SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 257
absence in some texts may be ascribed to the fragmentary status of their preservation). On the other hand, similar
additions are not found in the other tefillin.
Two different systems are thus discernible with regard to the content, textual character, and scribal habits
connected to the writing of the tefillin found in cave 4. Texts written in the Qumran practice and not reflecting the
rabbinic prescriptions probably derived from the Qumranites themselves (thus already Milik). 335 Other texts from
cave 4 not written in the Qumran practice do reflect the rabbinic regulations with regard to their content, though not
with regard to the writing on only one side of the leather texts of the latter type probably derived from Pharisaic
circles. It is not surprising to find tefillin of this type in the Bar Kochba caves (Mur 4, and Nah≥al S≥edym, 504, assigned all the tefillin found in cave 4 to the Essenes or Sadducees
on the basis of their not following the rabbinic prescriptions with regard to content. On the other hand, Milik, DJD VI,
39, 53, 56, names Phyl C D-F (part of our group 2) ‘Pharisaic type,’ but in general he does not consider the others to be
sectarian, although on p. 47 he speaks of Essene tefillin. He assumes a certain development in the history of the tefillin,
from tefillin containing long stretches of texts, named ‘Essene’ on p. 47, to a more limited choice of texts in the later
ones as prescribed by the Talmud, named ‘Pharisaic’ on p. 47. In a way, the view proposed here thus further develops
the suggestions by Milik.