Talk:Tefillin/Archive 1

Kissing

will someone explain whether you are supposed to kiss the boxes after taking them off?

It's a custom, not a law. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The fist pictures should be changed, as it appears that the retzuot are touching on the arm, pasooling it.

The photos link does not work.

Tag

I can't get the damn wikify tag to work in the section "How to put them on". Does anyone know how to fix this? ZPMMaker 11:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've fixed it now ZPMMaker 11:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rework Needed

The current page is incorrect. Tefillin *are* a form of phylacteries, they are not "called" phylacteries. The actual name is "totafos", "tefillin" was made up later. Rashbam and Ibn Ezra do not state what they are quoted to say, Rashbam says it is allegorical according to the "deep simplicity" and Ibn Ezra quotes such an opinion and *rejects* it. Tefillin are written in ashuris, not Assyrian, and so on. The current article is simply incorrect and needs heavy editting, but probably needs to be rewritten completely using its current form as only points to cover. My edits are in the history (and rejected). -- Chacham 16:32 Nov 11 2005 (UTC)

Counting Straps

I removed the part about counting the straps after putting them on. They are not law, or custom. The person who put the part back in is misunderstanding my edit. I never said you don't need the seven straps (I never edited that part), I just took out the part that says you need to count the seven straps after wrapping. -Yossiea 14:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try learning before you actually assert whether something is law/custom or not.

Shulchan Aruch, Part 1 Orach Chayim, Chapter 3: "It is customary to pass the strap through a small loop at one end of the passage and wind it seven times around the arm and three times around the middle finger" (27:8) SF2K1 18:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This says nothing about counting the straps while reciting a verse from Deuteronomy, but simply says that the straps are wound 7 times. Can you respond to Yossiea's objection? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really now, think. The passage is said, and the straps are to be wound. He's claiming that there's no precedent for the straps being wound for any certain number of times. You're supposed to wind, while reciting. Right in the S"A it's saying exactly how many winds there should be while you're winding. True, this doesn't say that you should count seven, but it is implied when it says they have to be wound seven times on the arm. SF2K1 06:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the straps are counted and a verse recited after the hand windings are already done. Please respond to that point exactly - what is the source for this claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm if it says count after, then that's not right. It should be moved then, not removed. Like I pointed out, the Shulchan Aruch calls for 7 winds on the arm (which obviously needs to be counted while performing), but the verse is still recited once the straps have been wrapped around. SF2K1

Windings

How can you possibly do the finger winding before the arm winding?Benami

You can't... If it says that, it's a mistake. SF2K1

That's what you changed it to say! And that's what people have been objecting to this whole time, and what you have been reverting to this whole time! Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the entry to read: "The strap that is passed through the hand-tefillin should be long enough to allow for the knot, then to wrap around the forearm 7 times, and around the hand according to family or location tradtion. A Rabbi should be consulted about the proper way the tefillin to be worn accorrding to one's herritage. "

From what I learned this Shabbos, Ashkinazi and Sephardi wrap the hand differently. The finger winding too can vary between area within these general domains.

look here for some good information:

Tefillin Beit E-l They have got some really cool movies on how Tefillin are made and lots of practical information about Tefillin.

What are the halachos for tfillin

Mezuzah and Teffilin

I added that, "Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21 are two passages used for Mezuzah." Ira (Eliyahu) 09/11/06 1:26pm EST

dashes

User:204.52.215.102 (IP from Rutgers University) seems to feel very strongly that "Adonai" should be written "Ad-onai" with the edit summary of "Added dashes to names of G-d in accordance with Jewish practice". Since when are wikipedia articles written in accordance with Jewish practice. And in any event puting dashes in God's name is far from universally accepted even in Judaism! Jon513 17:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tefillin and Magic

I believe this section of the article is supposed to have footnotes. It does not. I believe this section of the article is unverafiable unless proven otherwise.

