451) Ancient pre-existence of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin?

The order of the scrolls in Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin.

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Dr. Yehudah Cohn[1] – explores the claim that Tefillin scrolls resembling those of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Obviously, Rashi (11^th century) and his grandson Rabbeinu Tam (12^th century) lived long after the period of the scrolls (3^rd century BCE – 1^st century), but the claim is that their argument over the order of the four scrolls inserted into the Tefillin, reflected a much more ancient argument. 

To this day, many Jews don two sets of Tefillin (myself included) in order to fulfil the divergent views of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam on the order of the scrolls placed in the leather housing of the Tefillin. About sixty years ago, it was claimed that two variant sets of scrolls, resembling those of the later Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These archaeological finds proved that the original debate over the order of the scrolls was not just the product of a Medieval dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. Instead, it was a continuum of an ancient deliberation starting, at least, from around Second Temple times and later coalescing around Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. 

As a result of these findings in the Dead Sea Scrolls, numerous entries appeared in Encyclopaedias and other such respected literature showing this remarkable continuum of divergent views concerning the order of the scrolls in the Tefillin. Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam had not, therefore, introduced a new argument into Judaism. They simply reflected an older tradition of divergent views going back at least a thousand years. Even Chief Rabbi Goren endorsed these notions.[2] Rabbi Goren was most supportive of these archaeological finds because, through them, one was finally: 

“able to upset and refute the empty research of the various men of science who purport to profess opinions on the development of halakhah… and confirm the opinion of the Geonim and Rabbenu Tam which seems to have been accepted by them as halakhah in practice” (Goren 1964). 

Thus, Halacha never developed or adapted over time but remained unchanged and frozen within its authoritative status throughout history. Archaeological finds like these, proving the existence of traditional views going back centuries, are a wonderful confirmation and ratification that these ideas indeed held sway in the ancient world. The suggestion that Halacha underwent some process of development over time is severely challenged by discoveries like this. 

Cohn, however, demonstrates that contrary to all this material in the various bodies of both academic and rabbinic literature, the facts show something very different. Put simply:

“[T]here [is] no archaeological evidence for the existence of the dispute [between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam pre-empted] in Second Temple or Bar-Kokhba times” (Cohn 2007:324).[3] 

The Rashi - Rabbeinu Tam Debate

Before evaluating the archaeological evidence, we must first understand the debate between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. Their dispute revolves around their interpretations of a section of Talmud: 

ת"ר כיצד סדרן קדש לי והי׳ כי יביאך מימין שמע והי׳ אם שמוע משמאל

והתניא איפכא אמר אביי ל"ק כאן מימינו של קורא כאן מימינו של מניח

The full translation, which is rather complicated with its lists of biblical quotations follows, but it will be represented more simply hereafter: 

The Rabbis taught: How is their sequence? “Sanctify to me” (Ex. 13:1–10) and “It shall come to pass when he will bring you” (Ex. 13:11–16) on the right. “Hear” (Deut. 6:4–9) and “It shall come to pass if you listen” (Deut. 11:13–21) on the left.

But has a Baraita not taught the opposite?

Said Abbaye: There is no difficulty. Here (in the orientation of one Baraita) it is “on the right” for a reader (namely a person facing a tefillin wearer), there (in the orientation of the other Baraita) it is “on the right” for a wearer (b.Menachot 34b). 

The disagreement is based on a left-to-right order. In a diagrammed form we eventually have the following practical conclusions as set out by Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam: 

According to Rashi, the order of the scrolls in the Tefillin is:

1) Ex. 13:1–10; 2) Ex. 13:11–16; 3) Deut. 6:4–9; 4) Deut. 11:13–21 

According to Rabbeinu Tam, the order of the scrolls is:

1) Ex.13:1–10; 2) Ex. 13:11–16; 4) Deut. 11:13–21; 3) Deut. 6:4–9 

One immediately notices that Rashi’s view of the order of the scrolls simply follows the sequential order as they appear in the Torah:   1), 2), 3), 4). 

Rabbeinu Tam’s view follows a different pattern:    1), 2), 4), 3). 

Evaluating the archaeological evidence

As we have seen, Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam agree that the first two scrolls follow the sequential order as they occur in the Torah [1) and 2)] but they part ways regarding the order of the last two scrolls [3), 4) or 4), 3)]. One would, therefore, expect to find examples of these two variant sequences in the scrolls found near the Dead Sea. However, Cohn points out that: 

“[W]ithout exception, tefillin parchments found in the Judean desert were not written in such a format…” (Cohn 2007:320). 

How, then, did such blatant misrepresentation of the order of the scrolls occur? The Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin may have confused later observers when he wrote that the order of texts was: 

“nevertheless most similar to that of Rashi”.[4] 

Cohn vigorously disputes that view of Yadin and writes: 

“The statement [of Yadin][5] was entirely without foundation – there are twenty-four possible ways of ordering four objects, and the ordering found can hardly be described as more ‘similar to that of Rashi’ than any of the twenty-three that do not correspond to the scriptural order of the texts” (Cohn 2007:322). 

Cohn continues to inform us that not only did the order of the scrolls not correspond to Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, but even the actual texts themselves were different from the texts of standard Tefillin today: 

“These tefillin were also quite dissimilar to rabbinic ones in content – two parchments contained sections from both Exodus and Deuteronomy, and all three decipherable ones included ‘extra’ text to that prescribed by the rabbis” (Cohn 2007:322). 

