Talk:Tefillin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Tefillin was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 28, 2007
Judaism Portal
Tefillin is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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

[edit] 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)

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.


[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
I would even go so far as deleting the whole section. Yossiea 14:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
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).
I was referring to this edit not the original text Jon513 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)
its to lay tefillin, not lain, its not kriyas hatorah. --Shuliavrumi 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Besides the fact that the paragraph makes no sense, and its placement is out of order. Yossiea (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Images?

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

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Good Article?

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

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

[edit] 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)
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)
You actually changed all the tefillahs to tefillin! Chesdovi 14:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoops! Apologies - it was actually Eliyak: [3] Chesdovi 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
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)

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. Tomertalk 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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