The section was greatly expanded by user:Feivelstrauss (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), and I think that most of it is unsourced original research. I have reverted it to the original, but I I hope that those part of the section that were worthwhile will be added again with sources. Jon513 14:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would even go so far as deleting the whole section. Yossiea 14:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research, it's from the Jewish Encyclopedia of ca. 1904 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I was referring to this edit not the original text Jon513 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forms of wrapping for the hand

BS"D

It would be an interesting change to write the different ways that tefillin are worn on the hand and at the top of the arm. We could do a section like on the Payos Page. --Shuli 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think it is beyond the scope of the article to have some bullet points on how some groups wrap the hand. Yossiea 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the facts are not 100% correct, the wording is not encyclopedic, and again, I think it detracts from the article. This is something that would be posted in a yeshiva newsletter, I don't think we need it in an encyclopedia entry. Perhaps we should put it to a vote, but in my opinion, the entry takes the entire article from a well written one to a horrible one. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totafot

In the Torah tefillin are called totafot. This sentence, taken from the second section, is INCORRECT. Only the head tefillin (shel rosh) are totafot. Totafot is never said in reference to the shel yad (hand tefillin). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.132.49 (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forms of wrapping for the hand

I prefer for the picture of Bob to remain anonymous. This is not an article about Dylan only about how Jews use tefillin. The picture of Bob is just an example of this. Benqish 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Tefillin and not Tfilin?

Why Tefillin and not Tfillin? That's how you say it AFAIK. 79.179.112.106 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Tefillin is an accurate representation of how it is pronounced [teh-fil-lin]. I don't think that the letters "Tfilin" are pronounceable. If you (or someone else) could add the ipa representation to the article that would be great. Jon513 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Yiddish it's certainly [tfiln], which is one syllable for some speakers, if not all. So Yiddish is one of the many, many languages in which [tf] is perfectly pronounceable. Another is Israeli Hebrew, where the word is [tfilin]. Lots of American Jews insert a vowel between the t and the f, but that's an innovation due to two or three things: (1) the fact that in English no word can start with tf; (2) the idea of shva na, which maybe describes medieval pronunciation but not modern Ashkenazic or Israeli; and (3) maybe having heard traditional Sephardic or Middle Eastern pronunciation (not Israeli). I'll correct the IPA transcriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.73.8 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sheva is certainly na; that is an integral feature of the Hebrew language, not some medieval curiosity. The fact that careless speakers omit it doesn't change that. In Yiddish you are correct that it is pronounced without a sheva. Modern Israeli pronunciation, especially among Ashkenazim, is of course heavily influenced by Yiddish. -- Zsero (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything it would be t'fillin, not tfillin. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Yiddish, and therefore in the speech of a lot of Modern Israeli Hebrew speakers, there is no vowel at all between the T and the F. The two consonants mash right into each other. But in correctly pronounced Hebrew there is a sheva na. -- Zsero (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that beged kefes can be pronounced with a shva nach is at the end of a word (Vayishb, Vayaisht, etc.) So T'fillin must have the shva there, although, unless it is a schwa, I don't knoe how that gets put in IPA. As an aside, there seems to be an implication that the word "Shtei" may be a machlokes the RaDaK and the Ibn Ezra, as to whether there is an alef genuvah from the word "Eshtayim". What is really frustrating is that the only currently printed version of the RaDaK's Michlul (Moznayim press) has a misprint and is missing the page that discusses this. Although the RaDaK's Sefer Hashorashim says na, IIRC. -- Avi (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The beged kefet rule is part of Hebrew grammar, not Yiddish. And yes, "shtei/shtayim" is traditionally regarded as an exception to that Hebrew rule. But Yiddish never had such a rule, and modern Israeli is heavily influenced by that usage. -- Zsero (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care and Restoration?

It would be a nice addition to the article if there were details of how to maintain the kosher status of a set of tefillin. For example, some feel that they need to be checked every 3.5 years...

And what to do with an old set that may or may not be restorable? What are some of the basic things a sofer checks for? --Wws 18:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, tefillin should not be checked every 3.5 years. Once they're checked once, they have a chazakah that it's kosher. Once you check it, you might find something wrong. It's different than mezuzos, which should be checked twice in seven years. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chayei Adam 14:20? Jon513 06:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it inside, all I can tell you is what I was told by practically everyone, including my sofer. The only time you are to check your tefillin, is if something happened to it, or if you get a new pair. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the strict letter of the law tefillin that are in regular use do not need to be checked ("chazakah"). Tiffillin that are not in regular use must be checked twice every seven years. Some Poskim suggest checking even tiffilin in regular use twice every seven years. Jon513 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So consider the following three scenarios. How do they differ? And what should be done to retain/regain the kosher status of each?

