tfVA
i^Vi':
■■■.■ A
UC-NRLF
B F 1561 R6 1893a
MAIN
B 4 MflZ 217
HISTORY
AMULETS, CHARMS,
TALISMANS.
rvwTOi ,r^sfi ^dote
> '-\
HISTORY OF
Amulets, Charms,
a n r>
Talismans.
A Historical Investigation into their Nature and Origin.
MICHAEL L. RODKINSOt^' ^MLv/
Ursprmig tmd Entwickelung des Phylacterien-Ritus be J, <d,;t ." and Editor of Ha-Kol, Ha-Hose, Asephath C/iachamim, Ha-Measseph, ?tc.
M'THOK OF
new y:rk. >£
w
*
TO
Dr. ADOLPH JELLINEK,
.11111 RABBI OF VIENNA
Dr. M. LAZARUS,
., University, I
Monsieur ZADOC CAHN,
Cliiel Rabbi ol Fi ai
AND
Dr. GUSTAV GOTTHEIL,
Rabbi ol remple Emanu-EI, New N
In token of gratitude for the ninny valuable serv- ices rendered by them to science in general, and Jewish learning in particular, as well as for the great kindness shown by them to liis person,
DEDICATED BY
MM'. UTHOR.
In compliance with current copyright
law, U. C. Library Bindery produced
this replacement volume on paper
that meets the ANSI Standard Z39.48-
1984 to replace the irreparably
deteriorated original
1996
TESTIMONIALS.
Of the many testimonials given to the author by most renowned scholars of the world he gives here only two : one bv Rev. Dr. Julius H. Ward, editor of the Scientific De- partment of the Boston Herald\ the other by Rev. Dr. WILLIAM C. WinsloW, Vice-President for the United States of the London Egypt Kxploration Society.
(From the Boston Herald, June 19, 1892.)
Sometimes o genuine scholar is dispossessed of his place and is compelled to take up his abode amoiiir strangers, and usually just in proportion to his ex- cellence as a student is liis difficulty in meeting the world and making a square 1 1 ^r 1 1 1 when everything turns against Inm. This seems lo be the case with Dr. Michael I,. Rodkinson, who has been the victim of the persecution of the Jews in Russia to the extent that his home and means of obtaining a livelihood have been destroyed, and with an imperfect knowledge ol English, he and his family have been compelled to shifi as good as thej could among comparative strang- les in a new country. He bears with him an in- dorsement of his work and position the names of the most emeninl Jewish rabbis in England and on the continent, and in the hope of establishing himself in this country he has written a book on the histon of amulets, which, if published, would not only give him among us the scholarly rank to which he is entitled, but would, to some extent, he of pecuniary help to him. This book is now in press in New 5 It will be issued in an English translation as soon as D . Rodkinson has secured enough subscriptions at
two dollars a volume to pay for its printing and hind ing. Prof. H. C. Toy of Cambridge lias looked over his work and gives the following estimate of its value. "Leaving out the etymologies of Hebrew words and the pretalmudic archaeolgy, I find Dr. Rodkinson's history of Jewish amulets, from the tahnudic times to the present, (dear ainUuseful. particularly his expo- sitions of tin.' genesis and method of rabbinical (lis - eussion." The writer has also carefully examined the same manuscript, and strongly indores what Prof. Toy has said. The work is readable for any one, and it brings out in Hebrew life the interest in amulet-. which is the expression of the fondness for charms which Christians illustrate in wearihg the symbol of the cross. What Dr. Rodkinson needs is a, recog- nition of his scholarly work in the form of subscrip- tions, and he can be reached by letters or m person ot .12 Chambers street.
Boston, Mass., June L3, 1892. Rev. Dr. M. L. Rodkinson.
My dear Sir: — Krom a cursor} reading of some of your Ms., in typewritten copy, I am led to conclude that you are handling an exceedingly interesting subject with tin.' thoroughly critical and scholarly manner that be- longs to its proper consideration. Tour disquisition on the Tephillim is very luminous and forcible. The world of Oriental research is placed under obligation >u for jour painstaking labors and for the value- able result therefrom.
I am l: ad to know that so scholarly a treatise as yours is to be published.
Thanking you for your kindness in calling, I am most faithfully yours,
Wm. C. "vVinm."\v.
A few Words to the Critic.
A few yours since, in mybook entitled ''Ursprung und Entwickelimg rles Phylacterien Ritus hei den Juden" (The Origin and Development of the Phyl.Rit. by the Jews) I expressed an opinion concerning the history of the TepJrillim which caused a greal uproar among the Scholars of the "Orthodox" class on the one hand, and gained for me the sympathy of the 'Reformed" Hebrews, on the other. All the Jewish periodicals1, in different countries, al ihal time, ap-
1 1 The following art- the names of periodicals which mentioned <>ur work in ISS3 : "Jewish I [ewish
World. London : Revue des Etudes Jnives, Paris; Allgei Zeitung des Judenthums, Hon; Magdebur chrift
burg; Reformer, Prague; Monatsschrift, Fra a. M.; Ungai it •. Buda Pesl : Voschod, Si I
burg; Vmerican Israelite, I1 innati ; and a few
others in Italy, etc.
— Ill —
proved my position and many prominent scholars2 honored me with private letters and expressed that approval, partially <>r wholly of our opinion.
2) The names of the honorable gentelrnen are the following: Dr. Ascher, London; Dr. Bernstein, the well- known Naturalist, Berlin; Dr. Brill. Frankfort a. M. ; Dr. rger, Koenigsberg i. l'r. Dr. Bloch, Posen : Mr. Buber, Lemberg; Dr. Zaduc Cohn, tlrand Rabbi of France; Dr. S. Cohn. Huda Pest; Prof. Dr. Delitz, Leipsic ; Dr. Duschak, Krakau; Dr. Drabkin, St. Petersburg; Mr. S. I. Finn, Wilna ; Prcf. Dr. Goldzieher, Buda Pest; Rev. (Ireen. lor. (the late? (irand Rabbi of Francei ; Dr. Jellinek, Vienna; Dr. Kaiserling, Buda Pest; Dr. Krochmal, Frankfort a. M. ; Dr. Klein, Stokholm ; Prof. Dr. Lazarus, Berlin; Dr. M. Lipschutz, Berlin; Dr. Landau. len ; Prof. Maries. London; Dr. Maibaum, Berlin; Mr. imer, Thorn; Dr Rabbi- Paris; Dr. Rubin. Vienna; Mr. Sachs, Paris; Mr. Ch, S. Slonimsky, Warsaw; Mr. B. Slutzker, Hamburg; Prof. l'r. Steinthal, Berlin: Prof, rheodorus, Manchester, Dr. Wuensche, Dresden, Mr. Wustenelzky, Subalko. And the following eminent gentlemen honored me with their opinion, in this country, about my works in my album, Dr. 1 York.
I mi) well aware that it was no! the superior knowledge contained in the book just mentioned, which
attracted the attention of so many eminent men, He- brews and Christians (as Prof. Delitz of Leipsic, Dr. Wuensche of Dresden, the Bishop of Westminister, London, who honored me with their letters), but the fact that the subject had remained untouched by .Jew- ish writers up to that time (as slated by Dr. Rubin of Vienna, Phyl. Kit. x.) It is true thai If. Shur, editor of the "Hachalutz" attempted to treal this subject (Ha- chalutz vol. v.) but he did not carry his investigation very far concerning the names and history of the Te- pjiilljm: hence it was that my attempt to elaborate a subject which had been but little investigated attract- ed the attention of prominent men, and many of them urged me to proceed with the investigation. (See the letter of the well-known Naturlist I>r. A. Bernstein, and Prof. Lazarus of Berlin, did the same concerning
Pr. Hirst d'V letter) Chicago. Dr. Jastrow, hPiladelphia,
Rabbi Jacob Joseph, Dr. Kohler, Dr. Kohut, I»r. Klein.
and Prof. Edw. R. Seligman, New York. Dr. Morais, Philadelphia.
my work Der Schutehan Aruch und fteint hungei
much indebted to the gentlemen named for their kindness and encouragement, I could not satisfy myself without continuing my investigations; ■ [ally as I did not see any detailed criticism of my opinions relative to the history and development of the Tephillim, and. much to my disappointment, it seemed as if the Scholars of the present time, ilid no more than distract themselves in trying to analyze my opinions.
Mr. L. Lillienblum, indeed, olten sent me brief remarks, and attempted to refute a few of my liyp ith- These I gave a place in my Ebbi n Sappir, to- gether with my replies. But all this did nut amount to a criticism, as the author himself admits.
Mr. K. A. Kmchmal in '•■linn Tephillim" limited his criticism to the remark, that in his opinion Hie Tephillim were established by the '-Ashcoles" (after the Temple Synedrion ni^acxn *x TY\i\tn) and not by the Synedrion of Jamnia. Farther than this he did not Lro. (See his original words in Ebben Sappir, al- ready n ferred to, and \n\ reph |. A still fuller reply will be found in Chapter v. of this book, Monsieur
— VI —
Fsitlor Locb, of the Revue ties Etudes Juives, satisfied himself with saying; only thai it is credulous thai there could not be found a pair of Tephillim in France in the • lays ofRashi ami Tosephoth as we prove in our I'hyl. liit. (in disregard of our proofs induced in said work from K. Isaac the eldest (Ri ;pn '"I) of the Tosphoth, and the Rabbi Jacob the author of the "Question and Answers from Heaven DTOfrn jo roe>m rr6KB> of Curbel and did not attempt t<> go further remarking only that there are in my work many good things worthy of no- tice. Prof. Steinthal expressed the opinion in his letter to me (.see Shulchan Aruch und seine Bezie- hungen etc.) that the meaning of (□mi"p'i) can not be taken in the ordinary sense, that it should be tied on the hand, but in the sense in which I explained it, and thou shalt write it on the door-post of thy house flJVa niTlTO hi' Dnanai) which can Uol be taken to mean that the whole Bible, or ['cut. alone shaUbe written on the door-posts, or (D333^ by DriC"",! And you shall set it on your hearts, to mean to place it on the heart, bul inside the heart i. e. to be always borne in mind: with this Ids criticism ended The few remarks I have quoted, comprise the whole criticism upon my work during L883-'84, at least, all that came to my eyes.
From the' orthodox class I did not hear anything either for or against the above work. Were it not for the encouragement given by honorable gentlemen named on the Brst page I should be inclined to think that the subject I have elaborated isofvery slight interest, and does not deserve to be further considered. But seeing that my opinions have gained approval, in general, if not in detail and tince I knew that my investigations were not complete. I determined to undertake the work of criticism myself; to go over again all I have written in Phvl. Rit . Haknl and Ebben Sappir, to coi- led further information, complete my work.
When this was done I came to the conclusion that the material which was crowded into Phyl. Rit. and Ebben S:ippir,\vasnot sufficient to give a clear history ..f the Tephillim and Komeoth, leaving out the polemical part which I introduced there. I was also
influen 1 by Dr. Rubin ofVienna, who ndvised me to
write :i i.lain history of the Tephillim. free from pole- mics and scholastic discussion, in order that the Critic mighi penetrate the subject without hindrance. And now having been requested by one of the Proffessors of Harvard University, Boston, to write a short history of the Pephillim in Knglish, I have composed this
— VIII —
hook, which although not large, proems not only the history oi the Tephillim or Totopboth, but the history of all kinds of Komeoth m general, from their first
appearance until now. The texts contain the facts, which I have gathered from different sources, these have been carefully analyzed, and may lie taken as positively established.
In the remarks, which accompany the text, I have given the sources from which the facts have heen ob- tained, and the reason for my own opinions, whenever these have been introduced.
I also deem it necessary to call attention to cer- tain opinions, which I have expressed, which have not been set forth by any writer hereto, and to ask the Scholars of the present time to analyze them, and give their opinions concerning them, namely: The Origin of the Names Tutophoth, Tephillim, and Komeo, which I found out after all I have heretefore written on this subject was in print: also the nature of the Tephillim in tin1 peri id beginning from the Prophet Ezek to Hillel the Zakken: also tin; change in removing the texts from the outside to the inside of the c isea by the •Tamilian Synedrion, also tin' Komeo known a- the '•dove's wings" (nav 'Qja) worn bv the Samaritan, ami
— IX —
originating Ironi the "Dove" placed tlieni on the mount 'Genzim" as a God, which Borneo "Ehsha" '«tlie Man of the Wings" ("D"M3"7]n) wore to turn aside the at- tention of the Casdor; also my opinion about the
Koni Jishre "Mochson" with which Dr Dushak and
others agree also: the wearing of Tephillim by the •Jewish Christians in the earliest ages, which caused many changes to be made against them by opposers, the Pharasees; also a new explanation of the Berniiha "piD "rra.« and the meaning of the Misnna the iolophoth when they are sewed up; and lastly. — the ipmcnts of wearing the Tephillim p'an nn:n in the course of time until \\. Joseph Caro. L600) I humbly request learned men and scholars to read this work attentively, and in the order as pre- sented, and not to leap from Chapter to Chapter, irreguarly; onlj thus can they judge correctly whether my positions and conclusions are correct, I shall be id grateful to see my work carefully analyzed mdidly criticised, I do not oft'er isa fi-
nal and absolutely perfect authority but as a contri- bution to the literature of a subject which demands still further study.
New Vork, M via ii.
The 55th Y'ear of mi life.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY I ONSIDERATIONS.
I i, this only have [found, that God hath made man upright; in-,: they have
out many inventions. Eccl. VII 29).
Tin' wonderful workings of tin- powers of na- ture, hidden from man's knowledge in early days and but imperfectly unilerstood even to-day; good and ''vil events which liappen, whose causes an' un- known; tin' fortunes and misfortunes which have befallen mankind: epidemicswhich spread ever the earth; the medicinal powers contained in plants and herbs, discovered by chance, when tasted '»r applied externally, to have i\ curative property ail these und other similar facts led man in early times in the belief in tl xistence of hidden and mysterious pow- ers. These were supposed to he created of God on the ..lie hand as n scourge or a plague, and on the other
Amulets, Charms, Talismans. — Rodkinson. 4 .
