HOME
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2015 John D. Brey.

And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt. And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine yad, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord’s law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt.

Exodus 13:8-9.

The father is supposed to show his son something the Lord did to him (the father) in accordance with the Passover when he came forth out of Egypt. Some Rabbis tie this to the feast of the unleavened bread. But that's not something done to the father. Neither can unleavened bread be a “sign” upon the yad יד (the Hebrew word yad יד is used for either the "hand" or the "phallus").

Exodus 12-42-48 appears to present undeniable proof of what's being spoken of a few verses later in Exodus 13:8-9:

 . . . this [Passover] is that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in [all] their generations. And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. . . All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:42-48.

Nothing is clearer than that the primary thing that must be "observed" regarding the Passover (observed by all the children of Israel in all generations) is circumcision. If one is not circumcised, they’re a “stranger” to the covenant, and cannot observe the Passover. Circumcision is the initiation into the mystery of the Passover. It’s clearly taught as the sign of the Passover that will be observed in later generations. All males must be circumcised. And then they can eat the Passover.

And thou shalt shew thy son [his circumcision] in that day [Bar Mitzvah], saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt [I was circumcised so that I could eat the Passover meal]. And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine yad, and for a memorial [zikkaron] between thine eyes, [so] that the Lord’s law may be in thy mouth [since you have the mark qualifying you to eat the Passover meal]. . . ..

Exodus 13:8-9.

In the Ordinance of the Passover (Exodus 12:42-48) first comes circumcision, then the Passover meal. In Exodus 13:8-9, first comes the sign of Passover, the circumcision scar, then comes the Passover meal. At future Passovers, and at a given time, the father must initiate his son into the mystery of the Passover by showing his son the sign/mark signifying that the son is not a “stranger” to the Passover, but that he possesses the mark entering him into the commonwealth associated with the eating of the Passover. Once this mark (sign) is between the son's eyes (memorialized in his memory), the son can eat the Passover as a full-fledged member of the covenant.

Bar Mitzvah literally means “son of a commandment.” From the day of his Bar Mitzvah, a boy has the duty of keeping God’s commandments. One of the most important of these commandments is wearing Tefillin. . . The first new obligation of Bar Mitzvah is putting on the Tefillin for the first time. This is even more important than being called to the Torah in the synagogue.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Tefillin, p. 19.

Through the Pesach offering, the Jewish people, assembled in family groups, stands before God like a flock, and in eating the Pesach offering the Jewish people recovers its personality, is redeemed from physical and civic death. . . To take part in the קרבן פסח, however, there is a basic condition: One must participate in the covenant between God and Israel. Such participation [requires that] . . . one must have inscribed the sign of this participation --- the מילה --- on oneself and on one's people (i.e., sons and servants).



The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos, 12:43 [emphasis and bracketed words mine].

Exodus 13:9 says the mark on the yad will be a "memorial" זכרון (zikkaron), between the eyes. . . But in Exodus 13:16, the "memorial" זכרון (zikkaron) is called "frontlets" טוטפת (totapot), between the eyes?

And it shall be for a token upon thine yad יד, and for frontlets טוטפת [totapot] between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt.

Exodus 13:16.

In the Hirsch Chumash, Rabbi Hirsch assumes (with all of Judaism) that the "frontlets" (totapot) are in fact the tefillin. But he also thinks of them as the “ornament” taken off at Exodus 33:4 because of Israel’s sin at Mt. Horeb. Rabbi Hirsch equates the “ornaments” worn by Israel in association with the establishment of the covenant with the "frontlets" discussed in Exodus 13:16:

. . ."and no one put on his ornament." We are not told what kind of ornament this was. But it is clear from the context that it was an ornament in the literal sense of the term, one that could be put on and taken off. If מחר חורב of verse 6 means that they received this ornament at Chorev, it must have been not simply jewelry, but an ornament of a special kind. . . We would venture the following suggestion: There is only one object that has been described for us as the national ornament of the Jewish people. It is called "טוטפת" [totapot] "an ornament for the brow" (above, 13:16), and also simply "פאר," "ornament" (See Yechezkel 24:17), and it is taken off as a sign of mourning. Should we not, then, consider the "ornament" mentioned in this verse as identical with this, the sole national ornament of the Jewish people? These are theתפלין [tefillin] which they received immediately upon their departure from Egypt.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos, 33:4, p. 784.

