Blog - Tosefta Online - English Translation and Commentary on the Tosefta by Eliyahu Gurevich

The London Manuscript of the Tosefta Add. 27296 is online

July 7, 2016 Leave a Comment

The British Library has posted on their website a high resolution color scan of the London Manuscript of the Tosefta Add. 27296.

The London Manuscript is the most recent and 2^nd shortest manuscript of the Tosefta, as it contains only Seder Moed and Masechta Chulin on 73 folios. It is estimated to be written in the 15^th century in Sephardic African writing style. The manuscript is kept in the British Museum, labeled London British Library Add. 27296. According to the inscription on Folio 75v, the manuscript was purchased by the British Library from Samuel Schönblum on April 14, 1866.

Below is the first folio with text of the manuscript, f.3r, with the beginning of Masechta Chulin.

London Manuscript of the Tosefta Folio f.3r

Tractate Tevul Yom, Chapter 1, Tosefta 4

June 22, 2016 Leave a Comment

For Tevul Yom there is only 1 extant manuscript and that is the Vienna manuscript. So the other text is the first printed edition from Venice. In the Vienna manuscript the reading is Chiluf Hadevarim. In the printed edition it is Chulin. The texts look as follows. Differences highlighted in yellow. Note that this whole Tosefta is based on the argument in Mishna Taharot 8:7. So take a look there too.

Vienna Manuscript:

אחורי כלים שניטמאו במשקין ר’ אליעזר או’ מטמא את המשקין ואין פוסלין את האוכלין והלכה כדבריו. ר’ יהושע אומ’ מטמאין את המשקין ופוסלין את האוכלין מקל וחומר ומה טבול יום שאינו מטמא משקה חולין פוסל אוכלי תרומה אחורי כלים שמטמאין משקה חולין דין הוא שיפסלו אוכלי תרומה שמע’ אחי עזריה או’ חילוף הדברים ומה טבול יום שהוא פוסל אוכלי תרומה אין מטמא משקה חולין אחורי כלים שאין פוסלין אוכלי תרומה דין הוא שלא יטמאו משקה חולין אמ’ ר’ יוסי ראה הלכה זו היאך נחלקו עליה אבות הראש’ ודנו עליה דברי תורה מדברי סופרים ודברי סופרים מדברי תורה

First printed edition from Venice:

אחורי כלים שנטמאו במשקין רבי אליעזר אומר מטמאין את המשקין ואין פוסלין את האוכלין והלכה כדבריו: רבי יהושע אומר מטמין את המשקי’ ופוסלי’ את האוכלין וקל וחומר ומה אם טבול יום שאינו מטמא משקה חולין פוסל אוכלי תרומה אחרי כלים שהן מטמי’ משקה חולין דין הוא שיפסלו אוכלי תרומה: שמעון אחי עזריא אומר חולין ומה אם טבול יום שהוא פוסל אוכלי תרומה אינו מטמא משקה חולין: אחורי כלים שאינן פוסלין אוכלי תרומה דין הוא שאינן מטמאין משקה חולין: אמר רבי יוסי הלכה היאך נחלקו עליה אבות הראשונים ורבו עליה דברי תורה מדברי סופרים ודברי סופרים מדברי סופרים:

We can figure out which reading is correct if we do a proper translation.

Vienna manuscript:

The outside of vessels that became impure through [touching] an [impure] liquid: Rabbi Eliezer says, “They (i.e. those vessels) make [other] liquids [of Chulin] impure, but do not disqualify the food [of Terumah].” And the law follows his (i.e. Rabbi Eliezer’s) words. Rabbi Yehoshua says, They (i.e. those vessels) make [other] liquids [of Chulin] impure and disqualify the food [of Terumah]. And [we know this] from a Kal Vachomer (Derivation from Minor to Major) [which goes as following]. Just like [a person who is in a state of] Tevul Yom does not make liquid of Chulin impure [if he touches it], but disqualifies food of Terumah [if he touches it]. [But by the logic of the Kal Vachomer] the outside of vessels which makes liquid of Chulin impure [if ti touches it], how much more so will disqualify the food of Terumah [if it touches it].” Shimon, the brother of Azaryah, says [in reply to Rabbi Yehoshua’s logic], “[Really, the logic of the Kal Vachomer should be] the other way around. Just like [a person who is in a state of] Tevul Yom disqualifies the food of Terumah [if he touches it], but [yet] does not make the liquid of Chulin impure [if he touches it]. [So by the logic of the Kal Vachomer] the outside of vessels, which [we know] does not disqualify the food of Terumah [if it touches it], for sure does not does not make liquid of Chulin impure [if it touches it].” Rabbi Yossi said [in response to this argument between Rabbi Yehoshua and Shimon, the brother of Azaryah], “Look at this law! How much the early fathers argued about it! They derived a Torah Law from a Rabbinical Law and a Rabbinical Law from Torah Law.“