2
as a bi mankind. The earth. it was believed,
was by the will of God submitted to the influence of these powers, thai they might rule over all creation, sustaining or destroying life, causing sickness or removing it, and bringing fortune or misfortune as the ease might be. These occult powers, called '•spirits*'.
iiiu: everything, but themselves being invisible.
were moreover believed to wander over the world do- ing harm to those who did not respect them or who in any way defiled their sanctity, but making happy
who chanted their praises in songs and hymns or who met therewith the names of the holy gods who were reverenced by them. The credulous sought there- fore every means of appeasing these spirits and of ingratiating themselves with them in order to avoid
• une and escape had luck.
In consequence of such superstitions some shrewd
people el. limed to have intercourse with the hoh
to possess the power of conferring favors
upon their friends and of meting out misfortunes to
their en. ■mies. Such men were set up as priests and
minister* of the gods and as mediators between the
and men. These enjoyed honor-- and were held
verenee: the people kissed their hands an i
3 -
the borders of their garments. Others, again, shrewd- ly claimed intimacy wich omnipresenl spirits and the power to influence them for good or evil. Such were the sorcerers and enchanters of ancient times. Peo- ple feared them often but did not honor them, will- ingly gave them gifts, though considering themselves robbed of their property; still they were compelled to give, out of fear of arousing the anger of the evil spirits. Hence there arose two kinds of such men: the holv priests of the gods, and the sorcerers or enchant- ers who had the power simply to cause or remove evil but not to bestow g 1 (1.
The fear felt by the people for the sorcerers and for the occult powers urged them on to seek from their priests devices of protection which might be nsed by them at home or abroad, when awake or iisleep, and defend from conjury T:": and conjur-
3
era. The holv priests gladly fell in with the peo- ple's requests and furnished them with various im- ages of their idols, with magic sentences inscribed on various substances, containing nanus of gods and
i As can be seen from scripture, Balaam the sorceiei haul only the power of cursing, but not that of doing g
goddesses. Tli«\ tiiughl exorcism of the evil spirits. Tli.-\ gnve theni verses culled from their sacred books, songs ;; n< I hymns addressed to gods and heroes, and the like: ulso charms to be worn on the head, breast, and arms. Men of the name period living under sim- ilar conditions are everywhere alike: and thus there was no nation of antiquity that did not wear charms i one form or another on the head, breast, or arm -'
UHAPTEH II.
AMULETS. THEIK MATERIAL. FORMS. S'AMES \ N I > POV
The i harms which were worn in ancient time* by all peoples ami also by the Jews are called in tin Talmud U.AMEOTH. We shall see further on how the word originated and how it was used by* the author*
of the Tain. n,!.
r«"^ un.l Entwiclce- I ii n r «les Fhylacterien.fi lien Juden.
Since the amulet had to be worn exposed to viewi in order thai the spirits should see their inscriptions ?ind keep away from the wearer, they in the course of time developed into ornaments. The rich made them of gold, silver, bronze, and precious stones, while the ]>oor contented themselves with parchment, pieces of linen or woolen cloth, lace or embroidered fil- let.-- made by the women to embellish their qameah (amulet), for women also wore charmsfor protectiou as well as for ornament ::'.
Not only did the materials vary, but there was also exhibited a multiplicity of shapes. Some were in the form <>!' plates worn on tne forehead *); some represented images ef gods; some were round like ;i ball 5) ; while others had the Eorm of small square eases with their outside laces covered with inscrip- tions. That the fillets also had a variety of design? may easily be inferred; for the frontlets were fastened by fillets from the forehead to the occiput, and the
3) Tract Shabbath, fol. ,57; also Dr. Matter, I.e.
4) Ibid; ibid.
5) Mishna, Meg ilia: "II one make liiv pi round", etc.
Amulets, Charms, Talismans. — Rodkinson. t.
balls or small cases were fastened by means of a fillel encircliug the head, making a knot at the occipul ni d falling down over both shoulders upon the breast ,;). The Bindoos and the Persians call these charms, talismans; the hitter also hamalete 7). The Romans called them amulets ( amulet a). the Mesopotamians teraphim, the Basilians a hi- a x a s, ami t lie G reeks phylacteriaor t$tdicheja"8) The Egyptians ami the ancient Hebrews also to tap both 9)3 ami the Chaldees (seruche) tebh uli m 10 . The shapes and inscription- varied with the different nations ami religions, also with the taste of the wearer: hut the belief in their efficacy for warding off evil spirits and for breaking their
spell was common to all nations.
Besides tie' above qualities their wearers ascribed to them the power of bringing them success in their
6) Ezclc. xxiii. 15.
7) Hammer, cited by Dushak in our work. Ebh Sappir, ]>. 36, and 1 >r. Kohut in a letter i.> us.
Si Dr. Matter, o\
lelkern in Ha-Kol. i"i I '■ !i - n S a p p i r.
undertakings and of preserving them from various diseases. Special amulets existed for use in time of epidemics, and such are found even to-day among the lower classes. The Hebrews also, like many other nations, believed them to be conducive to the prolong- ation of human life H.)
CHAPTEE 111.
Totaphoth; Origin of the Name: the two Idols Toth, Poth ; the Time during which they Remained in Use; their Changes.
The Hebrews m Egypl used to wear frontlets upon their foreheads, after the manner of the Egyptians
of that time, which they called "Totaphoth." They also wore knots upon their arms 12).
The name -'totaphoth" was taken from the
ii) Tract M e n ahot h. Eol. 27.
1. jee Munter, also Wiener and Gottfried cited by Dnshak in our Ila-Kol, No. 297, p. 124. and in our Eb he n Sappir, p. 36. The same appears from the testimony of Demetrius in De Rossi V Me or Enayim, II ad rath Zeqenim, and see, .it length, in oui Phyl. Kit us, pp. 52-7 1 .
- -
COCIX O
- *
— t)
command thee tins day shall be In thine heart . .. And thou shalt bind them tor a Bign upon thine
The Idol „TOTH" who was supposed lo grant support lo the rulers of Fgypt and who had at Lis disposal the „lree of life" and to bestow itupon everyone whom he chose and who according .o legends of the Egyptians, has eugraved on ifc leaves of the ..tree of life" the king Ramesas n was ; asso- ciated by the ruk„ of Fgjpt with ihe Idol "Poth", these two p,ni;, together have the pewe, of grcnti. g loth life and light upo„ everyone of their worshippers. But life being the fin,i necessary to conception of enlightning, they gave the preference to „Tph" and called "toth poth" And this name, including the basis of happiness, the Fgyptians gave lo everyone thej favored and respected; thns they called their kings and rulers, Mr. Marieto Exploring the ruins of Mernphes. found an Obelisk of the ruler ..tototeph" (at present in Paris) which af- ter all, probably, was named after the above mentioned Idols. And according to the opinion of the great orientalist Mr. Aulehman even the name "Fgypt" from the Greeks is composed of the words ,.Co--Poth" (Coptic) which meaus „ The land ol poth" because Poth being the first of the Idol, of the Egyptians. And now we can only confilm 1>>. Mandelkern's opinion, that the name, of the said two Idols which the Hebrews borrowed from the Egyptians, Sec Hiatory of Oriental Nation. ; iS "ho .were wor shipping them in the day. when the Hebrew* wcae dwelling in Egypt, and we will ad.) too. that R. Aquiba
— 10 -
hand, and they shall be as frontlets (totaphoth) between thineeji - ' i I - ■ Thispassage is tobe
understood in the way in which K. Samuel ben Meir, ;i grandson of [saacides (Rashi) explained it in his
with hi r-:" TDS3 OQ meant
'.~n:2 : i> Coptic
■ Phyl. Kit. p. 99.) TOT mighi have had the meaning
■•tw.." because ol its being alwj I with That (and
coupled the god Tot. S
However that be, we see that K. Aqiba
: .1 p ho t h !• origin,
and the same view is held by Dr. David de Pipius (See our
l'tivl. Rit. p. 89), and by Abraham Saba, author of Zeror
Kami are cited by us in Phyl. Kit. p. 64,
note 7. Siu.e it is well known that those amulets bore the
■ thai "Tot" and "Phat" were members of the intheon, there is no dou e< tness
Mandelkern's opinion.
5teinthal,wh< I ! gyptian
Phyl. Kit. |>. 98), did not see Dr. Mandelkern's
is now
; the name lephillim
v from the Babylo
• nations borrow costumes
apt to
imita
— 11 —
commentary ad loc. "'Forasign npon thine hand.' This is to be understood in its conventional sense; thai is, it shall be to thee a continual memorial, as if it had been written up<»n thine hand, like the expression /Cant. viii. 6.), 'Set me as a seal upon thine heart.' 'Between thine eyes,' for an ornament or golden trin- ket which used to be worn on the forehead." The Talmudists' view of tins passage, namely, thai il commands the substitution of passages from the Bible for heathen incantations in the lotaphoth used, is also admissible. For oft< n we meet with the ex- hortation: "After the doings of the land of Ejrypt shall ye no1 do" M).
The form oftheTot aphol h was that ofa plate slightly curved, covering the forehead and reaching from ear to ear, bound by a fillet to the occiput. On its outside face it bore an inscription of some verse? or of names of God, and that form continued in use down to the time of the Mishna, and though we do nol knou what verses or names it bore in Egypl , wc nevertheless d<> know thai at the time of the firsl doctors of the Mishna the verses on the I ol a phol h contained the
14) This has been already su p. s ol the [ntrodu« tion, lines 2
[2
Shema portioD VQV nana) (Deut. vi. 4. 5) 15). The rich used to make them of gold or silver, and the poor „f doth of various colors, and both men and women u,„v them as ornaments l" The MLshna allowed women to go out with them on the Sabbath, provided they bore inscriptions on the outside, but forbade vvearingthem on thestreet upon the Sabbath before fhev yet lit I their inscriptions 17). But the Mishna
, - Moses ol Couc) in his Kleli Hamitsvoth ed. liasilia, 1533) says: "II is a' command of performance", HW- ~Z",' i" fasten ihetephillim on ihc hand, because it is ii 'and lliou shall bind them' ~. ~l'~' He also says "A which i- fastened upon the forehead, reaching from ear to car is called in Scripture Tola ph ot h, etc., and the section. Shema" 1- written therein. Catalogue Zedner of
the Hut, Museum N
1 I'hyl. Kit. p. 135 i1 1 5
16 Pract Shah hat h, f": 1 p h o t h running from
olors, the rich
Id anil silver." In 1 tie same way the aulhoi of Zemach
David explains that the tolapho'lh was a plate like thai
worn liy the high priesl. See also Dr. Rubin's letter in Phvl.
Kit. 1
1 ilicii Sappir, at the beginning: "That which Vcmaincd of it m 1 lie time .>f ihc Mishnn \\ a- noi merely .1 slight
— 13 —
does not speak at all about men's wearing totaphoth, for the reason that, men had then begun to wear an- other amulet known by the name< Uebhulim or tephilr
Um; which latter also the doctors allowed to be worn on the Sabbath only in exceptional cases, as for instance in case one was found on the street i*>.
trace, but the very thing, tin- ornament and the name-, as well. Cf. the Mishna: "A woman must not go out (on the Sabbath) with a to tap ho th or a headdress iJ'Cl^^D) ^-lien they are not vet sewed on, but may go out wlu-n they are sewed on." The meaning of that passage is not that the amulet be sewed to the hair-net as the commentators ad loc. explain it. for does not the Mishna allow on the Sabbath the wearing <>l all kinds of ornaments even if they be not fastened to the body? It would have allowed even the carrying of swords and bows, if those things were not considered as thin-- to !>■■ ashamed of rather than ornaments, as the Mishna (Tract, Sabbath, clearly >tates. but the expression "Sewed on" refers to the customary verses or images. Thus this ca exactly similar to that of a ring, which is allowed to he worn on the Sabbath only when it has a seal engraved upon it, but not Otherwise. We are the first to propose this explanation and for tins have earned the praises of many Scholar-.
18) "One is allowed to put on the t e p It i 1 1 i m or to bring them into the house, one pair at a time, in ^a-'- he find them
— 14 —
I- : . mled
-• only in : v. mi. mi. the
isually fon.l of adon cards men, thej
evil spirits, !'■• as they
did, I ir them on
-am-iiu ol the ■ sufficient protection, rearing t h<_-m on
ordinary c At the tin loraim in Babylon the name
way to that ol •.- n.-:j-- >■--•_-■- which latter at the time of Abba j I; • pillars of I le Ba >j Ionian
Talim. onsidered as an approved and _
icceptcd amulcl century later, in the
em in an un- |'l» i Hi m. • ;rther
timeofR. Jehu. in of Diphta, we find the women wear- ing another kind of head ornament known bj name of a bsaj i m (a kind of bai d the
liol h l>ecame • d known to the Amo-
raim only by noine.20)
.ulet at all:
living centuries after the first auth'
-r-oflf count;;. Abba;.
I. Rit. p. 99.
■ ■
— 16 — CHAPTER IV.
Tephiliim: their Origin and Form. They originate in Baby- lon. Hillel, K. Johannan ben ZaUkai.
Among tiic various customs which the Hebrew- borrowed from the Babylonians during the Exile, as for example the uomenclature of angels, of devils and of months, there was also the use of anew kind of araulel called Tebhulim or Tephiliim, as the word is used in later Hebrew literature 21), an amulet dif- ferent from the totaphoth both in nature and in shape or form. The name tebhulim is derived from a root tabhal: meaning to "enwrap" or dress the head with ornaments 22), and is very appropriate t<>
2') Th - . bhullim or te phi Hi m are undoubt-
edly identical and even pronounced alike, differing merely in orthography. The Babylonians promiscuosly used ^212, ^DC, vDB ' rool means ''to join", and the Talmudic ^212 "entwined" is probably of 1 , ot). In ferusalem Tab
mud the spelling ia --- -£.-. | ,, 3( the Babylonian 1".,: mud \vrit( J>be npan where tl ., -\p2n.
