple scriptural
portions were es- sentially arranged in a single-column format. As
such, it follows that the tannaitic prescription found in bMen 34b,
which refers to the order of the
————— 52 Nakman, “Contents” 22 n. 14, 30. Milik appears to have
believed that this tefillin case did
not originally include the section in a fourth compartment (Milik,
DJD 6, 38, 56). 53 Milik, DJD 6, 56.
220 Yonatan Adler
scriptural pericopes to be placed in the tefillin casing in terms
of “right” and “left”, can be understood only as referring to
tefillin constructed in a mul- tiple-compartment format (i.e.,
head-tefillin). Beyond this conclusion, how- ever, the limited and
fragmentary state of the data provided by the Judean Desert
tefillin provides little assistance in elucidating the difficult
Talmudic passage found in Bavli Menahot. At most, we may conclude
that the order displayed by XQPhyl 1–4 does not comply with the
prescriptions recorded in this source (or anywhere else in rabbinic
literature), and that 4QPhyl D–F does not comply with the halakhah
found in the first baraita recorded there. While it is possible
that the order of the scriptural pericopes found in this exemplar
coincides with one possible interpretation of the second baraita
quoted in this source, it remains equally possible that this
exemplar does not follow the prescriptions laid down in this
baraita either.
The Order of the Scriptural Portions Contained in
Arm-Tefillin
A second rabbinic source that refers to the question of the order
of the scriptural portions that are to be included in tefillin
appears in Mekhilta de- Rabbi Ishmael:
, . , – ... , . “ ”, “”, “ ”, “ ”: . . –
…The commandment of tefillin (consists of) four scriptural portions
of arm-(tefillin) which are (written on) one roll (of parchment).
The four scriptural portions of head- (tefillin) are (made as) four
totafot.54 And these are the (four scriptural portions):
“Consecrate to Me”; “And when the Lord has brought you”; “Hear, (O
Israel)”; “If, then, you obey”. They must be written in their
order, and if they are not written in their order they must be
hidden away.55
As opposed to the source in bMenahot, the passage in the Mekhilta
appears quite straightforward: the four scriptural portions must be
written in the order that they appear in the Torah. Two points may
be adduced to show that the Mekhilta here refers specifically to
arm-tefillin and not to head- tefillin: (1) The prescription that
the tefillin should be “written” in order is most readily
understandable with regard to arm-tefillin, which are written on
one slip, but not with regard to head-tefillin—which in any event
are written on four separate slips, and as such the chronological
order in which they are written would appear to be inconsequential;
(2) The Mekhilta pre-
————— 54 See above, n. 8. 55 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Masekheta
dePaskha 18 (ed. Lauterbach2 114).
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
221
scribes that if the tefillin sections are written not in their
proper order that they must be “hidden away.” Such a regulation
makes sense only if the referent is arm-tefillin written on a
single slip, for once the scriptural sec- tions had been written in
the wrong order—the mistake could not be emended. On the other
hand, if the slips of head-tefillin were misarranged in their
compartments, these could simply be rearranged in the original
tefillin casing.
An examination of the tefillin exemplars from the Judean Desert
pro- vides an opportunity to trace the development of this halakhic
prescription. The scholars who published these finds classified the
various exemplars as “arm-tefillin” or as “head-tefillin,”
apparently on the basis of the differen- tiation between these two
types found in the rabbinic texts. As almost all of the slips were
found outside of a tefillin casing, it seems that the basis for the
editors’ classification of a slip as either “arm-tefillin” or
“head-tefillin” was the number of scriptural portions found written
on any one individual slip. This approach is clearly problematic,
as it takes for granted that such a differentiation existed already
in the Second Temple period. While such a state of affairs is
certainly conceivable and perhaps even likely, a critical treatment
of the internal evidence provided by the Judean Desert exemplars
themselves calls for a more cautious approach. As such, in the
present study we shall examine all of the Judean Desert exemplars
that display two or more non-consecutive scriptural portions in
order to determine whether or not the tefillin pericopes were
arranged in their scriptural sequence.