First printed edition from Venice:

The outside of vessels that became impure through [touching] an [impure] liquid: Rabbi Eliezer says, “They (i.e. those vessels) make [other] liquids [of Chulin] impure, but do not disqualify the food [of Terumah].” And the law follows his (i.e. Rabbi Eliezer’s) words. Rabbi Yehoshua says, They (i.e. those vessels) make [other] liquids [of Chulin] impure and disqualify the food [of Terumah]. And [we know this] from a Kal Vachomer (Derivation from Minor to Major) [which goes as following]. Just like [a person who is in a state of] Tevul Yom does not make liquid of Chulin impure [if he touches it], but disqualifies food of Terumah [if he touches it]. [But by the logic of the Kal Vachomer] the outside of vessels which makes liquid of Chulin impure [if it touches it], how much more so will disqualify the food of Terumah [if it touches it].” Shimon, the brother of Azaryah, says [in reply to Rabbi Yehoshua’s logic], “Nonsense! Just like [a person who is in a state of] Tevul Yom disqualifies the food of Terumah [if he touches it], but [yet] does not make the liquid of Chulin impure [if he touches it]. [So by the logic of the Kal Vachomer] the outside of vessels, which [we know] does not disqualify the food of Terumah [if it touches it], for sure does not does not make liquid of Chulin impure [if it touches it].” Rabbi Yossi said [in response to this argument between Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua and Shimon, the brother of Azaryah], “Look at this law! How much the early fathers argued about it! They added a Torah Law from a Rabbinical Law and a Rabbinical Law from a Rabbinical Law.“

As you can clearly see, in the printed edition from Venice (which all future printed editions in the back of Talmud Bavli follow) have 2 issues in it. I highlighted them in red.

a) The word Chulin in the quote of Shimon, the brother of Azaryah, does not make sense if it’s translated as Chulin (i.e. non-holy food) literally. But it can also be translated as Nonsense (i.e. that what was said by Rabbi Yehoshua is not holy, but rather plain, mundane and wrong.) This is much stronger wording by Shimon than in the Vienna manuscript, where he simply says “no, it should be the other way around”. Such a comment would also prompt Rabbi Yossi’s surprise at how strongly they argued about it.

b) The word added (Rabu (i.e. made many)) does not make any sense. The rabbis never referred to themselves as someone who added Torah laws. They believed that all Torah laws came from Sinai. So that expression does not make sense. Tevul Yom is a Torah law. Outside of vessels being impure and making something else impure, which the inside of the vessel stays pure, is a Rabbinical law. Both arguments derived the law of the outside of vessels from a law of Tevul Yom. So in general the Rabbinical law was derived from Torah law. However we need to figure out which detail of each law is a Torah Law or a Rabbincial Law.

We have 4 laws:

1) Tevul Yom does not make liquid of Chulin impure – Torah Law (obviously) and Rabbinical Law (even the Rabbis did not prohibit this). See Mishna Zavim 5:12 and Mishna Tevul Yom 2:2. See Talmud Bavli Nidah 7b, where this Tosefta is partially quoted.

2) Tevul Yom makes Terumah invalidated (but not impure) – Torah Law. See Leviticus 22:6-7 and Mishna Parah 8:7.

3) Outside of vessels makes or does not make liquid of Chulin impure –> Argument – Rabbinical Law. Hence the argument between Rabbi Yehoshua and Shimon, borhter of Azaryah. By Torah Law a vessel can either be fully impure or fully pure. You cannot have the outside be impure, but the inside be pure. This idea of only the outside being impure, while the inside remains pure is a Rabbinical injunction. See Mishna Keilim 25:6 and Mishna Taharot 8:7.

4) Outside of vessels makes Terumah invalidated (but not impure) – Rabbinical law. See Talmud Bavli Bechorot 38a wheer it implies that this is a Rabbinical Law. However, you can also argue that since the Ooutside of Vessels becomes Sheni LeTumah by Rabbinical Law, now it can make Terumah Shlishi LeTumah by Torah Law, since it is a Torah Law that Sheni LeTumah makes Shlishi LeTumah by Terumah.

