The Tosefta Blog

Notes:

1. The Tosefta continues on the same subject from the previous Tosefta. It is not related to any Mishna.
2. The Tosefta is referring to a Roman bath house, known as the Balneae or Thermae in Latin, which were very common in the Land of Israel in Talmudic times. Ruins of many of them can still be seen today, for example in Masada and Caesarea. There was a room in each bath house called the Caldarium which contained the actual hot baths. The walls and the floor of the Caldarium were hollow where the opposite dividers were connected by stone pillars. Hot air was passed inside these hollow walls which kept the room extremely hot all the time. The mosaic floor of the Caldarium was built directly above the hypocaust, a type of a central heating system, where hot steam was pumped in between the stone pillars. The furnace itself where the fire burned was built either on the side of the hypocaust or directly below it. See William Smith, Charles Anthon (editor of the American edition), “A dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities”, Volume 2, edition 3, 1843, entry Baths, p. 151. The idea was to have the furnace as close as possible to the hot bath so it could be kept as hot as possible. Often the floor would get so hot that the material from which it was made would burn through and the people in the Caldarium would fall down directly either into the hot steam in the hypocaust or even further down directly in to the fire of the furnace, and get killed. Talmud Bavli (Berachot 60a) relates a story about Rebbi Avahu, a Palestinian Amora of the 3^rd century CE, who once went into a Roman bath house, most probably in Caesarea, where he lived, and the floor collapsed. However, Rebbi Avahu did not get killed, because he happened to be right above a stone pillar, so when the floor fell he remained standing on the pillar. He was also able to save a few people this way by grabbing and holding on to them thus preventing them from falling into the hot steam. In Talmud Bavli (Pesachim 112b) Rebbi Yossi Ben Rebbi Yehudah tells Rebbi Yehudah Hanassi not to enter a newly built bath house, because of the possibility of the floor collapsing. Obviously the Rabbis felt that there was a danger associated with bath houses, especially newly built ones or really old ones which were not repaired, although it is not clear how often accidents actually happened.



Caldarium from the Roman Baths at Bath, England. The floor has been removed to reveal the empty space where the hot air flowed through to heat the floor. Notice the pillars between which the hot steam passed through. Rebbi Avahu escaped death due to one of these pillars.




Caldarium from the Roman bath house at Masada, Israel. Remains of the original floor can still be seen in the left upper corner. Photo: David Shankbone.


3. As was already explained in note 7 on the previous Tosefta, these prayers are not formal and therefore they do not have to be said in Hebrew and using the exact expression mentioned by the Tosefta. They were so informal that the Talmud Bavli (Berachot 60a) mentions the opinion of Abaye who says that the line “but if a disaster will happen to me may my death be a forgiveness for all of my sins” should not be said at all, because it is like jinxing oneself, that since the person mentioned death now it is going to happen. The expression that Abaye uses is “a person should not open his mouth to the Satan.” Abaye claims that this dictum, or if I may “superstition”, of not jinxing oneself with words originally comes from a Tannaitic teaching of the Tanna Rebbi Yossi or from a teaching of Reish Lakish who was a Palestinian Amora, which makes it difficult to accuse Abaye of being influenced by Zoroastrian superstitions prevalent in Babylonia during the rule of Sassanid Empire when Abaye lived, in the 4^th century CE, since Rebbi Yossi was never exposed to Zoroastrian culture. However it is clear from this Tosefta that the Tannaim of the Land of Israel were not really concerned about jinxing oneself, especially during a prayer to God, since the opinion of Rebbi Yossi is not even mentioned.

Notes:

