Archives for March 2010

Tractate Peah, Chapter 2 Tosefta 11 [If a poor person] took a section of Peah (corners of the field) [that was standing in the field] and threw it on the remaining [Peah that is still standing2 in order to cover it up so that other poor people would not see it],3 he does not get [to keep] any of it (i.e. standing Peah on top of which he threw the Peah which he already took).4 Rebbi Meir says, “We5 fine him and take away from him [both] this (i.e. Peah which he took legitimately) and this (i.e. Peah on top of which he threw his legitimate Peah in order to steal it from other poor people).”6

מסכת פאה פרק ב תוספתא א נָטַל מִקְצָת פֵּאָה וְזָרַק עַל הַשְּׁאָר אֵין לוֹ בָהּ כְּלוּם. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ וְנוֹטְלִין הֵימֶנּוּ זוֹ וָזוֹ.

Notes:

1. Mishna Peah 4:3 states that if a poor person already took some Peah from the field and then decided to steal more Peah from other poor people by taking the stalks that he already took and throwing them on top of Peah that is still standing in the field in order to cover it up and this way preventing others from taking it, he does not get to keep it. Our Tosefta restates the Mishna’s law and adds to it the opinion of Rebbi Meir regarding this case.
2. This particular case is talking about produce that can be covered up by other stalks, such as grains. It would be possible to throw a bunch of cutoff grain on top grain that is still growing and this way concealing it from passersby.
3. Poor people are only allowed to take as much Peah as they can carry away in a single shot, meaning that they must detach it from the ground in order to acquire it. They are not allowed to try to hide some of it in the field while it is still attached to the ground in order to take it later. This law is explained in more details in the next Tosefta. However, it is implied from this and the next Toseftot that if a poor person was to cut off a lot of produce and pile it up on the ground, he would be allowed to keep it and no one else would be allowed to take it away from him since by detaching it he acquired it, even though technically he is not able to carry all of it away in one shot. Since there is no limit on how much Peah a single poor person is allowed to take at a given time the Tosefta must be talking about a case when a poor person simply was not able to carry away all of the Peah and did not want to or think about that he could have detached it and piled it up on the side of the field to carry away later. He took as much as he possibly could and then he wanted to bring that back home and come back and take more Peah. However he wanted to make sure that while he is walking back and forth no one else comes and takes the Peah that is still standing in the field. Therefore he decided to hide it from others by covering it up with some Peah that he already took. It is also possible that after he saw how much Peah was still available he went to get some kind of a wagon or a cart in order to be able to carry more away, so he took the Peah that he was holding in his hands and used it to cover up the Peah that was still standing so that no one would take it until he comes back for it.
4. I have explained the meaning of this phrase according to the explanation of the Rash Mishantz in his commentary on Mishna Peah 4:3. When the Tosefta says that he does not get any of it, it is referring only to the Peah that is still standing that he covered up. However the Peah that he already cut off and used to cover up the standing Peah belongs to him legitimately and he gets to keep it. The reason I have chosen this explanation is because it makes more sense in the text, since the Tosefta implies that Rebbi Meir comes to argue on this statement of the Tanna Kama. Since Rebbi Meir says that he does not get to keep both Peahs due to a fine it must mean that the Tanna Kama meant that he does get to keep the Peah that he took legitimately. Also the phrase Ein Lo Ba Klum literally means “he does not have anything in it”, which implies that the word “it” is referring to the last object of discussion, namely the Peah that is still standing that was covered up.
5. “We” is used here as a royal we, referring to the court. If other poor people would go to court and complain that this particular individual tried to hide Peah from them the court would fine him and order him to return back to the field both the Peah that he took legitimately and the Peah that he tried to hide. After he returns it, it can be retaken again by other poor people.
6. Rebbi Meir argues on the Tanna Kama and says that since this person tried to steal Peah from other poor people by hiding it he gets fined and he does not get to keep any Peah, not the one that he took legitimately and not the one that he tried to hide.

