Is Tefillin a Mitzvah?

[Chizuk Emunah]

Shalom chaverim,
I realize there's already a thread on Tefillin, but it deals with issues that I believe are separate from this one.

Most of us believe that wearing tzitzit is a literal mitzvah, as well as affixing a mezuzah to our doorposts. Why then, do we as a community say that the mitzvah to wear tefillin is merely symbolic and not literal?

Allow me to lay out my position:
{I will start from the beginning}
{I have used the combined the studies of yashanet with my own for this post }

The modern manner of interpreting Biblical text is commonly called exegesis. This method concerns itself mostly with the literary and grammatical context of Scripture verses. Practitioners of exegesis sometimes view anything beyond the literal text as "isogesis" and often pay it little heed to it, or regard it with suspicion. This is an unfortunate error, a result of a backlash against improper allegorizing of the Scriptures, resulting in a case where "the baby is thrown out with the bathwater."
With regard to the proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures in their proper context, including the "New Testament" books, there are in fact "levels" of interpretation that must be taken into consideration. This was the method used to write and interpret Scripture by the authors themselves as well as the audience of their time and culture.

These four levels of interpretation are called PaRDeS. They stand for:
Pashat (plain or literal meaning)
Remez (implied meaning)
Drash (allegorical meaning)
Sod (hidden meaning)

Each level of interpretation is deeper and more intense than the previous one.

The main thing I want to touch on here is the pashat meaning of this Scripture.

As I stated earlier, the p'shat is the plain, simple meaning of the text. It is the understanding of Scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the words that are being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, as well as context. The p'shat is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the p'shat we lose any real chance of an accurate understanding and we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis).

The Talmud states that no passage loses its p'shat:
Talmud Bavli
- Shabbat 63a
- Rabbi Kahana objected to Mar son of Rabbi Huna: But this refers to the words of the ? A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, he replied.

So the reasoning being developed here, is that there may be several meanings that are applicable to a specific text, but they may never override the literal meaning.

We will examine three different translations of the same verse in question:
(D'varim 6:8)

(HRV) And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes.

(JPS) Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead.

(CJB) Tie them on your hand as a sign, put them at the front of a headband around your forehead.

According to the pashat, this is a literal commandment that we are to carry out. Even if we were to draw a drash from this, it's interpretation must never overrule the pashat.

I also did a word study on several hebrew key words in this verse.
These three stuck out in particular:
1. Bind - Hebrew "qashar"
- lit. means to physically bind something
2. Sign - Hebrew "ot"
- lit. a monument, a physical symbol
3. Hand - Hebrew "yad
- a literal hand

Based on the word study, it would appear that the words used are literal, and not figurative.

My conclusion is thus:
Based on PaRDeS and my own word study, this verse indicates that the act of binding Tefillin is a literal mitzvah that men are obligated to fulfill.

I am open for comments and questions.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom achi,

I am not against the binding of tefillin, but in my studies I would say that it is a debatable subject. I would lean towards binding tefillin as Rabbinic tradition. I do practice a physical representation of this admonition (not according to Rabbinic Judaism), but I think it could be debated if it is really a physical commandment. What passage in particular are you drawing the literal commandment from? This is going somewhere .......

[Chizuk Emunah]

Whoops, forgot to post the reference....

D'varim 6:8 is where the mitzvah is found.

You did read my post right??

What makes you say that it's not a literal mitzvah?

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

"These words, which I command you this day, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.
You shall bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be for symbols between your eyes."
- Devarim (Deut.) 6:6-8

I would lean towards this particular section being full of Hebrew Idioms which are not always literal in the sense that we may find them. He commands us to lay them upon our heart which many times is an idiom for our mind and this would make sense in the light of diligently teaching our children and talking about the precepts at every turn. The idiom is carried on as it speaks of learning to keep the commandments as we commit our hands to the works of Adonai, and He will establish our thoughts as they will be as frontlets between our eyes....

"Commit thy works unto YHVH, and thy thoughts shall be established."
- Mishlei (Pro.) 16:3

So, we see where the commandment is to be said to be literal. Yes, this is the scripture that is always pointed to. But, I have never seen a certain scripture passage pointed to that is almost always considered non-literal used to support the binding of tefillin. What passage am I speaking of?....