1. Mishna 4 of chapter 9 quotes the argument of how many prayers a person should say when he enters and exits a city. Our Tosefta quotes the same argument, but in the name of a different Tanna and quotes the text of the prayers that he should say.
2. In the Roman Empire there seemed to be a prevalent notion that cities are more dangerous than villages due to rampant poverty, crime and desease. See Gregory S. Aldrete, “Daily life in the Roman city: Rome, Pompeii and Ostia”, 2004, p.4, p. 103-104. Roman cities including Rome itself, and obviously the cities in the Land of Israel had no police force of any kind. The responsibility to catch criminals rested on the people themselves. Since no one really cared much for the welfare of others outside of his own family the city could be a rather dangerous place especially for a visitor who does not have any connections and anyone to protect him from city criminals. It is interesting to note that Talmud Bavli (Berachot 60a) mentions the opinion of Rav Matna who says that the law of this Tosefta regarding prayers for going in and out of the city only applies to a city that does not have a court that has the authority to execute people, but if the city has such a court then the prayers do not need to be said. Rav Matna was a Babylonian Amora who studied under Shmuel in Nehardea, which places him in the first half of the 3^rd century CE. This implies that in Babylonia in the 3^rd century, which was under the control of the Persian Sassanid Empire (starting with Ardashir I in 226 CE), in cities that had a court in them that could perform executions there was a lot less crime than in other cities and therefore the prayers were not necessary. I am convinced that Rav Matna is not referring to a Jewish court, but rather to a regular Persian court, since by his time Jewish courts did not execute anyone, and even before the destruicton of the Bet Hamikdash when Jewish courts performed executions such occurencies were extremely rare. However it is possible that a Persian court could execute someone for a crime relatively fast and such executions were frequent, which would increase public fear and reduce crime. I do not think that presence of a capital court in the city meant that automatically there was a police force there as well which helped reduce crime. Even without police the mere fear of a possible execution would cause people to be more cautious about commiting crimes.
3. The opinion of the Tanna Kama (the first Tanna) is that the person does not need to thank God for what already occurred. He only needs to request from God that nothing bad should happen to him. Therefore only one prayer with the request for the safe entry and for the safe exit is necessary.
4. In the Erfurt manuscript the name of the Tanna who says this is Ben Azzai, just like it is in the Mishna. I have quoted the text to say Rebbi Shimon according to the Vienna manuscript.
5. Rebbi Shimon holds that it is not enough to just request from God safe entry and exit, but rather a person should also thank God for providing him with a safe entry and exit. Therefore Rebbi Shimon adds a prayer of thanks upon entry into the city and a prayer of thanks upon exit from the city.
6. In the Erfurt manuscript the text of the prayer reads, “Hashem, our God” instead of “Hashem, my God”. It seems to me that the way the Vienna manuscript quotes the text, “my God”, makes more sense, because this is a personal prayer that the Rabbis have not coined to the extent that the person must follow official text in Hebrew as obligatory prayers are, such as Berachot and Shemoneh Esreh, all of which always say “our God”. See the next note. Therefore the reading, “my God”, seems to be more applicable in this case.
7. The Rambam (Perush Hamishnayot, Mishna Berachot 9:4) explains that this prayer is not formal as regular required prayers such as Shemoneh Esreh. Therefore a person is not required to face the Bet Hamikdash when he says it, is not required to prepare himself by setting his mind upon it, and it is not written in the formal text of a Beracha. But rather it is a personal supplication to God. Based on the Rambam’s explanation it seems that the Rabbis have not coined the exact text of this prayer, but merely suggested what a person should say. However this prayer does not need to be said in Hebrew and its text can vary some what. Based on this understanding of the Rambam it can be explained why the Rambam in his Mishna Torah does not quote the Halacha (law) that originates from Talmud Bavli (Berachot 29b) that a when a person goes out on a journey he needs to say Tefilat Hederech (A Prayer for a Journey). See Bet Yosef (Tur, Orach Chaim 110, Veharambam) who seems to be the first who asked this question. The Kol Bo (87, Hilchot Berachot, page 56a, right column, in the Lemberg 1860 edition), a halachic work by an anonymous Rishon (Medieval authority), says that this last prayer in our Tosefta that a person should say when he leaves the city is basically the same prayer as the prayer of Tefilat Haderech. I would like to propose that the Rambam agrees with the Kol Bo on this point and therefore since the Rambam already quoted the law from this Tosefta in Hilchot Berachot 10:25 he does not need to separately quote the law of Tefilat Haderech, because it would be redundant duplication. However, the Rambam disagrees with the Kol Bo regarding the point of how formal these prayers are. According to the Kol Bo Tefilat Haderech as well as the prayers quoted in our Tosefta, are formal prayers and therefore they should be said in the exact fashion that it is quoted in the Gemara, in plural form (i.e. “our God”, not “my God”) and end with a  Beracha – Baruch Ata Hashem Shomeah Tefillah (Blessed You Hashem Who hears prayer), because that is the way the Rabbis have coined it, however according to the Rambam the text of Tefillat Haderech quoted in the Gemara is a mere suggestion and is not formally coined just like the rest of the prayers quoted in this Tosefta and therefore technically a person can say them in any language and using any expression he likes. Since there is no formal text of Tefilat Haderech the Rambam does not need to quote it in the Mishna Torah, but rather all he needs to say that a person should say some kind of a prayer when he leaves the city, as he did in Hilchot Berachot 10:25, and that would be sufficient for us to know that we need to say a prayer when we go out on a journey. As a side note I just would like to clarify that the whole long quote in the Kol Bo about Tefilat Haderech in the name of Ram (ר”מ) is not referring to the Rambam, but rather to Maharam Merutenburg who was sometimes called the Ram (Rabeinu Meir), and should not cause confusion.

I have figured out the explanation for the argument between Rebbi and the Rabbanan regarding how many times the Beracha on Tefillin should be said. I have updated note 5 with my explanation.

