Introduction
Tefillin, also referred to as phylacteries in Greek, are among the most important ritual objects in Judaism, deeply connected to Jewish prayer and identity. Comprising two black leather boxes containing carefully written Torah passages on parchment, Tefillin are worn by observant Jewish men during weekday morning prayers as a fulfillment of biblical commandments. These passages emphasize the importance of remembering and practicing the commandments of God in daily life. The practice of wearing Tefillin is seen as a physical manifestation of spiritual dedication, symbolizing the bond between God and the Jewish people.
Etymology and Greek Name
The Hebrew word “Tefillin” is derived from the root פלל (P-L-L), which is associated with prayer and judgment. This root forms the basis of words such as Tefillah (prayer) and Palil (judge), indicating the Tefillin’s role as instruments of spiritual connection and reflection. The plural form “Tefillin” indicates that the object comes in pairs—one for the head (Shel Rosh) and one for the arm (Shel Yad).
In the Greek-speaking world, Tefillin became known as phylacteries, from the Greek word φυλακτήριον (phylaktērion), which means “safeguard” or “amulet.” This term reflects an ancient understanding of Tefillin as objects with protective properties. The use of Tefillin as amulets or symbols of protection is supported by historical evidence, including references in Jewish texts and practices observed in various Jewish communities over the centuries.
The Biblical Commandment
The scriptural foundation for the practice of Tefillin is found in four passages in the Torah: Exodus 13:1–10, 11–16, and Deuteronomy 6:4–9, 11:13–21. These verses contain the famous declaration of the Shema (“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One”), along with instructions to keep these words “as a sign upon your hand” and “as frontlets between your eyes.” The literal interpretation of these verses led to the creation of Tefillin, which are physically bound to the arm and forehead.
The exact origin of Tefillin as physical objects is debated among scholars, but it is clear that by the Second Temple period (516 BCE–70 CE), Tefillin were already a well-established practice among the Jewish people. The discovery of Tefillin at archaeological sites such as Qumran and in the Judean Desert, including during the Bar Kokhba revolt, attests to the long-standing significance of this ritual.
Spread of the Practice
Tefillin, commonly known as phylacteries, were widely practiced among Jews during the Second Temple period (516 BCE–70 CE) and were not solely a rabbinic invention. Both archaeological finds and textual evidence support the view that Tefillin were a common element of Jewish religious life across different Jewish communities during this era.
Qumran Tefillin
The discovery of Tefillin at Qumran, the site associated with the Essenes—a Jewish sectarian group—provides substantial archaeological evidence that the practice of wearing Tefillin was not limited to rabbinic Jews. Several sets of Tefillin were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, including fragments designated as 4Q128 and 4Q129. These Tefillin demonstrate that the Essenes, who had their own unique religious practices, also engaged in the practice of wearing Tefillin, although their Tefillin varied in structure and content compared to those described by later rabbinic sources.
The Tefillin from Qumran contain not only the traditional Torah passages found in later rabbinic Tefillin but also additional texts such as the Ten Commandments. This indicates that Tefillin were a significant part of daily religious observance for this community, reflecting their interpretation of biblical commandments. The presence of Tefillin in Qumran, alongside other ritual items like mezuzot, suggests that the practice of wearing Tefillin was widespread and was observed in different forms by various Jewish groups during the Second Temple period.
Bar Kokhba Tefillin
Further evidence comes from the Tefillin discovered in caves associated with the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE), a Jewish uprising against Roman rule. These Tefillin, found in the Judean Desert, closely resemble the rabbinic tradition in terms of structure and content, with distinct compartments for each of the four prescribed Torah passages. The presence of these Tefillin among the personal belongings of Jewish rebels indicates that the practice of wearing Tefillin was not only common but also held deep significance for Jews during this time.
The fact that these Tefillin were found alongside other items used in daily life, such as food and tools, suggests that wearing Tefillin was a routine practice for the Jews involved in the revolt. This reinforces the idea that Tefillin were a common element of Jewish identity, transcending sectarian differences.
