In the past, Chazal had a tradition that bein enecha meant not literally between the eyes, on the bridge of the nose, but rather on the forehead over the hairline. For centuries and more, this was simply tradition. But then, in the Baal Chronicles, we saw it paired up in poetry against kodkod, head-pate, such that it was clear that bein einecha was an idiom which meant this. Thus, confirmation for this oral tradition of the meaning of the phrase. Similarly, this Egyptian "tefillin" is situated above the hairline.
Furthermore, there was another tradition that tefillin should be square. And indeed, so it is apparently depicted in the Egyptian drawings. (I will address circular tefillin shel yad in a later post.) Not to mention, as the article does, an Egyptian connection to the strange Biblical word totafot.
Much Biblical law is taking what was already present in the Ancient Near Eastern culture and adapting it, making use of it. I see no problem with their having taken Egyptian totafot and investing it with a a specific meaning, and a specific internal text, as the Bible does.
It is also a good response to Karaites. The Torah tells us (Devarim 11):
Rather than taking the commandment to put these words between your eyes and on your heart literally, as we Pharisees do, they took it figuratively. Proof to this understanding are other Biblical verses such as in Mishlei 3:
קָשְׁרֵם עַל-גַּרְגְּרוֹתֶיךָ; כָּתְבֵם, עַל-לוּחַ לִבֶּךָ. | 3 Let not kindness and truth forsake thee; {N} bind them about thy neck, write them upon the table of thy heart; |
On the other hand, I wonder whether the Sages protested when Isis wore tefillin. It is a dispute whether they did when Michal bat Kushit (or bat Shaul) did.
3 comments:
Curb your enthusiasm. This headgear (which it isn't) has nothing to with tefillin..
http://toldotyisrael.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/probing-the-earliest-origins-of-tefillin-phylacteries-part-i/
thanks.
though "These ancient Egyptian depictions were enough to convince an apparently previously wavering believer" is not precisely the most accurate of summaries.
yes, the article itself mentions that it represents the throne. and this is the theory of one person, and subject to challenge based on the reasons you mentioned.
yet, IF it was an actual Egyptian practice, then it bolsters rather than harms.
kol tuv,
josh
It looks like you miswrote your penultimate paragraph. I looks like you wrote the opposite of what you meant.
Post a Comment