Tefillin and Tzitzit in the Zohar: A Case Study in Halacha and Polemics
A paper I wrote in 2015. Crossposted at my Academia.edu page (requires registration)
In this article, I will discuss the way the mitzvot of tefillin and tzitzit are treated in the Zohar.[1] I will study the halachic aspects of their treatment in the Zohar, then their social and cultural aspects, and then go on to analyze some select passages. I will posit that these commandments can be clearly placed in the social context of thirteenth century Spain.
Commandments in the Zohar
The author(s) of the Zohar, [2] as with almost all Kabbalists,[3] believed in the importance of keeping mitzvot (commandments). The numerous mitzvot commanded by rabbinic Judaism are one of the most distinctive aspects of the religion. Jewish people, especially males, are required to do many things, whether on a day-to-day basis, a weekly basis, or at other various intervals or occasions. The early Kabbalists, though having quite innovative theological ideas—creating a revolution in in theology and theosophy[4]—were strongly conservative in their praxis, and used their revolutionary new ideas to strengthen and uphold the fulfillment of the commandments.
The Kabbalists supported the fulfillment of the commandments by giving new reasons for keeping the commandments.[5] These reasons were often found by Jewish audiences to be more satisfying than the ones offered by rationalist philosophers of the Maimonidean school. This is the case for a number of reasons. First of all, the Kabbalists were able to give reasons for even the smallest details of the mitzvot, as opposed to Maimonides and his school who provided, on principle, only the most general reason for each commandment as a whole. The details, Maimonides asserted, are essentially arbitrary. There is no reason why there had to have been four compartments in the tefillin, and no reason why only an article of clothing with four corners—no more and no less—should need tzitzit. This arbitrariness was bound to be less inspiring for both scholars and the masses.
Another reason why the Kabbalistic explanations were found to be more satisfying was that one of the aspects the Kabbalists stressed was the theurgic power of the fulfillment of the commandments. The Kabbalists said that doing the mitzvot had cosmic effects. One who kept the mitzvot was not merely being an ethical person, improving society, or learning a moral lesson (the explanations that Maimonides would posit), but was in fact affecting the entire world. In fact, he was not just affecting the physical world, but the higher, spiritual plane as well. Elliot Wolfson writes:
As a number of scholars have noted, one of the most important features of the Kabbalah is that it provided a rationale for the normative observance by ascribing cosmic significance to every one of the traditional commandments, and thereby furnished a powerful motivation to impel Jews to follow the path of nomian observance.[6]
Laws of Tefillin and Tzitzit in the Zohar
Tefillin and Tzitzit are commandments that are incumbent on a male Jew every day, and only on a male Jew.[7] The mitzvah of tzitzit is sometimes called “tallit,” after the article of clothing on which tzitzit are put. I chose these two commandments as subjects of study because they are so common in day-to-day life. Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah, in the section entitled “Ahavah,, which covers mitzvot that are constant, discusses these two commandments. Tefillin and tzitzit are often discussed together, since they are supposed to be worn every day, whether all day—as was considered to be ideal—or during morning prayers, as became common in the medieval period.[8]
The Zohar makes a number of statements about tefillin that are interesting from a halachic point of view. Israel Ta-Shma, in his pioneering book on Halacha in the Zohar, Hanigla Shebinistar, discusses a number of them.[9] The Zohar is clear that the proper order of the Bible sections in tefillin boxes is like that of the opinion of Rashi and Maimonides, namely Exodus 13:1-10; Exodus 13:11-16; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy 11:13-21, in that order, as opposed to Rabbeinu Tam, who believed that the last two sections should be reversed.[10] The Tikkunei Zohar, which was written by an unknown author somewhat later than the Zohar in the style of the Zohar, supports the laying of two pairs of tefillin—that of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam.[11]
The Zohar innovates that a portion of the hair that wraps the parchment of the Bible sections placed in the tefillin boxes must stick outside the tefillin boxes. The Zohar says that the reason for this is that the hair is associated with powers of evil, and if there isn’t some place for these evil powers to “grasp,” they may cause harm.[12] This idea is similar to the famous Kabbalistic explanation for the casting of the Azazel goat on Yom Kippur, an explanation first mentioned in Ramban’s commentary on the Torah and then in the Zohar (presumably from the Ramban or from a different earlier source), which is that it is a kind of gift to Satanic powers in order to mollify them.