The New Testament
The New Testament provides textual evidence that Tefillin were commonly worn by Jews during the Second Temple period. In the Gospels, Yeshu’a refers to the Pharisees as those who “broaden their phylacteries” (Matthew 23:5). This passage indicates that Tefillin were not only worn but were also a visible sign of piety among the Jewish population of the time. The fact that the practice is mentioned in a critical context suggests that it was widespread and recognized by different Jewish groups, including those who may have been critical of the Pharisees.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Damascus Document (CD), also known as the is one of the key texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls that offers insights into the practices and beliefs of the Essene community. This document contains numerous references to the importance of observing the Torah’s commandments, including the practice of binding the Torah’s words “as a sign upon your hand” and “as frontlets between your eyes,” a command found in Deuteronomy 6:8.
In the Damascus Document, the following passage reflects the community’s understanding of the commandments related to Tefillin:
> “They shall love all the sons of light, each according to his lot in God’s council, and shall hate all the sons of darkness, each according to his guilt in God’s vengeance. They shall keep apart from every evil man, regarding his estate, and shall not practice evil, following the precepts of God, which Moses commanded, and being confirmed by the covenant with the Most High; they shall bind themselves to obey all the commandments of the Law of Moses, according to all that has been revealed from age to age. They shall bind the commandments as a sign upon their hands and as frontlets between their eyes and shall write them on the doorposts of their houses and their gates.” (Damascus Document [CD V:1-6])
This passage demonstrates that the Essene community took the biblical injunctions literally, incorporating them into their daily religious observance. The language of “binding the commandments as a sign upon their hands and as frontlets between their eyes” is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 6:8 and indicates that the community viewed the wearing of Tefillin as a concrete expression of their commitment to God’s laws.
The inclusion of this directive in the Damascus Document underscores the importance of Tefillin within the Essene community. It shows that the Essenes, despite their distinctive religious practices and separation from mainstream Judaism, adhered to this particular commandment. The practice of wearing Tefillin, therefore, was not limited to the Pharisees or rabbinic Jews but was observed by various Jewish groups during the Second Temple period.
This reference also highlights the broader interpretative approach of the Essenes, who often emphasized a strict and literal adherence to the Torah’s commandments. For them, the physical act of binding the commandments served as a tangible sign of their covenantal relationship with God, reinforcing their identity as the “sons of light” in opposition to the “sons of darkness.”
Moreover, other texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls, such as the Community Rule (1QS), emphasize the importance of living according to the commandments, which would likely include the practice of wearing Tefillin as a physical manifestation of obedience to God’s laws.
Josephus and Philo
The writings of Jewish historians like Josephus and Philo of Alexandria provide further evidence that Tefillin were commonly worn during the Second Temple period. Josephus, in his work Antiquities of the Jews (4.213), describes how Jews bound the commandments to their arms and foreheads as part of their daily religious practice. Although Josephus does not use the term “Tefillin,” his description clearly aligns with the practice of wearing phylacteries.
Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, also alludes to the practice in his De Specialibus Legibus (4.27-28), where he discusses the command to “bind these words as a sign upon your hands.” Philo interprets this commandment both allegorically and literally, suggesting that Jews in his time understood and practiced the wearing of Tefillin as a concrete expression of their faith.
Shape and Structure of Tefillin from Qumran
The Qumran Tefillin are significantly different from those used in modern Jewish practice, both in their physical structure and in the scriptural passages they contain. The boxes, or batim, of the Qumran Tefillin are generally smaller and less uniform in shape compared to modern Tefillin. The Shel Yad (arm Tefillin) and Shel Rosh (head Tefillin) found at Qumran exhibit variations in their construction, including differences in the number of compartments and the materials used.
– Size and Shape: The Tefillin from Qumran are often irregular in shape and size. For example, the Shel Rosh from Qumran can have up to four separate compartments, similar to modern Tefillin, but some Qumran examples have only one compartment that contains all four Torah passages together. This contrasts with modern Tefillin, which are carefully crafted to have distinct and separate compartments for each of the four Torah passages, signifying their individual importance.
– Material and Craftsmanship: The leather used for the Qumran Tefillin is less refined compared to modern examples. The leather strips used to bind the Tefillin were also narrower and showed signs of different tanning and crafting techniques. The craftsmanship of the Qumran Tefillin reflects a different set of religious and cultural priorities, possibly influenced by the community’s focus on asceticism and simplicity.
Here’s an improved version with sources:
Differences Between Qumran and Modern Tefillin
The differences between the Tefillin from Qumran and those used today are indicative of the diversity of Jewish practice during the Second Temple period. The variations in size, shape, and construction methods suggest that there was no single standardized form of Tefillin at the time, and different Jewish groups may have had their own interpretations of the biblical commandments.