"It shall be, when your son asks you in time to come, saying, 'What is this?' that you shall tell him, 'By strength of hand YHVH brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage; and it happened, when Par`oh would hardly let us go, that YHVH killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of animal. Therefore I sacrifice to YHVH all that opens the womb, being males; but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.'
It shall be for a sign on your hand, and for symbols between your eyes: for by strength of hand YHVH brought us forth out of Egypt."
- Shemot (Exo.) 13:14-16

I am about to be sarcastic, so bear with me
Are we then supposed to bind all the sacrifices of firstborn animals to our hands and between our eyes (as this is the context)? This could be the literal rendering, could it not? We can see that this is indeed a Hebrew idiom that was already in use and used before the command found Devarim (Deut.) 6:6-8. And, I believe that it is most likely an idiom in the passage in question. Does this mean we shouldn't practice it in some kind of physical expression? No, I wouldn't say that. I think that it is a great reminder of the spiritual application. Should we judge those whom don't bind tefillin? Is it an actual physical commandment which is really expected to be kept by YHVH in regards to the actual binding as taught in Rabbinic Judaism?...I would lean towards saying, no.

Regardless, if it is like the commandment of tzitzit and mezuzah, than why is it not observed like tzitzit and mezuzah? For tzitzit and mezuzah is dawned all the time. But, the binding of tefillin as set forth in Rabbinic Judaism has one binding it once every morning save Shabbat. If it really is a physical commandment, the scripture gives no liberty to remove these items throughout the day just as tzitzit and mezuzah are not removed throughout the day. As a rememberance of this commandment I bind a tzitzit around my wrist and have the commandments on a piece of parchment placed in a pouch in the hat/kippah that I wear which is placed on my forehead. If you would like something similar, I had "Zipporah's Thimble" (www.zipporahsthimble.com) make it for me.

Shalom v'ahava b'Yeshua

Reuel

[The 614th Mitzvot]

We must not forget that Aharon Kohen Gadol bound a cloth around his head that had the ineffable Name on it and he also bound something on his hand. It was simply a cloth not a leather box, but none the less, it was a symbol. Tefillin are the exact opposite of the antichrist's idea. His forehead symbol will be a tefillin acknowledging the Adversary as one's master. I feel Tefillin are a mitzvah because anything we do out of a pure love of the Holy One, blessed be he, is a mitzvah.

[Chizuk Emunah]

taken from jewishencyclopedia.com
In the course of time the Sadducees themselves adopted without contradiction Pharisaic practises; it is stated (Shab. 108a) that they did so in regard to the tefillin, and many other observances appear to have been accepted by them (Hor. 4a; Sanh. 33b).

taken from bmv.org.il/shiurim/yadayyim/yad03.html
During the third century BCE there was a complete rift between the Pharisees (who were the ideological ancestors of rabbinic Judaism) and the Sadducees who denied absolutely the validity of the Oral tradition and insisted on a literal understanding of the Written . And yet the Sadducees never doubted that those words ... were talking about Tefillin. The arguments between the two camps were whether the boxes could be round or only cubic, whether the 'sign on the hand' was to be attached to the biceps or to the wrist, whether 'between the eyes' meant on the forehead or on the bridge of the nose.

taken from Kehilatdvarhashem.org
In all probability, tzitziyot and tefillin were part of ordinary dress of the Israelites in Yeshua’s day and even earlier. The custom of wrapping tefillin during weekday morning prayers as is practiced today, is a relatively modern custom. In Yeshua's time, they were worn most likely all day only being removed for work or when entering a place that was deemed ritually unclean.
Archeological evidence of tefillin fragments dating back to the 1st century was unearthed in the Judean Desert in caves near the Dead Sea. The most dramatic find was a shel rosh approximately 2000 years old with 3 of the 4 original parchment slips still folded and securely ties in their original compartments. Announcement of this discovery was published by Israeli archeologist Yigael Yadin in "Tefillin from Qumran". 1969.

The size of the shel rosh, or frontlet was so small and inconspicuous that it hardly would have been noticed. The bayit or box found at Qumran is rectangular and approximately ½” by ¾”. It was very inconspicuous to say the least. Is this what Yeshua was criticizing when we read the account in Mattityahu?