") I" Ebben Sappir we have demonstrated that
:. it being an orna-
this amulet on account of its encircling the head while the fillets fall over the shoulders and breast. It is true thai the exil >s who returned with Ezra and Nehemiah had not adopted the tephilli m. for no mention is mini*' of them nor throughout the existence of the second temple down to the time of Efillel; but they were adopted Ivy those who remained in Babylon, who were more numerous than those who returned. Among these the use of the t eph ill i m continued even in the time of the Parthimis, Imt only men of distinction and rank wore them, as will be shown further on.
The form of this amulet was like a square case
with a bottom plat.- projec- ting beyond its edges ami a prolongation of that plate wrapped over so as to allow
encircling the hcatl. Dr. Jastrow <>f Philadelphia when calling keel it up in the ancient dictionarie
■
Amulets I ins. — Koclkin
— is —
the fillet which bound it to pass through the prolonga- tion lengthwise. The ends of the fillet fell across the shoulders over the breasl and down to the loins where they were -tuck in the girdle.
What form the tephillim had in the time oi Ezekiel can not be ascertained; but so much is certain: they encircled the head and had appendages term- inating at the loins and there stuck in the girdle. Ezekiel uses the expression seruche tebhulim. and the latter word is undoubtedly of Babylonian origin as would appear from Ezek.(xxiii. 14. l5):"For when she saw men portrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed with vermilion, girded with girdles upon their loins'1, seruche t e b h u 1 i m . i. e. . hanging down with t e b h uli in or te ph i 1 1 i rn, •■upon their heads, all of them prin- ces to look td after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land oi their nativity" etc. Moreover we see from these passages that seruche tebhulim was a mark of distinction and rank, and tebhulim were the ornaments of princes, and likewise that pict- ures were drawn, called by Ezekiel '-"■->*•
According to the Talmud the first uiention of
— 19 —
tephilli m was made by Hillel 23), who emigrated from Babylonia and brought them along with him as an heirloom from his mother's father (Talmud .!<t. Trac. Erubin.). Nor do we find any clear Biblical paraphrase renderingt o t a p h o t li by tephilli m. lonathan ben Oziel, the Samaritan Targum, andmany others (hi not translate tin- word. The Septuagint ren- ders it periphrastically by dedXevrov (something still or unmoved) and in the same sense did Aquila in
23) In our Phyl. Kit. we doubted whether this Hillel was Ha-Zaqen (the Elder) or. Ha-Nassj (the Prince), the latter flourishing a generation after the foimer. This doubt was caused by mir uncertainty of the derivation of the word te phill i in. We there followed the late Dr. Asher, who assumed it to lie a corruption of the Greek rJ ipvXaHrnfiioi", but now having found the name to he of Babylonian origin and that it remained unchanged down to our own lime, we see no reason why we should not rely upon the statement of the Jer. Talmud that it was Hillel the H a-Z a q e n. NYe have changed our opinion on a number of points maintained in Phyl. Kit. on account ol later investigations which prove thai tephillim are entirely distinct from to tap ho th, and that the latter never changed their name, which became obsolete together with the use of the thing tself.
■!' < —
lii> translation '-'' . At any rate before Hillel introduced it the name tephilli m was not know n In I'
U. Johannau beu Zakkai. a disciple of Hillel receiving the tephillim from him. began to wear th. -in an. 1 .li-l not take them off his head the whole day. both in summer and winter. So the Talmud
ea (Tract. Sukka. fol. 28). from K. Johannan they spread to his disciples and their follower, lair they were not worn i>v the common people, nor were they accepted among the Parthian scholars -,,;
further explanations on tiii- point see l'hyl. Rit.
1 lillel's ilis( iples we find no mention
phi 11 im or of their u*e. Even Hillel himself is
having worn them We know further that
26, below. But
Zakkai, through whose influence they were changed
in their form and contents nes* for them that
kc them off the whole day. An additional and very
• hi- doing (lilts we have given in our Ph\l.
. v.
.
":: [rt2 r, s^ nc ".?'-
.pinion
•J I
Onkelos, tin- proselyte, who wrote his Targum under the guidance of 1». Eliezer anil l>'. Joshua, both disciples of R. Johannaii ben Zakkai, is the Eirsl to render t ot np h ol h by tephilli in: for the Jam- niiiii Synedrionhad already accepted them and ordered placed within them the Pour Biblical texts, as will be explained further on. -lust as the I e b huli m in Babylon were worn ouly l>\ men of nobility and rank. ?o the tephilli in intheir changed form were worn only by eminent scholars and by presidents of the Synedrion. Moreover even these prominent men could only wear them upon receiving special permis- sion from the rabbinical authorities, and th who
received this considered it a great boon and an espe- cial honor-' The enjoyment of such a privilege
author, since il is not found in the ['esiqtn di k. Kahana but after having examined all known sources without finding that the Palestinian doctors had ever worn tephilli in, we have no reason to doubt hi- statement and are willing to believe thai he had such a reading before him.
This we do the more gladh since true criticism requires the reading with flit. In the Pesiqta the word must have been omitted.
-•- l t Tract, Uechoroth 30 b, where lo the qui
brought the esteem and the confidence of the | pie,
mid moneys were entrusted to them without even the presence ol a witness 28. Such men wore their tephil- li in tin* \\ hole dav.
CHAPTER V.
I rm of the T e p h i 1 1 i m the Jamnian Synedrion; their change in the Time of the Amoraim. The Samaritan Amulet I teve's Wings.
When the Synedrion under the presidency of R. Johmmin l:en Zakkai was established at Janiniathe • utside fcim ot ll.e I h ep hill im underwent a change, Previous to that time their four outer sides sverecovered with Bible texts (besides the incantations and exorcisms inclosed within the case) ;but the
why the] v wear I eph ill i m ilso our Phyl. Kit.
1 Imud Sect. II. Halachoth I., and Mi.'-
rash ami Pi cited by the "Rosh Hashanah"
l' o s c r a i t h a, I Halachoth Oet a n o t h.
— 23
Synedrion at Jamnia resolved thai all outside tions 1).' transferred to the inside 29
29) In our Phyl. Kit. in several places, and especially on
p. 107, we have proved that the change in the form of the t e |> h i 1- lim for the fir>t time was due to the initiative taken by the l.imnian Synedrion. Without here repealing all the arguments there adduced in support of the above view, we would simply add ,i few points gathered by us during the decade following the pub- lication of that work.
After the name tephillim had been introduced by Hilled Ha— Zaqen as signifying an amulet contaning Biblical texts and after that name lunl gained currency even in Palestine, it was then by the schools of the doctors of the Mishna and the Beraitha also applied to the old totaphoth described above. Whenever therefore the Talmud relates that the first rabbis wore Tephillim, the ancient totaphoth are meant. But in the case of the phylacteries (piXaXTT/pta) mentioned in the Greek of Matthew's gospel XXIII. 5). and in the Syriac
(prp3Koi pnnBax pdiot pnm&K vj \vsn pnBe), it is doubt- ful whether the reference is to the old to taphot h which the Pharisees are said to have amplified and used a^ ornaments, 01 to the tephillim in the form in which Ilillel had I them from Babylon; for the Greek renders both alike by qtvXaxrypiov. The Sj lays that Jesus denounced
the broad fill the amulets themselves, as appears from
the c\|.ic-m • i j'im« ST.2X KVSI'a is vvc have elsewhere shown). Hence it w mill that they used to
llcts, as later was done by llyrkanos ben ■ .nid the disciples uf K. A<pba, and that the Syriac called the tephillim also X~\:s. However that be, certain it i* that it that denunciation referred to the tephillim, that cir- cumstance was ■mo of i!il* teasons which ptompted the Syned- hange their form.
pinion the (Ireek reiulering (tfivXitnrjffjioi ) is entirely vvi have shown in our Phyl. Kit.
ily the amplification of the >i
nut speak iny at all of the totaphoth or tephillim
See I'hyl. Kit. p. ico. i For the I'.t mud | fr.ict S li a b I) a t h
11 explaining the epithet "man of the wings" in K.
Jannai's dictum: "Tephillim require .1 clean body like that
1. the Man <>t' the i\iny> ial Eli.sha was called
I of the vvinys S'SJD -;*r msec : he wore t e p h i 1-
II disregard of the prohibition of the government. When
1 cauyhi by him, he showed to the lat what he wore were not tephillim but dove's wini;s. lie Talmud, of course in -a\ ini^ tephillim, rel the ancient Egyptian totaphoth. the latter name having
1 ve.
Now the late I >r. K n : our theory
that fhe tephillim were lefcrmed by the Tamilian Synedrion,
i lisha was the
firsl link in the family of [shmael hen Fabius (^KS'P ?XyOttT the High Priest, and a contemporary of Jose ben foezer ol /. < reda, and he remarks in his "Eon T e ph il 1 a" i E 1> h e n S a p p i r, p. 25) that at that time the Hebrews \rt-vr subject to the Greeks, that it was the time before the Maccabees, and that therefore the prohibition of wearing tephillim was made by the Greek government and not by Hadrian who forbade nol onlj the tephillim but all religious practices. Hut in all this w e are unable to find anything to contradict our theory. For if in truth Elisha was a contemporary of Jose ben Joezer of Zereda and the decree was issued by the Greeks, we can understand fully the reason why the latter made war only on the t e p h i 1 1- i m. For being on hostile terms with Egypt, they forbade the wearing of the tephillim, i. e. of the F.gyptian totaphoth which might be taken as a token of sympathy between the Jews and the Egyptians, and so they wished the former to adopt instead of the Greek phylacteries.
The Jews then being subjected to the Greeks, Elisha was aware that disobedience to that government would not go unpunished and therefore he provided himself with the amulet of a dove's wings (n3V 12--), the symbol of the Samaritans, who, as the Talmud relates, had the figure of a dove on Mount GeriZim which they worshipped. This he placed in his pocket, and when the quaestor met him he took to flight, meanwhile changing the totaphoth which he had worn to the dove's wing- which In- had in his pocket. When the quaestor reached him he found him wearing the Samaritan amulet against which he hail no
26
e the Samaritans were at peace with 'he Greeks. let him ••!! I It is unneo Krochmal that the
express ings" indicates that tlisha bribed the quaestor
with money, it being a playful allusion to the passage in Psa. Ixviii. "the .'■ !ied with silver". Such a m aning would
fetched and would besides impute to the Talmudists' de- ception making them raise a case of bribery to that of a mi- racle. The Talmudists were wise teachers, not shrewd im] I'ut at :r explanation they called it a miracle that
Klisha had the prudence to provide himself with a Samaritan amulet and thereby save : e of i\.
Jannai's dictum is that whovoevtr is not at the start prudent in
Id not wear tephillim in times of danger.
We can now understand the homiletical explanation of K •
Johannan. that the act of Jeroboam's rebellion against KingSolo-
msisted in his takingoff his tephillim in the latter's presence;
that is. he took i'ii the amulet which the Hebrews used to wear by
:i as a token of allegiance to his i \ . i ; t % . .is we
have previously .aid that amulets varied with the nationality and
it and were characteristic of them. Thus by
taking off his tephillim Jeroboam reno. -need his allegiance to the
lanation sheds light also upon an allegorical
in the Talmud in which it is maintained thai the tephillim
worn by God hear the inscription: " And who is like unto
I i ? " He re God
In addition to thai they ordered thai the texts in which the words "and they shall be as frontlets (totaphoth) beetween thine eyes'' are mentioned be written on parchnieni and also placed inside30 Rabbi Johannan ben Zakkai was the first and perhaps the only one of his time who wore the tephillim continually.
The motive which prompted the Jamnian Syned- rion to pass that law is to be Pound in the fact thai Jewish Christians had thm begun to use those amulets
is said to wear an amulet with the characteristic inscription meaning that He always shows to the world I nt care
and watchfulness exercised by Him over llis chosen People.
We have thus far enumerated all the passages in which the tephill im are mentioned in connection with the ancient 1. As to the forty measures of tephillim casings said to have been found at the destruction <i Bether, there ■: course the customary Jewish t ep h i 1 1 i m are meant.
30J Rabban Gamaliel, the president of the Jamnian Synedrion, II the section HamatSO Tephillim that if 01 tephillim on a Sabbath-day, whether they be new or old • ■lie-, or whether t he finder he a man or a woman, he 01 she may put on, two pair- at a time, and carry them home. \Y< shown (Phyl. Kit. pp. it", tiq) that by new tephillim R. Gamaliel meant those that were introduced in his own tune, while
28
for ] f their religion, Inn ing iuUl( d to the
ulilei 1 ion: the G( pel aei ording
to [ohn
Koi the same reason n numbei of laws were added
- Mi linn I m exnniple: "H leniea to the I ep-
I, i I I , mi I' ithority, lie commits thereby no
, in.' hi iIk . ml i : lian t ota ph oth, ^ hit h
• i hold ii] the people and wcr
ongly our opinions,
, ft« . R. Johannun ben Zakkai by
made "l t cp h i 11 i in, It is further possible
. the t ■ ph il li in did •
uceptance among the learned men ol Palestine, K. Jehuda
. R |, im.L. ben lll.ii ..i I. ru ial( in), while he allowed old
ced nol .a all a i ume, as we did
in Phyl, Kit., that [chuda, flourishing foui generations
. naliel, meanl by old tep h ill* m th U Gamaliel d< ignuted as new ones. But it is poi ible that ii th. inn.- el K. Jehuda the !• I ans had b< gun to
1. 1. .in ih. ii tephillim with the letter Shin (1?) and other in yet ..I thi time ol K. i lama I. 1 1 ii, l.i forbude to \v< ai them. i l. Kl< i, Die L'otaphoth nach Bibel und I i .i .1 i i i .. n. lli toiredelaBibli i Col a men t p.
ii 144; Hachalui . vol. \ 11., p. I
i ran ftre bul if lie, i rar} to i lie emu i ill oi
the rabbi . maintain the necei it) of five toi n p h ..t li. he does i onmiil tran jrrei ion''. (Trad S n ti I, ed ii ii, Pol. 88) l'<\ the e five I oi o p h o I h they referred to the custom of Jewish Chri itiaim, who add- ed ;i fifth to the four u ual Biblical pa a ■■ For a iinil.ii reo on I he) enacted i M e n 11 h, ei I ion Il;l q ;, ,,,,< 1 s i; a b bn ) thai none of the four texi ,,f the bep h illi ra hould be omitted, in order to prevenl the i lib titutii n "I i ome text from the Go i el for tli litted ■. U i further probable thai the
33) 1 hi . Mi Im.i mighl have been utteri d al 10 nl thi tlnn
when the foui BiMii nl texi paved on tl I idc ol
thi t e phi] I 1 m, and thi [1 ivi h I hrl lit 1 I have added
. mil. pace filled with texi 1 1 fohn 1 Go pi 1 [I th< n fori
iyi '«fivi tota p h 0 1 h", and nol fiv< texl 01 Bible
1 ' . bei omi cleai from anothi 1 uniq ing
"II one deny to the ti p hill i m authority 1 Ii 1
the law", eti , B) thi i meant that II on< denounced the wearing ol teph Mil m with the object In ,. „.w ..1 di Iroying the Bibli texta engi 11 tl ■ m ! ■
., incui puniihment, foi the obligation oi \ , phi Hi ... ii nol baaed on Biblical authority , but he doea , 1 puniihi I ii he attempti to make addil • 1
the noi in ,"1' ■' ' : '
. 1. ..
law that the omission of the hand phyla< ten doi affect the legality of that of the head (Section II a- t a ch el eth) was enacted b\ wa} of reaction against the above mentioned Christians, i >r th ■ latter used to cover thru- phylacteries u ith gold and silver and wore them together with their cross 33), wearing them al- ways in pairs, one on the arm and one on the head. In Pact ii is ••pun ly due to the Christians that thesubject is mentioned in the Mishna at all. The test proof oi this is its omission in its proper place, the tract on benedictions, where such subjects as prayer and devo- tion are minutelj treated. Instead of this the phylac- teries are mentioned, curiously, in the tract on offerings (Menahoth), a subject which does not concern us at all in modern times. Moreover uo men- tion is made in the Mishna about the writing or making i >f tephillim or totaphoth, 1 1 1 < » u ur 1 1 the doctors go into the minutest detail.- about all other matters connei ted \\ ith the religious practices of the Jews 34 .