In contrast, modern Tefillin are manufactured according to strict halachic (Jewish legal) guidelines that have been standardized over centuries. The Shel Rosh has four distinct compartments, each containing a separate parchment with one of the four Torah passages. The Shel Yad contains one compartment with a single scroll that includes all four passages. The uniformity of modern Tefillin reflects the influence of rabbinic authority in codifying Jewish law and practice, particularly in the aftermath of the destruction of the Second Temple and the consolidation of rabbinic Judaism.
An interesting difference that has resurfaced in modern times concerns the separation of compartments in the head Tefillin (tefillin shel rosh). The Talmud discusses the practice of having compartments that are physically separate, with actual spaces between them. Talmud Bavli, Menachot 34b-35a: The Talmud discusses the requirement that the compartments in the head Tefillin must be distinct but also firmly attached, leading to the ruling that Tefillin with actual gaps between the compartments are not kosher. The conclusion in the Talmud is that such Tefillin are not acceptable and are deemed not kosher. This ruling appears to be a response to sectarian Tefillin found at Qumran, which feature this distinct separation. However, Maimonides (Rambam) considered this design to be kosher. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Tefillin 3:1: Maimonides rules that Tefillin with separated compartments are indeed kosher, provided that each compartment holds a single parchment scroll as required by halacha. In contemporary practice, Prûdot Tefillin, which have distinct separations between the compartments, are available and considered by some authorities to be a more stringent adherence to halachic requirements.
Qumran Tefillin Parashot and the Use of the Ten Commandments
One of the most striking aspects of the Qumran Tefillin is the inclusion of the Ten Commandments among the scriptural passages (*Parashot*). This is a significant departure from the rabbinic tradition, which limits the contents of Tefillin to four specific passages from the Torah. The inclusion of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) in the Qumran Tefillin suggests that the community placed a particular emphasis on these verses, possibly reflecting their central role in the community’s religious life.
Fragment Analysis
The Qumran Tefillin fragments, identified with numbers such as 4Q128 and 4Q129, provide critical evidence for understanding the diversity of Jewish practice in antiquity. These fragments reveal not only the physical characteristics of the Tefillin but also the variations in the scriptural passages they contain.
– 4Q128 (4Q Phylactery): This fragment contains portions of the Ten Commandments alongside the traditional Shema passages. The combination of these texts in a single Tefillin reflects a theological and liturgical choice that diverges from later rabbinic norms. The presence of the Decalogue in this fragment may indicate a particular focus on the covenantal relationship between God and Israel, as symbolized by the Ten Commandments.
– 4Q129: This fragment also deviates from the traditional rabbinic selection of passages for Tefillin. In addition to the Ten Commandments, it includes other texts that are not part of the standard rabbinic Tefillin. This suggests that the Qumran community may have had a broader or different interpretation of which passages were considered essential for daily remembrance and devotion.
The inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the Qumran Tefillin raises important questions about the theological priorities of the Qumran community. Unlike later rabbinic tradition, which focused on specific passages that emphasize the oneness of God and the love of God, the Qumran Tefillin suggest a community that saw the Decalogue as central to their religious identity. This might reflect a belief in the Decalogue as the core of the Torah or as the most direct expression of God’s covenant with Israel.
Bar Kokhba Tefillin and Rabbinic Tradition
The Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE) was a significant Jewish uprising against Roman rule in Judea. Led by Simon Bar Kokhba, the revolt sought to re-establish Jewish independence in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. The discovery of Tefillin from the Bar Kokhba period provides insight into the religious practices of Jewish rebels during this tumultuous time.
Comparison with Qumran Tefillin
The Tefillin found in the Judean Desert, particularly those associated with the Bar Kokhba revolt, show a closer resemblance to the Tefillin described in rabbinic literature. These Tefillin adhere more closely to the rabbinic method of dividing the scriptural passages and demonstrate a greater degree of standardization compared to the Qumran examples.
The Bar Kokhba Tefillin generally resemble the Qumran Tefillin in shape and make, however, they follow the rabbinic tradition of having separate compartments for each of the four Torah passages in the Shel Rosh and a single scroll in the Shel Yad. This standardization reflects the growing influence of rabbinic authority in defining Jewish practice, even during a period of national rebellion. The scriptural passages in the Bar Kokhba Tefillin match those prescribed by rabbinic tradition, indicating that the rebel community may have aligned itself with the emerging rabbinic consensus. This alignment suggests that despite the revolt’s nationalistic goals, the religious practices of the rebels were deeply rooted in rabbinic Judaism.