A set that has used somewhat regularly for the past 40 years, but never been checked (since new)? Are they still 'chazakah' and therefore exempt - regardless of condition?
A set which has sat in a drawer for the past 40 years, seem to be in great shape, known to have seen no extraordinary environmental exposure, and has never been checked (since new)?
A set which is at least 40 years old, has not been used in at least that long, and has unknown history?

Wws 15:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<joke>Check them all and let the sofer sort them out!</joke> Jon513 21:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tefillah and punctuation

The singular of tefillin is tefillah, so when there is mention of only the shel-yad or shel-rosh, it should be tefillah. Such as when putting on the tefillah shel-rosh, etc. In addition, throughout the article, there are times when tefillin is capitalized and others when it's not. It should not be capitalized unless it's at the beginning of a sentence. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images?

Some illustrative images would improve this article ThaddeusFrye 05:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there used to a be a few pictures. I don't know when they disappeared. There are a few pictures at the commons, and there are also a few more one the Hebrew version of this article. Some should be added. Jon513 13:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added some photo identification of gasos vs. dakos and Rashi vs. Rabbeinu Tam. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed paragraph

I have removed the paragraph:

There are 4 types of batim available. The gasot or gasos, thick skin, batim are made for a thick hided kosher animal specie such as a cow or bull. The hide is generally taken from the face and neck area as this is the thickest. (The hides from the body are used to make the straps.) These batim are the most sturdy and preferred. The dakot or dakos, thin hide, are made from a thin hided animal such as a goat. These are less sturdy and generally not as well made and hence less desirable. The next type of batim are called peshutim mehudarim, which are an improvement over the lowest level of batim call peshutim, simple. While both are made from heavy parchment, the upper cube of the peshutim mehudarim is made from a single piece folded to form a cube and glued to hold together. These are preferred since many opinions require that the upper cube be made from a single piece of hide. Nevertheless they are less desirable since they are not very sturdy and even though the upper cube is a single piece, it is only held together by glue compared to the better batim which are all one piece and do not require glue. The peshutim are generally poorly made and hence must be checked carefully by an expert to make sure they are fit for use. Even when they are made properly, they are not preferred.

Wikipedia is not a how to guide to buying tefillin and there is a limit to the amount of detail that the article needs to go into. (Also if wanted to be really obnoxious I would say it is unsourced).

I also removed everything after the world qlaf in the following paragraph:

The preferred parchment material is qlaf, (as contrasted with Torah scrolls, for which the preferred material is gevil though qlaf is more commonly used in practice, and a mezuzah, for which the preferred material is called dukhsustos (Shab. viii. 3 et al.)) but is no longer used and qlaf is used instead. Accordingly, a discarded tefillah can be made into a mezuzah, but not vice versa (Men. 32a).

because it is off topic. Jon513 10:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an inherent problem with this content (See WP:NOT#Paper); it can always be moved to its own subsection ("materials" or similar) at the bottom. Some of the Hebrew terms sprinkled in can be translated to English. WP:NPOV concerns can be dealt with by rewording to simply list the types and their characteristics without endorsement. Since a lot of new religious article content is unsourced, I prefer to deal with sourcing problems by first challenging and giving time to come up with a source rather than simply removing outright. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC) should mneton gasos and other types of batim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.32.159.25 (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article?

I am nominating this article for GA class, from B class. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think before this qualifies as a GA, it needs to address cylindrical tfilin. (cf. [1][2]) Tomer ^talk 15:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like mentioned the 8 dinim which are me'akev according to the Rambam, i.e. what he lists as halacha leMoshe MiSinai. Chesdovi 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tefillin or tefillah – that is the question!

I am happy to stick with arm-tefillin as that is common usage AND the Rambam uses this lashon in Mishneh Torah. However, for acuracy's sake Rabbi Shimon Eider in his monumental work on the laws of tefillin explicitly states on page 9:

"Therefore the tefillin consist of two units, the tefillah (singular of tefillin) shel yad ... and the tefillah shel rosh – the tefillah which is worn on the head". Chesdovi 11:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I went through the whole article changing tefillin to tefillah. I could have missed one or two. I think we should stick to tefillah, it's more accurate I believe. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You actually changed all the tefillahs to tefillin! Chesdovi 14:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Apologies - it was actually Eliyak: [3] Chesdovi 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP. I think we should stick to tefillah, it makes more sense, and it's like that in R' Eider's work. I'm not too sure about Eliyak's linkings that it should be tefillin. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. "Technically correct usage" certainly warrants mention in the article, but the majority of English speakers (the real determining factor here) who are familiar with the term "tefilin" are going to raise eyebrows at "tefila" everywhere for the singular. If only one is meant, I say stick to shel rosh or shel yadh, and leave the Hebrew (or Aramaic) grammar to a single section of the article. Tomer ^talk 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case there ought actually to be a section in this article dealing with the singular tefillah. At present there is no mention of the fact that tefillin is a plural noun. I tried to create such a passage — a simple explanation of etymology in the introduction — but it was reverted in less than an hour. Flourdustedhazzn (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English WP, and in English tefilin is both the singular and the plural. ("Phylacteries" exists only in dictionaries; nobody who has occasion to refer to the things actually calls them that.) -- Zsero (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There might be a place to mention that tefilin is a plural. There is no need for a long discussion of this as the word tefilin is used in English in both plural and singular senses. Phylacteries is archaic, was probably never used and is a bad translation! Benqish (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA quick fail

This article is not sufficiently sourced for GA. See the GA criteria, wikipedia's verifiability policy, and wikipedia's citation policy. Awadewit | talk 20:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused why the nominator of this article also put it "on hold". Nominators and contributors cannot review articles or put them on hold. I have removed the "hold" tag and replaced it with a "failed" tag. Awadewit | talk 20:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the hold tag on the page because someone placed the assessment on hold but didn't put it onto the talk page. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOWEE!!!

Thanks to many in general and Chesdovi and Eliyak in particular, this article is somewhat representative of what tefillin are and how they exist within Judaism. For as long as I can remember, this article had such a liberal POV slant, with so much focus on women and tefillin and tefillin in art rather than tefillin in halacha and tefillin in Judaism. Congratulations. Forget about Good, this article is GREAT!! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any major improvements are due to Chesdovi. I don't think I added that much. --Eliyak T·C 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Square

The boxes, or battim, both the upper cube — the ketzitzah — and base — the teturah — must be perfectly square and must be painted black.

A square is a two dimensional figure and we are discussing a three dimensional object -- clearly the term square cannot apply, even if only in a purely academic sense. Secondly, the ma'avarta, if it is a part of the teturah (in other words, if the tefilling consists of a ketzitzah and a teturah and the teturah consists of the ma'avartah and the non-ma'avarta, the teturah cannot even be considered "square" in the least academic sense of the word. Perhaps something along the lines of "sharp right angles" should be substituted. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant word is "orthogonal". Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry. the word in this case is square. the hight of the ketzitza is unspecified and the requirement is only that the top dementions of the ketzitza be square (on a two dimentional plane) and that the bottom most base and the titura be square (again on a two dimentiona plane). Perforce, when you have two parallel squares you end up with a square prisim, but this is entirely incidental (usuing euclidian geometry). The requisite square shape is the reason why the ma'abarta (with a dagesh lein in the bais) has notches in it, to call attention to the requisite square shape of the titura. (theoreticaly the ma'abarta has no particular dementions or requirements and is not counted with the titura in considering its shape- this from a halachic perspective.) 74.138.78.83 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wear or lain

The correct English term for Tefillin is not worn. Clothes are worn and tefillin are not clothes. Tefillin are lain. Thus I have added:

The more common English term for the Tefillin is "lain" and not "wore", although the verb wear is not incorrect. Lain is a better translation of the rabbinical term להניח תפילין (lehaniakh tefillin), see eg the blessing prior to laying tefillin. This term is also used in Yiddish. Tefillin are not clothes, thus they are not worn and to refer to them as such is disrespectful. The verb lain will be used throughout this article for the sake of accuracy and consistency.