We have already demonstrated in Phyl. Rit, ; (and at length on p. '>•"> under the heading " "~ ~ : • s 'he Mishna Megilla, "If :c. he
Ice n dissenti the Jewish Christians.
! hyl. Kit. p. I Ebh e n Sa i -
In the former we have also shown that
— 31
The reason of this is simple. The doctors of the Mish- na were not at all concerned with amulets: they even forbade one to rescue them from a Eire on the Sabbath They allowed the wearingof an approved amulet on the Sabbath only 1 ecause they had to yield to popular superstition. If they had forbidden thru, altogether, the people would have refused obedience, for they believed that their life and happiness depended upon their amulets: while the doctors themselves did not care I'm- them, nnd even tephilli m were worn by only a very lew of them, and that upon extraordinary occasions :'"' ■
■ ven in M a s iq ta Sophe, i m, a later work, no laws for t e phi 1 lim are given, and they are mentioned only inci- dentally.
35) In l'hyl. Kit. we have shown that neither R. Ga- maliel nor K. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos wore t e p h i 1 1 i m, though the most prominent among the disciples of R. Johan- nan hen Zakkai, and that only the later rabbis, associating with royalty, and a few others in the some position, wore them, as a mark of dignity. See also ibid. p. 104, note 2. There is also an additional proof of the recent origin of the tephillim from the Beraith '>
they arranged". 1 n m his we see, that it was new, and they rltd m t know 1 ow to arrange them.
— 32 1-
Aiter the new form of the fceph i 1 1 i m was fixed by the Jamnian Synedrion and approved by the learned Hebrews of that time, the followers of K. Eliezer and H. Joshua began to seek in the Bible some support for this form of the t e p h i l l i m. K. Aqiba thought that the word t <» t a p b <> t h could be explained aa referring to the "four" Biblical texts placed in the tephilli m. since t o t and p h a t h have in different langu- ages each the meaning of "two'1 K. Ishmael was "t the opinion that some support of the form could be found in the use and the omission of tin' two letters Vav I ' ) in the won! m 9 B i a as met with in the Bible etc. Others even ven- tured to find some indication in the Bible as to the place where the t e p h i 1 lim ought to be worn; for instance, one rabbi was of the opinion that they should be worn on the left hand, basing In- opinion on the addition of the letter He ( ,~ | m the word n3T, which is rery seldom added m the formation of the second person in the Heb- rew language, and he divided the word ~3T (thy hand into two separate words, v (hand) and nn3
— 33 --
(weak), "the weak hand" i. e the left hand. Ft. Nathan in a far-fetched manner determined the place where the tephillim should be worn from the words cnettM (and thou slmlt place them) and ornwpi (and thou shalt bind them). This he docs by saying that as the tying is usually performed by the right hand the place of the ty- ing consequently must be on the left hand. Others endeavored to find in the Bible still other ceremo
nies to be observed when tying on the bephilli m.
I*. H. Klicy.er maintained that the ceremony of wearing
the tephillim must be private and not public, and made it out very ingeniously by emphasizing the words n"\*h "] h (to thee for a sign), i. ,mr :nnr s'^ri'it1? - u (for a sign to t h ee and not for others). Similarly did R. Isaac and H. Jehuda. See our Phyl. Kit. p. L08.
All these attempts to find in the Bible some support for such things was with the intent that the people should adopt the reforms of the Syned- rion, and to put an end to their habit of wearing talismans of other kinds which bore inscriptions engraved on the outside. The reason which influ- enced the Synedrion and the other learned men Amulets, Charm-, Talismans. — Rodkinson. 9
— 34 —
to change the form of the tephillim was because they wished to prevent the people from idolizing them, as those of other religious creeds did, and as afterwards the Christians idolized the cross and the pictures of their Messiah and the apostles.
Having then in view these two things; to strengthen the belief in the tephillim and to prevent their i »*m dlt regarded as objects of worship. i he rabbis always in the first place endeavored to give much value to them by describing them as "God's Word " ami by finding some foundation fdr them in the Bible to oppose to those who claimed that there was no Bib'ical authority whatever for their use. and then in Lhe second place they endeavored to prevent
the < nion people from wearing them too often and
so in the course of time giving them a superstitious reverence. And therefore all theirwriting and speak- ing on the subject was from a purely theoretical point of view, as they themselves wore them either very sel- dom or not at all. (:'»'>) But all these precautions were
our I'hyl. Kit. we have mentioned all who did imt abandon their u^e of tot a phot h or t e p h ill i m, and
lew.
— 35 —
in vain, as those who worshipped Jesus aa the Messiah soon learned to obey all those restrictions as Pharisees and at the same time not to abandon their nun prin- ciples as will be shown further on.
The Jewish Christians, who were not entirely separated from the Pharisees and who adopted all the reforms of that sect but who in addition believed in Chnst and his resurrection, had also adopted this new reform in regard to the tephillim. And so they also wrote the " four texts " on parchment and placed them inside the eases, but they at the same time spared nothing to employ everj available means of propagat- ing their own doctrines. For this purpose they pain- ted the outside of their tephillim red. as in memorj of Christ's blood. The Pharisees then immediately pas- se 1 a resolution forbidding this color for the tephillim as being unsightly I M> n<i<-!t<>ti, 35), ami then the Christ- ians adopted the threeheaded letter Shin ii") of the Hebrew alphabet a.- a symbol of the trinity.
From the tradition known as*" Halachoth le Moshe mi-Sinai " the trad it ion given to Moses trora God on Mi. Sinai) and which prescribes the letters Daletb O) and Jodh C> for the tephillim^ which are not admitted li_\ the To8ep7ioth, we may judge that these two letter--
— 36 -
were placed upon the tephillim by the Jewish Christ- ians. The ~i was the abbreviation of in (-p) "son of David ". and the * of >""" •• Jesus ". These were used together with the lm the emblem of the trinity. The true meaning ol these letters they endeavored to con- ceal from the Pharisees by explaining than and < to- gether with iL") had the meaning of HP ''The Al- mighty". The Jewish christian? employed different emblems and colore and ascribed to them certain rela- tions to Christ, and therefore the Hebrew authorities of those times forbade also the painting of tephillim white or green Beraitha 37), which before was per- mitted, and only the black color was allowed. (Ibid. 35, Shdbbath 28 ) With the same objeel in view the Hebrew authorities, inasmuch aa they had not the power to displace the word nc of the tephillim even though the Jewish Christians gave it their own mean- ing, considered it wise to add to the letter shin (e>) on.- more head, thus W, making a Inter which had no existence in the Bebrew alphabet, and explained thai these four heads indicated the unity of God in the four quarters of the world. Thej then abolished the threc- lieaded Shin. The Amoraim of the middle <>r the period when they
- 37 —
flourished, who found s > many restrictions in regard to the tephUllm adopted by those before them, endeav- ored to increase the number of restrictions. Still they did not want to abolish the tephUllm altogether as did the authorities of Jerusalem, who prohibited their use on account of the "treacherous people" (D'xo-i)^') And although we find even among the Amoraim of Babylon some who used to laugh and jeer at the use of tephil- Um (as for example, Plaimo and Roma bar Tamri. (See Chulim, 13, and our Phyl. Kit. 37 and 57'. they never- theless did not go further than to increase yel more the number of restrictions and in this way diminish their use. From all this originated the eighteen rules and regulations in regard to writing and wearing
37) In the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachoth 1 1. Tar. i) the following explanation is given of the "Ramaim" : A tra- veller once on Friday evening deposited -ome money in the hands of a nun whom he took for an honest one. because he wore te phi Him, and when the traveller demanded his money the man denied that he had received it. This is the explanation given to the word C'X^ by the Amoraim ; but it can also be explained as referring to the Jewish Christians who deceived the Pharisees into thinking that they agreed with them in everything.
— 38 —
tephillim. It was all dour by the latest Amoraim of Babylon. (88) Afterward the Dumber of restrictions was still farther increased, and at last they were for- bidden to be worn by women and common people and were replaced by another kind of talisman called Oishrei M »), and so the tephillim became
38) In our Pliyl. Rit. (p. 2001 we gave an account of all these Halachoth with the name of the author of each one. The author of the most of them was R. Jeremiah, who emigrated from Babylon : one of them is from R. Hananeel, who stated that it originated with Rab. Another Halachah originated with R. Jose bar Bibi, who is mentioned by Fraen- kel in the Introduction to the Jerusalem Talmud as being I third kin) to the Amoraim. Bibi, his father. was not of Jerusalem, but of Babylon as is explained in the Hebrew. These were all authorities of the Babylonian Talmud isalem Talmud has stated any Ha- ll le Moshe Mi-Sinai on the Tephillim. In the Babylonian Talmud there are some Halachoth in the name \] 11 Maimonides and the Tosephat
are unwilling to admit them. One Halachah was stated in the name .>f Raba 01 Rabi Papo, but it was not put in
Phyl. Rit. in many places, and ■ Dushak in E bb en S a ppi r, ,
39
scarce and in the course of time they were only known in the literature of the Mishna and Beraitha and among the Amoraim. The latest Amoraim who pre- ceded the Rabanim Seboral, raised the question among themselves why the cerem >ny was so little in use. (40) This is the history of the rules (41) and regulations, and the change (42) in the form of the tephillim.
40) Many of the Amoraim were approved when they only once performed the ceremony of wearing the tephillim. Among the good and pious things ascribed to Rabh, the founder of the Babylonian Talmud and the most prominent man of that time, was counted the fact that from time to time he wore t e p h i 1 1 i m. The wearing of t e phi 11 i m was sban- doned only afterward in the lime of the latest Amoraim.
41 ) It was not allowed to wear them when asleep, nor when thinking of a woman, and the wearer must always bear in mind . S h u 1 c h a n Aruch, Orach Chaim, 378. Our l'hyl. Kit. Ch. VII.)
42) The tephillim of R. Iliva were tied and sewed with common tlax strings (not with animal strings) (Makkoth 11), Hyrkanos, the -on of K. Eliezer used to fa-ten the t eph i Hi ni with -tnngs of techel O t h. We have given only a few changes in the form of tephillim which were adopted by the later Pharisees, but have not mentioned many changes adopted by the Tseduqim (Megilla) and by the
CHAPTER VT.
The Isolated and Unexplained Article- in Bereitha on the Order in which the "Four Biblical Texts'* are to be d in the Cases under the title p~JD TJT3; l'le Wrong Explanation "f this by the Different Commenta- ralmud which led to Many Misunderstand- ings in regard to the History of Tephillim; a Sketch of the 1 'ihillim, the Water of the unleav-
Bread.
The sudden change made by the Jamnian Syned- rion in placing the inscriptions inside the tephillim instead of upon the outside, together with the fact that they were only worn by the learned and very rare- - ii b) them, provoked people of all classes to ac- quaint themselves with the form and order of the ins- criptions. There was nothing mentioned about them in the Mishna except that there arc " four Biblical texts". Even the fact that the Synedrion assembled and passed a resolution showing that a majority ot
Samaritans, according to the opinion >>f Mr. Herzfeld ill. p. ho claims to have found the word tephillim in an ancient Samaritan manuscript. There were some who wore round tephillim, etc.
— 41 —
them were in favor of changing the outside form was
not mentioned .either. Nor were these changes in- cluded in the ten new reforms adopted by the sehool of R. Johannan ben Zakkai, as these reforms were immed iately to be put in practice. Accordingly tlie Ainoraim began to occupy themselves with finding out informa tion concerning the inside form of the tephillim and unexpectedly there was found a Btraitha treating of this subject. The author as well as the school from which this Beraitha originated was unknown, (ifena hoik, 34).
