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.
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)
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)
Ok, so this page should be part of tefillah. Dogs on wikipedia are still at dog. DaAnHo (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Oppose - Agree with Avi & Jayjg, they are different words in different languages referring to different things. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 18:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
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.
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. Scr★pIronIV 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. Scr★pIronIV 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)
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?!"