Another Rabbi, writing much earlier than Rabbi Samson Hirsch, has a different opinion concerning the nature of the “ornaments” taken off at Exodus 33:4:

The sprinkling of blood on them was in order that they should enter the covenant with God through blood. And they called the stain of blood on their clothing "ornament" [עדי] since it was an ornament for them and a great honor. And it gave them testimony [edut] and a sign that they had entered the covenant with God. And therefore, when they sinned with the calf and transgressed the covenant, he said to them: "take off your ornaments," that is, take off from your garments that which has been ornaments for you . . . those clothes on which the blood of the covenant had been thrown that were the witness and sign between God and themselves.

Rabbi Hananel ben Hushiel quoted in David Biale's, Blood and Belief, p. 93.

On the distinction between Exodus 13:9 and Exodus 13:16, Mekhilta: De-Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai states:

XVIII:VII

A. "'(And this shall serve) you (as a sign on your hand and as a reminder between your eyes, in order that the Teaching of the Lord may be in your mouth, that with a mighty hand the Lord freed you from Egypt)'" (Exod. 13:9):

The notation on this statement says:

. . . The implication of the proof text is that the phylactery is a sign for the Jew who wears it, and not for others. Thus, the text here seems to stress either that the phylactery for the hand [yad] must be placed directly on the arm of the person who wears it, because it serves in this fashion as a direct sign for him, or that the phylactery need not be placed on the outside of an undergarment, in order that it be seen by others people.

Exodus 13:9 is not speaking of tefillin but of the circumcision scar. It's to be a sign for the person who wears it, the youth who will be initiated into its meaning at a future Passover. It’s a sign for him and him alone. It’s to remain underneath his undergarment, his underwear. On the other hand, Exodus 13:16 compares the private sign on the yad, with a public sign worn as an “ornament” on the clothes, or as jewelry fashioned in commemoration of the blood-stained clothing.

Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai, says, that based on the wording of the passage (Exodus 13:9), this particular sign is for the young individual alone. The context of the passage is completely and unequivocally clear that the "sign" the father explains to the son (for the son's edification) is the mark of circumcision. We know this without a doubt since Exodus 13:9 is a continuance of chapter 12, which points out that the mark of circumcision is the requirement for eating the Passover. In 13:9, the sign explained to the son is specifically said to be related to the young Jewish male eating the Passover. A correct translation should read:

And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine phallus, and for a memorial [zikkaron] between thine eyes, that the [edible manifestation of the] Lord's law [the Passover lamb] may be in thy mouth . . ..

The Hebrew word "zikkaron" translated "memorial," in Exodus 13:9, is changed to the Hebrew word "totapot" translated "ornament" in Exodus 13:16. Whereas, as Mekhilta points out, "zikkaron," at 13:9, means the sign is for the individual alone, the word "totapot," 13:16, means it's an "ornament" to be seen by everyone.

The "sign" spoken of in 13:9 is the mark of circumcision worn on the phallus (mistranslated "hand" from the Hebrew word "yad"). So the father explains to the son that the scar marking his yad is related to the mass circumcision that took place prior to the original Passover Seder (12:44). Here (13:9) the mark is said to be a "memorial" zikkaron between the eyes of the individual youth, required to be there if he's to partake in the Passover meal that's now to become an annual memorial.

But then in Exodus 13:16, we read of this private sign, or mark, becoming not just an individual memorial for the young Jew, the mark making him worthy to eat the Passover meal, but now it's a "totapot," an "ornament" --- to be seen by one and all: "And it shall be for a token upon thine phallus, and also for an `ornament’ between thine eyes . . .".

XVIII:VII

B. [This shall serve as a sign for you,] but not others.
A. Since Scripture says, "`. . . On your hand . . . between your eyes'" (Exod. 13:9), one might think he may place it on the outside of his undergarment.
B. Scripture states, [however]"`. . . And this shall serve you'" (Exodus 13:9) [meaning, you] but not others.
A. "`. . . On your hand and . . . between your eyes'" (Exod. 13:9).

Mekhilta explains that the passage in Exodus 13:9 is speaking of a private sign that can’t be placed on the outside of the undergarment. It's to serve only the person who wears it. It's private. ----- But in Exodus 13:16, speaking of the "ornament" (totapot), rather than a "memorial" (zikkaron), the sign is clearly public. It's designed to be seen.