The Tikkunei Zohar supports the saying of one blessing on both tefillin shel rosh (tefillin of the head) and tefillin shel yad (tefillin of the hand), as opposed to making two separate blessings.[13] Ta-Shma points out that the medieval halachic work Agur quotes a passage in the name of the Zohar which says the same thing, but is missing in the printed Zohar.[14] Ta-Shma claims that this passage was censored from the Zohar. However, this phenomenon—of a Zoharic passage that is quoted by later scholars or exists in manuscript but does not appear in the printed Zohar, is a common enough occurrence that this kind of nefarious motive does not have to be posited.[15] But in any case, it appears that the Zohar’s constant stress that there “should be no separation” between tefillin shel rosh and tefillin shel yad[16] is not simply because of the symbolic issue of not separating Tiferet (tefillin shel rosh) from Malchut (tefillin shel yad), but also for the halachic reason of the one bracha applying to both without interruption.
The Zohar strongly warns that one may not lay tefillin on the Intermediary Days (Chol Hamoed) of Sukkot and Pesach.[17] Ta-Shma shows that this was the Spanish custom, and later authorities, who lived in communities where the custom was to lay tefillin on Chol Hamoed, struggled to come to terms with these two opposing authoritative sources—the Zohar and custom.[18]
Tefillin and Tzitzit in the Historical Context of the Zohar
The Zohar not only reflects its Spanish halachic context, as shown at length by Ta-Shma, but also clearly reflects its social and cultural sitz im leben. As Yitzchak Baer already pointed out, the great stress that the Zohar puts on the prohibition to cohabit with a non-Jewish woman clearly reflects its Spanish environment, where this was a major issue.[19] In addition to this, a number of other laws of personal status are stressed, such as the sinfulness of being a bachelor, not having children, and spilling seed. All these are easily understood in the context of the Zohar’s “effort to fix and uphold the family life in Israel, which were treated with great wantonness in those days.”[20]
It is known that the commandments of tefillin and tzitzit were commonly disregarded in France and Spain in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.[21] I therefore hypothesized that we would find in the Zohar not just articulation of the symbolism of these commandments, as one finds even regarding commandments that are not relevant to the readers of the Zohar,[22] but also criticism of those who do not observe them, as well special encouragement. This is indeed what we find.
There is strong rhetoric in the Zohar against those who do not observe the commandments of tefillin and tzitzit properly. The Zohar rails against those who do not wear tefillin and tzitzit every day, saying that the Shechina does not dwell with him, the fear of God leaves him, and his prayer is lacking.[23] One who does not wear tzitzit in his lifetime, in the Next World he will be wearing dirty clothing.[24] People who do not wear tzitzit are the “treacherous who deal treacherously,” and have no share in the World to Come.[25] Regarding tefillin specifically, the Zohar stresses that the obligation should not be seen as a burden, but as a way of adding holiness.[26] In Raya Mehemna, written by the same author as Tikkunei Zohar, we find that amei ha’aretz, the simple, ignorant laypeople, are “wicked people, unmarked by symbols of purity, who do not have tefillin on their head and arm […].”[27]
To aid in searching for passages discussing tefillin and tzitzit, a number of indices were consulted.[28] The most helpful index was Miftechot Hazohar, published in Venice in 1744, compiled by an author named “Samuel.”[29]
Tefillin Passages in the Zohar
Tefillin are mentioned four times in the Pentateuch, in Exodus 13:9; Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8; and Deuteronomy 11:18. The sections in which these verses are embedded are the sections that are placed in the boxes of tefillin according to rabbinic tradition (as mentioned earlier). On the second of these verses, Exodus 13:16, the Zohar, in the Pikkudin section, comments at length on the mitzvah of tefillin (2:43a-b).[30] It begins by saying that the mitzvah of tefillin should not in fact be called (merely) a “mitzvah” (commandment), but rather “kedusha” (holiness):
This mizvah is a mitzvah which is described in a different way [from other mitzvot], for it is not called “mitzvah” but “holiness,” and these are tefillin: tefillin shel rosh and tefillin shel yad.