The Beraitha began as follows : " In what order shall the four Biblical texts be placed (in the cases of the tephillim)? In the following order : The texts beginning with the words •Sanctity to me' (Ex. xiii.l- 10) and with the words -When the Lord shall bring the.-- (Ex. xiii, 11-16) shall be placed in the right ; and the passages beginning with the words 'Hear <> Israel' (Dent. vi. 4-10) and [lf ye hearken' (Deut. xi. 14-20) shall he placed in the left." And to this article wa< annexed the question : " But do we nol find in some places the contrary order?" This question as well as the Beraitha is without author. Abbai, read- ing [he article and the question, wished to explain
Amulets. Charms, Talismans.— Rodkinson. 10
- 42 —
them as not al all opposed to each other and gave the following obscure explanation, " ZVtereit means to the right of the wearer and. hevt i' means to the righl of the person looking at them on the wearer." "There " and "here" are in the Bentence expressed by the word ;sr. Now this explanation of Abbai needs f r it- Belf also an explanal ion: for Abbai did not ear whether "there" refers to l he Beraitha and "here" to the question or - •■ as in the Talmud sometimes we
And comments made first upon the latter part of a question, as being fresh in the memory of the quest- ioner.
Still further, from the question itself we cannot
distinguish whether il means thai in some other place
it was found thatthe texts "Sanctify to me" and "And
when the Lord shall i rim: thee" were to be placed in
the left and the texts " Hear 0 Israel " and " If ye
hearken" in the right, or thai " Sanctify to me '' and
'• Hear * » Israel " were placed in the right and ••When
■ Lord shall bring thee " and •' If ye hearken " in
;. Hence this obscure explanation of Abbai
became the cause of adopting four differenl styles of
Urn worn on the head and two different styles
worn on the hand. These were from four different
— 4:* -
authorities: namely, the style of Rashi I R.Salamon ben [saac) and Maimonides, the style of R. Tarn. (Jacob),
the style known as Schemusche Rabba, and the style of Rabad (R. Abraham hen David of Paskira). These dispute with one another in the Talmud. The different styles of tephiUim are exhibited in the following table :
The Tephillira worn upon the forehead.
According ti. Accordingto According to According to | shemu,h, Bashi & Rabad. R- lam. Rabba Maimonides
H"3K"i) (on wan (ran kpdb> (Q'aoni vKn)
Right of Right of Right of Right-*
th, -\\Varer". the -reader." the 'wearer'. the_ w*ger/
Deut. vi. 4-10 Ex. xiii. 1-10 Deut.xi.14-20
Ex. xiii. 1-10
ycc?
^ zn?
ns rrm
Ex. xiii. 11-1*5 Deut. xi. 14-20 Ex. xiii. 11-16 Deut. vi. 4-10
»3 rrm
yoe>
Deut. xi. 14-20 Ex. xiii.11-16 Deut. vi
'3 mm
nx rrm Deut. vi. 4-10 Ex. xiii. 1-10
rrj*
4 10 Ex xiii. 11-16
»a rrm
Deut.xi. 14-20 Ex- xii. 1-10
ds rrm ''mtip
The Tephillim worn
upon the arm.
A >rding to both
Ex. xiii. 1-10 -•-"""
Ex. xiii. u-16 »arrm
Deut \i 14-20 zs rrm
Deut vi. 4-10 •;•:•-••
According to both.
Ex. xiii. l-i" 'h ",_,P
Ex. xiii. U-16 'Snw
Deut. vi. -i i" pop
Deul \i 14 20 =s rrm
— U —
[f there were no commentaries upon the above- mentioned Reraitha, we would explain it as follows: The question as to the order of the four Biblical texts
does nol relate to tl 'der of their position after being
located inside the cases, bul to the order in which they used to be engraved on the outside of the cases of the tephillim. They were supposed to have remained in the Bame order after they were placed inside the tp.phillim. Upon the question then fo'lows the answer: The texts Ex. xiii 1-10 and Ex xiii. 11-16 were to he placed on the right (/. e. the writing began at the right side of the cisc) and the texts Deut. vi. 4-10 and Deut xi 14-20 on the left, thus :
li should be borne in mind that the Hebrew reads from right to left in the direction of the arrows.
— 45 —
"The reader will read them from his righl to the left in the same order as they are in the Bible" (43)
First Ex. xiii. 1-10 and then Ex. xiii. 11-16 etc. And to the question implying that there is some place in which it is said that the order of these texts is thecon- trary, Abbay answered that it meant that the first two texts were so written as to be at the left of the person wishing to read them, which is at the right of the per- son wearing them and that the last two texts were at the right, but in the same order as they are in the Bible. According to Abbay there is no difference how the texts are except that they must be read in the or- der as they are in the Bible : namely, Ex. xiii. 1-10 previous to Ex. xiii 11-16 on one side; and Deut. vi. 4- 10 previous to Deut. xi. 14-20 on the other. To con-
43) The sentence, -'The reader will read them from the
right as they are in the Bible " belongs to the text of the
anonymous Beraitha and not to Abbay's explanation. The Tosephoth endeavored to give their own explanation but did not succeed: Rif (Alfasi) quoting the Bc-raitha omits alto- gether the sentence mentioned expressing his opinion that in his view there is no difference in what order they are placed.
— 46 —
linn our view of this subject, that it refers to the time when the inscriptions were on the outside of the cases, we will ([note what Ahbai himself said when he heard ll. Hananel in tin- name of" Rabh" utter a new law concerning the change ol the order of the four texts.
U. Uananel 14) said in the name of Rabh that if the orderof ihe four texts were changed from that adopted, ep/iUlim should be considered not to be in comp- liance With the requirements ami ought not to be worn. A.bbai said thai he understood this to be only in case the change was made by placing the second texts first an I via versa, but that if they w.t,- changed from the right side to the left it made no difference, i, e. no difference was made so long as the four texts could be read (whether beginning al the right or left) in the order as ihej are in LheBible. Rabha, who was un- willing to admit that Rabh said what R. Hananel quoted and who did not regard it. as Ahhai did,
rhis l< Hananel was a professional writer of ttpkillim and this was att<.-r Rab's death. R. Hananel, too, invented the l><)tt<>m plate (town rV/iiw, and in the name of
K:il > bi to have been given to Moses on Mt, Sinai.
— 47 —
worthy any commentary al all, began to oppose it by a sholastic sarcasm againsl Abbai, saying : "Whj do you not consider it in compliance with the require ments if the change is made in placing the second text lirsi and vice versa? Probably because the firsl texl which is out of the shadow gets into the shadow ? Bj this Raba meant to say : "There is no difference to one reading the inscriptions, as they are both before his eyes, whether 1 1 1 i - or that text be firsl in order , but probably there was some difference to the author of the Beraitha who insisted thai Ex. xiii. 1-10 and Dent. vi. 4 10 should be out of the shadow and nothing should be in their way. (45) Lfso, the author prob- ably insisted that the- texts second in order must be each in its shadow, i. e. the second texl on the rig be in the shadow of tin.' right and the second texl on the left in the shadow of the left. Consequently your opinion (O A.bbai) on this subject has no foundation I But my opinion is that this question of Bab's is R. Hananel's own invention, and that he, wishing to give
45 j That is, at the <-nd whore one would begin the u-xt.
— 48 —
it weight, uttered it m Rab'e name (46). Bui inreal- it\ in whatever manner the texl arc placed they are in conformity to the requirements.
If now all the different commentators had taken into consideration all we have, they would have seen thai the question regarding the order of the "four
were then done, as can be seen from the
ample: "Sometimes the Amorai told a falsehood
, ins opinion i<> a known authority in order to
make- others adopt his opinion, as in Erubin 5 1 it is plainly
said that such and such an opinion has no basis but is ascribed
to an authority to give it more value." Gufe Halachotk,^zx.
498. Dr. Jellinek in his work "The Collection oi Rules''
the same. In our journal ffa-lCol, vol. vi. p. 12 the
following instance is quoted: "R. Huno bar Isaac quoted to
R. X.i. hman a certain Halachah from his contemporary, R.
Huno. R. Nachman, who could not believe R. Huno to have
said it, 1 nd a messenger
iscertaln it ; whereupon R. Huno bai iring the con-
sequences. 1 onfessed that the quotation was his own invention but that he ascribed it to R. Huno to give it more authority."
111 S ur work h Justice ".
in detail. R. [ohannan -aid. openly : ian i> not t.. be blamed tor ascribing his opinioi known authority. See I'hyl. Rit. 37 59 tor mon
— 49 —
texts" refers to the time when the\ were engraved 'on the outside of the tephillim : since Raima's words, "Because they need to be out of the shadow " musl refer to inscriptions upon the outside and not upon the inside, as within the parchments are in separate compartments covered with skin and hair and sewed up with animal strings (DH^i) and there [g no plane for a shadow at all. If this had been observed ami cited, all these scholastic disputes would have been prevented, and we should not have four different styles of tephillim{tf) considered to be in perfect compliance with the requirements, in fact nine styles (48) con- sidered to be in perfect compliance with the require- ments. (m^DB pBD nnca pBD) But to our great reg- ret all the commentators have understood the reference to be to the order of the texts upon the inside of the tephillim, and, finding greal difficulty in explaining the obscure words, they took R. Hananel's sayings as littered of God Himself, and so disagreeing as to their
47) See Phyl. Rit. 145, but there by mistak istead of 4.
48) See Phyl. Rit. p. 14?. bul - for 5.
Amulets, Charms, Talismans.— Rodkinson. 11
— 50 —
meaning were aeparated into different sects. But inas- much as they were all prominent and considered ^reat authorities in Jewish Rabbinical Literature, and since the arrangements of the texts produced the four vari- eties of tephUlim, we consider it our duty to explain all their theories 1 1 >
es may l»e given which show the manner ■ f disputing and commenting as < :irri«-.i on by the authorities of the Talmud ami which exhibit the great difference in man- ner between those of the- different perio Is, as the Tenaim, the Amoraim, the Gaonim, etc. The Tenaim (first century) com-
.it authority.
The Amoi aim' (second to fift mented upon the
of the Tenaim and were by no means sparing
of their critici3m if in their judgment what they com-
mented upon could not stand it. If they found no support
t«>r ail opinion elsewhere and it seemed to them to have no
. iation, they simply denounced it. The later Raba-
nim, on the contrary, w u. -never al-
. themselves to criticise, but took every word of their
predeces ors as oi indisputable authority and commented upon
d and every stroke of the pen in so many different
sentence there were hundreds of comrnen-
. ions
In proof of the foregoing we cite the following : •• There
- 51 -
is one instance when a Tana said plainly : " I cannot grasp that saying, i.e. it does not stand criticism," and R. Aqiba responded: " I will explain it." The terms and rules were : "It should be read in another way, and not the way it is here" (p X^S |3 STipn !>X) " « ^ has no connection here, refer it to some other place" (Qip^ in:n jsob pJ» «'« D* in«), commenting upon Ex. xxi. 24 to show that the in- Huired person shall be satisfied with a money compensation, and not by injuring his damager. These terms which are met with in the essays of the Tenaim may serve as proof of our statement that with all their respect for the Bible they did not scruple to subject it to their criticism. Hat further. The Amoraim in commenting upon the Tanaim did not on their part hesitate from subjecting the opinions of the Tanaim to criticism. They first asked : - Where did they get it from?" If they failed in finding an origin for it, they t.ied to explain ,tas best they could, saying: ■• It is omitted and means so and so ■•, or .-h does not matter much", or simply, "Exclude it from here ". For example, one quoted a certain Halachah /, Moshe mi~Sinai in the name of R. Johannan. and it was "split to pieces", i. e> it was directly opposed by saying » It has never been said " or «< It has no foundation in common
sense ".
The Rabane Seborai (sixth century) and the Gaonim (seventh and eight centuries) followed in the way of their pre- decessors, the Tenaim and the Au.orai.n. and commenting upon them omitted some sentences and added others as can be shown by the expression « They did not say that" etc.
(See /.ur Geschickli i ■ Tradition^ by A. H. Weiss, and
many places ill <>ur own work).
On the other hand, as we have- said the Kabanim (ninth century and later) did not allow criticism at all and took every word of iheir prede< ita authority. They
did not allow any doubt to enter their heads concerning their authority even when the vere utterly opposed to
reason and common sense, and they applied them as they The Gaon K. Sherira, the father of the well-known Hai.Gaon, the latest oi the Gaonim, maintained that if one of theGaonim •■ -aid it. it is so " ; because the same God to Moses, although this be not proven, and anybody disputing it is as if opposed to God's Word. Dr. In his Zur Geschichte der jued. Tradition maintains that this wa • count of the Karaites who were unwilling
lo give authority to the commentators). If then such auth- ority is given to a Gaon, there is no doubt that a Tana or an . not be critisizedat all.
on, it is no wonder that the . hange of one Utter in a word resulted in the writing of vol. times upon volumes and the adoption oi hundreds of restric-
l'lu- following instance will illustrate this, R. Jehuda being once
i impany of friends advised the houskeeper not to use for
any other water than that kept in the house, and he
n six words ""L" Q'D3 S\xr,-Ns-':x *
\ .man should not knead with other than our water . The reason
- 53 —
was that other water might have been poisoned by snakes which are abundant in those countries. R. Jehuda said this in reference to the dispute in the Beraitha (Terumath VI.) where one main- tained that bread made with water kept in an uncovered vessel out- side the house should be burnt, even it it were bread of Terumah. R. Nehemiah was of the opinion that the snake poison loses its power when brought into contact with fire, and therefore that the bread might he used. To avoid this R. Jehuda advised the use of domestic water which he expressed by the word (WB>) our.
R. Mathua, who lived sixty years after R. Jehuda, happened to be m the city of " Papuni" and on a certain occasion (prob- ably having some objection to the use of the water of that city) lectured in public about using the water which collects in the public streets, and he quoted R. Jehuda's original words: "A woman should not knead with other than our water ". The peo- ple present understood R. Mathua to h.ue brought some water along with him because of his using the word -'our." They there- fore came to him the next day with vessels to get some of tins water. Then R. Mathua explained in the Talmudic language that he meant domestic water, namely (Wn»Kp XJVin X'?3 NJN) using the word K7T2T (d'baitha with an («) at the end, having, the meaning "domestic". In course of time the word fbaitha was incorrectly copied and the Aleph (X) at the end was chan- , Vav. mi. which would make it mean -to remain over night". The Rabanim, finding the word in this changed form (Mvri), concluded that it related to the Matzoth (unleavened bread, used at the Passover and therefore maintaiiu d that the
— 64 —
ised in making Matzoth must remain over night in the
house before it is used. Neither R. Jehuda nor R. Mathua
mentioned this, but it » . i simply because these
words,,! k. Jehuda are found in that part of the Talmud which
DTI39)- The later Rabanim
r volume upon this subject ^See our journal
//./•A . '. etc.). Still they cou d not give the
ition of why they referred this to trie Matzoth, and
ire to investigate where R. Jehuda got it from
r.cr hi ■■•■ ' ... before his time.