Only two tefillin slips, 4QPhyl C and XHev/SePhyl, contain
scriptural portions that are clearly arranged in the order in which
they are found in the Torah.56 Both slips display the four
rabbinically prescribed scriptural peri- copes exclusively. While
one slip was found in Cave 4 at Qumran, the second was purchased
and is presumed to have derived from one of the caves of refuge
dating to the Bar Kokhba Revolt—in either Nahal H ever or Nah al
Se’elim.
————— 56 Four additional slips may be noted here: (1) 4QPhyl B
displays on the “recto” Deut 5:1–6:5,
and on the “verso” Exod 13:9–16. As these two scriptural portions
are written on two sides of one slip, it cannot be determined how
the order of the pericopes should be viewed. (2) Similarly, 4QPhyl
M displays on the “recto” Exod 12:44–13:10, and on the “verso” Deut
5:33–6:5. Again, the fact that the two scriptural selections appear
on either side of the slip make it impossible to determine what
order was intended. (3) 4QPhyl Q has Deut 11:4–18 on the recto,
while Exod 13:4–9 appears on the verso. In this case too, we are
precluded from drawing any conclusions regarding the order of the
pericopes. (4) 8QPhyl II displays Deut 6:1–3, followed directly by
Deut 10:20–22. Fragments of unidentified passages are found
preceding the passages from Deut 6, while fragments of additional
unidentified passages follow Deut 10:20–22. It is unclear if all of
the passages displayed in this exemplar actually follow the
scriptural sequence. Notably, Deut 6:1–3 is not followed by Deut
6:4–9, i.e., the section; if the section was in fact included on
this slip, it was certainly written out of sequence.
222 Yonatan Adler
In four tefillin exemplars, multiple scriptural pericopes are
written on one slip in an order that does not conform to the
scriptural sequence:57
1. 4QPhyl A displays on the recto passages from Deut chapters 5 and
10, followed by Deut 11:1–17. The text on the verso continues
directly from the recto: Deut 11:18–21. The Deut verses on the
verso are then followed by Exod 12:43–13:7.
2. 4QPhyl I displays on the recto Deut 11:13–21, followed by Exod
12:43–13, 10. The verso appears to have displayed verses from Deut
chap- ter 6.
3. 8QPhyl III58 displays Deut 10:12–19, followed by Exod 12:43–51,
af- ter which appears Deut 5:1–13. (Verse 13 displays a
harmonization with the Exodus Decalogue, with the last five words
replaced by Exod 20:10).59
4. MurPhyl 1 displays Exod 13:1–16, followed by Deut 11:13–21,
while MurPhyl 2 displays Deut 6:4–9. The two slips were folded over
each other several times and wrapped together in a thin piece of
parchment. The editor identified the slips as having comprised two
elements of a single set, and this does in fact seem highly
likely.60 Consequently, the fact that Exod 13:1–16 is followed by
Deut 11:13–21 and not by Deut 6:4–9 indicates that the scribe who
wrote this exemplar was not concerned with arranging the four
pericopes in their scriptural order.61
One tefillin exemplar deserves special notice. 8QPhyl I62 displays
Exod 13:1–16 on the top of the slip, followed beneath by Deut 6:4–9
arranged in a paragraph on the left-hand side of the slip, and Deut
11:13–21 arranged in the shape of a backward “L” to the right of
and below the Deut 6:4–9 para- graph. Considering that Hebrew is
written from right-to-left, we may view the Deut 11:13–21 section
as preceding the Deut 6:4–9 paragraph. On the other hand, the Deut
11:13–21 section wraps around below the Deut 6:4–9
————— 57 Two additional slips, XQPhyl 1 and XQPhyl 2, were found to
contain pericopes not arranged
in their scriptural order. These two slips, however, were found in
their original casing comprised of four separate compartments, and
as such do not bear directly on the Mekhilta passage under
question.
58 Although Baillet (“Textes des grottes 2Q, 3Q, 6Q, 7Q, à 10Q”)
viewed the four groups of slips 8QPhyl I–IV as a set deriving from
a single tefillin casing, Yadin (Tefillin from Qumran 34) appears
to have been correct in viewing these slips as independent of one
another. Cf. M. Baillet, “Nouveaux phylactères de Qumrân (XQ Phyl
1–4). A propos d’une édition récente,” RevQ 7 (1970) 414.