By this, the Zohar means to stress the fact that tefillin should not be seen as a burden that has to be satisfied, but as a way of obtaining holiness.
It is interesting that the Zohar contrasts this with other commandments, implying that other commandments do not in fact accord holiness to a person, or at least that they accord less holiness. Later in that passage, too, the fact that tefillin confer holiness is stressed (“ומגו דנקטא לון מלעילא אקרי תפלה ואתקדשת בקדושתהון [וכלא אקרי קדושה]"). This may be because tefillin are worn on the body, thus having the ability to confer holiness onto otherwise mundane body. While other commandments are performed with the body, they do not involve ritual objects of holiness. Alternatively, the Zohar means to say that the laying of tefillin is called “holiness” by association with the physical tefillin themselves, which are called “holy items” in Talmudic sources. For example, in Bavli Megilla 26b, tefillin are called “articles of holiness” (תשמישי קדושה),[31] and in Bavli Shabbat 127b tefillin are called “things of holiness” (דברי קדושה).
The Zohar then goes through the order of the four Bible sections in tefillin, opining like Rashi and Rambam, as mentioned earlier. The Zohar explains the reason for the order and each section’s sefirotic symbolism. Finally the Zohar ends off by saying that:
Worthy is Israel who know this secret. And a person must put them on every day, in order to be like the higher form (בדיוקנא עלאה), and on him it is written (Deuteronomy 28:10) ‘And all the nations of the world will see that the name of God is called on you, and they will fear you.’[32]
In another passage of the Zohar (1:141a), commenting on the verse in Genesis 26:11, R’ Elazar says that the Patriarchs strengthened Shechina when they dug wells (which are symbols of Shechina), and so too Israel is able to strengthen Shechina when they do mitzvot of the Torah. The Zohar says that the “blessed Holy One appears in a person who crowns himself with tefillin and envelops himself in tzitzit,” meaning that one who wears tefillin and tzitzit embodies Shechina and becomes as one with her, and allows Tiferet to unite with her. Here, again, we see that wearing tefillin, and also tzitzit, has the effect of adding holiness and Godliness to a person. Then the Zohar goes on to say that one who does not wear tefillin and tzitzit every day, “feels abandoned by faith, divested of the awe of his Lord, his prayer improper.”[33] The Zohar ends off by saying that the Patriarchs would strengthen themselves within Shechina.
I believe that each of these three consequences of not wearing tefillin and tzitzit can be explained using other statements of the Zohar. The first, that he “is abandoned by the faith” (דמי ליה דלא שריא עמיה מהימנותא), clearly means, as it does everywhere in the Zohar, that the Shechina leaves him. The fact that one who does not wear tefillin and tzitzit loses the Shechina is a clear logical extension of the fact that one who does wear these articles brings the Shechina upon himself, as the Zohar just stated.
The second consequence of not wearing tefillin and tzitzit, losing one’s fear of Heaven (ואתעדי מניה דחילו דמאריה), can be explained based on the Zohar’s statement elsewhere (discussed below) that tzitzit reminds the wearer of all the commandments, and gazing at the techelet causes one not to sin, by reminding him of punishment.[34]
The third consequence, that his prayer is not proper prayer (וצלותיה לאו צלותא כדקא יאות), can also be explained using another statement of the Zohar. As mentioned earlier, the Talmud says that who does not wear tefillin during Shema has not acted properly, and it is as if he bore false testimony. This is because the person praying is mentioning the commandment of tefillin, but is not actually wearing them. The Zohar, as mentioned, extends this to tzitzit as well. Thus, the person’s prayer itself is a kind of “false testimony,” which understandably makes the prayer itself deficient.