Rabbi Yehoshua learns Outside of Vessels (Rabbinical Law) from Tevul Yom (Torah law). Rabbi Eliezer says you cannot derive a Kal Vachomer from Torah Law to a Rabbinical Law. You can only derive a a Kal Vachomer from Torah Law to Torah Law See Talmud Bavli Nidah 7b. So we have 3 (Rabbinical) and 4 (Rabbinical) derived from 1 (Rabbinical or Torah) and 2 (Torah). So we see that we have the following derivations:

i) Rabbinical from Torah – 3 and 4 from 2

ii) Rabbinical from Rabbinical – 3 and 4 from 1

iii) Torah from Rabbinical – 4 from 1. This one is the hardest to see, since it is not an obvious thing.

So the bottom line is both versions of the text can be correct. Note that in Talmud Yerushalmi Maaser Sheni Ch. 2 Halacha 2 there is a similar variation where in the printed Yerushalmi it says Rav Yochanan says this law was learned from Rabbinical to Torah law, but in the vatican manuscript it says Rav Yochanan says this law was learned from Rabbinical to Rabbinical law.

Additional Clarifications:

1) Chulin is just an Aramaic form of the Hebrew word Chol (חול). And Chol is used in many places to mean profane or secular. Also the word Chalila (חלילה) is another variation of the word Chol and it’s always used as a common phrase to mean something like “God Forbid”. Also, in modern Yeshivish slang which is based on Talmudic language the word Chulin is used to refer to words as being secular (i.e. not important or wrong). So based on all of this I made a conjecture that in this particular case the word Chulin might mean “Nonsense or Bullshit” as reference to the words that were said and not to the food. I don’t have off the top of my head an example in Talmudic literature where the word Chulin was used in this manner, but that does not mean that it could not be used like that here. Although, I have to admit I like the Vienna reading much better.

2) If after Ravu Aleha there would have been a period and those words would be referring to the Rabbis then yes you could translate it as They Fought referring to the Rabbis who were arguing. But in this situation the period has to be before Ravu Aleha (based on context – it’s not actually in the manuscripts) and this phrase is referring to the words that come after it which are Divrei Torah VeDivrei Sofrim. And so it would not make any sense to translate it as “They fought the words of Torah from the words of the Rabbis”. This is what makes the reading of the First Edition not good. It has to be really forced to make any sense. Hence, the Vienna manuscript reading is most probably the correct one and that’s what I would quote in my book if I would be writing Tevul Yom right now.

Tractate Peah, Chapter 3, Tosefta 15

August 30, 2015 2 Comments

Tractate Peah, Chapter 3

Tosefta 15¹

A [single]² olive tree that [has been placed in the field to find its optimal growing spot with the intention to possibly be re-planted³ and it itself comprises the middle row of] three rows [of plants], [the] two [other rows on the sides of it being] rectangular plots [of grain], that has been forgotten is not [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), [and therefore the farmer may go back and harvest it when he remembers about it].⁴ When do we say that [in order for this olive tree not be considered Shikcha it has to be located in between two rows of grain, and not just by itself]? When he (i.e. the farmer) does not recognize it [as a portable tree whose location is being selected before it is permanently planted in the ground].⁵ But if he recognizes it [as a portable tree whose location is being selected before it is permanently planted in the ground] he may run after it even [if it is standing in a pot all by itself, even if it is as far as] one hundred Amot⁶ [away from any other rows of grain] and take it, [because such a tree is never considered Shikcha, due to its special status of being located for the optimal spot in the field.]^{7, 8}

מסכת פאה פרק ג

תוספתא טו

הַזַּיִת שֶׁהוּא עַל שָׁלֹש שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל שְׁנֵי מַלְבֵּנִין וּשְׁכָחוֹ, אֵין שִׁכְחָה. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּזְמָן שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירוֹ, אָבָל בִּזְמָן שֶׁמַּכִּירוֹ רָץ אַחֲרָיו וְנוֹטְלוֹ אַפִילו מֵאָה אַמָּה.

Notes:

This Tosefta, its parallel Mishna (Peah 7:2), and the discussion about them in Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 7:2, Daf 32a) are written in a very short form, which has caused great confusion among all commentators. There is a variety of explanations of how to read them and what they mean, all of which are flawed, either due to non-flowing text or misinterpreted words or simply not making any sense agriculturally. For some examples, see Pnei Moshe and Rash Sirillio on the Yerushalmi (ibid.), the Rambam in his commentary on the Mishna (Peah 7:2) and in the Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 5:25), Rash Mishantz (Mishna Peah 7:2), and Cheshek Shlomo and Tosefta Kifshuta on this Tosefta.