The Tefillin from the Bar Kokhba period provide important evidence for the consolidation of rab binic traditions in the aftermath of the Second Temple’s destruction. The similarities between the Bar Kokhba Tefillin and those prescribed by rabbinic law suggest that by the early second century CE, rabbinic interpretations of Jewish law were becoming widely accepted among Jewish communities. This is particularly significant given the period’s historical context, as the Jewish people were navigating the challenges of life under Roman occupation and the loss of the Temple as the central locus of religious practice.
Tefillin as Amulets in Jewish Tradition
The Talmud, a central text in rabbinic Judaism, contains numerous references to Tefillin, not only as objects of religious duty but also as amulets with protective powers. The dual role of Tefillin as both a commandment and a form of spiritual protection is a theme that runs through various rabbinic discussions.
In Tractate Menachot (36a), for example, the Talmud emphasizes the importance of wearing Tefillin as a sign of devotion to God, but it also acknowledges their role as a safeguard against harm. This protective function is rooted in the belief that the words of the Torah, when inscribed and worn, have the power to shield the wearer from physical and spiritual dangers.
The term kǝmiyot, meaning “amulets,” is used in the Talmud to describe objects that carry protective qualities. In some instances, Tefillin are referred to as kǝmiyot, reflecting a belief that they could serve as a form of divine protection. For example, in Tractate Shabbat (61a), there is a discussion about the permissibility of carrying Tefillin in public spaces on Shabbat, a day when carrying is generally prohibited. The debate hinges on whether Tefillin are considered a burden or if they can be worn as kǝmiyot, implying that they provide spiritual and perhaps even physical protection.
This duality in the perception of Tefillin—both as a mitzvah (commandment) and as an amulet—underscores their significance in Jewish life. The belief in the protective power of Tefillin may also help explain why they were carefully preserved and even carried into battle, as seen in the context of the Bar Kokhba revolt.
Conclusion
The archaeological finds from Qumran and the Bar Kokhba period, combined with textual references from the New Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the writings of Josephus and Philo, all point to the widespread practice of wearing Tefillin among Jews during the Second Temple period. This practice was not confined to rabbinic circles but was a common expression of Jewish identity and religious observance across various Jewish communities. The evidence indicates that Tefillin were integral to Jewish life, reflecting a deep-rooted tradition that predates the consolidation of rabbinic authority. The study of Tefillin, from their ancient origins to their role in rabbinic Judaism, offers a fascinating window into the evolution of Jewish religious practice. The diversity in form and content of Tefillin from Qumran and the Bar Kokhba period reflects broader theological and cultural shifts within Judaism during a time of significant historical change. These findings not only deepen our understanding of Tefillin as a ritual object but also highlight the complex interplay between tradition, innovation, and identity in Jewish history.
Bibliography
Yadin, Yigael. “The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters.” Israel Exploration Journal 12, no. 3/4 (1962): 227-257.
Nitzan, Bilhah. “Phylacteries and Mezuzot of the Second-Temple Period.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1986): 61-76.
Tov, Emanuel, and Stephen J. Pfann. “The Tefillin from the Judean Desert and the Phylacteries from Qumran.” Journal of Jewish Studies 46, no. 1-2 (1995): 87-101.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Significance of the Scrolls for the Study of the History of Jewish Ritual Practice.” *Dead Sea Discoveries 8, no. 3 (2001): 271-288.
Falk, Daniel K. “Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 7, no. 1 (2000): 10-42.
יוחנן, אהרן. “תפילין מקומראן: בחינה מחודשת לאור ממצאי מערות מדבר יהודה.” מגילות 2 (2004): 65-82.
ליפשיץ, ברוך. “פרשיות תפילין מקומראן – עיון מחודש.” תרביץ 58, מס’ 1 (1989): 23-45.
קימרון, אלישע. “תפילין מדבר יהודה: מסורות חלופיות של כתיבה ומבנה.” מגילות 5 (2007): 45-61.
צוקר, שמואל. “תפילין ומזוזות ממגילות מדבר יהודה.” סיני 110 (1992): 40-52.
שרייבר, ליאור. “פרשיות תפילין שנמצאו בקומראן: עיון טקסטואלי והלכתי.” דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות13 (2001): 127-136.
.