If you do not agree with this please discuss here before changing. Benqish 08:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the translation is correct. Nevertheless tefillin are halachicly clothes. If one were to wear tefillin on shabbos in a reshut ha'rabim he would not have violated shabbos (In fact the law is, if you find tefillin laying on the ground on shabbos in a disgraceful manner in a resuht ha'rabim you should put them on and wear them until until you get to a place where you can leave them). The word "wear" is appropriate and easily understandable. I do not know why the bracha is phrased that way, but I don't see any reason to assume that any deviation of from it is disrespectful. In English the way to describe a person with tiffiln on is wear. We do not have to translate every Hebrew idiom literally. Jon513 09:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its to lay tefillin, not lain, its not kriyas hatorah. --Shuliavrumi 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I don't think we need an entire pseudo-English lesson on the usage of the word lain. I agree with SA, that it's lay, I will make the changes to that affect. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that the paragraph makes no sense, and its placement is out of order. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be correct, the article should back up with references which is the more common usage: "lay", or to "put on" or "wear". The truth is, that the term "lay" in English, is a sectarian usage (i.e. from proponents with an ulterior motive to use their sectarian terminology), and that the common, standard usage for tefillin is to "put on" or "wear". This is how it is described in printed books on the subject, such as "To Be a Jew" by Donin, or Aryeh Kaplan's book on tefillin. So, someone should be kind enough to provide sources for their terminology, and also demonstrate which is the most common usage throughout the English speaking world, and then change it back to "put on" or "wear" tefillin (and use the sources such as Kaplan and Donin), instead of lecturing on how the English word "lay" is correct because it is somehow derived from a Yiddish translation of Hebrew, which is tantamount to original, un-sourced research. (look at the argument on "matzah" vs. "matzoh" for guidelines).Jimhoward72 (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From "proponents with an ulterior motive to use their sectarian terminology"? That's a pretty odd statement, to be honest. Also, "matzah" and "matzoh" are simply different pronunciations of the same word, in different dialects of Hebrew, of which there are many, and no one any more "correct" than any other. And finally, you're jumping into an argument that ended 3 years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google "put on tefillin" = 66,000 results

Google "wear tefillin" = 15,300 results

Google "lay tefillin" = 9,600 results

So you can explain why the argument ended 3 years ago, if you want. The truth is, it should be changed to "put on" tefillin, as this is by far the most common usage (as seen by a google search). But Aryeh Kaplan's book and Donin's book (mentioned above) were already good enough reasons to change it. Additionally, "legen" in German, in the sense of "put on", is translated as "put on", not "lay" (zulegen in a German dictionary). The same applies for Yiddish "legen". The German/Yiddish "legen", for placing or putting something, becomes "putting on" in English. It doesn't become "lay". The expression "lay tefillin" may be present in some Yiddish influenced groups, but it certainly isn't the English standard. Also, להניח is translated from Hebrew as "to place, to deposit, to set down". Translation of להניח Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make changes, then why not just make them? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tefillin in the Talmud

Where in the Bavli is the principle discussion regarding how Tefillin should be made and worn? --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many places.. Jon513 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hairs sticking out of rosh

The hairs that stick out of the front of the tefillin are not made out of the sinews that bind the tefillin closed as this article says. It is made out of the tail hairs of a cow, which are wound around the scrolls on the inside. The hairs that stick out of the front come from the Vehaya im shamoah section parsha and stick out of the front. In Rashi tefillin order they come out of the second hole from the left if you look at it from the front and in the Rabenu Tam they stick out of the third hole from the left. This is an easy way (as mentioned in this article) to see which type of order they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.220.141 (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Vilna Gaon portrait.gif

The image Image:Vilna Gaon portrait.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible

