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 
 periodicals 1 , 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, I 1 innati ; and a few 
 
 others in Italy, etc. 
 
— Ill — 
 
 proved my position and many prominent scholars 2 
 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 L r o. (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 tin 1 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 i 1 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), w ho 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 1 2--), 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, e d 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 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 u r 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'it 1 ? - 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 l m 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 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 v Kn) 
 
 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 ''m tip 
 
 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- 
 H uired 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,-N s -':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 
 no t 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 5 2 )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 }KW f ? 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 mp 1 * 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. 7 s - 
 
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 q uestions 
 
_ 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 lh e 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.. 
 orthat it W asnotknownatleasttohim. The coltoettoi 
 p ha th 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 v w M . 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 , QaV e ;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 Qamea t (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 n 313 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 ;'""*"" r 1 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