5. For example, if the person would put on Tefillin in the morning and not take it off the whole day then he would only say the Beracha once before he puts it on in the morning. However if he decided to take a break from wearing it and took it off for a significant period of time then when he puts it back on again that same day he would have to say another Beracha. I have specifically used the example of Tefillin, because there is an argument in Talmud Bavli (Sukkah 46a) between Rebbi and the Rabbanan if a person would take off Tefillin in the middle of the day and then put it back after a significant break if he needs to say a new Beracha on it or not. This Tosefta follows the opinion of Rebbi who says that he would need to say a new Beracha after every interruption. It seems to me that Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue about whether the Beracha is made on the fulfillment of the minimum obligation of the Mitzvah only or if it is made any time the person fulfills the Mitzvah even if his performance of the Mitzvah is repetitious. According to Rebbi since the Mitzvah of Tefillin applies the whole day even though the person technically fulfils it by putting on Tefillin once, nevertheless since the Torah commands to wear Tefillin during the day for as long as the person wants it is as if the person fulfils the Mitzvah every time he puts it on and therefore a new Beracha is required every time he puts it back on. However, the Rabbanan hold that once the basic obligation has been fulfilled by putting it on once, the fact that he still fulfills the Mitzvah by wearing it longer or one more time does not make any difference in reference to his minimum obligation, and therefore the Beracha is not required any more.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta states a new law regarding Berachot. It is not related to any Mishna.
2. Meaning that these ten people were sitting in the same room, but each one of them was involved in performing a different Mitzvah. For example, one person was putting on Tefillin, the second person was putting on Tzitzit, the third person was slaughtering a chicken, etc… Then it is considered that each person is involved in his own private Mitzvah and he has nothing to do with the other people present in the room, and therefore each one of them says a Beracha on his own Miztvah to himself.
3. For example, if ten people were sitting together at the table and water was brought to them to wash hands before eating bread. One person should say the Beracha of Al Netilat Yadayim for washing hands before eating for everyone, since all of them are involved in the same Mitzvah of washing hands. The reason that one person should say the Beracha for everyone is the same as when many people sit down to eat together and one person says the Beracha over the food for everyone, as was mentioned earlier in Tosefta Berachot 4:8. We have a principal called Berav Am Hadrat Melech (The King (i.e. God) is glorified among the multitude of people). It gives greater honor to God when many people do a Mitzvah together as one. See Talmud Bavli Berachot 53a.
4. At first this statement of the Tosefta may seem obvious. Since a person is doing many different Mitzvot then he should say a separate Beracha on each Mitzvah since they have nothing to do with each other. However, the Tosefta has a very important point to make. It specifically excludes the opinion of the Tanna Kama in a Beraita quoted in Talmud Bavli (Sukkah 46a) who says that if a person was about to perfom many different Mitzvot he should say one Beracha on all of them. The Beracha according to that opinion would be Baruch Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam Asher Kideshanu Bemitzvotav Vetzivanu Al Hamitzvot – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us regarding the Mitzvot (commandments). This Tosefta goes like the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah also quoted in that Beraita who says that the person would have to say a separate Beracha on each Mitzvah. The Gemara explains that the reason for Rebbi Yehudah’s opinion is based on the verse in Tehillim (68:20).
5. For example, if the person would put on Tefillin in the morning and not take it off the whole day then he would only say the Beracha once before he puts it on in the morning. However if he decided to take a break from wearing it and took it off for a significant period of time then when he puts it back on again that same day he would have to say another Beracha. I have specifically used the example of Tefillin, because there is an argument in Talmud Bavli (Sukkah 46a) between Rebbi and the Rabbanan if a person would take off Tefillin in the middle of the day and then put it back after a significant break if he needs to say a new Beracha on it or not. This Tosefta follows the opinion of Rebbi who says that he would need to say a new Beracha after every interruption. The reason for Rabbanan’s opinion is not really clear.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta states a new law regarding Berachot. It is not related to any Mishna.
2. For a description of what Terumah is see above Tosefta Berachot 1:1, note 4.
3. Besides separating Terumah from all fruits and vegetables that grow in the Land of Israel a person is obligated to separate Maaser (tithe) as well. There were three types of Maaser, only two of which needed to be separated at any given time. Maaser Rishon was the First Tithe, which consisted of 1/10^th of the produce that remained after Terumah (which is 1/50^th) has been separated. That 10^th was given over to the Levi. After Maaser Rishon was separated another 1/10^th of the remaining produce had to eb separated for Maaser Sheni – Second Tithe. Maaser Sheni was then brought to Jerusalem by the owner and was eaten there. Maaser Sheni was only separated on 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, and 5^th years of the Shemitah cycle. On 3^rd and 6^th years of the Shemitah cycle a instead of Maaser Sheni a different tithe called Maaser Ani – The Tithe of the Poor was separated. It consisted of 1/10^th of the remaining produce after Maaser Rishon and was distributed to the poor where ever the person who separated it lived. In the 7^th year, called Shemitah (Sabbatical Year) no Terumot and Maasrot were separated, because all produce that grew was considered to be ownerless. See Vayikra 25:1-6. The Torah describes the various tithes in different places. Maaser Rishon is described in Bemidbar 12:21-32, Maaser Sheni in Devarim 14:22-27 and Maaser Ani in Devarim 14:28-29.  The produce itself prior to the removal of the tithes was called Tevel (טבל) and was forbidden to be eaten until everything that was required was separated from it. The etymology of the word Tevel is not clear. Aruch Hashalem, by Dr. Alexander Kahut (Vol. 4, p. 10, entry טבל) says that in his opinion it comes from the word תבל which comes from the word בלל which in turn means “mixture”, meaning that tithes are still mixed into Tevel produce. However the Aruch itself, by Rabeinu Natan from Rome, says that it comes from word טבלא which is really a Greek word τάβλα, which means “tablet”. He explains that just like a wooden tablet cannot be eaten so too Tevel cannot be eaten until Teruma and Maasrot are removed. I have also seen another etymology of the word טבל on the internet, although I do not know what is its source, that it comes from two words, טב לא, which is like saying לא טוב, meaning “not good”, implying that the Tevel produce is not good for eating until Terumah and Maasrot are removed. From all of these explanations it appears that the word Tevel is not a native Hebrew word, but rather some kind of slang that was made to sound like Hebrew. Although the Torah does not require for the Terumah and Maasrot to be separated at the same time, usually it was done together, because the people wanted to make their food allowed for consumption. Therefore the separations were usually done together and only one Beracha was established for all of them.
4. Since this Beracha is not said over separation of the tithes, but rather seems to be said on the fact that now the produce has been piled up and is ready to be tithed, it is said as the person gets ready to walk over to the pile to take off the tithes.
5. For the translation and description of the Beracha of Shehecheyanu see above Tosefta 6:14, note 5. It seems that the purpose of saying this Beracha prior to removing Terumah and Maasrot is to emphasize the person’s excitement over the fact that he has collected produce that is ready to be eaten, similar to the way that he says it when he has completed making something with which he can perform a Mitzva (commandment). See above Toseftot 6:14-15. It should be noted that the statement of the Tosefta about saying the Beracha of Shehecheyanu before taking off Terumah and Maasrot is only present in the Vienna manuscript. It is not present in the Erfurt manuscript or any of the printed editions of the Tosefta.
6. ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להפריש תרומה ומעשרות – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us to separate Terumah (heave offering) and Maasrot (tithes). This Beracha is said immediately before separating Terumah and Maasrot as all Berachot for Mitzvot are said immediately prior to the performance of the Mitzva, as was explained above in Tosefta 6:14, note 3.
7. At first the Tosefta’s comment seems obvious. However, the reason that the Tosefta emphasizes that the Beracha has to be said right before he separates the tithes is because we may think that he should say the Beracha not when he separates them, but rather when he physically gives them to the Kohen and the Levi, as is done in the case of Pidyon Haben (The Redemption of the First Born) where the father of the baby says the Beracha over the Pidyon Haben, not when he sets aside the money, but rather when he physically gives it to the Kohen. Eventhough both Terumah and Pidyon Haben are priestly gifts they are not exactly equivalent in their obligation. The main obligation of the tithes is to separate them from the produce, but they do not have to be given to the Kohen, where as the Mitzva of Pidyon Haben is to give the money to the Kohen and not just to set it aside. See the Rosh (Bechorot chapter 1, paragraph 14, on page 63b in the left column in the back of the Vilna edition of Talmud Bavli) who explains a similar concept regarding the Beracha for the Mitzvah of Peter Chamor (The Redemption of the First Born Donkey), where he says that the Beracha for Peter Chamor is said before the donkey is redeemed for a sheep and not when the sheep is physically given to the Kohen, because the main Mitzvah is to redeem it, where as by Pidyion Haben the main Mitzvah is to give the Kohen the money as I already explained.