This suggests that the "memorial" is not two separate articles (as portrayed in the tefillin) but one sign in one hidden place. When it speaks of the sign being memorialized “between the eyes,” it's using the phrase "between the eyes" in the sense of "seeing" the sign, and thus memorializing the sign in the memory. There’s not two separate items (a sign on the yad and a separate one between the eyes). There’s only one sign. And it's between the eyes in the sense of being seen by the person wearing it. The sign is worn in a private place not observable by anyone but the one wearing it.

The "ornament" (totapot) in Exodus 13:16 inverts the principle of Exodus 13:9. The verse is not speaking of the same sign hidden beneath the undergarment in Exodus 13:9 (which is only to be between the eyes of the person wearing it). It speaks not of a private “memorial” but a public "ornament" worn somewhere in plain sight. But not literally between the eyes, since the statement about being between the eyes is idiomatic for something being "seen" between the eyes of the viewer. Neither Exodus 13:9, nor Exodus 13:16 is speaking of literally "wearing" something between the eyes. In both passages "between the eyes" is being used as an idiom for "seeing" something tangible and symbolic.

Understanding the difference between Exodus 13:9 and 13:16 creates a giant problem for the rituals associated with the wearing of the tefillin as they’re practiced by Judaism. Judaism's solution to the exegetical problems ends up being violent to the clear meaning of the text. There appears no way that the mark of circumcision could become a visible emblem or "ornament" (totapot) for the community. Therefore, the exegetes must read the word yad יד in 13:9 (the place where the "sign" is found) as a "hand," instead of the place where the mark of circumcision resides, which is “yad” יד ---- the “phallus” rather than “hand.”

The Hebrew word "yad" is used in the Tanakh for a "hand" and also for a "phallus." ----In a general sense the word means that appendage which represents a man's ability to make his mark in the world. Since the sages can’t imagine the sign of circumcision as the sign that’s described by the word “totapot,” (“ornament”), they decide that the word “yad” must be translated "hand" . . . in which case the memorial is not imagined as existing on the organ of the covenant, but on the actual "hand."

The exegetes of the Mekhilta are aware that there's a real exegetical problem between the wording of these two parallel passages so they say:

Phylacteries of the head do not impair [the suitability] of [phylacteries] of the hand, and [phylacteries] of the hand do not impair [the suitability] of [phylacteries] of the head. And if one has only one [of the two] , he should don [it alone].

Mekhilta XIX:IV, 5. B.

Since the text speaks of a "memorial" and an "ornament," the sages are aware that the two things are distinctly different, and thus not a two-piece set (where the two black boxes are the same sort of thing). The "memorial" can be seen without wearing the "ornament" and the "ornament" can be worn without the "memorial" being "between the eyes."

In the same passage of Mekhilta, the sages remark that if the "ornament" is between the eyes, "both shall be there." This is remarkable since it suggests that the "ornament" "between the eyes" represents the "sign" on the yad. . . In other words, even though these exegetes know that the two items (one on the yad, and the other "between the eyes") are not fundamentally part of a two-piece set, they know that their relationship is such that if the "ornament" is "between the eyes" it's as though what’s being seen, when looking at the ornament, is what they would see if they were looking at the yad.

The "memorial" on the yad is for the individual, while the "ornament" is a tangible representation of the thing memorialized. But the ornament is manufactured and worn in a public place where one and all can have it "between the eyes" simply by looking at it. The statement "between the eyes" simply means something "seen" by the viewer (idiomatically "between the eyes") and not a literal thing placed between the eyes. It's a fairly violent maneuver to turn the idiom "between the eyes" (which clearly and obviously means something visible) into a literal black box placed "between the eyes."

The knowledgeable Jew, who appreciates these concepts, would no doubt question why, if this is true, do Jews wear the black leather boxes where they do ---on the arm and between the eyes? What's the significance of the tefillin as practiced by practicing Jew?

The black leather ---and the placement of the tefillin boxes (between the eyes and on the arm) ---- are a dead giveaway to the symbolic significance of the tefillin as practiced by practicing Jews.

The tefillin, as worn by practicing Jews, are designed to transform the Jewish wearer into the image of God as that image is found in the text of the Torah, i.e., the letter alef (the letter most directly representing God).