In Mattityahu 23:5, we read that Yeshua criticized those men who enlarged their batim or boxes and widened the straps that were securing them. Note that he never condemned them or criticized them for simply wearing tefillin. On the other hand, he was indeed criticizing them for enlarging their tefillin to appear to be a level above the rest spiritually yet were acting hypocritically. In all probability, Yeshua himself was wearing tefillin as he most certainly was wearing tzitziyot in the four corners of his outer garment, the tallit. These were not customs or traditions but rather acts of obedience to HaShem’s commandments in the . There is no evidence to think that Yeshua condemned the wearing of tefillin. On the other hand, he supported the Halacha that interpreted the Scriptures literally concerning the fact that they are indeed to be “a sign upon your hand and as frontlets between your eyes”.

Check out this book:
Y. Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Shrine of the Book, 1969)

Since 2000yr old tefillin was discovered in Qumran,and it was identical to tefillin worn today, we can see that this practice has been in place since at least the time of Yeshua. Even more so, it is highly likely that Yeshua wore tefillin. Keep in mind that he didn't speak against wearing it, but against making it extra large so people could see how righteous they were. Even the Tzeddukim didn't debate over whether the verse was to be interpreted literally, but rather on the type and place the tefillin were to be worn.

Are we then supposed to bind all the sacrifices of firstborn animals to our hands and between our eyes (as this is the context)? This could be the literal rendering, could it not?

No, that would be rediculous. (And I know that's what you were trying to get at. ) Rather, I believe that Moshe made a direct correlation to tefillin because of it's appearance as a reminder to us.

As a rememberance of this commandment I bind a tzitzit around my wrist and have the commandments on a piece of parchment placed in a pouch in the hat/kippah that I wear which is placed on my forehead.

Ah, so you do agree that this is a literal commandment, and you take care to literally observe it. Sneaky you are.

Regardless, if it is like the commandment of tzitzit and mezuzah, than why is it not observed like tzitzit and mezuzah? For tzitzit and mezuzah is dawned all the time. But, the binding of tefillin as set forth in Rabbinic Judaism has one binding it once every morning save Shabbat. If it really is a physical commandment, the scripture gives no liberty to remove these items throughout the day just as tzitzit and mezuzah are not removed throughout the day

I would argue that it is observed like tzitzit and the mezuzah. Many jews only wear a tallit when they daven and attend synagogue. The written gives us no instructions on when the tzitzit are to be worn, it just says to wear them, but that doesn't mean that those people are not fulfilling the mitzvah. When you purchase or rent a living space, the first thing you do when you move in is say a blessing and affix a mezuzah to the doorpost, but you don't do it every day, or every year for that matter. Once it's up there, it's there, and you have fulfilled the mitzvah.
However, I do agree with you that tzitzit and tefillin should be worn all the time, but with certain exceptions (before doing manual labor, taking a shower, using the restroom, entering an unclean place, etc...).

[The 614th Mitzvot]

Many great giants wore tefillin all day. Even today, in Rabbinic Judaism, one is supposed to don tefillin during writing a scroll. They are worn when one is trying to truly connect every essence of one's body with the Shekinah

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Fair enough. But, apart from tradition can we really say that it is a literal commandment based on the scripture verse that I pointed out earlier knowing that it was not literal in the first usage of the phrase? I think that the strongest argument for it would be either that Yeshua did it, or the disciples did it. They very well may have. But, we have no proof of it.

I would argue that it is observed like tzitzit and the mezuzah. Many jews only wear a tallit when they daven and attend synagogue.

And, on the other hand orthodox Judaism (ruling thought) wears tzitziyot all day long on a tallit ketan.

The written gives us no instructions on when the tzitzit are to be worn, it just says to wear them, but that doesn't mean that those people are not fulfilling the mitzvah.

Well, the commandment for tzitzit does say that the children of Israel should wear them on their garments that they wear. So, if they are wearing garments, they should have tzitzit.

However, I do agree with you that tzitzit....should be worn all the time, but with certain exceptions (before doing manual labor, taking a shower, using the restroom, entering an unclean place, etc...).

[Chizuk Emunah]

Fair enough. But, apart from tradition can we really say that it is a literal commandment based on the scripture verse that I pointed out earlier knowing that it was not literal in the first usage of the phrase? I think that the strongest argument for it would be either that Yeshua did it, or the disciples did it. They very well may have. But, we have no proof of it.

It is taught that since our fathers lived closer to Sinai, they had a more direct revelation of than we do. I would agree with this point. We are more than 3,000 yrs removed from Sinai. They were only 1,400 yrs removed.

Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have a better knowledge of and its application. And since 1st Cent. tefillin has been recovered, and it is not a forgery, then our fathers must have interpreted the passage as being literal.