59 E. Eshel, “4QDeutn—A Text that Has Undergone Harmonistic
Editing,” HUCA 62 (1991) 122–23, n. 31.
60 Milik, “Textes Hébreux et Araméens” 80–81. 61 Cohn (“Rabbenu
Tam’s ‘Tefillin’” 323; Tangled Up in Text 106), has suggested that
the dif-
ference in the relative sizes of the parchment scraps at hand was
the reason that the scribe chose Deut 11:13–21 to “round out”
MurPhyl 1, since this section simply would not have fit on the
significantly smaller MurPhyl 2 slip.
62 See supra n. 58.
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
223
paragraph, and as such should perhaps be viewed as following the
latter section. Another point which should be considered is the
fact that the Deut 6:4–9 paragraph appears to have been written
before the Deut 11:13–21 section. This would seem to be indicated
by the many instances where words and word-portions from the Deut
11:13–21 section are cut off by the Deut 6:4–9 paragraph, giving
the impression that the scribe was trying to fit the Deut 11
portion onto the slip after the Deut 6 paragraph had already been
written. It remains unclear why the Deuteronomy portions in this
slip were arranged in this unusual format, and we may question
whether or not the scribe viewed the scriptural sequence of the
passages as a matter of concern.63
Summarizing the evidence, we have seen that only two tefillin
exemplars display the scriptural pericopes in the order that they
are found in the Torah. We may note that these two exemplars
include exclusively the four peri- copes prescribed by rabbinic
halakhah. It remains unclear, however, wheth- er or not the scribes
who penned these tefillin were in fact aware of any halakhic
regulation which prescribed that the tefillin pericopes be arranged
in their scriptural order. It must be remembered that the order
prescribed in the rabbinic sources also happens to be the most
intuitive sequence, and as such it is difficult to ascribe a
definite halakhic motive to this arrangement.
Conversely, we have seen that four tefillin exemplars contain
pericopes that are not arranged in their scriptural order. Notably,
one of these (Mur- Phyl) contains only the four pericopes
prescribed by rabbinic halakhah, and dates to the Bar Kokhba
period. Since any arrangement that does not coin- cide with the
scriptural sequence of the pericopes would appear to counter
intuition, these exemplars provide clear evidence that scribes and
tefillin practitioners from as late as the second century CE were
unaware of (or not concerned with) the rabbinic prescription
recorded in the Mekhilta. Al- though the evidence is quantitatively
somewhat limited, it may nevertheless suggest a relatively late
date for the promulgation of this halakhah.64
————— 63 Yadin suggested that this arrangement “would seem to
indicate that the scribe perhaps ad-
hered to the system of Rabbenu Tam, but that he made an attempt to
reconcile both systems” (Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran 15 n. 28).
See, however, Cohn (“Rabbenu Tam’s ‘Tefillin’”), who has shown that
such a claim cannot withstand critical scrutiny. Cf. Rothstein,
From Bible to Murabba‘at 373.
64 Contra Nakman, “Contents” 39.
224 Yonatan Adler
The Inclusion of the Decalogue in Tefillin
The Sifre on Deuteronomy presents an interesting halakhic midrash
which deals with the question of the inclusion of the Decalogue in
tefillin:
, , , “ ”,“ ” [...] : ? , ,
? , , , , , “” , , “ “ ” ”
– “” . , .
Still, I might say that if (the portions) “Consecrate to Me” (Exod
13:2) and “And when the Lord has brought you” (Exod 13:11), which
are preceded by other com- mandments, are to be bound (as part of
the tefillin), should not the Ten Command- ments, which are
preceded by no other commandments, to be bound (as tefillin)? You
might then say that this is a matter of inference a minori ad
majus: if “(The Lord) said” (Num 15:37), which is recited daily, is
not bound (as tefillin), should not the Ten Commandments, which are
not recited daily, be likewise excluded from being bound (as
tefillin)? The answer is that “Consecrate to Me” (Exod 13:2) and
“And when the Lord has brought you” (Exod 13:11) would prove
otherwise, for they are not recited and yet are bound (as
tefillin), which would prove that even though the Ten Commandments
are not recited, they should nevertheless be bound (as tefillin).
