From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Tefillin has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 28, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
July 18, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Judaism (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

how common is this?[edit]

I have never seen it. Is the practice waning/waxing?

Tefillin and the Western Wall[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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. ScrpIronIV 17:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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. ScrpIronIV 18:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I also support inclusion in some form, but do not feel a photo is in place. Chesdovi (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
Well, I think it's time to include it. I shall make the move. Chesdovi (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@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)

Number of permutations[edit]

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)

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:
  1. "The Vilna Gaon said there are twenty-four, but some others disagree with him and say there are sixty-four." or
  2. "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 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)


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."
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."
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."
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.
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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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