Is Wearing Tefillin a Literal Commandment?

The Aish Rabbi Replies

Thank you for raising this very important issue. You are right that the Torah provides almost no description of Tefillin, beyond a few very vague verses. However, it is clear that the Torah is discussing a specific commandment and is not just giving a general directive – that we should take the Torah to heart and keep it in mind. The Torah states clearly that we must tie something onto our arms (Deut. 4:8, 11:18). It also seems to refer to a very specific object we must place on our heads, using the cryptic word totafot. Without our tradition, we would have no idea what totafot are, but the verse does seem to be saying something more than just that we must generally keep the Torah in mind.

Furthermore, the Torah states very specifically where we must place Tefillin – on one of our arms and between our eyes (a phrase the Torah uses to refer to the front part of the head – see Deut. 14:1 regarding making a bald spot between the eyes).

Tefillin are thus comparable to the Mezuzah of the verse after (Deut. 4:9), where we are told to write them on our doorposts. Here too, the Torah leaves out the details but clearly states that some form of writing must be placed on our doors and gates. Both such commandments clearly refer to concrete actions, the details of which are specified in the Oral Torah.

It is true that the French medieval commentator Rashbam (R’ Shmuel ben Meir, c. 1085 – c. 1158, a grandson of Rashi), a strong literalist, understands Exodus 13:9, which also mentions the commandment of Tefillin, allegorically – that we must fully take God’s commandments to heart and mind. It is firstly significant that Rashbam does not make the same comment on Deut. 4:8 or 11:18, which refer specifically to tying something on our arms. He only makes his comment on the verse in Exodus which writes more generically that they shall be for a “sign” on your hand and a “reminder” between your eyes.

However, even apart from the two verses in Deuteronomy, it is difficult to imagine that Rashbam literally rejected the commandment to wear Tefillin, a mitzvah which had been in universal practice for many centuries before his time. In fact, he himself writes on Exodus 21:1 that he is generally only coming to explain the simple meaning of the Torah and not the laws which emerge from it. He continues that those laws are really the primarily part of the Torah, yet he, in his mission of clarifying the simple reading, does not address them. He likewise writes on Genesis 1:1: “All the words of the Sages and their inferences are correct and true.” (He himself wrote a commentary on the Talmud and headed yeshivas, dedicated to the study of Talmud. So again, it’s inconceivable that Rashbam literally rejected the traditions of the Sages.)

Thus, to most scholars it is a bit of a curiosity that Rashbam took such a literalist approach in his interpretation of the Torah which he himself did not seem to accept elsewhere (see e.g. this article). (There are in fact several other instances in which his Torah interpretations are at odds with the Talmud – indeed, at odds with his own commentary on the Talmud.) He appears to have accepted a basic distinction between the Torah in its literal meaning – and the significant messages which emerge from that – and the Torah according to its more profound interpretations, as elucidated by the Sages. Here his message was quite possibly that it is not sufficient to fulfill the technical commandment of wearing Tefillin. We must actually take its teachings to our hearts and incorporate them in our lives.

Finally, see Ibn Ezra to Exodus 13:9, also a strong literalist, who takes sharp issue with the opinion of Rashbam (though not addressing Rashbam by name), writing that King Solomon’s Book of Proverbs (Mishlei) begins by stating it is a metaphorical work, but we surely may not say the same of the Torah. Its mitzvos are literally true and binding, not figurative, ethical directives.

Another general issue to keep in mind is that the Jewish practice of wearing Tefillin dates to basically as early as we have records of Jewish observance. It was clearly in practice in the Mishna’s time (see e.g. Mishna Megillah 4:8), and there are other very earlier references to the practice as well – such as in the Letter of Aristeas, of the 3^rd-2^nd century B.C.E., and the writings of Josephus. It is also well-known that the Pharisees of the New Testament were described as wearing Tefillin. Likewise, several small pairs of Tefillin were found in the Qumran Caves (site of the Dead Sea Scrolls), from around the start of the Common Era.

In our belief, the reason this commandment was in such universal practice since ancient times is simple: Every Jewish male began wearing a pair since the day it was commanded at Sinai. This left little room for debate if Tefillin were a literal mitzvah or not, or exactly how it was constructed and worn. Thus, not a single scholar in the entire Talmud questioned the authenticity of the commandment – even though they argued about virtually every other subject under the sun. In fact, even the breakaway sects which rejected the Oral Law, such as the Sadducees, wore Tefillin. They just insisted on doing so slightly differently from the tradition of the Sages, such as literally placing the head-Tefillin between the eyes (see Mishna Megillah 4:8). But they could not deny such a well-known tradition that Tefillin were black leather boxes bound using black leather straps.

Some have made the claim that the wearing of Tefillin was an outgrowth of a pagan practice of wearing amulets as good-luck charms (which was later justified with a reinterpretation of the Torah verses cited above). But it’s difficult to believe that such would have become universally accepted – by all the sages of the time and since without so much as a single dissenting opinion – which again is so atypical of the Talmud. Imagine all the Torah scholars knowing that the Tefillin verses are allegorical – and then some kook coming along wearing black boxes and insisting this is what the Torah really meant all along – and then everyone else swallowing it and accepting this new mitzvah. To me such a belief is as about as plausible as many other modern conspiracy theories.

This finally brings us to the verse in Ezekiel (13:18) you quoted, in which God, speaking through the prophet, criticizes “those who sew cushions upon all armpits and make wraps for the head of all people to trap souls.” It’s clear from the context and details of those verses (vv. 17-23) that they have little relevance to Tefillin, or even good-luck charms. It was rather condemning some bizarre sorcerous means of divination (see v. 23) – which women used to employ to entrap Jewish souls, taking their money and leading them astray with their false oracles. This thus parallels the earlier part of the chapter, in which Ezekiel railed against false prophets who similarly misled the nation. These verses are addressed specifically to women (v. 17), who historically did not wear Tefillin, yet who employed witchcraft to similarly delude the populace. God continues that He will rescue the nation from the clutches of such sorceresses by tearing off their tools of divination from their arms and heads and putting an end to their wicked practices. Thus, although the verses are cryptic, it is quite clear that the prophet did have Tefillin in mind – or any comparable good-luck charms.