4. The Terumah is the main gift that every Jew at the time of the Bet Hamikdash (The Temple) was obligated to give to a Kohen before he could eat his produce of grain, fruits or vegetables. See Bemidbar 18:8-12 and Devarim 18:4. It is called Terumah from the Hebrew word Ram which means “to lift” since it had to be separated from a larger quantity by lifting it out of the pile. Hence the English term “heave offering” since the word “heave” means to lift. The Terumah consisted generally of 1/50^th of every type of produce that was gathered by that person, although it was possible to give 1/40^th if the person felt stingy or 1/60^th if he felt especially generous. See Mishna Terumot 4:3. This was known as Terumah Gedolah – The Big Terumah. Besides it when a Levi received his First Tithe (Maaser Rishon) from a regular Israelite he then had to separate from it 1/10^th of what he received and give that to a Kohen. That was called Terumat Maaser – the heave offering of the tithe. See Bemidbar 18:26. The Kohen was allowed to eat Terumah only when he was in the state of ritual purity (Tahor). If the Kohen became ritually impure (Tameh), either by touching an impure object or by becoming a Metzora (leprous), then he was not allowed to eat Terumah until he purified himself. Purification basically consisted of waiting a specific amount of days to pass since him becoming impure depending on the impurity he acquired and going to the Mikvah, a ritual pool. In order for the Kohen to become completely pure both things had to happen, the proper number of days to pass and him dipping in the Mikvah, however the Kohen was allowed to dip in the Mikvah during the day of the last day of his purity count and he did not have to wait for the day to complete that coming evening before he could dip. Such a person who has dipped in the Mikvah but still had to wait for the evening for the day to be over is known as a Tevul Yom. The Sages are referring to the time of the evening when the day count was officially over and the Kohen, who was a Tevul Yom, finally became Tahor and was allowed to eat Terumah.