I have chosen to explain this Tosefta according to a relatively recent commentary on the Yerushalmi, called Zahav Haaretz, by Rabbi Dov Malachi Englander (Volume 1, Peah 7:2, Siman 42, p. 65-66), printed in Jerusalem, 1944. I have found that his explanation is the only one that correctly translates the obscure words in the text, and fits linguistically and agriculturally, as well as makes sense.Mishna Peah 7:2 says that an olive tree that is located in between two rows of rectangular plots of grain is not considered to be Shikcha if it was forgotten. Our Tosefta expands on that law and clarifies some details.

Since the word הַזַּיִת (Hazayit), “the olive”, is written with the definite article “ה”, it implies that the subject that is being discussed is a single olive tree and not a group of trees, like many commentators have thought.

Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 7:2, Daf 32a) quotes Rabbi Yochanan, also known as Rav Yochanan, who explains that the Tosefta and its parallel Mishna (Peah 7:2) are both talking about a tree that is being moved around, implying that the tree is planted in a particular spot with the intention of possibly being transplanted into a different spot in the field. The reason why a farmer might do this is to make sure the spot where the olive tree is planted has good drainage. “Olive trees are very sensitive to over-irrigation, and will not perform well in water-logged soil. Water-logged soil is a result of poor drainage, causes poor soil aeration and root deterioration, and can lead to the death of olive trees.” See Zeev Wiesman, “Desert Olive Oil Cultivation: Advanced Bio Technologies”, Academic Press, 2009, p. 101. So if a farmer is not sure if some areas of his field get flooded and water-logged he may move the tree around the field to see how the water drains, before he decides to keep it there permanently. I was not able to find an ancient source that would verify that this was a technique actually used in the Roman Empire, but based on this Tosefta and Yerushalmi it is plausible. It should be noted that although trees can go into shock due to transplanting it is possible to transplant them without causing shock, as long as it is done properly.

The following diagram illustrates how the olive tree is located relatively to the rows of grain.

lone_tree_in_a_field_of_crops_near_michaelstone-y-fedw,south_wales_uk.jpg

A lone tree growing in a field in between rows of crops in near Michaelstone-Y-Fedw, South Wales, UK on June 18, 2011. Photo: Martyn Smith, Flickr.

If the tree has already been planted in the ground and looks like any other tree, the farmer may have either forgotten that originally he put it there in order to test the spot, or it may have been put there by a field worker and now the owner of the field does not realize why that tree was put there in the first place. So finally, when he remembers that it was planted there only to test the spot and not as a permanent location he may go back and harvest it, providing that it is located in between two rows of grain as shown on the diagram above in note 4.

100 Amot is used here as an example of a large number, but it is not a specification of distance. Regardless of what the distance is between the tree and the rows of grain, the farmer may still go back and get it. For the description of the Amah see above Tosefta Peah 1:10, note 5.

If the farmer always knew that the tree was planted in that location in order to test the spot, and he simply forgot to harvest it, then he is allowed to go back and harvest that tree regardless of the tree’s surroundings. And even if the tree is sitting in the middle of the field by itself without any grain around it, as shown on the diagram below, the farmer may go back and harvest.

cork_and_olive_trees_in_wheat_field_alentejo_portugal_09_2013.jpg

Cork Oaks (foreground), vineyards and olive trees (background), growing in a wheat field near Elvas in the Alentejo region, Portugal on September 15, 2013. Photo: Alves Gaspar, Wikimedia Commons. Notice the trees are far apart from each other and would be considered lone trees in a wheat field as described in our Tosefta.

The reason that a tree is planted in the midst of a field with other crops is due to a common technique called Intercropping. The most common goal of intercropping is to produce a greater yield on a given piece of land by making use of resources that would otherwise not be utilized by a single crop. Intercropping reduces pests that affect the crops and plant diseases due to increased spacing between plants, while controlling land erosion, improving soil fertility and reducing weeds through allelopathy, which is a biological phenomenon by which an organism produces one or more biochemicals that influence the growth, survival, and reproduction of other organisms. See George Ouma and Jeruto,P, “Sustainable horticultural crop production through intercropping: The case of fruits and vegetable crops: A review”, Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 1 (5): pp. 1098–1105. Our Tosefta describes two specific techniques of Intercropping, called Row Intercropping and Strip Intercropping. Row Intercropping is growing two or more crops together at the same time with at least one crop planted in rows. Strip Intercropping is growing two or more crops together in strips wide enough to separate crop production, but close enough to interact with each other.