Numerous midrashim claim that when the Jew dons the tefillin, he's making himself into the image of God (who is Himself imagined as wearing tefillin). The two black boxes that make up the tefillin represent the two yod that are parts of the letter alef. -----The vav in the middle represents the wearer of the tefillin. The vav is the number 6, which represents the number of "man" while the yod is the number 10, which signifies --- among other things --- the "house of God." ---- The tefillin wearer is making himself the "house" or "shrine" of God when he dons the tefillin. He’s the vav, wearing the two yod (the two black boxes worn as the tefillin).

Since the yod is the mark of circumcision (as almost universally taught in Jewish scripture) it becomes obvious that the first yod on the vav (in the image of the alef) represents the sign spoken of in Exodus 13:9. The Jewish youth (the vav) is told by his father that he cannot eat the Passover unless he has a particular mark engraved on his body. The youth is instructed about these things by his father, at which time he can "privately" observe the mark on his body, such that the mark will be "between his eyes" as a "memorial" (zikkaron) as to why and how he was marked as a member of the community formed on Passover night.

The image of the alef imagines the yod of circumcision (the yod on the right of the vav) representing the mark of circumcision found on the organ of the covenant. On the other hand, the yod on the left represents the yod being seen by the eyes of the person wearing the yod on the organ of the covenant. In this sense the alef is itself a "memorial" to Passover night, and the manner in which God freed Israel from slavery and death when the serpent of God passed over rather than entering into them.

"This is the mystery as we have taught, `And he [Abraham] was sitting at the opening of the tent' (Gen. 18:1), for the yod was revealed." . . To appreciate fully the import of this passage one must bear in mind that the letter yod, already in classical midrashic sources, was conceived of as the letter or mark of circumcision imprinted, as it were, on the phallus. In Zoharic terms, the letter yod, the seal of circumcision, the `ot berit, corresponds to the sefirah of Yesod. By disclosing the yod on one's body, the corona of the phallus, the yod in the upper realm is likewise disclosed.

Elliot R. Wolfson, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation: From Midrashic Trope to Mystical Symbol.

When professor Wolfson speaks of the yod being "imprinted, as it were, on the phallus," he's serious as a heart attack. He understands the relationship between the alef as a letter and the letter as an emblem of a man having had the yod disclosed on his body. The letter alef, with its two yod, and its vav (representing the circumcisee) is a fitting picture of the Jewish male having had the yod disclosed on his body, and then memorializing the lower mark of circumcision in the upper realm of his heart, or mind. Professor Wolfson shows how serious he is about the relationship between the letter and the actual flesh of the Jewish male ---marked as a member of the covenant ---when he says:

One is said to see the Holy One from the sign of the covenant inscribed in one's flesh, the letter yod. As we have seen, in the case of the Zohar the letter yod is not understood simply as a sign of the covenant between God and Israel but is the very sign of the Holy One himself. . . Here we meet a convergence of anthropomorphic and letter symbolism: the physical organ in its essential character is interchangeable with the letter, and the letter with the physical organ.

Elliot R. Wolfson, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation: From Midrashic Trope to Mystical Symbol.

Throughout his writing, Professor Wolfson explains that the yod disclosed at circumcision is uncovered when the flesh is removed. When the flesh is removed, the yod is visible for the first time. And in viewing the yod, some sort of visionary theophany occurs. The person who places the ritually uncovered yod "between the eyes" sees God in some real and tangible sense. He’s therefore initiated into the covenant of those who left the slavery of Egypt on Passover.

Since Professor Wolfson is clear and detailed about the "convergence of anthropomorphic and letter symbolism," it's clear that the yod in the letter and the yod on the flesh, are imitated by the black boxes, the tefillin, worn by orthodox Jews. Professor Wolfson's explanation of these things supports the interpretation of Exodus 13:9 that sees the father pointing out to the son that he (the son) is responsible to "memorialize" the yod he received at his ritual circumcision, make it a memorial "between his eyes." At this point there’s no box placed on the forehead or between the eyes since the memorialization is the youth creating a memory of “seeing God” when he sees the mark entering him into the covenant. To be a member of the covenant is to have seen the mark of God in the flesh. And then to have imprinted that theophany in the memory, idiomatically, between the eyes.

