Tosefta Online

English Translation and Commentary on the Tosefta by Eliyahu Gurevich

The Erfurt Manuscript of the Tosefta is online in high resolution full color

2 Comments

The Berlin National Library (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin) has posted online the Erfurt Manuscript of the Tosefta (Tosefta Ms Erfurt 12 – Staatsbibliothek (Preussischer Kulturbesitz) Or. fol. 1220) in high resolution full color.

The Erfurt Manuscript is the oldest extant manuscript of the Tosefta, although it is not complete. According to Saul Lieberman, in his introduction to his edition of the Tosefta, it was written sometime during the 12th century in Germany, by an Ashkenazi scribe. The Erfurt Manuscript contains the first four Sedarim (Zerayim, Moed, Nashim and Nezikin) of the Tosefta and the first four and a half chapters of Masechta Zevachim. After that the manuscript stops implying that it was never finished by the original scribe. It contains 226 folios, 222 of which is the Tosefta and the last 4 is some other material.

The history of the Erfurt manuscript is partially written on its last page and partially in the Memorial Book of the City of Erfurt. The gist of the receipt written on the last page of the manuscript is as follows. In the Jewish year 5020 (1260) it was owned by Rav Yakov Bar Simcha. This Rav Yakov owed some money to Rav Elazar Bar Yitzchak Halevi. A third of this manuscript, together with another book was given to a third party, Rav Yehudah Bar Shneur, to be held as collateral until Rav Yakov paid his debt to Rav Elazar. The story continues in the Memorial Book of the city of Erfurt, Germany. In the year 1362, the council of the city of Erfurt sold a bunch of Jewish manuscripts for 34 marks. Prior to that these manuscripts laid around for many years in the building of the city council in Erfurt, including during the Jewish pogroms in 1349 which followed the epidemic of Black Plague. In 1879, 16 of these manuscripts were found in the Erfurt Evangelical Church Library and among them was the manuscript of the Tosefta, labeled N.11V.12. In 1879 this collection of manuscripts was transferred to the German National Library in Berlin, where they remain today. The name of the Tosefta manuscript remains to be the Erfurt Manuscript, based on the city where it was originally found. The manuscript is labeled in the Berlin National Library as Staatsbibliothek (Preussischer Kulturbesitz) Or. fol. 1220.

The manuscript contains blood stains on it, which suggests that one of its owners was murdered or at least very hurt during some violent encounter, at which point the manuscript was taken away from him. I would suggest that it is very possible that this happened during one of Jewish pogroms in Germany, which is how the manuscript made its way to the Erfurt Evangelical Church, where the manuscripts stolen from Jews were collected. But this is only a theory.

Below is the folio 5 of the Erfurt Manuscript with the beginning of the Masechta Berachot:

Folio 5 of the Erfurt Manuscript with the beginning of the Masechta Berachot
Folio 5 of the Erfurt Manuscript with the beginning of the Masechta Berachot

The London Manuscript of the Tosefta Add. 27296 is online

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 2nd 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 15th 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
London Manuscript of the Tosefta Folio f.3r

Tractate Tevul Yom, Chapter 1, Tosefta 4

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

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:

  1. 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.

    2. 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.

  2. 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.

    3.  

  3. 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.

    4.  

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

    5.  

    peah3-15_diagram1.jpg

    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.

     

  5. 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.

    6.  

  6. 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.

    7.  

  7. 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.

    8.  

    peah3-15_diagram2.jpg

    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.

     

  8. 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.

    9.  

    The various techniques of intercropping were well known to the ancient Greeks already in the 4th 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.

Recent Posts

Connect with Us

Contact Us

For any issues contact us at support@toseftaonline.org.