The various techniques of intercropping were well known to the ancient Greeks already in the 4^th century BCE and the Romans. See Theophrastus, Inquiry into Plants, VIII.II.9-10, and Columella, On Agriculture, II.2.24, as explained in K.D. White, “Roman Farming”, Cornell University Press, 1970, ch. 2, pp. 47-49. As evident from this Tosefta they were commonly used in the Land of Israel as well during the Greek and Roman periods.

Tractate Peah, Chapter 3, Tosefta 14

September 22, 2014 Leave a Comment

Tractate Peah, Chapter 3

Tosefta 14¹

Any olive [tree] in the field, that is especially famous [for something],² [for example,] as the olive tree of Netofa was [famous] in its time,³ and he forgot [to harvest the olives from] it, it is not [considered] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves) [and therefore the farmer may go back and harvest it when he remembers about it later]. When do we say that [it is not considered Shikcha]? As long as he did not begin [to harvest that tree at all]. But if he began [to harvest that tree, but did not finish harvesting it,] and [then he] forgot [to finish harvesting] it, then it is [considered] Shikcha [and he may not go back and complete harvesting it], unless it still has two Seahs⁴ [of olives left] on it [in which case it is not considered Shikcha and he may go back and finish harvesting it].⁵

מסכת פאה פרק ג

תוספתא יד

כָּל הַזַּיִת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֵׁם בַּשָּׂדֶה, כְּזַיִת נְטוֹפָה בִּשְׁעָתוֹ, וְשְׁכָחוֹ, אֵין שִׁכְחָה. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּזְמָן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְחִיל בּוֹ. אָבָל אִם הִתְחִיל בּוֹ וּשְׁכָחוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ שִׁכְחָה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בוֹ סָאתַיִם.

Notes:

Mishna Peah 7:1 states that any olive tree that is famously known due to its name, its olives production, or its location, and therefore is considered different from the rest of the trees in that field, if it is forgotten to be harvested during the harvest it is not considered Shikcha and therefore the farmer may go back and harvest it later and he may prevent the poor people from taking its olives. Mishna Peah 7:2 states that any regular olive tree that still has two Seahs of olives on it is not considered to be Shikcha, as long as the farmer did not begin to harvest it. But if the farmer began harvesting it and then forgot to finish it off, then even if it is a famously known tree, such as the olive tree of Netofa was known in its time, then it is still considered to be Shikcha and the farmer may not go back and complete harvesting it.

It is not clear what our Tosefta is trying to do with regard to these two Mishnayot. According to Rash Mishantz (Mishna Peah 7:2, Bameh Devarim Amurim) the Tosefta is actually arguing on the law in the Mishna as follows. According to the Mishna any olive tree, even a not famous one, that he did not begin to harvest, as long as it has two Seahs of olives on it, is not considered Shikcha. But if he began harvesting it and then forgot to finish it, then it is considered Shikcha no matter what, even if it is famous and even if it has two Seahs of olives on it left. However, according to the Tosefta, if it is a famous tree, then even if he began harvesting it and forgot to finish it, as long as it has two Seahs of olives left on it, it is not considered Shikcha. But by a regular olive tree the Mishna and the Tosefta agree that even if it has two Seahs on it left, once he forgot to finish it, it is considered Shikcha.

However according to Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 7:2, Daf 32a), and the Rambam (Mishna Peah 7:2, Kesheyihyeh) the Tosefta is not arguing on the Mishna, but is merely explaining it. The Tosefta clarifies that the law of the second Mishna about two Seahs is not referring to a regular olive tree, but it is rather referring to the famous olive tree mentioned in the first Mishna. And therefore, according to both the Mishna and the Tosefta, if the tree has both criteria, that it is famous, and it has two Seahs of olives on it, then even he began harvesting it and forgot to finish, then it is still not considered Shikcha. But if it has only one criterion, either it is famous, or it has two Seahs of olives left on it, but not both, then if he began harvesting it then it is considered Shikcha. However, if he did not begin harvesting it then it is not considered Shikcha.

To avoid confusion I have presented here the details of this argument in the following chart. If the cell contains an X then it is considered Shikcha, but if it is blank then it is not considered Shikcha. The question mark (?) indicates that it is not clear what that opinion is in that particular case.