Tetragrammaton in the Flesh applied this understanding of the alef  as an exegetical principle similar to the exegesis found in Shaddai the Lamb of God, and precisely as Professor Wolfson describes in incredible depth in chapter 2 of, Circle in the Square:

Circumcision is not simply and incision of the male sex organ; it is an inscription, a notation, a marking. This marking, in turn, is the semiological seal, as it were, that represents the divine imprint on the human body. . . The opening of circumcision, in the final analysis, is transformed in the Zohar into a symbol for  the task of exegesis. The appropriateness of this symbolization lies in the fact that the relation of the visionary to the Shekinah engendered by the opening of the flesh is precisely the relationship of the critic or exegete to the text engendered by the semiological seal. This relationship is simultaneously interpretive and visionary. Through exegesis, that which was concealed, hidden, closed----in a word, esoteric----becomes opened, disclosed, manifest----in a word, exoteric. the uncovering of the phallus is conceptually and structurally parallel to the disclosure of the text.

When this form of exegesis is applied to the Name YHVH יהוה it becomes apparent that just as the Name "Shaddai" שדי, is the word "lamb" שה,  with the veil, or dalet ד pulled back to expose the mark of circumcision, the yod י, so too, the Name YHVH יהוה is subject to the same exegetical izmel.

Whereas "Shaddai" is a name associated with the first stage of circumcision, milah, "YHVH" is the Name associated with the second, and most revealing stage of circumcision, periah. As such, two veils (rather than the one in "Shaddai") must be removed in the Name YHVH. There are two dalet, two veils, two obstructions, which must be removed to unveil the higher revelation associated with the Name YHVH.

יהוה
ד ד
יוי
א

Here the two dalet in the Name YHVH are removed from over the two yod leaving two yod and a vav. If the yod are attached to the vav, we have an alef. In this we see that “YHVH “is, like "lamb," the pre-circumcision form of the Name. When the Name is subject to the exegetical izmel, or scalpel, the Name "YHVH" becomes the letter Alef.

. . . Justifying this circumscribed exegesis is the fact that the parts that make up the alef, two yod and a vav, if added up to form a number (two tens--- the yod--- and a six--- the vav) equals the number 26, which, as fate would have it, is the same number we get if we add the two heh ה, a vav ו, and a yod י, we find in the Name YHVH.

א  =  יהוה  =  26 

Someone will ask, "Where's the third yod from YHVH?" ----- There are 3 yod in YHVH. There's the two hidden under the two dalet (forming the two heh), and the one that starts the Name. ------ But when the transformation takes place, and the veils are removed, there are only two yod attached to the vav forming the letter alef?

When YHVH יהוה is transformed into the alef (by removing the two dalet ד over the two yod ' . . . in the two heh in the name) there appears to be an extra yod (the first yod in the Name) left dangling outside of the alef:

יהוה
ד ד
יוי
א

In the transformation from YHVH to the alef, the two dalet can be discarded since they represent the two veils torn to reveal the yod in ritual circumcision. But the yod that starts the Name cannot just be discarded; thus there appears to be three yod to deal with, and not just the two that attach themselves to the vav to form the alef?

But if it’s the case that when Exodus chapter 13 says "between the eyes" in both cases it means "seeing" something, and not a literal placing of something between the eyes, then, as stated earlier, there’s only one actual tefillin, or totapot, only one yod. There’s only one ornament forming a tangible memorial in the field of vision received when the Jewish male has a theophany by looking at the mark that marks him as entered into the covenant.

When he looks at the yod engraved in his flesh, he’s “seeing” God in his own flesh and blood, which “seeing” --- vision --- is the only place God will ever be registered or archived in a temporal or finite manner.

This suggests that the alef is not a yod on the hand and between the eyes, as practiced by orthodox Jews, but merely a pictogram of the yod in the flesh, the mark of circumcision, and an actual, tangible, ornament (totapot) which memorializes the vision received when privately casting a gaze in the direction of the mark of circumcision.

The pictogram of the alef pictures the individual Jewish male with the yod in his flesh and simultaneously in his line of sight (such that there's only one actual yod, the one in the flesh, the other being a "vision," i.e., a yod "between the eyes" in the heart, or mind): Exodus 13:9.

The solution to the disappearance of the yod is related to Judaism inadvertently misreading two important passages of scripture: Exodus 13:9 and 13:16. -------Based on their exegesis of all the texts and principles involved, the great sages thought that there were two yod, two "houses" of the Lord, required to turn the Jewish male's body into the form of the alef. And that's naturally how it appears. That seems to be the only conclusion that could be reached. And that's why the "between the eyes" was taken literally (such that the tefillin box is placed "between the eyes").