Tzitzit Passages in the Zohar
In Zohar’s discussion of the verse dealing with tzitzit (Numbers 15:38-39) begins with a discourse by R’ Hezekia.[35] R’ Hezekia begins (“patach”) with a quote from Zacharia 3: “And Joshua the High Priest (ויראני את יהושע כהן גדול).” Then the Zohar, as it is wont to do (in the style of the Midrash which it is imitating), goes on a tangent and talks at length about the greatness of Moses. Finally, the Zohar goes back to the verse of Joshua the High Priest, on 174b, and discusses “clothing of mitzvah” (לבושין דמצוה). This continues until 175a. Then on pg. 175b the Zohar continues with discussion of tzitzit until 176a, when the Zohar’s commentary on Parshat Korach begins.
On the bottom of 174b, the Zohar hints to the fact that Joshua the High Priest’s “dirty clothing” symbolizes the fact that he didn’t wear “clothing of mitzvah,” and in Zacharia’s vision he was being judged for that by an angel.
Then the Zohar writes:
For every man that does not merit in this world to wrap himself in the wrapping of mitzvah and to clothe himself in the clothing of mitzvah (לאתעטפא בעטופא דמצוה ולאתלבשא בלבושא דמצוה), when he goes up to the Next World he stands wearing dirty clothing which he does not need, and they stand in judgment on him.
I would like to analyze this passage. It is clear that “to wrap himself in the wrapping of mitzvah” refers to tzitzit, as the verb “wrapping” (לעטר) always refers to tzitzit in the Zohar and rabbinic sources. However, it is not clear what is meant by “to clothe himself in the clothing of mitzvah.” The author of the commentary Nitzotzei Orot (included in the Zohar ed. Margaliyot) explains that this is also referring to tzitzit, but the first expression is referring to tallit gadol (“large tallit,” which is wrapped around the body, in a fashion), while the second expression refers to tallit katan (“small tallit,” which is worn as a kind of shirt). However, I think that it is unlikely that this is true, as tallit katan was worn only in France and Germany. It is also unlikely that the second expression is referring to tefillin, as the verb “clothe” (ללבוש) is not really appropriate. The verb “crown” (לעטר) is generally used for the wearing of tefillin. See, for example, Zohar 1:141a: “דאתעטר ביה בתפלוי”. More likely is that the Zohar here is being poetic, and repeating itself for literary effect.
The “Raaya Mehemna” there also discusses the mitzvah of tzitzit, spending much time specifically on techelet (the blue fringe), saying that it symbolizes Judgment.[36] At the end, the author has an especially harsh tirade against those who do not wear tzitzit (translation Tishby, vol. 3, pg. 1185):
And when I looked at the blue [thread], and I saw the strap for administering punishment, the place that one must fear, I said: Woe is me! For men do not know or pay heed to the reason for their being punished, and they are deceitful in this matter. ‘The treacherous deal treacherously,’ for they recite the Shema without [wearing] the tzitizit, and they therefore bear false testimony, and they are the treacherous who deal treacherously, being false in themselves. ‘The treacherous deal very treacherously.’ Their clothes without fringes are called ‘the garment of the treacherous,’ the clothes of those treacherous men who are deceitful and bear false testimony every day. Alas for them! Alas for their souls! […] Alas for them, for they have no portion in the World to Come. Happy are the righteous, whose garments and adornments are known in the world above, so that it shall be well with them in this world and in the World to Come.
The Zohar here expands the Talmudic dictum (Bavli, Berachot 14b) that one who reads the Shema without wearing tefillin is as if he is bearing false testimony, as the Shema mentions the commandment of tefillin. The Zohar extends this to the wearing of tzitzit during Shema, as the commandment of tzitzit is also in the Shema.[37] In addition, the Zohar makes the shocking statement that one who does not wear tzitzit has no share in the World to Come. In fact, this may not be as shocking as it seems, as the Talmud in a number of places says that one who does not fulfil what would seem to be relatively minor commandments, or transgresses relatively minor prohibitions, has no share in the World to Come.[38] The fact that the Zohar stresses this indicates that the author was trying to combat a laissez-faire attitude to tzitzit.
Conclusion
The Zohar discusses the commandments of tefillin and tzitzit in a number of passages. Fulfillment of all commandments are important to the author of the Zohar, and these particular commandments are especially important, as they are an obligation every single day. The Zohar innovates both halachic as well as theological ideas regarding tefillin and tzitzit. Examples of this: Some of the hair must stick out of the tefillin box to assuage the evil forces. One who does not wear tzitzit during Shema bears false witness. The Zohar weighs in on the dispute regarding the order of Biblical passages, deciding like Rashi and Rambam.