But this is nothing compared with what has been written upon the short sentem e of eight words originating from Abbay
"Here it means t" the right oi the reader ami thereto the
1 rom these eight words have resulted
countli I commentators of the Talmud
ning the different styles oi tephillim.
in the name of the Gaonim, and
t tt R. Hai Gaon wore his style oi tephillim
: words. The final
tated (Remark on Shitlchan Aruch)
it . . are all
used 1;. he enjoys a greater Divine blessing.
This last statement was made i i
my st ... hould tail to be in
the requirements, and that God's word be not
in spite of R Hananel'9
— 55 —
Rashi (R. Solomon Isaaki), the chief of comment- ators, quotes his comment upon the Beraitha men- tioned from Afenahoth 34. " What was their order ?" Rashi : The order in which they are be placed. •'There it means at the right of the reader." Rashi : When the reader stands opposite the wearer, then the right of the reader is the left of the wearer. -'And the person looking at them roads ihem in they way they are in the in order." Rashi: That is, the first written in the Bible is to be read firs! and the last written is to be read last: and consequently in the Beraitha where it is said thai the two texts ofBxodus nuist be on the right hand, the right of the reader is meant, and where it is siid the contrary, the left oi the wearer is meant, which is the right of the reader. From this comment of Rashi in such detail which is contrary to his custom, and from his repeating the comment twice in different words, we see that Rashi was in great difficult}' to explain it, and he wished to find s me basis lor his comment ; and so finding the expression. " And the reader shall read them in or-
Eour words equally obscure, m^DB rrnWlD *f?T\7\ EX. " If the four texts are changed in order the tephillim are considered not in compliance with the [requirements," / • ■ spoiled.
— 66 —
der," lie explained it to mean, " in the order as they an- written in the Bible". Bui with all his detailed explanations Rashi did not sufficiently explain what relation there ia between the reader who sees only the outeido of the tephiUim and the texts which are sewed up within the tephiUim. To oppose this commentary of Rashi, his grandson, R. Tam, rightly asks as fol- lows : If the author of the Heraitha meant that the texts should be placed in the order as they are in the Bible, why did he interrupt tie- sentence with the words "right" and "hit" hand, when he might plainly have said, "The texts Ex. xiii, 1-10, 11-16: Deut. vi 4-10. \j. 14-20 as they are one after another in the Bible", which would be better than saying the first two on the right and the last two on the left ?
And therefore R. Tam was led to explain the llnaitha as follows : The la<t two texts, Pent. vi. 4- 10 und Deut. xi. l I 20 should !>e placed in the left- hand com| arlmcnt, i. < . the last text, Deut. xi. 14-20, should i»- placed in the third compartment and Deut. \i. HO in tin- la-t one. The sentence, "And the reader -h;dl read them in the order as they are in the Bible" refers to the professional write)-, /. e. that he when writing them should read them first in the order
— 57 —
as they arc in the Bible and then write them in the same way, first Deut vi. 4-10, then Dent. xi. 14-20, but he must write Deut. vi. 4-10 at the end of the parchment and leave an empty space for Deut. xi. 11- 20. which must be placed before the f rmer.
The commentators of the Talmud who are called lUitih- Tosphat expressed their opinion that the He- raitha was explained in the above eenseby II ffananel
Rabad (R. Abraham ben David of Paskira), who could not agree with all these different explanations of the Beraitha attacked Maimonides, who approved Rashi's explanation, with the following argument : ••The author (Mainiunides) explains the meaning of the Beraitha to be at the right of the person who wishes to read the tephillim and the question annexed to the Beraitha to mean at the rightol the wearer, but it is strange that the Beraitha chose the " reader " and not the ••wearer", who wears the tephillim and is logically connected with it. (Refutations of Rabad against Maimonides' works). The way Rabad explains theBtraitha is that "t.here'Mn Altai's explanation relates to another ar icle which maintains the contrary to the firs! Beraitha, and "here" to the firsi Beraitha. According to liabad's explanation, the space in
Amulets. Charms, Talismans.— Rodkinson. 12
- 58 —
which according to Rashi and K. Tain Ex. xiii. 1-10 was i" be placed was to be reserved for Ueut. vi. 4-lu and the -pace in which according to Rabbi Tana Ex. xiii. 11-16 was to be placed should be reserved for Deut. \i. 11 -'J<> See the table on p. 21, second column.
Bui all these opinions regarding this subjeci were only theories and were never brought into practice, as if these reverend men ever wore tephillim or saw them, as is stated by \\. Isaac (called Hi), who was one ofthetirsl authorities of Tosphat, in his own language. (Stutbbath 49 and Phyl. Rit. 78.)
The Shemushe Rabba, who wanted to apply them practically, adopted Rashi's opinion concerning the writing ol the \- xts, but the contrary as to their situ- ation. Both arc written in the same order but exactly reversed as placed in the compartments. See table p. 21, third and fourth columns compared.
All of these opinions would have been con- sidered simply as private and personal ones and as of no greal importance were it not for the fact that great authority was given to the statement of R. Hanancl that if the order of texts were changed, the tephillim were considered as invalid (possul). This
caused each one to maintain strongly his own opinion and to oppose the opinion of others as not complying with the requirements. Hence arose the greal variety of styles and opinions.
And therefore ihere is n • other way for a man to do, who wishes to perform the eeremony of the tephil- lim and he sure he is right, than to wear four different styles. And if he wishes to he certain as to the further position of the texts, whether vertical or horizontal etc., he would have to wear nine different stvles !
— r>n -
CHAPTER VII.
The Abolition of the Practice <>t wearing Tephillim in the I the later Amoraim ; the Renewal of the Custom in the i ihe Gaonim ami throughout the whole period during which the number of the Kerait* Dis
the style which R. Hai Gaon used to wear: their Aboli- tion in the last centuries of the "Fifth Thousand" according Jewish Calendar: and their being revived by Smag iucy and the Cause of this. Christianity and the Tephillim, i he two Shins.
It' wo study carefully the history of tephillim. we shall Sod an explanation of the fact that they received so much attention from the Amoraim of the middle of their period D'tflfoxn D'jmoKn and why so many laws were made (in the days of R Joseph Abbai and Rabha) which were always opposed to the practice, and a so win we find no mention of them in the days of the later Amoraim
— 61 —
In process of time, when the Jewish Christians began to assimilate with tin- new converts to Christian- ity from other nations and the number of Christian- became greater than that of the Jews and there arose a total separation between them, then the tephillim were abolished among the .Jews, as ifthere is no cause, there is no effect. In the meantime among other nat- ions the custom of wearing talismans began to grow less little by little. Christianity, which then began to spread very rapidly, did a great deal towards abolish- ing tin- use of talismans. So did the Moslem religion five centuries after the birth of Christianity. Taking all these things into consideration, we need not wonder why wo find no trace of talismans in the days of the latest Amoraim and the Rabanim Seborai.
Tnev would have become disused and forgotten al- together were it not for the rise of a new sect called the Karaim (Keraites) or Anonim, in the days of Mar Rab Jehudaj Gaon, (774 A. I).) This sect turned their backs upon the commentators of the Bible and denied their authority, laughing and jeering al them. They took as a guide in religious matter.- the Samaritan and the Zadukier Pentateuch and claimed their own commentaries as the only right one- , as, for instance,
they expluiued m« — :.—:•_•■■ Dmcpi (and ihou shall fasten iliem, aud place them for a to mean
that they should always be borne in mind, in the "i •• Sel me as a seal upon thine heart ". (Caut. - The birth of this sect aflbrded a motive to the Gaoniin to revive a greal Dumber of obsolete rules and laws, amung which were those concerning the ttphilliin,, in regard to which they made new laws besides. (50)
our Phyl. Kit. we i quest-
ion asked by R. Jehudai Gaon, whether a business man who the habit ol studying every day a few chapters of the Mishna should wear the lepkillim during the time of prayer : whether only prominent men should wear t lit- in v men not, in order not to appear
■ . among the rest of the people ? 1 rom the answer of R. Hillai Gaon it appears that the public wearing <>f tephiliim
hief Rabbis, and for them a i
height, that of thi ed. ( ither Rabbis
and tlu-ir disciples were allowed oniy to wear them the height
1' •■ • . that
ight 1 1 « < i be seen publicly and appear independent in
•'t their chiefs, wearing the same, as the latter. In
mim", published in Lycke, it is to be
found that discipli wear tgphillim the
er. ihi Beth iaim 27, the
_ 63
foregoing is ascribed to R. Hai Gaon, but in different words.) R. Shirira Gaon was once asked the following question : "Why do not the mosl people obey (^TD) them (the tephillim)! " And also he was asked, if scholars are allowed to wear tepkilKm
what was his own habit and that oi hiss. 1 1 in regard to
this. In answer to these questions he said nothing positive but spoke in such a way that his words could be understood in both a positive and negative sense. In Shaloth and '/'< - shuboth Gaone Misrad, printed in the journal Botte Torah, Vol. IV. and in Weiss' Zur Geschichte u.s.w., R. Sherira's own words are cited as follow. : "The commandments (niXD) are of two kinds : some of them are obligatory, and if they are not per- formed, it is considered a sin; others are not obligatory and the matter is left to the performer, who if he performs them receives a heavenly reward nrj'). For instance, one who is in the habit of giving alms gcis a compensation {-\2V for doing it, but it is not a sin if he does not do it, as it is if he does not perform Tephilah prayer), Tsitsith (fringes), and Sukkoth (the ceremony of dwel- ling in a summer bootli), when he loses a reward in heaven." Now if he count. Tephila, Tsitsith, and Sukkoth among those considered a. a sin d not performed, a...: does no! mention Um, we may judge that they did not caie much foi it. And this agrees with what he has said in his answei ..-aiding tephillim See Phyl. Kit. 74, answer 5) when he docs not plainly declare that the use of Uphillim i. obligatory. The foregoing m to -how that the Gaonim did not much care to introduce the tepkil-
— 64 —
even these laws remained theoretical merely and were never put into practice, as they by no means prescribed them for the common people, and even for their own use they made many special laws ami regu- lations
The tephillim arc mentioned for the first time by the Gaonim in the polemical answers {Ieshvboth) or R. Jeliudi Gaon. Shibbole Loketh, Section fnyan Tephillim : Halachoth Pesuqoth : and see our Phyl. R.1 p. 73.) But even in the writings of the Gaonim tlic\ are ver\ seldom mentioned. In the course of one hundred filty years from the days of R. Jehudi Gaon to the days of R. Natranai and his son Hillai they are not mentioned at all ; and then they are not mentioned for ninety rears until the day- ofR. Sherira ami Hai
tint among the people, as we have several times remarked in our Ihvl. Kit.
Ami upon Rab's words, "A bodily cursed few i> a man who does nol war tephillim" (x^n XDSpip 'Z'lZ -X--J- ye*IE ,,L,~r, "."_' " ■: Only i- meant who
wilfully rlisol»eys and laughs at them. R. Jacob Tarn in his own name explained it in the same sense and added that it is only in neglectfully with the tilled. I: is curious why Tain v. this explanation in the name of the l
Gaonim. In our Phyl. Hit. we have endeaivored to prove that the mention of these laws from time to time was due every time to the renewal of tlie strife between the Ralianim and the Keraiin.
Beginning from R. HaiGaon and coming down to the days of the commentators of the Talmud we find no further mention of the tephillim cither in theory or in practice. R. Alfasi in his composition of the Halachoth, when the strife with the Keraiin was again renewed gives pi ice indeed to the beginning of the Beraitha, ••What is their order ? " (pTD nvr), and, as we have stated in the foregoing chapter, omitted the words "and the reader shall read them in their order." But about the subject lie says very little. In the same way the author of the Halachoth Gedholoth treats that Beraitha.
Maimonides in his treatise upon the Halachoth comments largely upon this Halachoth winch were and were not put in practice. Rabad m his refutations of Maiinonid' s in this place leaves his usual custom and begins as follows: "R. Hai Gaon did not say so". Tosphath (Menahoth 34) commenting upon Rashi says iu the inline of R. Hai Gaon exactly the contrary to what Rabad claimed R. Hai Gaon to have sa d and
Amulets. Charms, Talismans. — Rodkin ii
— GG —
maintained thai according to K. Hai Gaon the two texts Deut. xi. 14-20 anil Ex. xiii. 11-16 (which begin wiiu the words rrm and are therefore railed nvin, (Havaioth) must be near each other expressed by the words "The Bavaioth together " (Tinfc nnn). It is stated by "Smag" thai 11. Sherira, the father oi'R. Bai (■"ii. whs of the same opinion in regard to the two Bavaioth. R. Joseph Karo in liis Keseph Mishna cites a letter written by Maimonides (51), in which he claims that R. Hat Gaon said something inconsistent rtitli what both Rabad and Tosphath claim, but not
• our I'hyl. Kit. in which we have proven that this letter was not written by Maimonides, but Only as- cribed to him rpT'?1 and K. [oseph Karo himself is doubt- ful as to the authenticity of the letter. In the same place we have remarked upon the authors of the Tosphath and all othora who participated in this dispute that they never but only say --so and so says this or
that". There we maintain that K. Alfasi wrote his work only on account of the Keraim who began to grow in his daj and we now add to that if it were not
for the Keraim, even that little about the tephilim would not have beem mentioned by Alfasi, since the people in his days did not wear them.
— 67 -
one of them could say positively. "These are the tephilim worn by R. Hai Gaon," as Hillel said, "These are the tephillim worn by my mother's father". R. Menahem Azarie from Panu in his 'Answers." par. H)T. assumed thatR. Hai, the most promineni of the Gaonim, used to wear four different styles of tephillim, and therefore lie thinks all the above styles, claimed to have been found in R. Hai Gaon's tephillim, do not contradict one another, but that each one claiming a different sO'le saw a different one ofR. Hai's tephillim.