In the beginning of the article, it is said that the box contains bible verses. Can this really be? Shouldn't the verses be from the torah? I apologise if it's a stupid question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpuellodiablo (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It should say Torah. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tefillin → tefilla — Tefillin denotes prayers...these objects should be at tefilla, just like dogs are at dog. DaAnHo (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The move request indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the two concepts. Tefilla means "prayer". Tefillin are "phylacteries". One word is Hebrew, the other Aramaic. Yes, they are related, but so is the word dogged, and dog days of summer, and the dog star, and doggerel, none of those are dog, are they? -- Avi (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so this page should be part of tefillah. Dogs on wikipedia are still at dog. DaAnHo (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Def. not trying to be a dick! Just trying to say that if this page's title is plural for no other reason than "that's how it was created", it should be changed to the singular form. DaAnHo (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you were trying to be annoying 8-), rather, it seems to me that you probably do not have much experience with either, as opposed to those of us answering here who likely have experience both for multiple decades for each of us. -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there are differences in language, but I don't understand why Tefillin shouldn't be at Whatever Its Singular Form Is In Hebrew with a redirect at the former and proper explanation at the latter. Such a move would be helpful to people who search literally and enlightening to someone who searches as (it seems is) usual. I guess what I mean is that if "tefillin" means "worn boxes of prayers", it should be redirected to a singular title; if "tefillin" means "a worn box of prayers", it's ok where it is. This might be dumb, but it's all because I had a hard time finding Tefillin (an interesting concept). In the end, I changed the disambig at phylactery to refer directly to tefillin instead of confusingly referring directly to tallith. No articles on English Wikipedia refer to tefilla, but maybe one of you pros can remedy that! DaAnHo (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tefillin is plural because they always come in pairs (the hand and the head). They are phylacteries, plain and simple. A Tallis is a prayer shawl, not a phylactery, and linking phylactery to tallis is an error. Thanks for fixing it. -- Avi (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say much the same thing; tefillin is plural for the same reason trousers and glasses are plural, because they almost always come in pairs. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Tefilla means "prayer". Tefillin means "phylacteries". They are different words in different languages, referring to different things. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Agree with Avi & Jayjg, they are different words in different languages referring to different things. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These objects are mostly always referred to in the plural form. So much so, it is very common for a single tefilla to be called, albeit erroneously, a "tefillin". And as far as it denoting prayer, or tefilla, that is not so clear cut. Tur derives the word from Pelilah. Chesdovi (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please ignore my comment if it is irrelevant to the discussion, but I still remember my iaia in Valencia call a leather belt a 'talaí', the ancient form of Catalan 'taalí' (Spanish: 'tahalí'). Surely an Arabic homonym by influence of the Hebrew concept.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:IDF soldier put on tefillin.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:IDF soldier put on tefillin.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tefillin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A informative, well referenced and well illustrated article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. It's an informative, well illustrated and well referenced article. Congratulations on bringing it up to GA. Pyrotec (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tefillin and the Western Wall

I will ask for page protection on this page if there is continued vandalism regarding tefillin and the restrictions placed on women using them at the Western Wall. This is a topic that has been covered in the press for 25 years. It is nothing new and the information I have included about it is very well documented in respected sources such as Haaretz and The New York Times. if you want to say something different about the topic, let's discuss it here. But do not remove information that has been openly discussed for 25 years, is still being covered by respected, and is well referenced .VanEman (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, your insertion of POV pictures is the disruption. This page is about Tefillin and how to wear it. Do you see any other pictures of the Western Wall and other POV stuff? You're the one inserting Women and Torah reading to push your agenda. That is POV pushing and can result in a block. As Debresser already warned you about and some admin on your talk page warned you about. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I reverted, you are failing to discuss your POV edits. This page is not the place for your POV about Women of the Wall and Western Wall prayer. You are already discussing that at the Western Wall page and keep it there. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is allowed to wear it, and when they are allowed to wear it, is part and parcel of the artifact's history and use. It belongs in the article if written neutrally. Scr★pIron^IV 17:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's there already in the Obligation section. He added the POV part. The article already mentions that women are exempt from wearing it, they can if they want, some discourage it, some did it anyway and some do it today. He added the part about the Western Wall which has nothing really to do with Tefillin. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a controversial prohibition, its existence can be notable. Written with WP:DUE weight, and written neutrally, it does belong. The text as written meets both criteria, and is reliably sourced. I support its inclusion. Scr★pIron^IV 18:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also support inclusion in some form, but do not feel a photo is in place. Chesdovi (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talking about the Western Wall vioalates your topic ban. You should revert your edit before someone decides to report you.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's time to include it. I shall make the move. Chesdovi (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph I am in full agreement with you. The user who wants to add this has a history of ruining articles related to this topic. This is an informational article. Tefillin is 1000's of years old with thousands of opinions throughout history. Not every POV pusher belongs here. No WP:RECENT. Caseeart (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frontlets

Contrary to Sir Joseph's assertion that "teffilin are not called frontlets, refs do not state that. Use the talk page if you want to discuss further, BRD" (causing him to twice revert my edit, even when I provided ample citations), literally every one of my citations attested that tefillin are or have been called "frontlets". This was the addition to the lede I added (without citations):

or, specifically when worn above the forehead, frontlets,

These were my citations, as I gave them in the edit (the first four are standard English dictionaries; the next four are religious sources):

"Frontlet". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2016.

This source says, "An ornament or band worn on the forehead as a phylactery." In case there is any debate about the intended meaning of "phylactery" here, the only definition given in the AHD for "phylactery" is: "Either of two small leather boxes, each containing strips of parchment inscribed with quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures, traditionally worn strapped to the forehead and the left arm by Jewish men during morning worship, except on the Sabbath and holidays."

