The Tosefta Blog

I posted on the English Translation page an updated file of Tosefta Berachot, chapter 4. The text is fully edited and vowelized.  New pictures have been added and a significant part of the commentary has been revised. If you find any mistakes in it or typos please email me asap. I would like the book to be printed typos free.

Audio Shiur on Demai 1, part 1 (Toseftot 1-11) has been posted on the Audio Shiurim page.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta states a new law. It is not related to any Mishna.
2. Birkat Aveilim was a custom that existed in Talmudic times in the Land of Israel. See Talmud Bavli (Ketubot 8b). It was similar to the present day custom of Sheva Berachot after a wedding. These Berachot were said each over a cup of wine that was drunk after Birkat Hamazon after a meal in the house of the mourners. See Rashi (Ketubot 8b, Echad Keneged Hazan). Or this Beracha was said over a cup of wine in the middle of the street right after the eulogy that took place at the funeral. See Ramban (Torat Haadam, Inyan Hahatchala, Veseder Minhagot, Vol. 2 p. 153 in the Mosad Harav Kook edition of Kitvei Haramban). The Ramban adds (ibid. p. 154) that according to our Tosefta the first Beracha of Menachem Aveilim (2^nd on the list below) is obligatory. Talmud Bavli (ibid.) lists 4 different Berachot that were potentially said. They were as follows:
   1. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה’ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל בְּרוֹב גָּדְלוֹ אַדִּיר וְחָזָק בְּרוֹב נוֹרָאוֹת מְחַיֶּה מֵתִים בְּמַאֲמָרוֹ עוֹשֶׂה גְדוֹלוֹת עַד אֵין חֵקֶר וְנִפְלָאוֹת עַד אֵין מִסְפָּר. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה’ מְחַיֵּה הַמֵּתִים.
   2. אַחֶינוּ הַמְּיוּגָּעִים הַמְּדוּכָּאִין בָּאֵבֶל הַזֶּה תְּנוּ לְבַבְכֶם לַחֲקוֹר אֶת זֹאת. זֹאת הִיא עוֹמֶדֶת לָעַד נָתִיב הוּא מִשֶּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית רַבִּים שָׁתוּ רַבִּים יִשְׁתּוּ כְּמִשְתֶּה רִאשׁוֹנִים כָּך מִשְׁתֶּה אַחֲרוֹנִים. אָחֶינוּ בַּעַל נֶחָמוֹת יְנָחֵם אֶתְכֶם. בָּרוּך אַתָּה ה’ מְנָחֵם אֲבֵלִים.
   3. אָחֶינוּ גּוֹמְלֵי חֲסָדִים בְּנֵי גּוֹמְלֵי חֲסָדִים הַמַּחֲזִיקִים בִּבְרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית יח:יט) כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו. אָחֶינוּ בַּעַל הַגְּמוּל יְשַׁלֵּם לָכֶם גְּמוּלְכֶם. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה הי מְשַׁלֵּם הַגְּמוּל.
   4. רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים פְּדֵה וְהַצֵּל מַלֵּט הוֹשַע עַמְּךָ יִשְֹרָאֵל מִן הַדֶּבֶר וּמִן הָחֶרֶב וּמִן הַבִּיזָּה וּמִן הַשִּׁדָּפוֹן וּמִן הַיֵּרָקוֹן וּמִכָּל מִינֵי פּוּרְעָניוֹת הַמִּתְרַגְּשׁוֹת וּבָאוֹת לָעוֹלָם טֶרֶם נִקְרָא וְאַתָּה תַּעֲנֵה. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה’ עוֹצֵר הַמַּגֵּפָה.
   1. Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, the great God, who in the multitude of His greatness is awesome and strong. Who in the multitude of His fearfulness resurrects the dead. Who with his pronouncement does great things without a reckoning and wonders without count. Blessed You Hashem, Who resurrects the dead.
   2. Our brothers who are fatigued [and] depressed because of this mourning! Pay attention to explore this. This stands forever. Such is the road (i.e. corse of events) since the six days of creation. Many have drunk, many will drink. The party of the first is like the party of the last. Our brothers! May the Master of consolation comfot you. Blessed You Hashem, Who comforts mourners.
   3. Our brothers, doers of kindness, sons of doers of kindness, who uphold the convenant of Abraham, our father, as it is said, “Because I knew that he will command his children and his household after him.” (Bereishit 18:19) Our brothers! May the Master of the reward pay you your reward. Blessed You Hashem, Who pays the reward.
   4. Master of the worlds! Redeem and save, rescue, salvage, your nation, Israel, from the pestilence, and from the sword, from the degradation, and from the blast [of wind damaging the crops], from the mildew [damaging the crops], and from all kinds of disasters that want [to come] and [actually] come into the world. Now we call [You], and You answer [us]. Blessed You Hashem, Who stops the plague.