It was pointed out to me by Daniel Schumann that I have made some incorrect statements in the original version of Tosefta 6:18, note 5. I have corrected it and posted the new text of that note below. I would like to thank Daniel for providing me with his references.

Tosefta 6:18, Note 5

5. ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו למול את הגרים ולהטיף מהן דם ברית שאילמלא דם ברית לא נתקיים שמים וארץ שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי. ברוך אתה ה’ כורת הברית. – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us to circumsize converts and to draw from them the blood of the covenant, because if not for the blood of the covenant heave and earth would not exist as it is said “If not for my covenant day and night I would not upkeep the laws of heaven and earth.” Blessed You Hashem, Who establishes the convenant.

The Derasha (exegises) that appears in this Beracha appears in two other places. In Tosefta Nedarim 2:6 and in in some editions and manuscripts of the Mishna Nedarim 3:10, in particular as it is printed in Talmud Bavli and as it appears in the Kaufmann manuscript.

The verse in this Beracha from Yirmiyahu 33:25 is taken out of context. In the original intent of the verse God says that just like he upkeeps the laws of heaven and earth so too he will not forsake the Jewish people. However in this Beracha the verse has been taken out of context and reinterpreted, as the Rabbis do often in many places. It seems to me that the reason that the Beracha specifically mentions the procedure of Hatafat Dam Berit is for two reasons. One is so that it would apply even to converts who are already circumcised and two because this specific circumcision has to be done in front of Bet Din as I already explained above in note 2. Since the main thing that the Bet Din have to witness is the drawing of the blood and not the cutting of the foreskin itself the Rabbis specifically emphasized this procedure in the Beracha.