"Frontlet". Merriam–Webster. 2017.

This source says, "A band or phylactery worn on the forehead." In case there is any debate about the intended meaning of "phylactery" here, the first definition given in MW for "phylactery" is: "Either of two small square leather boxes containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages and traditionally worn on the left arm and on the head by observant Jewish men and especially adherents of Orthodox Judaism during morning weekday prayers."

"Frontlet". Oxford Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. 2017.

This source says, "Another term for phylactery." In case there is any debate about the intended meaning of "phylactery" here, the only definition given in Oxford Online for "phylactery" is: "A small leather box containing Hebrew texts on vellum, worn by Jewish men at morning prayer as a reminder to keep the law."

"Frontlet". Webster's New World College Dictionary. Wiley Publishing. 2010.

This source says, "A frontal or a phylactery worn on the forehead." In case there is any debate about the intended meaning of "phylactery" here, the first definition (and the only one not marked as "rare") given in WNW for "phylactery" is: "Tefillin."

Glover, Alfred Kingsley (1900). Jewish Laws and Customs: Some of the Laws and Usages of the Children of the Ghetto. Wells, Minnesota: W. A. Hammond. pp. 169–73. Ever since the age of Moses frontlets or phylacteries have been a sign of piety among the Hebrews.

This source, as I provided in the citation, says, "Ever since the age of Moses frontlets or phylacteries have been a sign of piety among the Hebrews."

Nightingale, Joseph (1821). The Religions and Religious Ceremonies of All Nations: Accurately, Impartially, and Fully Described. London: Sir Richard Phillips and Co. pp. 359–60. The Caraïte Jews, who adhere to the letter of the law, and despise traditions, call the Rabbinical Jews bridled asses, because they wear these tephilim [sic] or frontlets.

This source, as I provided in the citation, says, "The Caraïte Jews, who adhere to the letter of the law, and despise traditions, call the Rabbinical Jews bridled asses, because they wear these tephilim [sic] or frontlets."

Eisenberg, Ronald L. (2008). "Frontlet". Dictionary of Jewish Terms: A Guide to the Language of Judaism. Rockville, Maryland: Schreiber Publishing. Today, the word 'frontlet' is used for the tefillin worn on the head.

This source, as I provided in the citation, says, "Today, the word 'frontlet' is used for the tefillin worn on the head." Note that this is a modern Jewish source.

Lauterbach, Jacob Z. (2004). Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael. Vol. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. p. 102. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

This source uses the word "frontlet" extensively in reference to its use in the KJV. For example, one passage says, "But Scripture says 'frontlet' (here), 'frontlet' (Deut. 6.8), 'frontlets' (Deut. 11.18), thus four separate rolls are mentioned."

All of these sources can be freely read online. I can provide many more sources if necessary.

Furthermore, although I didn't cite these as a reference, the KJV translates Exodus 13:16 as, "And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes," Deuteronomy 6:8 as, "And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes," and Deuteronomy 11:18 as, "Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes." Now, you can argue about the meaning of the Hebrew word (טוֹטָפוֹת ṭôṭāphôth) in the original text used by the KJV all you want, but the meaning of the historical English translation here is clear, which informs its modern usage.

Respectfully, — the Man in Question (in question) 20:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tefillin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of permutations

Regarding this sentence in the current version:

The Vilna Gaon, who wore the tefillin of Rashi, rejected the stringency of also laying Rabbeinu Tam, pointing out that there were sixty-four permutations for the arrangement of the tefillin scrolls.

Isn't the number of permutations of the four Torah portions 24 (= 4 factorial; or 24² =576 if one were to admit different permutations in each of the two tefillin)? Here, Rav Aviner seems to correct this calculation, too:

The Vilna Gaon said: "Why are you asking specifically about Rabbenu Tam Tefillin? There are twenty-four [some say: sixty-four] different opinions on the proper way to make Tefillin. Are you going to put on twenty-four [sixty-four] different pairs?!"

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. I definitely support including this new source. I don't know anything about the underlying issue (Rabbenu Tam Tefillin). However, I think we can rely on general principles here. We want to represent the various significant views (NPOV) about tefillin ordering, including the Vilna Goa's view.