The Rambam in his commentary on the Mishna (Peah 4:3) and in the Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 2:18) seems to imply that Rebbi Meir is not arguing on the Tanna Kama, but rather comes to explain what the Tanna Kama meant to say. The way this is implied by the Rambam is because the Rambam quotes Rebbi Meir’s Halacha (law) as if it was the Mishna’s main intent and not an argument between them. According to this explanation the Tanna Kama also meant to say that he gets fined and does not get any Peah at all. Since the phrase that the Tanna Kama used is obscure Rebbi Meir had to clarify it. I have to admit that this explanation does not fit very well with the structure of the Tosefta, since the Tosefta seems to imply that Rebbi Meir argues on the Tanna Kama as I already mentioned in the previous note. It is possible that the reason the Rambam explained the Mishna this way is because Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 4:2, Daf 21a) quotes his opinion as a comment upon the Mishna and not as a descending opinion, although technically the Yerushalmi could be viewed either way. The Yerushalmi does not quote our whole Tosefta, but only Rebbi Meir’s opinion thus implying that the Halacha follows Rebbi Meir, which pushed the Rambam to rule like him. I would to suggest that the argument between the Rash Mishantz and the Rambam is really an argument between the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi. Since the Yerushalmi does not quote the whole Tosefta, but only Rebbi Meir’s opinion and begins its quote with the words Tanni Beshem Rebbi Meir (it was taught in a Beraita in the name of Rebbi Meir), it is not quoting the Tosefta, but rather a different Beraita and uses it to argue on the Tosefta, that Rebbi Meir is really only explaining the Mishna and is not arguing on it, as opposed to the Tosefta which quotes both opinions one after the other to imply that they are arguing on each other.

Introduction to Masechta Berachot

Masechta (tractate) Berachot discusses the laws of Jewish prayer. Tosefta Berachot is divided into 6 chapters in the Vienna manuscript and the printed editions and into 7 chapters in the Erfurt manuscript. Since I am following the numeration of the Vilna Talmud Bavli edition of the Tosefta, I will refer to the 6 chapters division.

As will be discussed further in the commentary various prayers and blessings have been enacted by the Rabbis and are not Torah obligations. There is one exception to that and that is the prayer of Shemah, which is the Jewish classic proclamation of allegiance to the One God – Hashem, which originates in the Torah and is required to be said by the Torah twice a day, in the morning and in the evening.

Chapters 1 and 2 of Tosefta Berachot discuss the laws of Shemah. Chapter 3 discusses the laws of the prayer of Shemoneh Esreh which was enacted by the Rabbis and is supposed to be prayed 3 times a day, in the morning, afternoon and evening. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the laws of blessings (Berachot) on food as well as on smelling fragrances. And finally, chapter 6 discusses the laws of blessings on various commandments and natural phenomena.

Introduction to this edition of the Tosefta

I tried to write a translation and a commentary on the Tosefta which would be equally interesting and insightful to an experienced scholar or a novice student of Jewish classical Torah literature. I have tried to write it in a way that even a person who does not know any Hebrew and does not have any background in the study of the Oral Torah will still be able to navigate through the complicated maze of its logic and enjoy the journey while doing so. I hope I have succeeded.

I did not intend for this work to be a critical edition of the Tosefta that sites all possible text variations, since that has already been done by Zuckermandel and Lieberman. My goal was to create a single flowing authoritative text so that the reader can enjoy the book and not worry which reading is better or worse. Therefore instead of using the text of the Tosefta from a single manuscript with footnotes of other readings, like Zuckermandel and Lieberman have done before me, I have carefully edited the original Hebrew text of the Tosefta from all available manuscripts and have chosen the best possible readings that make most sense. If the text that I have chosen came either from the Vienna, Erfurt or London manuscripts I have not noted so in the commentary. However, if I have chosen the text from a Geniza fragment or from some other source then I have stated so in the notes and explained my reasoning behind it. Generally I have not used the text of the Tosefta from any of the printed editions since they are not very authoritative. However there are a few places where I had to use the text from the printed editions, because otherwise the text did not flow or make any sense. In such cases I have stated in the notes which words or phrases were taken from the printed editions and why. I did not change any readings based on logic, even if it has been suggested by other commentators. All of the readings have an original textual source.

The source for the text of all manuscripts that I have used for this edition of the Tosefta is the Bar Ilan University Jewish Studies Department Tosefta Repository located at http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/tannaim/. Whenever there is a doubt of what the manuscript reading should be I have consulted the scanned images of the Vienna and Erfurt manuscripts, as well as of the first printed edition, Venice 1521. Currently I do not have scanned images of the London manuscript and of most Geniza fragments.

The division of each tractate into chapters and numbering of individual Toseftot follows the printed edition of the Tosefta in the back of Vilna Talmud Bavli. This division methodology slightly differs from the way the Tosefta is numbered in the manuscripts and in other printed editions. However, the reason that I chose to use it is because it is the mostly widely spread and readily available edition of the Tosefta and therefore most easily accessible by readers. Since all of the numbering systems of the Tosefta lack in precision and often do not make any sense I do not think that it really matters which system is used as long as it is consistent.