Hence, scripture states: “Bind them” (Deut 6:8)—these are to be
bound (as part of the tefillin), but the Ten Commandments are not
to be bound.65
This midrash opens by suggesting that the Decalogue should be
included in tefillin, after which hermeneutical proofs are brought
to discount such a possibility. This is an extremely common formula
found in halakhic mi- drash: “Perhaps the law should be X? […] Y
proves that this is not the case”. What is somewhat unusual in this
example is that the original conten- tion, that perhaps the
Decalogue should be included in tefillin, is not at all
intuitive.
This midrash would have been understood as a theoretical exercise
in rabbinic exegesis, until the discovery of two distinctive groups
of tefillin at Qumran—one containing exclusively the four portions
prescribed in the rabbinic literature66 and a second group
containing additional scriptural portions, of which nine exemplars
include the Decalogue.67 All of the Ju-
————— 65 Sifre Deut 35 (ed. Finkelstein, 63). 66 4QPhyl C, 4QPhyl
D, 4QPhyl E, 4QPhyl F, and 8QPhyl I. Both 4QPhyl R and 4QPhyl S
al-
so display passages from the rabbinically prescribed pericopes
alone, however the extent of the text preserved in these slips is
very limited. Milik (DJD 6, 78), notes that 4QPhyl S may have
belonged to a mezuzah.
67 Tefillin exemplars containing the Decalogue include: 1QPhyl,
8QPhyl III, XQPhyl 3, 4QPhyl A, 4QPhyl B, 4QPhyl G, 4QPhyl J,
4QPhyl L, and 4QPhyl O. Additional tefillin exem-
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
225
dean Desert tefillin exemplars which may be dated to the post-70 CE
period include the four rabbinically prescribed pericopes
exclusively.68
As such, I would like to propose that in first raising and then
rejecting the suggestion that the Decalogue be included in
tefillin, the author of the Sifre was not engaging in a mere
theoretical exercise meant for rhetorical purposes alone, but was
rather addressing an actual contemporary halakhic dispute.69 The
lack of any intuitive basis for suggesting that the Decalogue be
included in tefillin would seem to indicate that the author of the
Sifre was keenly aware of an actual practice of including it. The
suggestion that perhaps the Decalogue should be incorporated into
tefillin was raised by the author of this midrash for the sole
purpose of dismissing it forthwith through exegetical
argumentation.
This is not the only example of a veiled polemic aimed against
variant halakhic views to be found in the genre of halakhic
midrashim. As M. I. Kahana has recently pointed out: “In a few
instances, such a controversy is overtly present, but usually it is
concealed and its identification requires information from other
sources as to the opinions combated.”70 While in rare instances
this information can be found elsewhere in the corpus of rabbinic
literature, in some cases, as in ours, the only available clue as
to the polemical nature of the halakhic midrash at hand is to be
found in exter- nal sources such as the findings from Qumran. As
Kahana has noted, this area of study is still very much in its
infancy.
A salient example of such a polemical halakhic midrash is found in
Sifra, in the exegetical treatment of the expression (Lev 23:15):
(“from the day after the Sabbath”). The midrash opens with the
suggestion that the term should be understood literally as
referring to Saturday, only to reject this possibility and to
interpret the term instead as referring to the first day of the
Passover festival.71 Here too we find the formula: “Per- haps the
law should be X? […] Y proves that this is not the case”. That
this
————— plars from Qumran displaying scriptural passages not
prescribed in the rabbinic sources include: 8QPhyl II, 8QPhyl IV,
XQPhyl 1, XQPhyl 2, 4QPhyl H, 4QPhyl I, 4QPhyl K, 4QPhyl M, 4QPhyl
N, 4QPhyl P, 4QPhyl Q. Nakman (“Contents” 35–37) has suggested that
4QPhyl N was an amulet and not a tefillin slip. For a critique of
Nakman’s view, and an alternative reading of the evidence, see
Cohn, Tangled Up in Text 75–76.