To do so, we also need to determine if "The Vilna Gaon said: "Why are you asking specifically about Rabbenu Tam Tefillin? There are twenty-four [some say: sixty-four] different opinions" means:

"The Vilna Gaon said there are twenty-four, but some others disagree with him and say there are sixty-four." or
"Some say the Vilna Gaon said there were twenty-four, but others say the Vilna Gaon said there were sixty-four".

Once we determine the correct meaning of the ravaviner.com source, we can correctly describe the 24/64 views, and their supporter(s).

Per Wikipedia:No original research, we don't do our own mathematical analysis (or indeed any analysis). The only exception is "routine calculations", but I don't think this can be considered routine when there is a dispute in the sources. Mattflaschen - Talk 05:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section How to put on tefillin

This section doesn't really fit per WP:NOTHOWTO. There is an external link on the topic that hopfully does the job. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed this section, Ar2332 restored it with the comment Too bold IMHO :) This is basic information for knowing what people use tefillin for.

I disagree. It's outside WP:s scope per policy, and there are 2 external links that covers this (how well I can't say). Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you also changed the title of the section to "Laws and customs regarding putting on tefillin" from "How to put on tefillin". It's still the same section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also changed the contents a bit, from the theme of "what you should do" to "here's what various groups of people do". Anyway, where do you draw the line between describing what people do, and telling the reader what he/she should do? Is it really not OK to describe something if readers will decide to use that description in practice? Ar2332 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A step by step "how to" should not be included. But a caparison of the practice to the paragraph in the shema, I see no issue with. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it now describes different customs of how people wear them, I think it's no longer exactly a "How To" section, and is useful, but more work should be done to remove the remaining "How To" elements in favor of "these are how different groups wear them". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. The current second and third paragraphs still reads "step by step" to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mezuzah

Sir Joseph - I see (now) why you reverted my edit; "mezuzot" is indeed present and linked within the article.

Unfortunately, it is presented in an almost entirely-out-of-context way that gives no clue to what mezuzot are. That, coupled with the nonstandard (to English) plural form means that even searching the page for 'mezuzah', as I did, will turn up no hits other than the external link to the Mishneh Torah.

I ended up at the Tefillin article having googled for 'Jewish boxes containing torah' and hitting the first link. I discovered it was not what I wanted, and immediately checked the 'see also' to see if there was an obvious alternative choice. Failing that, I had to turn outside of wikipedia to get my query answered. Indeed even if I had read the entire article, I doubt the passing mention to mezuzot would have suggested it was the answer to my query.

Upon refining my Google search, I ended up on the Mezuzot page --- which also lacked any mention of "the other boxes" (in that case, Tefillin).

While I acknowledge the technicality that mezuzah are mentioned, I suggest you reconsider. MOS:NOTSEEALSO only suggests that avoiding duplication is "as a general rule" -- basically to cover exactly this scenario, where an item is mentioned but only once and only in passing. I think helping ~~non-Jews~~ unfamiliar readers identify and distinguish between what appear to be two very similar-in-form items would fundamentally improve both articles.

I agree that that might best be accomplished within the article body. I lack the knowledge to do so. I think it might actually be best to use Template:For to distinguish between the two as an article hatnote, much as the Fandom article distinguishes itself from Wikia or as the Functional programming does for Procedural programming. I'm not quite bold enough to do such a prominent change myself. However, I am bold enough to re-revert the removal from 'see also', at least until further distinguishing mentions of both appear in each article (and particularly, until the word 'mezuzah' in its singular form makes some appearance, to help ctrl-f users like me).

Tofof (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC), edited shortly thereafter to more correct and less assumption-including phrasing[reply]

I don't really care that much, so I am fine leaving it in the see also. There is no need for a hatnote, since mezuzot in the text actually goes to mezuzah as the target article. (I'll actually fix that redirect now.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering. FWIW, I think you misunderstood my use of Wikipedia:Hatnote, i.e. appearing at the top of the article. In this case, the use would be from rule #3. Your comment seems to be replying to the idea of some explanatory superscript text near the word "mezuzot". Tofof (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're OK now, the user can check the lead of the target and see. But you can experiment with the hatnote in your sandbox and play around with it, just take the template and make some edits there if you want. But I don't think it's necessary now. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice this discussion, I just removed the link to mezuzah per WP:NOTSEEALSO. Let me take another look. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I also changed "mezuzot" to "mezuzahs". This is English Wikipedia, and we should use English plurals, not Hebrew. Also, now mezuzah will work as a search term. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]