It is apparent from our Tosefta that although the content of the Berachot was similar, the text was not universal and that our Tosefta had a different version of the text of these Berachot than what is quoted in Talmud Bavli.

3. In other words, if the custom is specifically to say the 1^st of the 3 Berachot on the subject of resurrection of the dead then…
4. It seems that the first part of the Tosefta is talking about the custom to say the Berachot, but without a specifc order or their subjects. However the second part of the Tosefta is talking about a different custom where there was a specific order to the Berachot and each Beracha had to be said on the subject mentioned. If you look at the Berachot quoted in note 2 you will notice that their order and subject roughly follow what is outlined in the Tosefta. The 1^st Beracha is about resurrection of the dead, the 2^nd one is about comforting the mourners, the 3^rd one is about deeds of kindness, and the 4^th one is a plea to God to save us from troubles. Obviously our Tosefta does not include the 4^th Beracha on the subject of troubles.

I posted on the English Translation page updated files of Tosefta Berachot, chapters 1 – 3. The text is fully edited and vowelized.  New pictures have been added and a significant part of the commentary has been revised. If you find any mistakes in it or typos please email me asap. I would like the book to be printed typos free.

I started a new poll to find out how many people will actually buy the printed edition of the Tosefta Berachot. To vote please go to the home page.

I am currently editing Tosefta Berachot and getting it ready for publication as a printed book. It should be ready within 1 month. For now I will post those Toseftot which have been significantly updated or changed.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta continues on the previous subject of not standing still while praying Shmoneh Esreh. Mishna 1 of chapter 5 says that a person may not move while praying Shmoneh Esreh even if there is a snake crawling on his leg. Our Tosefta seems to argue on that statement.
2. סרטיא (Sratya), sometimes also spelled סטרטיאה (Stratya), is the Hebrew version of the Latin word Strata, which means a “main road”. Stratae (singular: Strata) were major roads inside a city, roughly 5 meters wide from which side streets, which were dead ends, lead off. See Daniel Sperber, “The city in Roman Palestine”, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 9, 103, 106. In fact, the English word “street” comes from the Latin word Strata. In the Roman world the Strata roads were paved, hence their name “Strata”, which literally means “paved”. Jastrow’s translation (Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature, 2^nd Edition, 1926, p. 1025, entry סרטיא) of this word meaning in this case a “camp” seems to be incorrect, at least in this context.



Roman paved road in the city of Pompeii, Italy. This is what the Tosefta refers to by Sratya.


3. פלטיא (Platya) is the Hebrew version of the Greek word πλατεία (Platea) and the Latin word Platea, both of which mean “a wide open area or street”, like a square or a plaza. In fact, the English word “plaza” comes from the Latin word Platea. See Daniel Sperber, “The city in Roman Palestine”, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 9, 104.



The view of the ruins of the Roman city of Bet Shean (Scythopolis), Israel. In the center of the picture is the main city street, Palladius road. Notice a Platea, a circular square, where a group of people is standing, on the bottom center of the picture, from which 3 different streets branch off.

4. The Tosefta is teaching us that even though he had to move to get out of the way and he was not standing still he does not have to stop praying and start all over again, but rather he may continue.
5. An Arod in our Tosefta is referring to some type of a lizard or a snake, but it is not clear which type. Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 5:1, Daf 38a) implies that it is poisonous. Talmud Bavli (Chulin 127a) implies that an Arod is a mythical creature which is born from a union of a snake and a turtle, which even the Talmud itself points out is physically impossible. If that is the case then most probably Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa was bit by a regular snake and later the story was exaggerated to say that it was an Arod to make it more impressive.
6. Talmud Bavli (Berachot 33a) brings a slightly different version of this story in which Rebbi Chanina Ben Dosa let an Arod bite him on purpose so that the Arod would die. Rebbi Chanina Ben Dosa said that it is not the bite of an Arod that kills a person, but rather the person’s sins, and since Rebbi Chanina Ben Dosa did not commit any sins, God has killed the Arod instead for biting an innocent person.

I have added links to the Vienna and Erfurt manuscripts each compiled into a PDF file with Bookmarks that label each folio, on the seforim page. See the Manuscripts section on that page.

I posted Peah chapter 1 PDF file on the English Translation page.