68 MurPhyl, 34SePhyl, and XH ev/SePhyl. 69 Cohn (Tangled Up in Text
126), has briefly raised the essential suggestion argued here,
al-
though he has also proffered the possibility that the Sifre was
driven by scholastic concerns rather than knowledge of an actual
variant practice. Nakman (“Contents” 29) has also viewed the
discus- sion found in this source as purely theoretical (cf.,
however, ibid., 40).
70 M. I. Kahana, “The Halakhic Midrashim,” in S. Safrai, Z. Safrai,
J. Schwartz, and P. J. Tom- son, eds., The Literature of the Sages,
Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mystic- ism,
Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of
Rabbinic Literature (Assen 2006) 46.
71 Sifra Emor 12 (ed. Weiss, 100d); cf. bMen 65b–66a.
226 Yonatan Adler
is more than just a theoretical exercise in rabbinic exegesis is
clear from other rabbinic sources which indicate that the
interpretation of the term in this verse was historically a point
of contention between the Pharisees and the Boethusians.72 Recent
scholarship has identified a handful of addi- tional such veiled
polemical agendas in halakhic midrashim.73
Presumably, the passage in the Sifre that argues against the
practice of including the Decalogue in tefillin derives from a time
when this was still an issue of current debate. What can the
evidence of the Judean Desert tefillin contribute toward our
understanding of the historical setting of this halakhic
dispute?
Even before the publication of the discoveries from the Judean
Desert, some scholars had suggested that Second Temple period
tefillin included the Decalogue, and that this pericope was removed
only after 70 CE, some- time during the Tannaitic period.74 At the
time, the sole basis for this theory was the fact that the
recitation of the Decalogue is listed together with the recitation
of the Shema as part of the daily liturgy of the Jerusalem Tem-
ple,75 whereas in the tannaitic literature the recitation of the
Decalogue no longer appears as a part of the daily prayers. A
passage from the Jerusalem Talmud, quoting later amoraic sages,
relates that although the Decalogue should rightly be recited as
part of the daily liturgy, its recitation is not included in
everyday prayers in order to avoid the heretical claims of the
“minim” who maintain that only the Decalogue was given to Moses at
Sinai and not the rest of the Torah.76 Reading this passage as an
historical account of the removal of the Decalogue from the liturgy
in reaction to the so-called “minim,” scholars had theorized that a
parallel development occurred with regard to the tefillin,
proffering that the Decalogue was originally included
————— 72 mMen 10, 3; tRosh 1, 15 (ed. Lieberman, 308–9); bMen
65a–b; Scholion to Megillat
Ta‘anit, 8th of Nissan (ed. Noam, 59–63) according to the Oxford
ms. (Bodleian Library, Michael 388, Neubauer Catalogue no. 867.2).
According to the Parma ms. (Biblioteca Palatina, De Rossi
Collection no. 117), the controversy was between the Pharisees and
the Sadducees. Cf. mHag 2, 4. For the view of the Qumaran
sectarians on this issue, see Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Vol. 1;
Jerusalem 1983) 116–19 ; J. M. Baumgarten, “The Calendars of the
Book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,” VT 37 (1987) 71–78.
73 See M. Halbertal, Interpretative Revolutions in the Making:
Values as Interpretative Consid- erations in Midrashei Halakhah
(Hebrew; Jerusalem 1997) 22 n. 18, 129 n. 9, 178 n. 4; Kahana (“The
Halakhic Midrashim” 46–51); Ch. Safrai and A. Campbell Hochstein,
Women Out— Women In: The Place of Women in Midrash (Hebrew;
Jerusalem; Tel Aviv 2008) 38.
74 Mann, “Changes” 289–94; A. M. Haberman, “The Phylacteries in
Antiquity,” (Hebrew) EI 3 (1954) 174–77.
75 mTam 5.1. 76 yBer 1.4 (3b). For an investigation into the
identity of these “minim”, see: G. Vermes, “The
Decalogue and the Minim,” in M. Black and G. Fohrer eds., In
Memoriam Paul Kahle (Berlin 1968) 232–40.