The Zohar attempts to combat the apathy that the populace had toward wearing tefillin and tzitzit. One who does not wear them is missing out on affecting the higher worlds in a positive way, and himself lacks holiness, fear of God, and has no share in the World to Come. The author of the Zohar was aware of the social realities and did what he could to change them for the better, as well as to mold halacha to his taste. Indeed, in many ways he was extremely successful, given that observance of these mitzvot is now universal among the traditionally observant.
[1] After writing much of this paper, I discovered that Isaiah Tishby already analyzed the topic of tefillin and tzitzit in the Zohar at length. See Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, tr. David Goldstein, New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, vol. 3, pg. 1161-65. However, Tishby does not discuss the historical issue of people not wearing tefillin and its relationship to the rhetoric of the Zohar, nor does he discuss the halachic aspects.
[2] There is a currently a lively ongoing scholarly discussion as to who wrote the Zohar. The discussion was reopened by Yehuda Liebes around twenty five years ago in his article “How the Zohar Was Written,” pp. 1-71 ("כיצד נתחבר ספר הזוהר", מחקרי ירושלים במחשבת ישראל, כרך ח, הכנס הבינלאומי לתולדות המיסטיקה היהודית, 3: "ספר הזוהר ודורו". עורך: יוסף דן. ירושלים: האוניברסיטה העברית, החוג למחשבת ישראל, תשמ"ט ). See most recently Boaz Huss, Like the Radiance of the Sky: Chapters in the Reception History of the Zohar and the Construction of its Symbolic Value [Hebrew], Jerusalem: Mechon Ben-Zvi, 2008; Daniel Abrams, Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, the Hebrew University; Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2010, pg. 224-428. See also the interesting discussion by Elliot Wolfson, “The Anonymous Chapters of the Elderly Master of Secrets: New Evidence for the Early Activity of the Zoharic Circle,” Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts
19 (2009), pg. 172-183.
[3] This was not always the case, of course. As Scholem famously stressed, the Sabbatians took the Kabbalistic theology to the extreme, and discounted the importance of practicing the mitzvot and Halacha. This antinomianism is already found in Sefer Hakanah and Sefer Hapelia. For a discussion of some twentieth century antinomian trends inspired by Kabbalah, see Jonathan Garb, The Chosen Will Become Herds (Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 2009), pg. 75-99.
[4] Late thirteenth century Castille—where most of the Zohar received its final editing—was the scene of a Kabbalistic revolution. See Hartley Lachter, “Jews as Masters of Secrets in Late Thirteenth-Century Castile,” in The Jew in Medieval Iberia; 1100-1500. Edited by Jonathan Ray. Boston: Academic Studies Press, pg. 286-308, for speculation on why this occurred. See also his recent book, Kabbalistic Revolution: Reimagining Judaism in Medieval Spain, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2014.
[5] For a broad overview of the topic of ta’amei hamitzvot, see J. Heinemann, Ta’amei Hamitzvot Besifrut Yisrael, Jerusalem, 19665.
[6] Wolfson, Venturing Beyond (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pg. 15. See the footnote there for a partial list of relevant studies; see another list of studies in Lachter, Kabbalistic Revolution, pg. 197, endnote 2. Lachter writes (ibid., pg. 102): “Some kabbalistic texts are quite forthright with regard to their concerns regarding the lax behavior of their fellow Jews, and their hope that spreading awareness of the theurgic power of Jewish law will help remedy religious apathy.” Scholem discusses the relationship between Kabbalah and Halacha in a number of places, e.g., Scholem, “Religious Authority and Mysticism,” On the Kabbalah, pg. 5-31; ibid., “Kabbalah and Myth,” On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, part I-II (pg. 87-95). He writes there (pg. 95): “Religious feeling rebelled against the rationalist answer [to the question of the reasons for the commandments], namely, Maimonides’ doctrine of the pedagogical and polemical meaning of the commandments.” It should be pointed out that some mitzvot are given a mystical explanation already by the Talmud, such as tefillin and tzitzit, which are the study of this paper. See Ta-Shma, Hanigla Shebinistar, Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 2001, pg. 19.