Notes:

1. Mishna Peah 3:8 mentions the case where a person gave away either all of his property or some of his property to his slave and if that automatically renders the slave free or not. This Tosefta expands on that case.
2. It makes no difference whether the person is dangerously ill or healthy when it comes to giving away his property to his slave, because his slave is also considered to be his property which gets passed on to his inheritors and does not have an official termination point, like a marriage which disappears with the husband’s death.
3. The most common way for a slave to be freed is by receiving from his master a document that declares the slave’s freedom called Get Shichrur (Bill of Freedom), which is similar in content to a regular bill of divorce. See Mishna Kiddushin 1:3 and Mishna Gittin 9:3. Therefore since this transaction of the master’s property in the end frees the slave it must be written in a contract and not merely verbal.
4. According to Torah law slaves themselves are considered to be immovable property just like land. See Talmud Bavli (Shvuot 42b). However there is a question in Talmud Bavli (Bava Batra 150a-b) if slaves are considered to be like immovable or movable property in Rabbinical law. See Tosafot (Bava Batra 150a, Avda). Depending on how that question is resolved in that Sugya (Talmudic discussion) it would make a difference whether this Tosefta is talking about only immovable property or movable property as well. If slaves are immovable property even by Rabbinical law then the master would only have to give away all of his immovable property to his slave, but not his movable property. Since immovable property would include the ownership of the slave himself giving it to the slave himself is in reality giving him his freedom. However if by Rabbinical law slaves are considered to be like movable property then the slave would have to be given both the immovable property, in order acquire his freedom by Torah law and the movable property in order acquire his freedom by Rabbinical law. The conclusion of that Sugya seems to be that by Rabbinical law slaves are considered to be movable property and therefore in this Tosefta the master must give away both the immovable and movable property to his slave in order for the slave to acquire his freedom.
5. There are two kinds of slaves that can exist by Torah law – Jewish (Eved Ivri) (see Shemot 21:1-5) and Non-Jewish (Eved Canaani) (see Vayikra 25:44). A Jewish slave is a very particular case of slavery which usually occurs when a Jew is unable to repay his debts to another Jew, all his possessions get taken away and he is forced to sell himself into slavery in order to survive or if  Jewish thief is unable to pay back what he stole and is sold into slavery by the court. Non-Jewish slaves are simply purchased or captured in war. Either type of the slave can be freed by granting them the Bill of Freedom, Get Shichrur, and therefore the Tosefta can be referring to either type of slaves in this case.
6. Since the slave is included into the property that the master gave to him he acquires his freedom.
7. The Tosefta does not literally mean land, but movable property as well as was already explained above in note 4.
8. Any size means literally “any size”, even if it is so small that a person cannot even stand on it, because land always has value to it.
9. Since the master kept some of his property to himself, no matter how miniscule, it is considered that he intended to keep the slave as well. And even though the master wrote in the contract that he is giving away all of his property, since he kept some of it is clear that he did not intend to give literally everything away to his slave and therefore the slave does not go out free. Since the slave does not go out free he also does not acquire the property that he master gave him, because all property that the slave acquires is automatically acquired by his master.
10. Meaning that the master did not specify which item he wants to keep, but rather he just said that one of them he wants to keep.
11. Rebbi Shimon holds that since the master did not specify which item he wants to keep we assume that the item that he wanted to keep was this slave and therefore the slave does not go out free. Since the slave does not go out free he also does not acquire any other property that he master gave him as was already explained above in note 9. That is why Rebbi Shimon says that it as if the master did not say anything at all, because his complete proclamation ended up being in vain, since nothing got accomplished, not the freedom of the slave and not the slave’s acquirement of the master’s property.
12. Meaning that the master specified exactly which item he intends to keep.
13. Since the master specified that he intends to keep a particular city or field obviously he intended to free the slave, and therefore the slave goes out free and is therefore able to acquire all of the other property that the master gave him except for what the master specified that he wants to keep. According to the Tanna Kama even if the master specified which item he wanted to keep still the slave does not go out free, because we assume that the master intended to keep the slave as well and never referred to him in his other possessions. However Rebbi Shimon argues and holds that the master is capable to differentiate between the specific thing that he intended to keep and the slave. Talmud Bavli (Gittin 9a) explains that the reason for Tanna Kama’s opinion is that the Get Shichrur must contain a description of a single act that completely releases the property described in it. Since in this particular case it contained both an act of release for most of the property and an act of keeping for the particular item that the master specified it is not considered to be a complete document of release which makes it invalid and therefore the whole transaction did not take place. However Rebbi Shimon is not concerned with that and holds that since the master specifically indicated what he intends to keep and what he intends to release it is considered to be a valid Get Shichrur and that transaction described in it takes place.
14. Rebbi Yossi’s name is sometimes spelled יוסי (Yossi) and sometimes spelled יוסה (Yosse), even though it refers to the same person. I have kept the spelling here that appears in all Tosefta manuscripts even though it may appear inconsistent with previous Toseftot.
15. When Rebbi Yossi heard how much Rebbi Shimon’s statement makes more sense than the Tanna Kama’s he proclaimed about him the verse in Mishlei, meaning that a person who says something straight and correct deserves to be kissed.

I posted a new article on the Seforim page:

Tzvi Novick, “Crafting Legal Language: Four or Five in the Mishnah and the Tosefta”, The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 98, No. 3 (Summer 2008), pp. 289–304.