Rash Mishantz		Mishna	Tosefta
Did not begin harvesting	Both
	Famous only
	Two Seahs only	X	?
Began harvesting and did not finish	Both	X
	Famous only	X	X
	Two Seahs only	X	X

Talmud Yerushalmi and Rambam		Mishna	Tosefta
Did not begin harvesting	Both
	Famous only
	Two Seahs only
Began harvesting and did not finish	Both
	Famous only	X	X
	Two Seahs only	X	X

It seems to me that Talmud Yerushalmi’s and the Rambam’s opinion makes more sense and fits in better into the language of the Tosefta, because according to their logic all of the cases are resolved, whereas according to the Rash Mishantz the case of if he did not begin harvesting and it is not a famous tree, but it has two Seahs of olives on it, remains unresolved.

As I already mentioned, Mishna Peah 7:1 explains what a “famous” tree means. It may have a special name for which it is known, such as “oily” – a tree that in the end produces more olive oil than other trees, or that it is an “embarrassing tree”, because it embarrasses other trees with its overproduction of fruit. See Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 7:1, Daf 31b). It may also be known after a location where it originated from, such as the Bet Shan tree, because it was originally brought from Bet Shan and planted in this farmer’s field. See Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 7:1, Daf 31b) and Pnei Moshe (ibid. Bishni). Even if the tree does not have a special name, but it is still known for its production of large fruit, then it is considered “famous”. Finally, if the tree is known for its location, such as a tree growing next to a wine press, or next to a hole in the fence, and people refer to it by that location, then it is considered “famous” as well.

The reason why a famous tree is not considered to be Shikcha is derived from a verse by Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 7:1, Daf 31b). The Torah says (Devarim 24:19), “When you will harvest your harvest in your field and you will forget a sheaf in the field …” implying that the sheaf has to be forgotten forever. However, we assume that the farmer will eventually remember his famous tree, even if he forgot about it for a while, and therefore it is not considered Shikcha.

Today there are a few such famous trees in the Land of Israel that are known by name. For example, the date palm Methuselah, named after the oldest person in the Torah, the only extant Judaean Date Palm cultivar that has been grown from a seed found in Herod’s palace in Masada during the excavations there in the mid-1960s. The seed was planted and germinated in 2005 by Professor Elaine Solowey from the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, Kibbutz Ketura, Israel, and then transferred on November 24, 2011 into the ground on the territory of Kibbutz Ketura in the Arava desert in southern Israel, where it is growing today. See Sarah Sallon, Elaine Solowey, Yuval Cohen, Raia Korchinsky, Markus Egli, Ivan Woodhatch, Orit Simchoni and Mordechai Kislev, “Germination, Genetics, and Growth of an Ancient Date Seed”, Science, 13 June 2008, Vol. 320 no. 5882 p. 1464.

Judean Date Palm, nicknamed Methuselah, growing at Kibbutz Ketura, Israel. July 8, 2012. Photo: Benjitheijneb, Wikimedia Commons.

Among olive trees in the Land of Israel there are a few very old ones, known by special names. There is a very old tree known in Arabic as Zeitoun Ahmad Al-Badawi – Ahmad the Bedouin’s olive tree, or in short, Al-Badawi (البدوي), growing in the village of Al-Walaja, near Jerusalem and Bethlehem, in the West Bank. The tree is estimated to be a few thousand years old although no official scientific study has been conducted to verify what its age is exactly.

Al-Badawi olive tree in the village of Al-Walaja, West Bank, Israel, near Bethlehem. Photo: stopthewall.org.

There are 8 olive trees in Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives in the Garden of Gethsemane (גת שמנים – Gat Shemanim) at the Church of All Nations, on which a detailed study was done by the National Research Council of Italy Trees and Timber Institute CNR-IVALSA. C14 radio carbon dating verified that the current living tissue inside the tree trunks dates as follows: tree #1 – year 1198 CE, tree #4 – year 1092 CE, and tree #7 – year 1166 CE. Unfortunately, the tree trunks of all of the 8 trees are hollow inside due to their age, so there is no way to verify how old the trees really are, since the older material in their trunks is missing, but judging on the diameter of their trunks, which vary between 5-10 meters the trees are much older (probably 2000 – 3000 years old) than 900 years verified by radio carbon dating. See http://www.ivalsa.cnr.it/en/news/dettaglio-news/article/i-segreti-del-giardino-del-getsemani.html, accessed on September 21, 2014; and M. Kislev, Y. Tabak and O. Simhoni, “Identifying the Names of Fruits in Ancient Rabbinic Literature”, Leshonenu, vol. 69, p.279 (Hebrew).