The word אילמלא, which means “if not for” is not really a Hebrew word, but rather it is Aramaic of Babylonian Dialect. See Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babybylonian Aramaic, Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002, entry אלמלא. Marcus Jastrow in his Dictionary of the Targumim (entry אלמלא) writes that this word is really a combination of three separate words אילו-מא-לא all of which are Aramaic words. The word אלמלא appears in the Tosefta in a few other places, such as in Sanhedrin 4:5, Nedarim 2:6, and Bava Kama 3:4. It also appears in a few places in the Mishna, (Nedarim 3:10 as printed in the Gemara on Daf 31b and in Kaufmann manuscript 3:16, Taanit 3:8, Kidushin 3:3, Avot 3:2 all in the Muenchen manuscript and Hannoch Albeck Vilna edition) although sometimes it appears in its Palestinian form אילולי which means exactly the same thing but is in Aramaic dialect that was spoken in the Land of Israel. See Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002, entry אילולי. That implies that although it was of Babylonian origin it still may have been used in the Land of Israel in the time of the Tannaim or that that Tosefta was edited in Babylon at a later date and that word was inserted into the original text. However in any case it is extremely unlikely that the Tannaim would coin a Beracha with a use of a Babylonian word even if they knew about its existence. Therefore I am inclined to say that although the main text of the Beracha could have been of an earlier origin it was most probably edited later at the time of Talmud Bavli in Babylon and it was put into the text of the Tosefta in the first printed edition based on the text of the Beraita in Talmud Bavli as I mentioned above in note 1.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta continues on the same subject from the previous Tosefta. It is not related to any Mishna. This Tosefta outlines all Berachot that are said at the ceremony of the circumcision, but not for new born babies, but rather for converts to Judaism and Non-Jewish slaves that have been bought by Jews. It should be pointed out that this Tosefta is not present in any Tosefta manuscripts. It only appears in the printed editions of the Tosefta. Usually I do not include any text variations of the Tosefta that do not appear in manuscripts, because the printed editions are not accurate and often modify the text of the Tosefta based on the way a similar Beraita is quoted in Talmud Bavli, eventhough it may not originate from the Tosefta at all. However in this particular case, since a whole Tosefta was missing and not just a few words, I have decided to include it here based on the first printed edition of the Tosefta from Venice 1521. We know that the editors of the first edition of the Tosefta in Venice had at their disposal at least two manuscripts of the Tosefta which we do not have today, so it is possible that this Tosefta appeared in those manuscripts, eventhough it does not appear in the manuscripts that we have today. However, it seems to me based on the fact that the text of this Tosefta is not quoted by Talmud Yerushlami (Berachot 9:3, Daf 66a) eventhough it quotes all the other Toseftot before and after it that talk about these Berachot, that it was added to the first printed edition of the Tosefta based on the text of the Beraita that is quoted in Talmud Bavli (Shabbat 137b) and it really does not belong in the Tosefta. Also there is a word in the Beracha quoted in this Tosefta which is of Babylonian origin as I will explain below in Note 5, which suggests that it is not from the Tosefta and is of much later origin. Besides that the text as it is quoted in the printed edition is corrupt and is missing a bunch of words. I have corrected it based on the way that it appears in Talmud Bavli. The words that I have added from the version of the Beraita that appears in Talmud Bavli I have added in curly brackets.
2. When a Non-Jewish man converts to Judaism he is obligated to do three things: get circumsized in front of a Bet Din (a Jewish Court) of three people, dip in the Mikvah (ritual bath) in front of Bet Din and bring a sacrifice. All of these three things according to the Talmud Bavli are Torah obligations and are learned out from various verses. See Talmud Bavli (Keritut 9a). If the Non-Jew was already circumsized prior to his conversion then the procedure of Hatafat Dam Berit (Drawing of the Blood of the Covenant) is required. The tip of his penis gets poked with a needle and a drop of blood is drawn from it. This procedure has to be done in front of the Bet Din as well.
3. This is the standard Beracha on circumcision that is said immediately before the circumcision. For its translation see note 4 on the previous Tosefta. It should be noted that the Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:4-5) and the Rif (Shabbat 137b) had a different version of the text in this Beraita. According to their reading the Beraita does not mention the Beracha of Al Hamilah at all, but rather just the second Beracha. Therefore they imply that since there is only one Beracha to say on the circumcision of a convert or a slave then it should be said by the Mohel (circumsizer) before the circumcision is performed as if it is the main Beracha on the circumcision. This point however is not totally clear and some Rishonim (Medieval authorities) explain that even if there is only one combined Beracha it should still be said after the circumcision. For a discussion on it see Bet Yosef on the Tur (Yoreh Deah Hilchot Avadim 267, Hamal Haavadim). This reading matches the reading of the first half of this Tosefta as it is printed in the first edition (i.e. what is outside the curly brackets in the main text), but does not match what is printed in the second half regarding the slaves. For an explanation of why the Rabbis would coin such a combined Beracha for converts and slaves see Kesef Mishnah on the Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:4).
4. This Beracha is similar to the ceremonial Beracha mentioned in the previos Tosefta that is said after the circumcision has been completed. It can be said by anyone present at the circumcision as was already explained in note 9 on the previous Tosefta. I think that this Beracha as well was added to give more importance to the procedure of the circumcision as it really serves no other purpose.
5. ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו למול את הגרים ולהטיף מהן דם ברית שאילמלא דם ברית לא נתקיים שמים וארץ שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי. ברוך אתה ה’ כורת הברית. – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us to circumsize converts and to draw from them the blood of the covenant, because if not for the blood of the covenant heave and earth would not exist as it is said “If not for my covenant day and night I would not upkeep the laws of heaven and earth.” Blessed You Hashem, Who establishes the convenant.

The verse in this Beracha from Yirmiyahu 33:25 is taken out of context. In the original intent of the verse God says that just like he upkeeps the laws of heaven and earth so too he will not forsake the Jewish people. However in this Beracha the verse has been taken out of context and reinterpreted, as the Rabbis do often in many places. It seems to me that the reason that the Beracha specifically mentions the procedure of Hatafat Dam Berit is for two reasons. One is so that it would apply even to converts who are already circumcised and two because this specific circumcision has to be done in front of Bet Din as I already explained above in note 2. Since the main thing that the Bet Din have to witness is the drawing of the blood and not the cutting of the foreskin itself the Rabbis specifically emphasized this procedure in the Beracha.

The word אילמלא, which means “if not for” is not really a Hebrew word, but rather it is Aramaic of Babylonian Dialect. See Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babybylonian Aramaic, Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002, entry אלמלא. Marcus Jastrow in his Dictionary of the Targumim (entry אלמלא) writes that this word is really a combination of three separate words אילו-מא-לא all of which are Aramaic words. The word אלמלא does not appear in the Mishna anywhere and in the Tosefta it appears only in one other place and that is in Sanhedrin 4:5 where it appears in a statement of Rebbi Yossi in all manuscripts. That implies that although it was of Babylonian origin it still may have been used in the Land of Israel in the time of the Tannaim or that that Tosefta was edited in Babylon at a later date and that word was inserted into the original text. However in any case it is extremely unlikely that the Tannaim would coin a Beracha with a use of a Babylonian word even if they knew about its existence. Therefore I am inclined to say that this Beracha was written much later at the time of Talmud Bavli in Babylon and it was put into the text of the Tosefta in the first printed edition based on the text of the Beraita in Talmud Bavli as I mentioned above in note 1.