The same author further states that he -aw an an- cient set of tephillim in which the order of the texts was at the right of the wearer, but this was only a conjecture, and he could not say positively whether, R. Hai Gaon really wmv four styles or that the ancienl
sel was that of 11. Hai.
We thus see that after the time of the Gaonim that tephillim had fallen into disuse and that tosuch an ex- tent that not one pair could be found that might serve as an example of the kind worn in ancienl times. Ac- cordingly as no reason could be given why the order ,,,- the texts should beone way or another, or which opinion is to be preferred, and as it all depended upon the explanation of the Beraitha, pnoiya, the> could find no higher authority than R Hai Gaon; and so
— 08 —
they tried to find out the style he used to wear.
As we have proven in our Phyl. Bit., neither Rashi Dor Tosphath wore tephillim, as is admitted by the authorities of Tosphath themselves.
One prominent person, R. Jacob of Kurbil by oame, whom the author of Tosphath called the "Holy Man." claimed to have communicated with Heaven (onDBTi p nuiem rnb«B>) regarding the order of the texts in the compartments and the obligation of wear- ing them : but the response to his communication was so obscure 52)tha1 nothing could he made of it to put in practice.
52) Sec our Phyl. Kit., the chapter entitled "Ques-
form Heaven" : where we cite that to
the first question the answer was received that C.<k1 Him.
lys that the texts Deut. xi. 14-20 and Ex. xiii.
11 — 10 must be placed in the middle: and that His suite
SvDS ' "f the .'pinion that the texts named must be
in th»ir regu'ar Biblical order. Now the order of texts
just the contrary : and thus contrary
Will ol Heaven! And to the second question he
• I in answer to certain Biblical quotations which are
inexplicable. It was only in regard t>» the ceremony of
69
And t inis the tephillim wore forgotten in the last centuries of the " Fifth Thousand " ol the Jewish Cal ender (900-1200 A. R.) till the appearance of R. Moshe mi Coney, the author of "Smag ", who devoted himself to reviving their use. moved by the motive which we shall now explain.
Christianity, which in its early age as we have seen prompted many reforms in the tephillim, in the middle age when it was rapidly spreading all over Europe also did a great deal toward the spread and adoption of tephillim in the days of R. Moses of Coucj This Frenchman who was with his whole heart and soul devoted to the Jewish fail h. saw his eo religionists in Spain and Portugal begin to assimilate more and more with the governing nations in those countries,
7i/fc**// that he got a distinct answer: "Let them do what
they are in the habit of doing, because it is better to do it involuntarily that, wilfully yn— 301D 1}KWf? tfArun) pT2 vn< ta PJW). ^ the -an,- place we have stated that the third part of the seventy questions concerned the Tephillim and Tsitsith. From all this we can see how much the scholars of that time troubled themselves about the Tephillim. (See 127-7321-
— 70 —
adopting their customs and usages. The .Jew- then resembled Christiana externallj as there remained nothing ol their peculiar customs but circumcision . the custom of wearing Tephil/im, Tsitsith, eight strings al each end of a square robe, and Mezuzoth, the Biblical text Shema Deut vi. 4) on the door, were not then observed by the Jews. Christians were dis- tinguished b wearing the cross with which the Jews, not considering it as idol-worship (D^x miay), used somewhat to deal and ornament and give to their Jewish ami Christian friends, they themselves being distingu- ished by no external mark. Upon seeing this a fear into the heart of Moses of Coucy i hat in the course of time the Jews would become wholly assimi- lated with the Christians ; and to prevent this he dev- ised the following, he being the first and the last to explain it thus :" By two witnesses shall a fact be est- ablished pan mp1* any ':•:• 'z— y and therefore every Jew must have these wittnesscs to show that be is a Jew. {Smog par. 3 noy). Bui there arc only three things which can witness to the person obeying them that he is a true Jew ; namely, the Sabbath, Tephillim and Circumcision The Bible in speaking of these thiee use.- the expression 'and they shall be o sign, a
— 71 —
witness, to you'. Therefore on the Sabbath-day there is no nee. I of wearing I'tphillim, as there are two wit- nesses withoul thorn (Sabbath and circumcision) s but on week days everj Je^ must wear tephillim^ that they together with circumcision should lie two witnesses ". But knowing that, no one would heed him and wear tephillim the whole day, R. Moses of Coney satisfied himself with making them obligatory only during the morning hour of prayer when they should remind the wearer that he is a .lew and that he has mam duties to perform. In this way R. Moses of Coney hoped to prevent his fellow-religionists from assimilation.
His lon.ir dissertation states that rather the im- pious(53) than the pious should wear tephillim. which id copied from Smag, and thai he ordered a red string to be worn instead of tephillim in ease the government
531 "God would rather have the cursed than the pious to wear tephillim : and the tephillim were principally com- mended for the cui minder to them"
own wrods). See Phyl. Kit. pp. 84, 85, and also what K. [oseph of Cologne said, p. 7s-
should prohibit the latter (54); and he wrote also : "In the year 1995 A M there was an occurrence from heaven (OT3C — :~:ri as a proof, and in the next year, 499G, I went to Spain to preach to them, and
to the book l-'.U-h Hamitsvolh men- tioned above (p. 1. In our l'hyl. Kit. p. 135 we
cite his own words, and' there he says that already in Portugal it was forbidden to wear tephillim, but he does not give exactly the time. In the histories of the lews there ig no trace of this. And yet this is not remarkable, as so many things which happened are omitted from Jewish his- as is justly -aid by R. Gamaliel, that if we were to attempt to --numerate all the sufferings of the Jews we e able to do it. even if we devoted to it all our !;• s oi Coucy did not note di-
rectly all the sufferings of hir own time, but called them "Occurences from heaven", "earthquakes", etc. As there IS no mention in history of any earthquake on any astro- nomical occurred e D*33Drl rlUVTrl) >'i the yars 4995—6 A. M. — although in 4990 there was a great flood at Viriza in earthquake in Bohemia — he probablv meant by - from heaven" the edicts ol Pope (iregorv ivernmenl so designated them 01 these sufferings of the people K. Moses oi Coucy I
to make them adopt the Mitsvoth mentioned.
— 73 —
God gave me power by the dreams of the Jews and the dreams of the Christians (55) and visions of the stars ; and the eart h quaked ana there was a great uproar and they repented of their sins, and thousand* and tens of thousands adopted the Tephillim, the il/ezuzah, and the 2'sitsilh". From all this we mav judge that
55) The meaning of the words -'the dreams of tin- Jews and the dreams of the Christians'' seems to be very peculiar and so do s the explanation of R. bh. Lurie (Amude Shelome, Vol. II. p. 2), which is as follows. --The dreams of the Christians". "There were not found
such good dream-readers as among the Christians" is not intelligible at all, although by the author claimed to be "easily understood" (p3fli> ?pl)- — As " seems to us R. Moses of Coucy spared nothing to make his co-religionists adopt the tephillim. They easily adopted the mezuza and tsitsith, the for. mer being only in the house and the hitter covered with their garments. But the tephillim they did not want to adopt, for they were to be worn on a conspicuous place (the forehead). Therefore he had to employ different me ms, lectures and dreams : and not having much success he tried to gain them by the dreams of the Christians, in whom in such cases the Jews have great confidence, because "the Jews believe a Gentile speaking unintentionally more than a hun- dred witnesses" (any pikdb r-x-:: ■■- px: xoNVtb Pi'DO •': .
Amulets, Charms. Talismans. — Rodkinson. 14
— 74 —
then, in the days of Pope Gregory, when the adoption of Christianity by the Jews increased and persecutions began, II. Moses ofConcy took advantage of this to compel them to adopt the Tephillim, the Mezuzoth. and the Tsitsith for themselves and their children, and in this way he hoped to prevent them from assimila- tion.
The devotion and laborofR. Moses of Coucy bore many and good fruits, although not all the Jews then adopted the three ceremonies, tephillim, mezuzah, and tsitsith, as la- himself says it was onlj thousands, (56) and even this was an exaggeration, as can be seen
56) It is curious that the author of Or Zrrua, who lived rtt the same time or a few yarrs after R. Moses of Coucy, contrary to the latter, allowed only the most prominent to wear tephillim and not the cursed ones. Tr the days of K. Asher (Rosh) it seems that the custom was somewhat widely adopted, as may be judged from his words "and why a h'v of the people pay no attention to it etc. This would seem to indicate that the most of the ; wore them. Bui we cannot consider this absolute ii<>r can we tell exactly how many are to be understood bv the word "few", nor of what class they were.
from the fact that two hundred years afterwards, in the days ol R. Joseph of Cologne, tephiUim were but very slightly worn; and H. Joseph says plainly: " The 'command' (ntry) of tepkillim is doubtful, and God's name pronounced over them may be considersd as pro- nounced in vain" (n^B3^ rO"Q)" from which it may be concluded that R. Joseph himself did not wear them; and in the same place, in answer to one who ques- tioned him on this subject . lie says that lie agrees with the questioner (/'. e. that tephiUim need not invariably be worn) (57). The author of Shibbole
probably did not speak of the common people. R. Asher's son. R. Jacob, the author of the "Turim", did a great .h-al toward spreading the tephiUim, and made them obli- gatory upon everyone : after him" in the days of R. Jo- seph Karo it appears to have been very extensively adopted by the common pec, pie. who made them according to Rashi's style, placing the texts from the right of the reader. But he ordered that the style ol R. Tarn be also worn at the same time, that there be not the slightest doubt that God's name were not pronounced in vain H3^3 B^KTl
57) The criginal words of the questioner an- not quoted in the text (Clause 175), ,,,lt '' ^''''"s tha1 two questions
_ 76 —
■h says that they are to be worn onlj on certain days, from which we maj iclu le that they were nol
ised by i he i pie c ►nimonlj . R. Jacob Weil,
who lived much later than the foregoing, expressed his dissati.-faction with the 3'ouu.s folks, married or unmarried, who were in the habit of wearing tephillim. (58). From i see thai there were
numerous people who did nol wear tephillim until the davs of Joseph Karo. But .-till we can truly say that, had it ii"i been for R. Moses ot'Coucy, there would be no trace of the custom in our days: as it was the pains taken by thai man ami the various calamities which befell the Jews in the two centuries which followed him caused them lii tie by little to adopi the tephillim where the\ lived, anil in com-.-,' ol time the number of those
were asked at the same time : ai If a man ought lo die
commands tv: and bj It it is obligatory to wear tephillim. This would to show that the questions wei the
mind o I'd : ''It
U :
R.it. in many places.
who wore them increased to such an extent that It. Joseph Karo could justly say, -ami the people (D^y 3ru») wear the stylo of Etashi ".
But even the tephillim of R. Moses of Coney un- derwent a certain change, although not an entire change; and they differed inform from the tephillim worn in aneie.it times, as there was added on the out- side one more "Shin" which we do not Snd mentioned elsewhere. (59) The motive whereby they were led to
umne.
59) The "Two Shins" (D^BTl TIC) are indeed ment in Tu.ph.ul> (Menahoih35) m the name of .S7™,/„ AW in lhe following words: -And he puts a three-headed Shu, rp) on the right side and a four-headed Shin (By) on the ,,tt. and it does not matter if he change them", from which we may judge that it was new to the writer. Who Shemask* Rabba was we cannot find out, save what R. Menahem of Panu stated, that he SAtm.sk* Rabba said his words in the name of the Gaonim. R. Moses ol did „„, mention the Shemmhc Rabba at all, from which we may conclude either that it was not in existence in his day.. orthatitWasnotknownatleasttohim. The coltoettoi phath was made, as we have proven in our Phyl. Rit., in the course of 49*7 5°6o A. M., because R. M mentioned therein. See Phyl. Rit.. p. 141. And tl
7s
thia was -nii|'l\ because they probably found one sel of tf.phiUim with a three-headed Shin (sr) and one with a !<>ur headed Shin ivj-i. the three headed Shin adopted by the Jewish Christians as an emblem ol the Trinity, and the tour-headed one adopted by the Jews in op- position to the Jewish Christians, and indicating that God is oue in all the tour quarters of the world. As thej did not know the explanations and which one to prefer, the} adopted both of them, following the ex- ample of the Talmud in such cases. So after under- going numerous changes we have the ttphiilim in
if indeed the Slumushe Rabba is quoted in Tosphath, which was not for prai tical application, but only as an explanation
. .•■ :,.:h. we i annot i urn lude therefrom that the Gaonim
had two Shins on the tcphilim which they wore. Bui it may
ilready thinking about the Shins
and could not decide what to do, as they probably found
\illim with both the 5? and the vwM. the style
[ewish Christians and the lews, ami soused both to- gether. R. Moses of Coucy applied this to practice and made ;.. ith Shin- • ibligal
70
their present form, and no one has anything against them. (60)
With this we conclude a short history of the teph illim, and we find n only necessary to remark that ai present the custom of wearing tephillim is growing less and less, not only among the reformed .lows but even also among the Orthodox .lows; as many of them satisfy themselves with performing this ceremony only once in their life, i. e. when a boy reaches the age of thirteen years, at which age he is considered to be " ripe" for performing all religious ceremonies. They take him to the synagogue and put the tephillim upon him, and the boy never repeats theccremony. In this the Orthodox Jews probably agree with R. Alfasi, who
'6cm Rabbi Chaim Oppenheimof Turin has indeed called atten tion to the Fact that the Grand Rabbi Mordecai Benet created a great uproar by claiming that the Tephillim worn at the pre- sent day are invalid ( 71D2 I. The ('.rand Rabbi Reformed i Aaron Hariner sent us an answer on this point, but we never happened to see anything written on this subje* the Rabbi in q lestion, and we have sought information from many writers bin so far in vain.
_ 80 —
says that if any ime has worn tephiUim once in his life !„. cannol be callc«J •• Po«he Csrael b'gufho", yens)
(lDwa^siK i Jew cursed in his body". And pos- sibly they used to 'I" so in the days of R. Alfasi. As wt, QaVe ;i greal rule from Et. Hillel ha-Zapen, who once said: '*You ••an rely upon the Jews ; it' they are not themselves prophets, t! eyare the sons of prophets."