There is no doubt that during the 12^th and 13^th centuries, Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam disputed the precise order of the parchment scrolls in the Tefillin, but there is no evidence that that dispute reflected an age-old argument dating back to first-century times as commonly described. Cohen reiterates: 

“[T]there is no evidence from the Judean desert for either Rashi or Rabbenu Tam’s view as to the ordering of parchments in tefillin” (Cohn 2007:327). 

The search for historical precedent to confirm the order of the scrolls

The need for historical precedent to confirm the order of the scrolls inside the boxes of Tefillin is nothing new and has long concerned the rabbis. Maimonides (1138-1204) was told that the Tefillin of Rav Hai Gaon (939-1038) were opened to reveal the order of the scrolls. They happened to correspond to the biblical order (like Rashi).[6] Rav Hai Gaon passed away exactly one hundred years before Maimonides was born, so the organic material of the Tefillin would not have deteriorated. 

According to R. Moses of Coucy (13^th century), the Prophet Ezekiel’s Tefillin were examined after his grave had collapsed.[7] Ezekiel lived during the 6^th century BCE. 

In another case, according to Piskei Tosafot (13^th or 14^th century), two pairs of Tefillin were found – one in Nehardea in Babylonia, and the other in Jerusalem. One was said to correspond to Rashi and the other to Rabbeinu Tam.[8]  

Why change the biblical order?

Cohn explains that the need to divert from the seemingly straightforward biblical order of the passages probably originated in mystical circles. The view favoured by Rabbeinu Tam, which breaks with the biblical order, has the two middle sections beginning with the word והיה “and it shall be.” 

In Medieval rabbinic writings, this positioning of the two והיה verses is known as הויות באמצע and הויות להדדי (the והיה verses are in the "middle" or "stand alone"). From a mystical perspective, it places the two והיה verses in the centre, which gives pre-eminence to G-d’s name (שם הויה) which has the same letters as  והיה(“and it shall be”). Thus G-d is positioned, as it were, to a central position and this allows one to break with the standard biblical sequential order.

The two middle sections also have a certain asymmetry with their textual references being Exodus 13:11 and Deuteronomy 11:13 which fits a typical mystical schema. The mystics may have favoured this order with “G-d in the centre,” although it is unlikely that Rabbeinu Tam himself would have employed such a mystical notion. Many of the Tosafists, usually known for their sharp analytical skills, were known to have also been very mystical in their worldviews. Rabbeinu Tam, ironically, was an exception to this rule.[9]  Rabbeinu Tam was one Tosafist not generally considered to be overtly involved in mysticism at all [See Kotzk Blog: 180) MYSTICAL FORAYS OF THE TOSAFISTS:], but later mystics may have read these conceptualisations into his ruling.

Nevertheless, the mystics have always encouraged the wearing of two pairs of Tefillin – the standard Rashi and the additional Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin. Thus, Rabbenu Tam Tefillin became synonymous with the mystical approach. 

R. Goren's support of the archaeological 'evidence'

One final question must be addressed. Why was Rabbi Goren drawn to the (inaccurate) theory of the ‘ancient origins’ of the Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam debate? 

Cohn suggests that Rabbi Goren may have been influenced by certain mystical considerations: 

“Rabbi Goren had been raised in a Hasidic milieu, and was also a promoter of Hasidic traditions – as evidenced by the uniform liturgy he introduced as Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces, which was in essence the Nusah traditionally used by Hasidim… Rabbi Goren may have been eager to find, in ancient evidence from the Land of Israel, legitimacy for the respect accorded by Hasidic custom to the view of Rabbenu Tam – to be contrasted with the negative attitude toward wearing Rabbenu Tam’s tefillin that he cites in the name of the anti-Hasidic Gaon of Vilna” (Cohn 2007:327). 

This way, Rabbi Goren may have tried to “confirm the opinion of the Geonim and Rabbenu Tam which seems to have been accepted by them as halakhah in practice” (Ibid.) and attempted to show that such views were rooted in the Holy Land from around the late Second Temple period. 

Cohn, however, based his examination on the actual archaeological evidence. He contests such a popular view despite it being purported in the name of archaeology and then adopted in some rabbinic circles. Of course, the debate between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam may indeed have very ancient origins, but they are not found in the record of the scrolls of the Dead Sea.

Analysis

For many, finding 'chizuk' or support for religious practices and beliefs in the 'universal record' and in the stories we tell, is an important component of all faith systems. But in so doing, they need to be accurate and factful. In religion, perhaps more than anywhere else, truth matters.

Further Reading

Kotzk Blog: 438) Seeking an interface between Halacha and archaeology

Kotzk Blog: 264) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM HEAVEN:

Kotzk Blog: 180) MYSTICAL FORAYS OF THE TOSAFISTS:

---

[1] Cohn, Y., 2007, ‘Rabbenu Tam’s tefillin: an Ancient Tradition or the Product of Medieval Exegesis?’, Jewish Studies Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 4, 319-327.

[2] Goren, S., 1964, ‘Hatefillin Mimidbar Yehudah Le’or haHalachah,” in Torat haMoadim, (Tel Aviv: Avraham Tzioni, Tel Aviv (Hebrew), 497 and 501.

[3] Square brackets are mine.

[4] Yadin, Y., 1969, ‘Tefillin (Phylacteries) from Qumran (XQPhyl 1–4)’, Eretz Israel 9 (Hebrew). Or in English: Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran (XQPhyl 1–4), 14.

[5] Square brackets are mine.

[6] Blau, J., 1960, Teshuvot haRambam, vol. 2, Mekize Nirdamim, Jerusalem, 543.

[7] Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, mitzvat aseh 22.

[8] Piskei Tosafot to Menachot, siman 92.

[9] Kanarfogel, E., 2000, Peering through the Lattices, Wayne State University Press, Detroit.