Anti-Karaite reactionary basis for increased tefillin observance?

Question

In this blogpost the contention is made, based on many rabbinic sources, that unfortunately the observance of the miswa of tefillin was weakly observed during various historical periods. The author of the post has his own theory for what caused a revival in observance (the influence of Lurianic kabbalah). Earlier however, in Michael Levi Rodkinson's History of the Talmud (p. 31), it is suggested that a shift in widespread observance was a reaction to Karaite denial that tefillin are intended by the Torah (Ex. 13:9; 13:6; Deut. 6:8; 11:18):

The effects of Karaism are also traceable in some religious practices, which had not been usual among the people of ancient times. Thus Phylacteries, which it had not been customary to use, in spite of the literal interpretation of the Talmud of the passage " and thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes," (Deut. vi. 8) ; perhaps for the reason that Hillel had said: "Leave Israel alone; if they are not prophets, they are children of prophets," (Pesachim); for after all, the arguments of the Talmud in favor of the literalness of that passage, the people felt that it was only a figurative expression; and the Talmud itself prohibited the use of phylacteries to the people, permitting it only to con-firmed scholars. But when the Karaites interpreted the passage figuratively, the Gaonim permitted the use of Tephilin to the people also, to show their difference from the Karaites.

The notion that there were those that mistakenly believed that tefillin are solely the province of scholars, can be demonstrated by the responsum of R. Sherira Gaon (cited in the abovementioned blogpost). The idea that certain practices were prescribed or strengthened as response to Karaism I don't find altogether unique either (such as some suggest as the basis for the consumption of chulent/hamin, or the recitation of bameh madliqin on Friday night, etc.). However that the Geonim sought to bolster the practice of wearing tefillin specifically as a hedge against Karaism seems to me to be a unique claim.

Does anyone know where Rodkinson got this idea from? Is there any support for it? Do any other scholars (traditional or academic) discuss it?

Answer 1

I have to disagree with the claim being made. I can cite specific reasons why their claim would be incorrect.

Firstly, the idea that tefillin usage wasn't a common Jewish practice until Karaism simply isn't accurate. It's possible that due to the costs of materials it wasn't something the everyday Jew could easily participate in. Hence why you cite how the Rabbinum restricted their use to those who had the ability to use them appropriately and with care. They likely were extremely costly items and they needed to ensure they were protected and used with restriction. Even today the cost of tefillin is quite an investment. Yet we live at a time where this article is more affordable and accessible than it has ever been. It shouldn't be a surprise that in ancient times a person living on the most basic of basics couldn't afford them.

That doesn't mean they were uncommon in terms of use in religious practice. That just means the Rabbinum excused everyday Jews from a mitzvah they otherwise could not perform on their limited income.

Secondly, I'm sure you've heard of Qumran (the location of the Qumran caves where they found the dead sea scrolls)

There were multiple types of scrolls found in these cave systems. One of these cave systems (Caves 4a and 4b) contained 21 tefillin and 7 mezuzot)

An example of the tefillin found (Notice it still contains scrolls)

This is important for two reasons.

1. It was found in abundance. They didn't find a single tefillin, they found 21 of them. That implies these were an everyday item and being used widely since so many were found.
2. Archeological materials only really exist for items and things which were common. This point is specific to the science of how things get preserved. Finding scrolls and materials from ancient times isn't easy. These items need to be preserved under unique natural circumstances which prevent their degradation. Rare items are almost never found because there are fewer of them in existence. They have a lower chance of undergoing those unique preservation circumstances to protect them. Common things are around in greater abundance which means they have a higher chance of being preserved. It's like playing lottery with 1 ticket vs playing lottery with 200,000 tickets. Your chances are greater.

Think about what is most commonly found in archeological digs.

• Food remains or pottery
• Clothing or fabric remains
• Tools or weapon remains
• Human remains

These are extremely abundant things. It makes sense we would find them in archeological digs.

The core of his argument is based on an assumption. That assumption is Jews weren't doing something because they didn't believe it to be important. It only became important when they began competing with a parallel Jewish system which rejected Oral Torah.

How many ancient Israelites do you think were koshering their kitchens? It very likely was not a common issue in everyday life because nobody had the capacity to renovate the small area of their dwelling where they cooked. That doesn't mean they didn't take kashrut seriously.