Again, keep in mind that in Mattiyahu 23, Yeshua did not condemn the P'rushim for wearing tefillin, but for making them too big. If it was merely a "traditional" practice, don't you think he would have condemned it and told them that more importance be given to the weightier matters of ? He definitely didn't hesitate to do just that on many other occasions.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have a better knowledge of and its application.

Not necessarily. Some of them did not have Ruach HaKodesh whom leads them into true observance....

"I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my ordinances, and do them."
- Yechezk'el (Eze.) 36:27

Again, keep in mind that in Mattiyahu 23, Yeshua did not condemn the P'rushim for wearing tefillin, but for making them too big. If it was merely a "traditional" practice, don't you think he would have condemned it and told them that more importance be given to the weightier matters of ?

This is a strong point. But, not condeming something does not necessarily mean that someone is condoning something either. I guess one of my main points is that one cannot really say that it is a literal commandment based on the scripture verse that I pointed out earlier (knowing that it was not literal in the first usage of the phrase found in ).

Shabbat Shalom achi,

Reuel

[Chizuk Emunah]

Not necessarily. Some of them did not have Ruach HaKodesh whom leads them into true observance....

True, but I would debate this based on two points:
1. How can we determine who was led by the Ruach HaKodesh and who wasn't?
2. How do we know that they were not just carrying on the interpretation of the prophets before them who were filled with the Ruach HaKodesh?

But, not condeming something does not necessarily mean that someone is condoning something either.

This is a truth in our human mindset, and demonstrates what we would call ambivalence. We don't condemn a certain practice, but we don't condone it either. It's like not taking sides in an argument. However, we do know that HaShem does take sides. In Revelation 3:16, he said that if someone was lukeworm, then he would spit them out (ie...cut them off).

My whole point to that argument is that throughout the "New Testament," we do see Yeshua taking sides. He does not remain ambivalent when an issue arises. If he didn't think something should be done a certain way, or at all, he said so.

I guess one of my main points is that one cannot really say that it is a literal commandment based on the scripture verse that I pointed out earlier

Again, my point here is that our fathers interpreted the commandment for tefillin as literal, and there is reason to believe that it was interpreted as being literal since the giving of the at Sinai.

[Mark]

I think the most enlightening book I've read on 1st Century Observance was a little work called "They Loved The " by Dr. David Friedman. In this book, he repeatedly made the case that there were several interpretations of even in that day. We know that some interpretted the binding of tefillin as literal and some did not.

I believe that the text is literal; but not necessarily including a small parchment placed inside a wooden box. If I don tefillin every morning, then go out and conduct my life in a way that is not submissive to , then I have not performed the , just as reciting sh'ma to my children once in the morning and once in the evening does not fulfill concerning the teaching of my children in Deut. 6:7.

The mitzvot described is desrcribing all of all of the time- not a ritual of reminder. Is the tool bad? No way! But we must remember that the Law is spiritual- not a list of performances that we must observe. Donning tefillin, if not an act of worship, reminding us that the Law itself is what is continually to be before our eyes, is useless as a mitzvot in itself. If used properly, I see it as a valuable performance of holy worship.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

The mitzvot described is desrcribing all of all of the time- not a ritual of reminder. Is the tool bad? No way! But we must remember that the Law is spiritual- not a list of performances that we must observe. Donning tefillin, if not an act of worship, reminding us that the Law itself is what is continually to be before our eyes, is useless as a mitzvot in itself. If used properly, I see it as a valuable performance of holy worship.

[Chizuk Emunah]

If I don tefillin every morning, then go out and conduct my life in a way that is not submissive to , then I have not performed the

Interestingly enough, when I asked an Orthodox Rabbi the reason why we no longer wear tefillin on a daily basis, he gave a similar answer. His response was that one must remain in a state of submission to all day long, (ie...purity) in order to wear them all day.

But we must remember that the Law is spiritual- not a list of performances that we must observe. Donning tefillin, if not an act of worship, reminding us that the Law itself is what is continually to be before our eyes, is useless as a mitzvot in itself. If used properly, I see it as a valuable performance of holy worship.

Agreed. If we go about our daily lives just observing the mitzvot without any spiritual application, then we have fallen into a legalistic observance of . It is of supreme importance that when we do observe the mitzvot HaShem has given us, that we do it with the right attitude.