* Jerome (Comment. in Matth. ad 235) was evidently mis- taken in thinking that the orthodox phylacteries contained the Decalogue. He seems to have confused them with similar ευλαπτήρια used exclusively as amulets (see below).
PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS 878
interpret the words as enjoining their use ‘from day to day.’ This interpretation is most clearly expressed in the Targum (pseudo-)Jonathan to Ex 13", After the direction that the hand-phylactery shall lie on the upper part of the left arm, and the head-phylactery in the middle of the upper part of the forehead, we read: ‘Thou shalt ob- serve this commandment of the phylacteries in the appointed time, on working days but not on Sabbaths and feast days, and in the day time not in the night time’ (ap. Walton’s Polyglot, vol. iv.). The later limitation of their use to the time of the cae prayers was no doubt due to the same causes as brought about a similar curtailment in the wearing of the zizith (see FRINGES in vol. ii. 69*). It is difficult to say with certainty to what extent this habitual wearing of the phylacteries
revailed among the ΤΟΥΣ people as a whole.
hat it was the invariable practice of the Pharisees and of the scribes, who belonged almost exclusively to that sect, we may take for granted. On the other hand, the balance of probability is against its adoption by the Sadducees, who may possibly be referred to in the Mishna sentence (Sanhed. xi. 3) as saying, ‘there is no such thing as téphillin (pan Ts).” Certainly the Karaite Jews, who claim to be the religious successors of the Sadducees, maintain the figurative interpretation of the in- junctions in Ex and Dt (Hamburger, op. cit. ii. 1204; Klein, doc. cit. 688). The great mass of the people also,—é ὄχλος ὁ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον (Jn 73), —engrossed in the hard routine of daily toil, paid no heed to this enactment of the scribes (with Jn 79 cf. Talm. Bab. Berakoth, 47): ‘Who is an ‘am-ha’arez? R. Jehoshua says: Every one who does not lay the ¢éphillin’ [mn nx Ὅν $3}). Hence we may infer that neither our Lord nor His dis- ciples followed, in this respect, the lead of the Pharisees (cf. Jn 7°). In His denunciation of the latter (πλατύνουσι yap τὰ φυλακτήρια αὐτῶν, Mt 23°) our Lord is generally understood to refer to the ostentatious breadth of the straps (niyysq Yad. iii. 3, etc.) by which the phylacteries were firmly secured on head and arm, as is expressly stated by the earliest Syriac translators (see loc. cit. in the codices of Lewis (Sinaiticus] and Cureton: ‘for they make broad the straps of their ¢éphillin [xpy pran)).’ It is probable, however, that this in- crease in the width of the straps was accompanied by a corresponding increase in the size of the phy- lacteries proper, and that both are included in the denunciation.
In addition to the Talmud (Mishna and Gemara), we have in the Targums ample evidence of the Jewish belief in the antiquity of the phylacteries, resulting in several cases in amusing anachronisms. Thus Saul’s bracelet or armlet (2S 110) is converted into ‘the phylactery * (xpey!e) which was upon his arm.’ The turbans (1x8) of Ezekiel and his fellow- exiles are changed to phylacteries (Targ. Ezk 247-3), while Mordecai is represented as recog- nizable as a Jew by his phylacteries (Targ. Est 8").
While we believe that the introduction of the
hylacteries was not due to a superstitious belief in their magical virtues as ‘ appurtenances to make rayer more powerful’ (so W. R. Smith, Jour. of
Ail. xiii. 286, and others), but, as we have shown above, to a mistaken obedience to the letter on the part of over-zealous students of the Torah, it cannot be denied that by the rank and file of the people—from whom, no doubt, the name φυλακτήρια proceeded—and even by some of the more educated, the phylacteries were regarded as possessing magical properties. This appears from the repeated mention, in the Mishna, of the ¢épAillin alongside of the kémia’ (yop), which was an amulet also
* This is a preferable rendering to ‘ bracelet,’ which is pased on the precarious etymology referred to above (§ ii.)
574 PHYLARCH
written on parchment by a professional exorcist (see Shabd. vi. 2), and worn on the person, from the rendering of Ca 8* in the Targum,* and from various references in the Midrash and Gemara (for which see Klein, 679f.; Hamburger, art. ‘Tephillin’).
On the other hand, the Talmud abounds in ex- travagant ener. of the religious value of the phylacteries.t In the Middle Ages, from the 8th, = especially from the 10th cent. (Hamburger), they were less esteemed; and, in some parts at least, the practice almost became extinct (see Rodkinssohn, προ aden, Ursprung u. Entwickelung d. Phylacterien-Ritus, 1883 (Hebrew), to be used with caution, cf. REJ vi. 288). The fact that several Jewish scholars of note, beginning with Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam, 1080-c. 1150), in their commentaries maintained the figurative interpreta- tion of the cardinal passages, no doubt contributed to the growing disuse of the phylacteries. A return to the earlier practice, however, was gradually effected, and their use is now universal among the orthodox Jews, both of the Polish and Spanish rites. At the age of thirteen years and a day the Jewish boy attains his religious majority, becomes responsible for his actions, and a ‘ Bar-Mizvah’ (m2 12, for the history and significance of which see Liw, Die Lebensalter tn d. 7ιϊια. Literatur, 210 ff.). ne the duties and privileges of the Bar- Mizvah not the least important is that of ‘laying’ the téphillin,