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
227
in tefillin during the Second Temple period and later removed as a
reaction to the heretical “minim.”77
This theory received considerable support with the early
publication of a number of tefillin slips from Qumran which
provided the first physical evidence of the inclusion of the
Decalogue in Second Temple period tefil- lin.78 With the subsequent
publication of additional tefillin slips, however, it soon became
clear that some Qumran tefillin exemplars did not include the
Decalogue. In light of this new evidence, Y. Yadin posited a
hypothesis according to which the common practice was to include
the Decalogue and other “extra-rabbinic” scriptural portions
principally in head-tefillin, while including only the four
“traditional” scriptural pericopes in arm-tefillin.79 At the time,
most of the published fragments containing “extra-rabbinic” scrip-
tural sections were attributed to head-tefillin, while those
containing only the four “traditional” pericopes were ascribed to
arm-tefillin. Yadin himself noted the tenuousness of this theory,
posited at a time when the majority of the Qumran tefillin slips
had not yet been published. Indeed, with the publi- cation of the
tefillin slips from Qumran Cave 4,80 this theory has essentially
lost relevance—as 4QPhyl D, 4QPhyl E, and 4QPhyl F are all
head-tefillin slips which contain only the four “traditional”
pericopes, while 4QPhyl A and 4QPhyl B are both identified as
arm-tefillin slips and yet contain “ex- tra-rabbinic” pericopes,
including the Decalogue.
Today, with the final publication of the entire corpus of
decipherable te- fillin slips from the Judean Desert completed, it
is clear that during the Second Temple period the practice of
including the Decalogue in tefillin was not universal, as at this
time tefillin containing the Decalogue existed side by side with
tefillin containing exclusively the four pericopes pre- scribed in
the rabbinic literature. Furthermore, we must bear in mind that the
only evidence for a practice of including the Decalogue in tefillin
de- rives from Qumran, as all of the exemplars found outside of
Qumran con- tain the four rabbinically prescribed pericopes
exclusively. As I have shown elsewhere, all of the Qumran exemplars
which include the Decalogue also display orthographic and textual
features characteristic of sectarian Qumran
————— 77 Supra n. 74. In addition to these rabbinical sources, both
Mann (“Changes” 290 n. 102), and
Haberman (“The Phylacteries” 175) enlist the testimony of Jerome
(to Ezek 24:15 [Migne, Patro- logia Latina, vol. 25, col. 230]) who
reports a practice of contemporary Jewish Babylonian sages to
include the Decalogue in their head-tefillin. Mann (ibid.) also
referred to Jerome’s homily on Matt 23:5–6 (Migne, Patrologia
Latina, vol. 26, col. 174), in which he described the φυλακτρια of
Matthew as containing the Decalogue. It should be kept in mind that
Jerome (ca 347–420) was contemporaneous with the last generation of
the Babylonian amoraim.
78 H. Schneider, “Der Dekalog in den Phylakterien von Qumrân,”
Biblische Zeitschrift 3 (1959) 18–31; Vermes, “Pre-Mishnaic Jewish
Worship” 69, 71.
79 Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran 34–35. 80 Milik, DJD 6.
228 Yonatan Adler
scribal practices.81 Consequently, we have no indication that the
inclusion of the Decalogue in tefillin was ever practiced outside
of Second Temple period sectarian circles.82
As such, the most appropriate Sitz im Leben for the passage in the
Sifre that argues against the inclusion of the Decalogue in
tefillin would appear to be the highly sectarianized Second Temple
period. Although it is certain- ly possible that some individuals
continued to practice the inclusion of the Decalogue in their
tefillin for some time after 70 CE, the sectarian disputes
characteristic of late Second Temple period Judaism present the
most likely setting for the veiled polemic found in the Sifre.
Although the Sifre was probably compiled only sometime during the
third century CE, it would appear that the passage under discussion
here preserves material which in fact dates to the pre-70 CE
period.
Summary
The present study has suggested a number of contributions that the
evidence of the tefillin from the Judean Desert may provide in
elucidating early rab- binic texts that discuss the question of the
content and order of the scriptural pericopes to be included in
tefillin.