If Exodus 13:9 and 13:16 are parallel passages, and they clearly seem to be, then how can the private "sign" which only the individual male Jew (and perhaps his future wife), are allowed to place "between their eyes" (as a memorial), become a public "ornament" without creating a perversion and blasphemy? ---- Worse --- how is it even possible to think of the private mark of circumcision as a public "ornament" without creating a grotesque eschatological emblem unthinkable in the mind of the worst pagan let alone the religious minded Jew?

The church should have said to Freud, “Thank you very much. Yes indeed, our symbolism is sexual. The steeples of our churches, the vesticle-shaped windows and heraldic shields on which we put images of the crucifix or the Virgin Mother of God, these are all quite plainly sexual. However, the sexual form reveals the mysteries of the universe. Sex is not mere sex, it is a holy thing, and one of or most marvelous revelations of the divine.

Alan Watts, Myth and Religion, p. 104.

Christ, even when resurrected from the dead, is valued for his body, and his body is the means by which communion in his presence is incorporation—oral drive --- with which Christ’s wife, the Church as it is called, contents itself very well, having nothing to expect from copulation. . . In everything that followed from the effects of Christianity, particularly in art--- and it’s in this respect that I coincide with the “baroquism” with which I accept to be clothed--- everything is exhibition of the body evoking jouissance --- and you can lend credence to the testimony of someone who has just come back from an orgy of churches in Italy – but without copulation. If copulation isn’t present, it’s no accident. It’s just as much out of place there as it is in human reality, to which it nevertheless provides sustenance with the fantasies by which that reality is constituted. . . Nowhere, in any cultural milieu, has this exclusion been admitted to more nakedly. I will even go a bit further --- don’t think I don’t mete out what I say (mes dires) to you ---I will go so far as to tell you that nowhere more blatantly than in Christianity does the work of art as such show itself as what  it has always been in all places --- obscenity. . . I am only speaking of what we see in all the churches in Europe, everything attached to the walls, everything that is crumbling, everything that delights, everything that is delirious. It’s what I earlier called obscenity --- but exalted.

Jacques Lacan, On Feminine Sexuality, The limits of Love and Knowledge, 1972-1973. In, Encore, The Seminars of Jacques Lacan Book XX, p. 133, 116.

So, what is the totapot? ----- What is the obscene "ornament" which takes the place of the mark of circumcision, such that it can be observed in public, and not merely by the individual as a private mark on his body? What’s being said in Exodus 13:16?

This adornment is a sign of glory with which Israel publicly displays its attachment to God. R' Eliezer HaGadol observes that the verse, And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of Hashem is called upon you; and they shall fear you (Deut. 28:19), refers to the tefillin of the head (Menachos 35a).

Rabbi Elie Munk, The Call of the Torah, Shemos, p. 160.

The word "tefillin" תפילין . . . is similar to the word "tiferet" תפארת. ---- As a matter of fact, they both mean "ornament," or "adornment." On this, as pointed out earlier, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch says:

"and no one put on his ornament." We are not told what kind of ornament this was. But it is clear from the context that it was an ornament in the literal sense of the term, one that could be put on and taken off. If מחר חורב of verse 6 means that they received this ornament at Chorev, it must have been not simply jewelry, but an ornament of a special kind.

 We would venture the following suggestion: There is only one object that has been described for us as the national ornament of the Jewish people. It is called "טוטפת" "an ornament for the brow" (above, 13:6), and also simply "פאר," "ornament" (See Yechezkel 24:17), and it is taken off as a sign of mourning. Should we not, then, consider the "ornament" mentioned in this verse as identical with this, the sole national ornament of the Jewish people? These are the תפ’לין [tefillin] which they received immediately upon their departure from Egypt.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos, 33:4, p. 784.

The essay, Deutero-Israel in Deutero-Isaiah, posited what at the time seemed like an idiosyncratic translation and interpretation of Isaiah 49:18:

Lift up your eyes and look around; all your sons gather and come to you. As surely as I live, declares the Lord, you will be worn by them all as ornaments; you will be worn by them as a bride wears jewelry around her neck.  (49:18).