6. If a Jew buys or captures in war a Non-Jewish slave then the slave has to go through a procedure of conversion to Judaism which in turn obligates him in performance of Mitzvot (commandments) on the same level as a Jewish woman, which means that he is exempt from commandments that are dependent on time (Mitzvot Aseh Shehazman Gramah), such as Blowing the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah or sitting in the Sukkah on Sukkot. The Non-Jewish slave has to go through the same procedure of conversion as a regular convert. See Talmud Bavli (Yevamot 45b-46a).
7. Both Berachot on the circumcision of a slave are identical to the Berachot on the circumcision of a regular convert. It is peculiar in this Tosefta that in both cases it mentions converts and slaves in plural form implying that if a person is circumsizing many converts or slaves at the same time he would only say one Beracha on all of them. We do find such a concept by Shechitah (slaughtering) that if a person is slaughtering many animal sin a row he only says one Beracha in the beginning. See Talmud Bavli (Chulin 86b-87a), so it is possible that in the case of circumcisions as well if a Mohel is circumsizing many people at once then he only needs to say one Beracha before all of the circumcisions.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta continues on the same subject from the previous Tosefta. It is not related to any Mishna. This Tosefta outlines all Berachot that are said at the ceremony of the circumcision.
2. The Torah commands to circumsize the penis of all male children on the eighth day after their birth. See Bereishit 17:9-14 and Vayikra 12:3.
3. See note 3 on the previous Tosefta. I have explained this Tosefta according to the explanation of Chazon Yechezkel (Berachot, Tosefta 6:17, Chidushim, Hamal) that I mentioned above as well. His explanation is based on the Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:1) that the Beracha in the form of Al Hamilah (regarding the circumcision) is said only if someone else, not the father, is circumsizing the baby. However if the father circumsizes his own son then he says the Beracha in the form of Lamol Et Haben (to circumsize the son), since the real obligation of circumcision of the son falls out on the father and not on anyone else. See Talmud Bavli (Kiddushin 29a) and Talmud Yerushalmi (Kiddushin 1:7, Daf 19a) for different sources in the Torah of the father’s specific obligation to circumsize his own son. As I already explained above (note 3 on the previous Tosefta) the word Leatzmo (for himself) is referring to the Beracha that is being said and not to the Mitzva (commandment) that is being done.
4. ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על המילה – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us regarding the circumcision.
5. I have explained the Tosefta according tio the opinion of Rabeinu Tam in the Tosafot (Shabbat 137b, Avi Haben) that first the circumcision is performed and only after that the father says this second Beracha. However other Rishonim (Medieval authorities) hold that this Beracha should also be said before the performance of the circumcision, since all Berachot over Mitzvot are said before the performance of the Mitzvah, as was explained above in Tosefta 14, note 3. For a discussion of various opinions regarding when the father should say the second Beracha see Hagahot Maimoni on the Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:1).
6. Since it is the father who is obligated to circumcise his son he must say a Beracha even if he is not the Mohel (circumsizer). However, even if the father is the Mohel and he says the first Beracha (Al Hamilah) he still has to say this second Beracha. It seems to me that the reason that the father has to say this Beracha even if he already said the first Beracha is because the Rabbis did not want to differentiate between different cases and coined the same Berachot to be said all the time. This is known in Talmudic literature as a Lo Plug (non-differentiation between cases). Since in most cases the father is not the Mohel since most people do not know how to circumcise the Rabbis have instituted this second Beracha for the father, since he is more obligated in the circumcision of his own son than anyone else, however for the odd case when the father does circumsize his own son the Rabbis have applied the rule of Lo Plug and required him to say both Berachot. For the discussion on this matter see Hagahot Maimoni on the Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:1).
7. ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Avraham our father. Since the Rabbis have intended to coin this Beracha for the father who did not perform the circumcision, but rather has paid someone else to do it for him, they referred in the Beracha to the father’s action, namely not the circumcision itself since the father did not do it, but rather to the fact that the father has brought the child into the convenant that God has made with Avraham, by arranging for the child to be circumcised. For the story of God’s covenant of circumcision with Avraham see Bereishit 17.
8. כשם שהכניסתו לברית כן תכניסהו לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים – Just like you have brought him to the circumcision so too may you bring him to the Torah, to the Chupah (Wedding Canopy) and to [performing] good deeds. The reason that these specific items are mentioned in the people’s response is explained by Rabeinu Manoach (quoted by Bet Yosef on Tur Yoreh Deah 265, Veim Hayu Acherim) that these are the things in which the father is obligated to his son. For the complete list of the father’s obligations to his son see Tosefta Kiddushin 1:8. Among these things the father is obligated to teach his son Torah and to marry him off to a woman. Obviously the father cannot control and therefore is not obligated in his son’s performance of good deeds, but this has been added to this phrase to give it a bigger feeling of a blessing. It should be noted that in the Erfurt manuscript of the Tosefta the words “Maasim Tovim” – “good deeds” are not mentioned, which makes more sense in terms of Rabeinu Manoach’s explanation. However I have decided to keep them in based on the Vienna manuscript since they are mentioned in the quote of the Tosefta in Talmud Bavli (Kiddushin 29a). It is possible to explain that “good deeds” refers to the performance of the Mitzvot which the father is supposed to teach his son, since he is obligatred in teaching him Torah, so it kind of goes along with the mentioning of the Torah.
9. Since the Tosefta does not specify who this person is the Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:3) explains that it can be anyone who is present, including the father, the Mohel or anyone else who is present at the circumcision. It is not completely clear what the purpose of this Beracha is. It seems to be a Beracha that was established to give more importance to the procedure of the circumcision and to create a ritual around it, similar to the seven Berachot that are said at a wedding. See Talmud Bavli (Ketubot 7b).
10. ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדש ידיד מבטן, וחק בשארו שם, וצאצאיו חתם באות ברית קודש. על כן בשכר זאת, אל חי חלקינו צורינו צוה להציל ידידות שארנו משחת. ברוך אתה ה’ כורת הברית. – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified the beloved one from the womb, and placed the mark of the law on his descendant, and sealed his offspring with the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore, as a reward for this, The Living God, Our Portion, Our Rock, command to save the beloved people of our remnant from destruction. Blessed You Hashem, Who establishes the convenant.