Our extensive analysis of the epigraphic evidence has shown that
the tra- ditional understanding regarding the boundaries of the
rabbinically pre- scribed scriptural pericopes has its basis in the
earliest surviving tefillin exemplars. The evidence provided by the
Judean Desert tefillin exemplars has also aided in elucidating a
halakhic midrash and a well-known and complex Talmudic passage that
prescribe the sequence of the scriptural portions to be included in
tefillin. Lastly, our inquiry has shown how con- flicting practices
with regard to the inclusion of the Decalogue in the Ju- dean
Desert tefillin provide the historical background for the
composition
————— 81 Y. Adler, “Identifying Sectarian Characteristics in the
Phylacteries from Qumran,” RevQ 89
(2007) 79–92. 82 Contra Nakman, “Contents.” For an early (and
highly speculative) discussion of the secta-
rian background for including the Decalogue in tefillin during the
Second Temple period, see A. Krochmal, Ijun-Tephillah (Hebrew;
Lemberg 1885) 34–37. In light of the findings from Qumran, the
question once again arises as to why certain sectarians, and
members of the Qumran sect in particular, would have been
especially interested in including the Decalogue in their tefillin.
As many have already pointed out, the term “these words” appearing
in the biblical injunction to “keep these words that I am
commanding you today in your heart […] bind them as a sign on your
hand and as between your eyes” (Deut 6: 6, 8) was probably
understood as referring to the Decalogue found in the preceding
chapter (Deut 5: 6–18). We are perhaps better off inquiring as to
why others would have chosen to omit the Decalogue from their
tefillin; however this is a question that lies beyond the scope of
our present study.
The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin
229
of a halakhic midrash, which can now be viewed as an example of a
polem- ical exegesis.
Our study has shown how a reexamination of early rabbinic texts in
light of the evidence supplied by the Judean Desert tefillin can
provide important insights into the interpretation of these texts.
Further investigations using this method are sure to shed light on
additional aspects of tefillin practice described in other early
rabbinic sources.
<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile
(sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
/DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy
/LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true
/EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness
true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings false /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue
false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [
true /HebraicaII ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages
true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy
/Error /DownsampleColorImages false /ColorImageDownsampleType
/Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold
1.50333 /EncodeColorImages false /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2]
/VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256
/Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth
256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /Error /DownsampleGrayImages false
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50333 /EncodeGrayImages false
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples
[2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth
256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict
<< /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 1000 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /Error
/DownsampleMonoImages false /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages false
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1
>> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ]
/PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False
/CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA
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
/BGR
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
/CHS
<FEFF4f7f75288fd94e9b8bbe5b9a521b5efa7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065876863900275284e8e55464e1a65876863768467e5770b548c62535370300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200036002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c676562535f00521b5efa768400200050004400460020658768633002>
/CHT
<FEFF4f7f752890194e9b8a2d7f6e5efa7acb7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065874ef69069752865bc666e901a554652d965874ef6768467e5770b548c52175370300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200036002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c4f86958b555f5df25efa7acb76840020005000440046002065874ef63002>
/CZE
<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>
/DAN
<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>
/ESP
<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>
/ETI
<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>
/FRA
<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>
/GRE
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
/HEB
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
/HRV
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
/HUN
<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>
/ITA (Utilizzare queste impostazioni per creare documenti Adobe PDF
adatti per visualizzare e stampare documenti aziendali in modo
affidabile. I documenti PDF creati possono essere aperti con
Acrobat e Adobe Reader 6.0 e versioni successive.) /JPN
<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>
/KOR
<FEFFc7740020c124c815c7440020c0acc6a9d558c5ec0020be44c988b2c8c2a40020bb38c11cb97c0020c548c815c801c73cb85c0020bcf4ace00020c778c1c4d558b2940020b3700020ac00c7a50020c801d569d55c002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020bb38c11cb97c0020c791c131d569b2c8b2e4002e0020c774b807ac8c0020c791c131b41c00200050004400460020bb38c11cb2940020004100630072006f0062006100740020bc0f002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200036002e00300020c774c0c1c5d0c11c0020c5f40020c2180020c788c2b5b2c8b2e4002e>
/LTH
<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>
/LVI
<FEFF004c006900650074006f006a00690065007400200161006f00730020006900650073007400610074012b006a0075006d00750073002c0020006c0061006900200069007a0076006500690064006f00740075002000410064006f00620065002000500044004600200064006f006b0075006d0065006e007400750073002c0020006b006100730020007000690065006d01130072006f00740069002000640072006f0161006100