This scripture (Isaiah 49:18) discusses the personification of Zion, the Suffering Servant, who, three chapters later (Isaiah 53), is presented something like the Passover lamb lifted up on a spit (see R. Hirsch: "suspended in midair . . . on a spit," Shemos 12:9) in order to take away sin and purchase freedom from death. Rabbi Hirsch says the tefillin are the "ornament" given to Israel on the first day of the Passover. Isaiah 49:18 speaks of the Passover Lamb, the suffering servant, lifted up in midair, being worn as a ornament by the sons and daughters of this Passover Lamb who (the sons and daughters) will (as subsequent verses ---49:20-- tell us) be born during his bereavement.

The Passover Lamb is going to be worn as an ornament by those who are born after He's sacrificed, and lifted up in midair. He's to be fashioned into a particular ornament the wearing of which will be a symbol to the whole world. The whole world will acknowledge this ornament as a somber sign of God's love for humanity (Deut. 28:10).

The Sefirotic tree, which is an anthropomophic image of Adam Kadmon, the Holy One of God (a human personification of God) wears tefillin according to the Talmud (Berachos 6a). And since Rabbi Hirsch informs us that the "ornaments" Israel received on the first day of Passover are the tefillin, we see something which confirms the idiosyncratic interpretation of Isaiah 49:18 beyond the wildest imagination of even the most hard-hearted skeptic..

Tiferet is "ornament" "beauty" "adornment." The word is related to "tefillin" and "totapot" the two words which speak of what Rabbi Hirsch calls the "national ornament of the Jewish people." ------- Adam Kadmon is wearing tefillin as the Talmud tells us He will. ------But he's not wearing it on his head. -----He's wearing it as a necklace around his neck and shoulders such that it's centered between his breasts. He's wearing it as a bride would wear a cross between her breasts on the night she consummates her engagement to the groom.

Psalms 149:4 says: "He will beautify [פאר] the meek with Salvation [Yeshua]." Rabbi Hirsch notes that the פאר "ornament" is associated with beautifying God's servants with the tefillin. The tefillin is an "ornament" beautifying God's servants. . . Look again at the anthropomorphic Tree of Life, the Sefirothic Tree. 

The brain, knowledge, i.e., the soul, are associated with the physical head, Daat. ----Below the head, between the breasts, is tiferet, "ornament," "beautification," i.e., the tefillin of the New Covenant. ----- The word "tiferet" in Hebrew is תפארת.  The word Rabbi Hirsch uses for "ornament" פאר is smack dab between to crosses on Golgotha (the prototype tav ---Ktav Ivri---was a cross): ת-פאר-ת = Tiferet (two crosses with ornament in the middle).

A "beautiful" "ornament" of "glory" exists between two crosses and forms the New Covenant tefillin. An ornament hangs between the two breasts revealing the Holy One of God to all the world. The Lord takes pleasure in His people. ------"He will beautify [פאר] the meek with Salvation [Yeshua]." ----- The meek will wear the tefillin of the New Covenant: Yeshua.

Lift up your eyes and look around; all your sons gather and come to you. As surely as I live, declares the Lord, you will be worn by them all as ornaments; you will be worn by them as a bride wears jewelry around her neck.

Isaiah 49:18.

The Sefirotic Tree is an anthropomophic representation of God. It has a number of important emanations (sefira) --- ten to be precise. Each of these emanations represent a limb, or organ, of the human body, except one. Tiferet represents a beautifying representation of a human body (jewelry or ornamentation), hanging in the center of God's representative human body. Tiferet is an ornament hanging on God's representative body.

In the Talmud it's assumed that this divine Jewelry/ornamentation (of God's representative body) is the tefillin worn by religious Jews. But there’s a number of reasons to believe that tiferet isn’t the tefillin as they’re worn by religious Jews. For one, the true tefillin, as represented by tiferet, are said to be a glorifying and beautifying piece of Jewelry. There’s nothing particularly beautiful or beautifying (aesthetically speaking) about a black box protruding ominously from a Jewish forehead.

Scriptures say that this beautifying ornament will be seen from one end of the earth to the other, by all peoples, and that everyone seeing it will recognize it as being worn to adorn the body of the wearer in such a way that it will beautify the wearer.

Only one piece of Jewelry meets this description. It's worn between the breasts of women on their wedding day, and it's a glorious beautification of the bride. It's recognized as such by the whole of the world. There are pictures throughout print media throughout the world of this piece of Jewelry being worn between the breast of men and women world without end (kings, queens, athletes, clergy, saints, sinners, every spectrum of the human race is covered by this glorifying covering).