Italian research team taking samples from one of the 8 trees at the Garden of Gethsemane on August 23, 2010. Photo: CNR-IVALSA Trees and Timber Institute.
It is not clear how to translate the phrase כְּזַיִת נְטוֹפָה בִּשְׁעָתוֹ (Kezayit Netofa Beshaato) due to a variation in the spelling of the word Netofa. In the Mishna, both in in the Kaufmann and Parma manuscripts, and in Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 7:1, Daf 31a), in the Leiden manuscript, it is written הַנְטוֹפָה (Hanetofa), with a definite article “ה”, which means “the”. That changes the meaning of the word and implies that it is not a proper name, but rather a descriptor of the object. Therefore, Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 7:1, Daf 31b) translates it to mean, “as an olive tree that sometimes drips [with oil],” meaning that this tree during some seasons produces a large amount of oil producing olives, more than other trees, which is what makes it special. However, in the Munich Manuscript of Talmud Bavli (Mishna Peah 7:1) and in both manuscripts of the Tosefta it is written נְטוֹפָה (Netofa), without the definite article “ה”, which implies that it is a proper name of a place. Therefore, the Rambam (Mishna Peah 7:1, Venetofa), and the Aruch (Nataf) say that both the Mishna, and obviously the Tosefta, are referring to a specific tree from a town called Netofa, which was famous for its olive production at some particular time in history, and they were called “the olives of Netofa”.

The town of Netofa is mentioned in three places in the Tanach. In Shmuel 2, (Shmuel 2, 23:28-29) where it is described as being located on a hill. And in Ezra (Ezra 2:22) and Nechemya (Nechemya 7:26), where it implies that it was located next to Bethlehem in Judaea. During the Byzantine period it was called Metofa. Today it is an Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem called Umm Tuba. Archaeological digs in Umm Tuba in 2006 and 2009 have confirmed that it is the Biblical as well as the Talmudic Netufa. See press release from Israel Antiquities Authority, “Greetings from Ahimelekh and Yehokhil, from Netofa in Judah”, February 23, 2009, http://antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1496&module_id=#as, accessed on September 21, 2014, and Zubair Adawi, “Jerusalem Har Homa Final Report”, Excavations and Surveys in Israel, Journal 120, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=866&mag_id=114, accessed on September 21, 2014.

Terrain Map from Google Maps of Netofa from November 6, 2012.

Netofa should not be confused with another place in Israel called Bet Netofa, which is located in the Lower Galilee in the Valley of Bet Netofa. The Bet Netofa Valley is mentioned in the Mishna (Sheviit 9:5) and in Midrash Rabbah (Bereishit Rabbah 79:6), as a place where Rebbi Shimon Bar Yochai visited during the Shemitah year, sometime at the end of the 1^st, beginning of the 2^nd centuries CE. Bet Netufa is known today as Churvat Bet Netufa (the destroyed Bet Netufa). The reason for its name (literally: the place of dripping) is explained by the Rambam (Mishna Sheviit 9:5). It is called The Place of Dripping because the ground gets very wet there during the rainy season.

The Bet Netofa Valley as seen from Moshav Hararit. June 5, 2012. Photo: Ori, Wikimedia Commons.

Terrain Map from Google Maps of Bet Netofa Valley from November 6, 2012.

Ironically, in the towns surrounding the Bet Netofa Valley there are still many olive trees which are at least hundreds, and possibly thousands of years old, as their trunks are many meters in diameter. However, that does not really distinguish them from the olive trees in Netofa in Judaea, because the Al-Badawi olive tree is located near there, and it is possible that there used to be many more such old trees in that area as well.

Old olive tree in Deir Hana, Israel near the Bet Netofa Valley. Photo: Kobi Zilberstein, Panoramio.

It is not clear which Netofa the Tosefta is referring to, but since it does not mention the word “Bet” I would assume that it is talking about Netofa in Judaea.