In the translation of the Tosefta there are parts of the text that written without brackets, parts in square brackets [ ] and parts in parenthesis ( ). The text without brackets is the translation of the original Hebrew text as it appears. The text in square brackets is extra text added by me in order to make the text flow better and make more sense to the reader. The parts in parenthesis are extra explanatory notes that are used to clarify or paraphrase the preceding statement of the translation.

Many Hebrew or Aramaic terms that are best understood in their original form have not been translated in the main text, although I have provided their common translations in parenthesis next to them.

The spelling of the Hebrew terms is the common transliteration and pronunciation that is used in Orthodox Jewish circles in the United States. In some cases I have used terms from the American Yeshivish speech as opposed to directly transliterating the Hebrew vowelization. One such example is the word Rebbi, meaning Rabbi.

I wrote Rebbi, not as a transliteration of the word רַבִּי, but rather as it is spoken in Yeshivish English, which may not be familiar to people from outside of the Yeshiva circles in English speaking countries.

In an English speaking Yeshiva, students would never refer to their “rabbi” as Rabbi, but rather as Rebbi (pronounced Rehbee). But regular people who speak English would say Rabbi (pronounced Rabuy). The Hebrew word is pronounced Ruhbee, but its spelling in English is Rabbi, so people pronounce it as Rabuy even though it should be pronounced as Ruhbee. The same goes for the rabbis of the Talmud. They are called Rav or Rebbi, but not Rabbi.

So I chose to write as religious Jews speak in English and not how regular people speak in English. Among religious English speaking Jews the regular English word “Rabbi” does not have a very good connotation, because it implies that the person is not pious or learned. So for example if religious Jews would be talking about a teacher in a Yeshiva they would call him Rebbi (Rehbee), but if they would be talking about some Rabbi who is not so important and no one thinks high of him then they would call him Rabbi (Rabuy).

In modern Hebrew books (Sefarim), like Iggrot Moshe, when referring to an important orthodox rabbi he is always referred to as רבי (Rebbi) or רב (Rav), but when referring to a reform or conservative rabbi his title is written as רבאיי (Rabbi) to emphasize the English pronunciation as a way to portray the person not as a Talmid Chacham (sage), but rather as someone who simply works in a job whose title is Rabbi.

I have tried my best to apply modern research methods to the study of the Tosefta and other Talmudic literature in order to uncover its original meaning. I have explained the etymology of all foreign words that appear in the Tosefta. Words of Greek origin have been written in Greek and transliterated into English. I have dated some of the statements of the Tannaim (Rabbis of the Mishna and Tosefta) in order to put them in perspective. I have cited a lot of modern research as well as various ancient sources in order to back up my theories.

I have decided not to put a glossary and a bibliography in the back of the book, but rather to explain and cite all sources on the spot, since most readers never look in the back anyway and would rather know right away from where the material comes from and what it means.

The vowelization of the Hebrew text has been done by my good friend, Rabbi Levi Sudri who is an expert in Tanach and in Hebrew language.

As I receive feedback from readers, find mistakes or discover new explanations, periodically I will post on the Tosefta Online website (www.toseftaonline.org) updated files of this book in PDF format. Although an index is provided in the back, it might be very useful to use the PDF files to search the book. As I write upcoming volumes, the translation and commentary of each Tosefta will be posted on the blog (www.toseftaonline.org/blog), so make sure to check back often. All feedback can be written directly to me by email at support@toseftaonline.org.

Eliyahu Gurevich

March 22, 2010

Bet Shemesh, Israel

Commentaries on the Tosefta

The Tosefta has not been privileged to a large number of commentaries like the Mishna or Talmud Bavli. There are no dedicated commentaries on the Tosefta from the Rishonim (Medieval Authorities), although many Rishonim quote the Tosefta on many occasions in their commentaries on the Mishna and Talmud Bavli. I have compiled a list of all of the dedicated commentaries on the Tosefta that are known to me, although it is possible that there are other commentaries on the Tosefta that I am not aware of.

1)      Magen Avraham by Rav Avraham Aveli Halevi Gombiner from Kalisz, the author of the commentary Magen Avraham on the Shulchan Aruch. Amsterdam 1732 and in the back of the Vilna Talmud Bavli. Seder Nezikin only.

2)      Yam Yissachar by Rav Yissachar Ben Carmoly. Metz 1769. Masechta Beitza only.