There are a few different ways to explain the text of this Beracha which in turn significantly impact its translation. I have chosen to translate the first part of the Beracha according to the explanation of Tosafot (Shabbat 137b, Yedid Mibeten) and the second part of the Beracha according to my own interpretation which follows along Tosafot’s logic. According to my translation all obscure terms in the language of the Beracha refer to various people. “The beloved one” is a reference to Avraham our father, “his descendant” is a reference to his son, Yitzchak, and “his offspring” is a reference to Yitzchak’s son, Yakov. See Tosafot (ibid.) for an explanation of why these particular references are used to refer to our forefathers. “The beloved people of our remnant” is a reference to the Jewish people who remained living in the Land of Israel after the destruction of the second Bet Hamikdash. They were persecuted by the Romans who among other commandments forbade the Jews to perform circumcision, in particular during the reign of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 CE). See above Tosefta Berachot 2:13, note 7. It appears that despite Roman decrees Jews kept performing circumcision anyway. See Tamud Bavli (Yevamot 72a) where it mentions that many Jews performed circumcision during the rebellion of Bar Kochba, even though it was forbidden by the Romans. Based on this it is my humble opinion that this Beracha was written by the Rabbis some time around the time of the decrees of Hadrian and was said as a plea to God to save the Jews of the Land of Israel from the evil decrees of the Romans that particularly targeted the commandment of circumcision. For a completely different interpretation of this Beracha see Rashi (Shabbat 137b) who interprets various words in the Beracha to refer to completely different concepts. Obviously based on Rashi’s explanation there is no evidence when this Beracha was composed.

It should be noted that in the Erfurt manuscript the ending of the Beracha is slightly different than what I have quoted above, which is based on the Vienna manuscript. Instead of the word “משחת” – “from desctruction” it says, “למען בריתו אשר שם בבשרנו” – “for the sake of His convenant that He has placed on our flesh”. This text fits even better with my interpretation of this Beracha since it directly refers to the fact that God should save the remaining Jews as a reward for them performing the commandment of circumcision despite the evil decrees that forbid it. It seems to me that the reason why suddenly the text switches its reference to God in the third person is precisely because it is not referring what God is doing now, but rather to what God has commanded in the Torah a long time ago which the Jews keep now despite their hardships.

The last set of polls was a huge success. It helped me a lot to decide on the most preferred method of translating certain words in the Tosefta. Thanks to all for great feedback.

Now I am running a new poll regarding the method of where to write the translation and transliteration of the text of the Berachot (blessings) themselves. Since the Rabbis have coined the text of Berachot to be said in Hebrew in the exact manner that they coined it I felt that it is important to transliterate the Hebrew text in the English translation so that people who do not read Hebrew will know how the Beracha should be said. However I am not sure if it should be done in the main body of the translation or in the notes. My presonal feeling is that when the person reads the translation without reading the notes the most important thing for him to know is what the official text of the Beracha is and not what it means. To find out what it means he can look in the notes. But other people may feel differently about this. I would like to clarify this question by running the poll.

Please go the Home Page to vote.