[7] As to whether a woman is even allowed to wear tefillin and tzitzit, this is an issue that has become a hot-button issue very recently. See for example Samuel Lebens, “Women and tefillin: Address it; don’t suppress it”, Haaretz, March 10, 2014 (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/the-jewish-thinker/.premium-1.578907, accessed 2/20/15).
[8] During the medieval period the idea of the tallit katan, and article of clothing worn all day under the regular clothing, also made its debut. This is how I understand Kanarfogel (cited later, footnote 19), pg. 13, footnote 30.
[9] Halacha in the Zohar is something that began to be studied under the pioneering efforts of Jacob Katz and Israel Ta-Shma. See Ta-Shma, Hanigla Shebinistar, in his introduction. See also Moshe Chalamish’s book on Kabbalah’s influence on Halacha, Hakabbalah Betefillah, Behalacha, Uveminhag, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1990, and Reuven Margaliyot’s Sha’arei Zohar. Scholem discusses the idea of new rites, later considered semi-halachic, created by Kabbalists, in “Tradition and New Creation in the Ritual of the Kabbalists,” in On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism.
[10] Zohar 2:43a-b; Ta-Shma pg. 32.
[11] TZ Zohar Chadash, 101d, quoted by Yaacov Gartner, “The Custom of Donning Two Pairs of Phylacteries during the Period of the Rishonim” (Hebrew), Sidra 8, pg. 16. Gartner also points to RM 3:258a; Ta-Shma pg. 32.
[12] Zohar 2:237b; Ta-Shma pg. 67.
[13] TZ, Zohar Chadash 119d; Ta-Shma pg. 51, 78.
[14] Ta-Shma pg. 78.
[15] See G. Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1974), pg. 219, for a number of examples. For a general discussion of internal Jewish censorship of Jewish works, see the recent work by Marc Shapiro, Changing the Immutable (Oxford: Littman Library Of Jewish Civilization, 2015).
[16] For example, Zohar 2:43a.
[17] Zohar Chadash Shir Hashirim 9b.
[18] Ta-Shma, pg. 22; 51.
[19] Cited by Tishby, Wisdom, vol. 3, pg. 1379, endnote 158. See also ibid., pg. 1370-1372; Ta-Shma, Hanigla Shebanistar, pg. 51. For a survey of sources on sexual promiscuity in Spain (and its contrast to Ashkenaz) and the rabbinic reaction to it, see the fine survey by Ephraim Kanarfogel, “Rabbinic Attitudes toward Nonobservance in the Medieval Period,” Jewish Tradition and the Nontraditional Jew, ed. J. J. Schacter (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1992), pg. 17-26.
[20] Ta-Shma, pg. 51.
[21] For tefillin, see Kanarfogel, “Rabbinic Attitudes toward Nonobservance in the Medieval Period,” pg. 7-11 (see especially pg. 11 for Spain); Daniel Matt’s footnote to Zohar 1:141a, in The Zohar, translation and commentary by Daniel C. Matt, vol. 2, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004, pg. 282, footnote 186; for tzitzit, see Kanarfogel, ibid., pg. 12-13.
[22] Such as the Temple and its sacrifices. Passages regarding this are collected and analyzed by Tishby, Wisdom, vol. 3, pg. 867-940.
[23] Zohar 1:141a. See my analysis later.
[24] Zohar 3:174b, analyzed later.
[25] Zohar 3:175a (Pikkudin), analyzed later.
[26] Zohar 2:43a. See my analysis later.
[27] Zohar 2:118b-119a. This passage is cited by Tishby, Wisdom, vol. 3, pg. 1432. I have cited it using the translation of Kanarfogel, “Rabbinic Attitudes toward Nonobservance in the Medieval Period,” pg. 11, of Tishby’s quotation in the original Hebew edition of his work, as I believe that Goldstein’s translation of the first part of the quotation is not accurate.