3)      Chasdei David by Rav David Pardo. Covers the whole Tosefta. Sedarim Zerayim, Moed and Nashim were originally published in Livorno, in 1776. Seder Nezikin was published in Livorno, in 1790. Seder Kadshim was published in Jerusalem, in 1890. And finally in 1977, Seder Taharot was published by Wagshal Publishing together with the rest of commentary, set in a new typeset, in 10 volumes. And abridged version of this commentary is also printed in the back of the Vilna Talmud Bavli.

4)      Toledot Yitzchak, by Rav Yitzchak Itzik Halevi Ben Shlomo Zalman of Lemgau, written in Amsterdam and Groningen 1776-1800. The commentary covers the following Masechtot: Shabbat, Eruvin, Pesachim, Beitza, Rosh Hashanah, Yoma, Megillah, Shekalim, Yevamot, Ketubot, Kiddushin, Gittin, Nedarim, Nazir, Sotah, Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia, Bava Batra, Avodah Zarah, Sanhedrin, Shavuot, Makkot, Ediot, Horayot, Zevachim, Menachot, Chulin, Keritut, and Mikvaot. The author was chief rabbi of Groningen until his death in 1801. His cousin, Yitzchak Ben Mordechai tried to have the work printed. He published a broad sheet with proofs from the manuscript in 1801, to propagate the work and attract subscribers, but without results. In 1809 the author’s pupil Rav Avraham Prins tried it again and reprinted the broad sheet at the end of his work, Likkutei Tzvi, Amsterdam, 1809, but again in vain. Currently the majority of the work remains in manuscript kept in the University of Amsterdam Library, Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Manuscript  #2. Chapter 3 of Yoma was published in Journal Yeshurun, Volume 9, pp. 76-91. The commentary on Masechta Megillah was published by Machon Ofek in 2001 with notes by Rabbi Avraham Shoshana.

5)      Commentary of the Gra (Vilna Gaon) on the Tosefta. Vilna 1799. Seder Zerayim only. Printed under the title Hatosefta.

6)      Commentary of Rav Yonah Bar Gershon from Vilna. Vilna 1799. Seder Zerayim only. Printed together with the commentary of the Gra in Hatosefta.

7)      Tosafot Bikkurim by Rav Menachem Nachum Ben Yehudah Leib from Tchais. Shklov 1809. Seder Moed only. On the title page of this edition it says that the author wrote a commentary on four Sedarim of the Tosefta: Moed, Nashim, Nezikin and Kadshim. However it seems that only the commentary on Moed was printed.

8)      Tanna Tosfaa by Rav Shmuel Avigdor Bar Avraham Tosfaa from Karlin. Vilna 1837. Seder Nashim only. The commentary is divided into 3 parts: Minchat Bikkurim which is a detailed commentary based on the two Talmuds, Ittur Bikkurim which is a discussion of Halacha and Mitzpeh Shmuel, which is an index of where the same or similar Beraitot appear in the Talmuds. This separate edition was published on Seder Nashim only, however commentaries Minchat Bikkurim and Mitzpeh Shmuel were published in the back of the Vilna Talmud Bavli edition of the Tosefta on the whole Tosefta in 1861, as listed separately below.

9)      Tosefet Yerushalayim by Rav Yisrael Isser Ben Mordechai. Vilna 1871. A summary of Halachot (laws) from the Tosefta.

10)   Vehaya Beracha by Rav Tzvi Elimelech Shapiro of Dinov, the author of Benei Yissaschar. Przemysl 1875. Chapter 1 of Masechta Berachot only.

11)   Minchat Bikkurim Rav Shmuel Avigdor Bar Avraham Tosfaa from Karlin. Vilna 1861 and 1881. Printed in the back of the Vilna Talmud Bavli. Covers the whole Tosefta.

12)   Mitzpeh Shmuel by Rav Shmuel Avigdor Bar Avraham Tosfaa from Karlin. Vilna 1861 and 1881. Printed in the back of the Vilna Talmud Bavli. Covers the whole Tosefta.

13)   Hagahot Hagra by the Gra (Vilna Gaon) as was found in a manuscript by Rav Shmuel Avigdor Bar Avraham Tosfaa from Karlin. Vilna 1881. Printed in the back of the Vilna Talmud Bavli. Covers the whole Tosefta.

14)   Ohr Haganuz. Notes with variant readings of the Tosefta. Printed in the back of the Vienna and Vilna Talmud Bavli Tosefta editions. According to the note printed on the title page these variations come from a Tosefta manuscript that was written in the Jewish year 4856 (1096).