\]l{\ go i hey probably know what they are doing.
— 81 —
CHAPTER VIII.
A Correspondence with Learned Men of the Present Time regarding the Origin of the Term Qameat (yep). Our
own Opinion on this Subject.
After we have, with God's help, discovered the origin of the terms totaphoth and tephillim, we con- sider it our duty to say a little about the word l"-P (Qamcd), which occurs often in the Mi.-hua. And al- though we have not. succeeded in establishing its ety- mology with indisputable proofs, as we have done in tin- case of the other two words, and although our hypoth- esis is not absolutely certain, we shall nevertheless cite the opinions ot many scholars with whom wo have been in correspondence in regard to this subject, and in addition we shall give our own opinion, leaving it to the reader to choose.
Dr. Dushak, the Rabbi ot Cracow, expressed his opinion as follows: "The origin of this word is Amulets, Charms, Talismans. — Rodkinson. ic
- 82 —
from the German "amulet", and it is derived accord- ing tn the opinion of a few from the Latin verb amoliri, which means to remove all kind.- of sufferings and mischiefs; but I cannol approve this opinion, and in my judgment the mosl correcl opinion is that of Hammer that amulel is Arabic and means an article \v.»ni by the Arabs around the aeck for the purpose of keeping them from harm, etc. Thus we understand thai the word (VQP) is derived from (yop ,)"2p), and this means the dangling of anything around any part of the body. The change oi'(V) to (y) is not new." These are Dr. Dushalc's original words in our Ebhen Sappir, p. 36, where the reader may see our remarks upon them.
Mr. Recheles opposed Dr. Du?hak (Ibid. p. 46) and maintained that ■•This word (VDp) originates from the Latin and is c imposed ofthe words cum me (with
me), | ause of its being always attached to the body,
never removed even for a moment, that mischief may be kept from the wearer.
Dr. Plaut, the Rabbi of Frankfort on the Main, after examining the above-mentioned opinions of Dr. Dushak and Mr. Recheles, wrote us the following: • •The word (IPDp) is derived from the low Latin
— 83 —
cammaeus, which means a cameo, or an embossed figure on a precious stone, worn by the ancient nat- ions on their breast and arms as a talisman." Ami in his opinion the Talmudists borrowed this name for any article worn as a talisman (r6uD). See our jour- nal Ha-Kol, No. 300.
Finding no satisfaction in the above- mentioned
explanations, for reasons which we shall hereinafter state, we wrote (Nov. 11, 1891) to the well-known author of the Aruch Hasholem, the Rev. Dr. Kohut, asking his opinion about the word qamea, and received in reply the following :
New York, Nov. 12, 1891.
Rev. Dr. M. L. Rodkinson :
Your esteemed letter has just been received and I hasten to answer you. as "in the moment when you see a scholar you shall bless him" «pW)
(nana rrr6.
You requesl rnj opinion in regard to the word JPDp. I have written much about it in my work, Aruch ffasholem, Vol. VII. p. 123, ami the following
_ 84 —
is what the author of the "Aruch", Dr. Nathan, Baj - about it. * *
(Here Dr. E£ohut cites the words of Aruch and Musphio with a list of all the places where the word
ITDp in-- in the Talmud and Midrashim and add.- his
own opioioD that it is derived from a Greek word which means a "knot'' and refers to many passages
to prove it, which are uriD ssary to quote here,
as the Amch Hasholem can be found in any lib- rary. Be then proceeds as follows :)
"Concerning the word carnmams from which the word jrop is supposed to be derived, r beg to -:i\ that it i- not to be found in the dictionaries of the Latin classic literature, and it appeared for the tir-t time in 1U4 A. D. See Du Presne, irium, cammaeus.
And with this T am, with regards,
Yours very truly.
B \Noit Jehuda Dr. Cohut).
Now Dr. Kohut has overthrown Or. Plaut's opinion by proving that the word cammaeuft appeared
— 85
for the first time in the 15th centurv, while the word rap ia found in the Mishna, which was composed in the 3d century A. D. But fur a like reason we cannot approve Dr. Kohut's opinion. For the Mishna. aa is well known, is written in plain Hebrew, and only eertain expressions which the Hebrew language lacks were borrowed from the languages then current ; and now, if it be really aa Dr. Klohut thinks that the word yop means iL-p (a knot), then it is curious why the Mishna did not use the word \^",%? (a knotted ornament), which is used in Isa. lii. 20, of an ornament worn by women, rather than choose a Greek word to express this meaning. And to tell the truth, there ia little difference between the opinion of Dr. Dushak and Dr. Kohut, the former explaining it as attached and the latter as tied to the body (a). Dr. Dus'iak
a) The true meaning of the word VJ'p is a knot, *>{{> ~lL"p) hB>p H'^C N^'P "a knot which lasts forever is called a h*ot" i. e. a complication of threads which cannot 1m- untied, and the verb is derived from this noun. The intention of the Bible in saying msS Dmffpi >* that they should be bound and knotted mentally forever.
— 86 —
;it Iea8l derived it from a Hebrew word, ,(*op. Therefore in a second letter to Dr. EZohut we ex- i our opinion thai the word jrtsp may be derived from KriD'p NyD'p ("a little", or "a small portion") found in the Talmud; because a qamea jrop contains fragments of the names of angels, gods, etc., and in reply to this the Rev. Dr. Kohnt wrote the following, bearing date, Nov. 17, 1891:
"In reference to yi iir second letter 1 beg to or ler :
••1) Himalet, Hamalet, which are derived from the Latin amuletum and the German \muh-t. have nothing in c i nmon [:| with the word JPDp, which is derived from the Greek [?] as I have proved [!] in Aniclt HasJiolem, Vol. vii. fol. 122, pp. 1 and 2
■ -2i l:i the same work, fol. 123 b, I tried to explain the word nx*rp, Nyo'p, after giving a list of all places where this word occurs in the Talmud, and in ray opinion this word is derived from the Persian kam, kami "tn^ ,zn^ and means "a portion, a little", and I quote the opinion of Tishbi who tried to explain it thus a ','":? contains small porti-
ons nnd fragments and abbreviations of different wri- tings, and therefore il is called a JPDp. Bui this opinion
87
is too far-fetched (prim). The work M'Kor Chaim by R. Joseph Karo is not to be found in my lib- rary, and I have never see the work ,,Caphtor vc Pherach," by Luzatto, but only a work with the same name by Edelman. I have Eurbh by Uirsch, but in that tephillim is supposed to be derived from ^snn '-to pray", see ibid, p. 231, — but you would not there find what you desire".
Now since Dr. Kohut has declared that Tishbi preceded us with the opinion that the word STOP is derived from KXHD-p ,-xvp (kam, kami). which means in Persian, ''a little", we approve the opinion of Tishbi and do not find it far-fetched ipnni) as Dr. Kohut finds it ; and that lor the following reasons :
R. Nathan, the author of the Antch. was very careful in explaining the word q&mea as meaning i"'P "a knot", citing only the place Becho-
rath 30, --It happened to a woman ami -he
was folding (rwp) him tephillim ; afterwards when she was married to an ignorant man (pxri DV) .she used to tic him qoshre mochson ; (|D310 '"cp) from which we may conclude that the word nyoip is something like tying, or 1L"P to "knot". The
ouihor of the Musphio (appendix to the Aruch) was also carefal in explaining the word as the Bamc as ~'"? and -imply adds: "It is a kind of tying and there are some medicaments which are tied to the neck", etc. But Dr. Kohut, wishing to do something surprising n313 tfOXQ) (using his own words) and exhibil his knowledge of other languages, found the word Hima, and in the .Mid- rash Bereshith Rabba be found a word him us which he corrected to human and claimed it as the same as Bima, and because the latter word means a -'knot" he explaind the word ysp to mean iwp — See Aruch //">//"/' ///. p. 127.
Saving made one mistake in giving the above explanation, he must needs make another one, and bo he expressed the following baseless opinion : ••It .-frin- to me that JPDp must have come in (sic I) from the margin [see remark below] referring to himum"(b). But his explanation and opinion are
b) The grand Rabbi of i <tion Atiavath Chesed
(Dr. Kohut) :- an excellent preacher and a good teacher, but his knowledge in the oriental tongues and especially in the Hebrev e in thia as well as in ma-
ny other places in Aruch HashoUm his Hebrew is very obscure
and needs explanation, he not being used to it. In nearly every generation the Hebrew language has undergone some changes. There is a difference between Biblical Hebrew and the dialect of the Mis/ma, as well as between the early and middle Amoraim, and there is a great difference between them all and the dialect of the Rabanim Seborai. Likewise is the language of the Gaonim different from them all. In the Tal- mud are articles in all these dialects just mentioned. Weiss' ■ •< teschichte" and our ( >/*» L iter to the Rabanim, where lt i, ,,roven that there are annexed to the Talmud many artic- les from the latter Gaonim.) An expert can even tell from the dialect in which the article is written to what age the au- thor belonged, as we have proven in our -Open Letter" To this Dr. Kohut has paid no attention, and as soon as he finds in any language a word or expression resembling that found in the Talmud, he jump both cor, lusion that the Talmud borrowed from that language, regardless of the date writing and whether «ng were possible and
therefore he often fails to conclude aright. And ft. with all due repeel to Dr. Kohut we cannot reccomen lars to accept his opinions and hypotheses without a .
examination. Th. R- Sch" ' ''
the journal Hacarmel, vol. iv. 4^ 45) called Dr- Kohut's attention to the fact that, owing to his not being qualified tor such work and not having a thorough knowledge ol He. brew, he made many mistakes in very important i Amulet-. Charm-. Talismans.— Rodkins
90 —
not easily understood (T2D kVi '"n; tO), as wo have already stated, for if the meaning of JPOP were ippi then the Mishna would certainly have used the word ;'""*"" r1 which is Hebrew, having in the Bible the same meaning, rather than a Greek word And therefore we are inclined t<> approve the opi- nion of Tishbi, that a JTDP contained -mall pieces
R. I : t this, although he saw
only one part of the first volume of I'r. Kohut's work. But we who have had the honor to see the work as comp-
ot yet fully quali- ties and the Aruch Hasholem needs many important improve F"r instance, net und tly the ver«
K. Nathan, the author of t'ne Aruch, he concluded that he » i- a traveling merchant with shirts (peddler, not being qualified f"r this work, he omits names ithors whose works he cites, as in the section of Dr. Frankel. Not being perfecl in Hebrew, he uses the ex- -.. "and 1 'i In" preceded me with this explanation," although l>r. Kohut never before wrote on the poinl
i "Hachalutz vol. VII, pp. 85—95 where many other
We hope Dr. Kohut will pardon us for 1 for, as
the proverb 1 respect Plato,
l>ut respect the truth the most."
91 —
of parchmeni with names of angels, etc., and in proof of this we cite the following place in the Mishit a (Tract Shabbath), "A piece of skin enough to make a JPDp and parchment enough to write thereon a small text of tephillim". From this we may judire that the word JPDp as used by the doc- tors of the Misluia did nol signify the parchment and what was written upon it. hut the case which contained the parchment and writings; and not as in the later centuries when they began to call the parchment and writings JTDp. Therefore it was that the doctors of the Talmud borrowed this word yDp also fur the tephillim, as we find it plainly in the tract upon tephillim'. "If he reverse Hen) the XPOp it is considered invalid" (blDB . which means if lie reverse the tephillim ; see Phyl. It it. 126. The following is also found (ibid. L21) : c,If he make it as a kind <>\' ]!"£? it is then invalid" (?1DS\ This means it' one made a kind i i case in which the writings are placed. For tin-'' reasons the Minima could not term it pvj"?, which means an article directly tied to the body, but termed it JTOp. which means an article made up of a collection of small portions of names and abbrev-
Vjt^'
iatious ul the names of ang< in ;i skin
case folded and attached to a string and tied around the neck. In this way it comprised the meaning together : }*Dp> a collection, --:^ to fold, and xycp. a little, a small portion. The ' in other places is also in the habil of terming an article which is plaited and doubled >1B31 -" '■--- or ' loldings", as the foldings on the neck -x^zl- pt:op . (Xegoim, Sect. 6.) And likewise they used the expression p^an b nyoip . Id the tephillim on him as the word ~wp is not appropriate to express the fast- ening of Hit- tephillim. For the tephillim them- - are nol fastened to the body, but only the which are folded around the arm and head And for this reason the latter authorities prohibited uttering the blessing of the tephillim (yo^) with the words, "to tie the tephillim" (p^an -iit?p$> from arne'pl, which is found in the Bible and to which they refer the tephillim, but enjoin the word "to put on" rv'Dn — : — : because only the totaphoth were tied from ear to ear, hut not the tephillim them, selves. For a similar reason the Talmud preferred the word nyoip to the word nooip because the
— 9 3 —
term >"SP whs known to them as a name for any- thing worn us a medicament or a charm, a r6uD. Ami as a.conjecture we may assume that the word JPOp was adopted together with the names of angels from i he Persians, because without the names of an- gels there could be no yep, for the medical properties of herbs they did not call JPOp. Thus they borrowed it together with the name in Persian, which originates from iiNO'p, as is explained above. Likewise the au- thor of the Mashbir explained the word Kjnyp from xop. See Mashbir.
This is our own opinion in regard to the word irop. But all these different views are left to the choice of the reader
With this we conclude this work, and though we have in many places been satisfied with a brief treatment where greater detail seemed accessary, we hope to return again to the subject when we shall be enabled to publish the "History ol the Tephilah, Tzitith, and Mezuzah". on which we are now al work and in the preparation of which we have made many aew and important discoveries.
CDSSblllbD
Ol
■ • •. ■ < . ■ . •
. " • ■■ , • ■ ■■■■■,"•'■ ■•'■ ■■
■•:■«
' ■ ■
. ••
-
■>v„ . .v,v v
v ■
m m->
»ViSV«V,
; i 3 i
'.'. ■!■■'■;•. '.yv:':-.
»»V VX ;■.■
. -•
■
i i ;
I'** •
■
'■ .' ' ' ■