[28] Moses Galanti, Mafteach Hazohar, Venice 1566; Abraham Revigo, Mafteach Hazohar, Amsterdam: Nethaniel Puah, 1710 (reprinted Brooklyn, N.Y. 1993); Israel Berechia Fontanella, Miftechot Hazohar, Venice: Bragadin, 1744; Chaim David Halevi, Sefer Miftechot Hazohar Verayonotav, Tel-Aviv: Hotza’at Ha’irgun Ha’artzi shel Harabanim Hasefardim Beyisrael, 1971; David Yizrael, Mafteach Ivri Lema’amarei Hazohar al pi Peirush Hasulam, Jerusalem: Hasifriya Hasefardit – Mechon Benei Yisoscher, 1994; Moshe Yosef First, Sefer Mareh Zohar, Rishon Letzion: M. Y. First, 1995. Meir Benayahu surveys all the early indexes of the Zohar. See Benayahu, “Sefer Mafteach Hazohar Lemahadurotav,” Asufot 10 (1997), pg. 37-47. Also helpful for finding Zohar passages discussing tefillin was Daniel Matt’s footnote to Zohar 1:141a (cited earlier in footnote 21).
[29] Benayahu tries to prove that the full name of the author of this index is Samuel MiSha’ar Aryeh (שמואל משער אריה), a known Kabbalist. See Benayahu, “Sefer Mafteach Hazohar Lemahadurotav,” pg. 47.
[30] In the standard versions of the Zohar (such as the widely available Mossad Harav Kook edition, annotated by Reuven Margaliyot, Jerusalem 19846), this section is labelled as belonging to “Raya Mehemna,” together with a larger section of Raya Mehemna. As mentioned, Raya Mehemna was written by a later author. However, it is clear that this section on tefillin is in fact part of the Pikkudin section of the Zohar, written by the author of the Zohar himself. See Efraim Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1976, pg. 225, #8. Because it is part of Pikkudin and not the body of the text of the Zohar, it has not yet been translated by Daniel Matt. See The Zohar, translation and commentary by Daniel C. Matt, vol. 4 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007), pg. 200, footnote 207. Sperling’s translation (The Zohar, translated by Harry Sperling, Maurice Simon, and Dr. Paul P. Levertoff, London: The Soncino Press, 19563, vol. 3, pg. 133) is, as usual, very unreliable. On Sperling’s unreliability, see Matt, The Zohar, vol. 1 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), pg. XIX.
[31] It is interesting that this Talmudic passage is quoted in the context of tzitzit, in Zohar 3:175b.
[32] The connection of the verse in Deuteronomy to tefillin is made in Bavli Brachot 6a. Margaliyot in his notations to Zohar (Nitzotzei Zohar) does not reference this source.
[33] Translation Matt (The Zohar, translation and commentary by Daniel C. Matt, vol. 2 [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004], pg. 282). Matt’s translation is very literal, as his wont. For my paraphrase, see earlier.
[34] Zohar, Pikkudin, 3:174b-175a.
[35] Zohar 3:174a.
[36] Zohar 3:174b-175a (Raaya Mehemna). In fact this is not Raaya Mehemna, but rather “Pikuddin,” written by the author of the Zohar. See earlier, footnote 30.
[37] Margaliyot (footnote 7) points out that the medieval Menorat Hama’or when quoting this Talmudic passage adds “tzitizit”. This is also pointed out by Rabinovitz in Dikdukei Soferim ad loc. Margaliyot therefore claims that this was a variant that existed in the Talmudic text. However, since no one else has this variant (Rabinovitz even quotes Abudarham as specifically asking why tzitizit is not there!), and every manuscript that I checked (National Library website and Lieberman website) does not have it, I think it very possible that Menorat Hama’or added it based on the Zohar. This is not far-fetched, as Menorat Hama’or quotes the Zohar a number of times.
[38] For example, the Tosefta in Sanhedrin 12:1 (ed. Zukermandel) says that one who uses words from Shir Hashirim for songs sung at a party has no share in the World to Come. This is clearly an exaggeration, as this prohibition is not anywhere on par with the other sins mentioned at the beginning of the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 10:1.