15)   Nuschaot Kitvei Yad. Notes with variant readings of the Tosefta. Printed in the back of the Vilna Talmud Bavli Tosefta edition. According to the note printed on the title page these variant readings come from manuscripts found in various libraries (Batei Eked Sefarim), however which specific libraries and which specific manuscripts is not specified.

16)   Cheshek Shlomo by Rav Shlomo Leib Friedlander. Presbourg 1889-1890. Sedarim Zerayim and Nashim only.

17)   Minchat Yitzchak and Shirei Mincha by Rav Yitzchak Hakohen Schwadron. Jerusalem 1889-1914. Seder Zerayim and Masechta Shabbat only.

18)   Higayon Aryeh by Rav Aryeh Schwartz. Vilna 1890 – Frankfurt Am Main 1901, 1912. Seder Zerayim and Masechtot Bava Kama and Chulin only.

19)   Techelet Mordechai by Rav Mordechai Friedman (Ish Shalom). Paks (Hungary) 1895-1901. Seder Moed only.

20)   Chazon Yechezkel by Rav Yechezkel Abramsky. Vilna 1925 – Jerusalem 1975. Covers the whole Tosefta.

21)   Otzar Lashon Hatosefta by Rav Chaim Yehoshua Kosovsky. Jerusalem 1933. Concordance on the Tosefta.

22)   Mishna and Tosefta, a Comparative Study in English, Tractate Shabbat, by Boaz Cohen. JTS, New York 1935. Masechta Shabbat only.

23)   Tosefet Rishonim by Professor Saul Lieberman. Jerusalem 1937. Reprinted by JTS in 4 volumes. Covers the whole Tosefta.

24)   Tosefta Mefureshet by Rav Asher Fritzker. Tel Aviv 1938. Published under the title Tosefta Shleima. Masechta Shabbat only.

25)   Mishna Vehatosefta by Yakov Meir Zelkind. Haifa, 1939. Masechta Berachot only.

26)   Tosefta Kepshuta by Professor Saul Lieberman. Sedarim Zerayim, Moed and Nashim published by JTS, New York, in 1955. Seder Nezikin published by JTS in 1988. 8 volumes.

27)   Short commentary by Professor Saul Lieberman published together with his critical edition of the Tosefta. Sedarim Zerayim, Moed and Nashim published by JTS, New York, in 1955. Seder Nezikin published by JTS in 1988. 4 volumes.

28)   Mishnat Yosef by Rav Yosef Lieberman. Jerusalem 1986. Masechta Sheviit only. Printed under the title Tosefta Sheviit.

29)   Commentary on Tosefta Bava Kamma by Professor Abraham Goldberg. Hebrew University Magnes Press, Jerusalem 2001. Masechta Bava Kamma only.

30)   Tosefta Atikta by Professor Shamma Friedman. Bar Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan 2003. Masechta Pesachim only.

Translations of the Tosefta

There are a few extant translations of the Tosefta, some complete, some partial, into English and into German. The following list is a summary of the published translations that I am aware of.

1)      Tractate Sanhedrin, Mishna and Tosefta translated from the Hebrew with brief annotations, by Herbert Danby. New York 1919.

2)      Tractate Berakoth, Mishna and Tosephta, translated from the Hebrew, with introduction and notes, by A. Lukyn Williams. New York 1921.

3)      Sukkah, Mishna and Tosefta with introduction, translation and short notes, by A.W Greenup. London 1925.

4)      Die Tosefta Traktats Qiddusin des Vübersetzt und Erklärt, by Philipp Schlesinger. Wurzburg 1934. In German. Masechta Kiddushin only.

5)      Der Tosefta Traktat Jöm Tob, Einleitung, Text, Obersetzung und Erklärung, by Michael Kern. Wurzburg 1934. In German. Masechta Beitza only.

6)      The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, with a New Introduction, by Jacob Neusner. Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. English translation of the complete Tosefta.

Books about the Tosefta

Besides commentaries and translations there have been written a few books that discuss the origin, history and style of the Tosefta. I have summarized the ones that I am aware of below.

1)      Mechkarim Beberaita Vetosefta by Chanoch Albeck. Jerusalem 1944. In Hebrew.

2)      Die Toseftaperiode in der Tannaitischen Literatur by Arthur Spanier. Berlin 1922. In German.

3)      The Tosefta: an introduction by Jacob Neusner. Scholars Press, 1992.

4)      Mishnah and Tosefta: a synoptic comparison of the tractates Berakhot and Shebiit, by Alberdina Houtman. Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen 1996.