I have chosen to translate the word Netofa as a name of the specific location and not as a descriptive term since that is what the reading in the Tosefta manuscripts implies. It is not mentioned in any extant sources that the olives of Netofa in Judaea or Bet Netofa in the Galilee were extra special compared to other olives in Israel, but this Tosefta implies that there was at least one tree there which was very well known during some period in time and legends about it remained until the time of the Tosefta.
For an explanation of what is a Seah and why the cutoff limit for any forgotten entity is two Seahs see above Tosefta Peah 2:13, note 7.
Chazon Yechezkel (Tosefta Peah 3:14, Bezman Shelo Hitchil Bo and Harei Zeh Shikcha) explains that the difference between whether the farmer started harvesting that tree or not is in the technicality of what is being forgotten. If he did not begin to harvest the tree then the farmer forgot the whole tree and therefore since the tree is famous we assume that eventually he will remember it. But if he already harvested a part of the tree and he just forgot to finish harvesting it then he did not forget the whole tree, but rather he forgot individual olives on the tree and those olives are not famous by themselves, so we assume that he would not remember to go get those olives.

To me this explanation is farfetched and does not make sense. It simply plays on a legal technicality of what has been forgotten, but in the mind of the farmer his famous tree is the same as the olives on that famous tree, so therefore it should not make a difference whether part of the tree has been forgotten or if it was the whole tree. Either way that tree is famous and we assume that the farmer will remember it.

It seems to me that the difference whether he started harvesting the tree or not lies in the amount of olives that have been forgotten. All the laws in this Tosefta are not Torah laws. They are all Rabbinical laws. And even though Talmud Yerushalmi cites a verse to support the law of the famous tree it seems to be a regular Asmachta (a reference from the Tanach for a Rabbinical law). This can further be seen from the fact that the person in the Yerushalmi who mentions this derivation is Rebbi Lah, also known as Rebbi Ilah, whom I already mentioned earlier (see Tosefta 3:11, note 2) as someone famous for stating Asmachtas. During the 3^rd century CE, when the Tosefta and the Mishna were written, the Rabbis wanted to protect the farmers from losing too much produce, due to bad farming conditions and rapid inflation. See above Tosefta 2:17, note 4. Therefore they made general rules about when the farmer will most probably lose too much produce and when he will only lose a little bit, which will not hurt him. If the farmer forgot to harvest a whole tree then we assume that that tree contains a large amount of produce, although unknown how much exactly, and therefore we allow the farmer to go back and harvest it. But if he already harvested a part of that tree then it depends how much he forgot on it. If he forgot two Seahs or more then we consider that a lot and the farmer may go back and get it. But if there was less than two Seahs then it is relatively insignificant and the farmer has to leave it for the poor. Of course, this law applies only if the tree is famous, so we assume that the farmer will remember it.

However, if the tree is not famous then the minimum amount that the farmer has to forget in order to be allowed to go back and harvest them, is at least three trees growing together, as stated in Mishna Peah 7:1. You may wonder, how come the Rabbis chose to protect the farmer more with a famous tree as opposed to a regular tree, since most trees in any given field are regular, not famous, trees? It seems to me that the Rabbis had to find a legal loop hole, such as the Asmachta of Rebbi Ilah, in order to create this extra protection, because they had to override the standard Torah law of Shikcha which says, that one or two forgotten entities, be they stalks, sheaves, trees, or grapes, are considered Shikcha, but not three. See above Tosefta Peah 3:10, note 1. Without this Asmachta they would need to follow the default law, which required at least three entities to be forgotten in order for them not be considered Shikcha.

It should be noted that Mishna Peah 7:1 mentions the opinion of Rebbi Yossi who says that Shikcha does not apply to olives at all. Talmud Yerushalmi quotes Rebbi Shimon Ben Yakim, also known as Rebbi Shimon Ben Elyakim, a student of Rebbi Yochanan and a Palestinian Amorah of the 2^nd generation, who explains that this was a special enactment made by Rebbi Yossi after the Bar Kochba rebellion, roughly in 135 CE, when the Roman Emperor Hadrian uprooted most trees in Judaea, or as the Yerushalmi puts it, “destroyed all of the Land of Israel”, which he used to build siege engines for the war. However, later, during Rebbi Shimon Ben Yakim’s time, about 50 years after the end of the Bar Kochba rebellion, when the trees grew back and olives were common again, that law did not apply. For various Talmudic sources about aspects of Rebbi Shimon Ben Elyakim’s life see Aharon Heiman, “Toledot Tannaim Veamorayim”, Volume 3, London, 1909, entry Rebbi Shimon Ben Elyakim, pp. 1156-1157. This clearly proves that the whole reasoning behind the laws in this Tosefta and its parallel Mishna is the protection of the farmers.