We are all familiar with the word “tefillin.” But what did it originally mean?
If one looks at the Mishnah, usually the word appears in the plural: “tefillin.” (There is also some evidence for the reading “tefillim.”) But two times the word appears in the singular: “tefillah.” See Menachot 4:1: “tefillah” of the arm, and Mikvaot 10:3: “tefillah” of the head. See also Megillah 4:8.
At first glance, we might suggest that tefillin were called “tefillah” because they were worn during “tefillah,” or at least during the morning “tefillah.” Many take this view. See, e.g., E. Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, p. 713 (“so called because they are worn during the morning prayers on weekdays”). But is this etymology correct? First of all, in Tannaitic literature, “tefillah” often means merely the Amidah. But even if we interpret “tefillah” in its broader meaning, we all know that this etymology does not sound correct. It is evident from many passages in early rabbinic literature that tefillin (in some form) were generally worn by men during their routine daily activities. So how should we understand the term “tefillah,” the singular for the plural “tefillin”?
First let us deal with that term “phylacteries.” The original Greek term, “phylakterion,” literally means: “means of protection.” It was a way of referring to protective amulets. How did this word become the common English word for tefillin? In a passage in the New Testament (Matt. 23:5), we are told, as a criticism of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees: “They do all their deeds to be seen by others; for they make their phylacteries (“phylakterion”) broad and their fringes long.” Almost certainly, the “phylakterion” reference here is to tefillin. See J. Tigay, Harvard Theological Review 72 (1979), pp. 45-52. The later church fathers also use this same term to refer to tefillin.
As to the word “tefillah” with its meaning “prayer,” this is almost certainly a shortening from an original T-P-L-L-H. In other words, the root of “hitpallel” is the verb P-L-L with a meaning of “intervene, judge.” P-L-L as a noun would be T-P-L-L-H. But sometimes one of the double letters gets dropped. (As to why praying is in the hitpael stem, I have written much about this elsewhere and disagree with the widespread view that it means “judge yourself.” See my “Roots and Rituals,” pp. 240-47.)
Now let us return to our original question, why the singular form of tefillin is “tefillah.”
M. Jastrow in his dictionary thinks “tefillah” in the tefillin context means something like “attachment.” But his sources for this idea are weak.
The Encyclopaedia Judaica (15:902) mentions a suggestion that “tefillah” in the tefillin context is not from the root P-L-L, but from a different root, P-L-H. This is a root that means “separate, distinguish.” The suggestion is that Jews distinguish themselves from non-Jews by wearing tefillin.
Another view claims that P-L-L also has the meaning of “proof.” See Psalms 106:30 and its interpretation at Sanhed. 44a. The suggestion is then made that “tefillin” serve as proof that the name of God is upon the wearer and lead to fear of the wearer. (See Deut. 28:10.) This view is found at Tosafot, Men. 34b and elsewhere. But P-L-L does not mean “proof.”
Another view suggests that the root P-L-L perhaps has the implication of atonement. Wearing tefillin helps the wearer achieve atonement (perhaps parallel to the tzitz worn by the high priest). See the “Tefillin” entry in Encyclopedia Mikrait, vol. 8, pp. 884-885 (also by Tigay).
However, the best explanation for “tefillah” in the context of tefillin is provided by Yehudah Cohn in his detailed study: “Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World” (2008).
I do not advocate accepting all of the speculation found in Cohn’s book. But he argues convincingly that there was a widespread view of tefillin as serving an amulet function in the Tannaitic period, influenced by the widespread Hellenistic practice of utilizing amulets. The Semitic term for an amulet is קמיע. In the mishnayot, tefillin are often mentioned side by side with קמיע. See Shabbat 6:2, Shekalim 3:2, Mikvaot 10:2, and Kelim 23:1.
Cohn suggests that tefillin may have been viewed as amulets for long life, since this is alluded to at Deut. 11:21 (“lemaan yirbu yemeichem…), or they may have been viewed as general-purpose amulets for protection.
Cohn points out that the first use of “tefillah” in either Hebrew or Aramaic to describe a material object is found in an Aramaic document from a Jewish community in Egypt. The document is estimated to date to 300 B.C.E. It mentions ten “tefillah” of silver. Cohn writes: “The reference to tefillah as a material object is clear, and suggests an amulet…” See Cohn, p. 147. The document itself is included at A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., #81, line 30. (Most of this work collects fifth-century B.C. documents. But 300 B.C.E is the date that Cowley estimates for this particular document due to the many Greek names found in it.)
Cohn continues: “This expansion of the original meaning of tefillah to describe objects that functioned as prayers can be analogized to the one experienced by the English word ‘charm.’…The function of the object came to be used to refer to the object itself.” This is why tefillin is the plural of “tefillah” in the singular. “Tefillah” in the singular included the meaning of an object that functioned as an amulet. (But it is only when the object contained the Biblical parshiyot that the words “tefillah” or “tefillin” would be used to describe it. Other amulets would be described merely as קמיע.) Of course, this meaning for “tefillah” is consistent with the meaning of the Greek word for tefillin, “phylakterion,” a word commonly used for amulets.
Tigay, in the 1979 article I cited above, does not discuss the meaning of “tefillah” in the context of tefillin. (He does in the later Encyclopedia Mikrait article.) But he does make the following comments here: “It is true that the official understanding of tefillin was as educational and spiritual symbols…But there is no lack of evidence that tefillin were ascribed apotropaic properties and used as such.” He then cites an example of the amora R. Yochanan who is mentioned as believing in the protective power of tefillin (Berachot 23a-b). Tigay continues: “This attitude does not indicate that tefillin first entered Judaism as amulets…[but] it is another case of the superstitious veneration which commonly adheres to sacred objects and practices.” Tigay also cites to the church father Jerome (c. 400 C.E, Israel), who was very familiar with Jewish practices. Jerome writes: “Whoever has them, has them as a protection and reminder to himself.” I.e., Jerome mentioned both aspects of tefillin: the Biblical aspect and the protective aspect.
Mitchell First can be reached at [email protected]. P.S. Do not ask him why the plural of “tefillah” is “tefillin/m” and not “tefillot.” Already in a Dead Sea text from the first century we have “tehillim” as a plural for “tehillah”! (By the way, Ibn Ezra calls the book of Psalms: “Sefer Tehillot.”)
