Tractate Berachot, Chapter 5, Tosefta 11 – 20

Notes:

1. Mishna 1 of chapter 7 says that if three people eat together they must say Zimun before Birkat Hamazon. The Mishna adds that if there are two people eating and they are being served by a waiter, if the waiter eats a Kezait (size of an olive) of bread he thus joins them and now they can say Zimun. Our Tosefta expands on that law. However see Tosefta 19, note 3 further in this chapter that clarifies that this Tosefta does not necessarily agree with the Mishna that the 3^rd person must eat a Kezait of bread in order to join. It merely states that since it is better to say Zimun with 3 people who ate a Kezait of bread than just with 2 people, the waiter can join them without asking for their permission, although according to the Tosefta he would not be required to eat a Kezait in order to join them.
2. For the description of Zimun see Mishna Berachot 7:3. Since the servant enables the other two people to do a mitzvah of Zimun he does not have to ask them for permission to join them in their meal. It should be noted that the same law would apply if there are nine people eating together. Since adding a tenth person would enable them to say the word Eloheinu in the Zimun (See Mishna Berachot 7:3), which they were not able to say otherwise, the servant does not have to ask them for permission to join.
3. Since three people who are eating together can already say Zimun, the servant joining them does not provide them any benefit, thus he must ask them for permission before he can join them.

Notes:

1. Mishna 7 of chapter 6 states a rule that whenever a person has a main food and a side dish that is eaten together with the main food he makes the Beracha on the main food and that automatically exempts the side dish from making a Beracha on it. It is unclear why this Tosefta is listed here and earlier right after Tosefta 10 of chapter 4 where this law was already discussed. Perhaps it is listed here, because the Tosefta is discussing things that happen in the middle of a meal.
2. The word מתיקה refers to some food that is sweet from the word מתוק (sweet). It can refer to relish, dressing or seasoning (See Talmud Bavli, Avodah Zara 66a), as well as a sweet drink (See Talmud Bavli, Yoma 76b). In our Tosefta it is obviously referring to something like relish or a dressing that is not eaten by itself, but rather together with another food.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta states another law regarding the subject of foods brought in the middle of a meal. It is not related to any Mishna.
2. Pat Haba Bekisnin is a dried pastry stuffed with nuts and spices that was commonly served in Talmudic times as dessert at the end of a meal. For the detailed description of the word and other explanations see above chapter 4, Tosefta 4, note 4.
3. Since it is not considered to be a part of the meal, it requires a Beracha before it (i.e. Borei Minei Mezonot) and a Beracha after it (i.e. Al Hamichya). It should be noted that it is the opinion of this Tosefta that Pat Haba Bekisnin requires a Beracha after it, however in Talmud Bavli (Berachot 41b) the prevalent opinion seems to be that no Beracha is required to be said after it at all. See above chapter 4, Tosefta 7, note 5. Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 6:5, Daf 47b-48a) quotes both opinions.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta states a new law regarding washing of hands before and after the meal. It is not related to any Mishna. I have explained this whole Tosefta according to the way it is explained in Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 8:2, Daf 58b).
2. The reason for washing hands before the meal is not clearly explained anywhere. There seem to be different opinions why a person has to wash his hands before the meal. See Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 8:2, Daf 58b). It seems that there two prevalent reasons for this. One reason to wash hands before a meal is simply because we want the person to eat with clean hands. However another reason is due to ritual impurity (Tumah). In order to understand it I have to give an explanation of how ritual impurity works. These rules are dispersed through out the Mishna in Seder Taharot, so I will summarize them here without citing sources for each statement.

There are different levels of ritual impurity. A human dead body is considered to be the highest level of impurity, called in Hebrew Avi Avot Hatumah. An object or a person that touches the dead body becomes ritually impure (Tameh) on one level below that, called Av Hatumah. Something that touches Av Hatumah becomes Tameh on one level below that, called Rishon Letumah (primary level of impurity). And something that touches Rishon Letumah becomes Sheni Letumah (secondary level of impurity). Ordinary objects that do not have any special holiness to them (called Chulin) cannot become Tameh on a lower level than Sheni Letumah. Also, by Torah law an object can never become Tameh on the same level or a level above it as the object that touched it. It always becomes Tameh on one level below the level of the object that touched it. This means that any object that is Sheni Letumah cannot make something else Tameh at all, since there is no lower level of impurity than Sheni Letumah. Besides Chulin there are various holy objects that have more levels of Tumah below the level of Sheni. For example, Terumah (a fruit or vegetable tithe given by a regular Jew (Yisrael) to a Cohen (a Priest)) has another level of Tumah called Shlishi Letumah (third level of impurity). Thus if an object that is Sheni touches Terumah, the Terumah will become Tameh on a level of Shlishi Letumah. Below that however, even Terumah does not become Tameh. Sacrifices have two additional levels beyond Terumah, known as Revii Letumah (4^th level of impurity) and Chamishi Letumah (5^th level of impurity). The way they become Tameh is in the same fashion as anything else. However the Rabbis made two special decrees regarding Tumah that were Rabbinical in nature since by Torah law Tumah does not behave itself in such a fashion. The first decree that they made was that a person’s hands as long as they are not washed with water are always Tameh on the level of Sheni Letumah by default, even if the person did not touch anything that was Tameh. The second decree that they made was that if something that was Sheni Letumah touches a liquid, the liquid will become impure on the level of Rishon Letumah (i.e. one level up).

In addition to all of this in Talmudic times there was a special group of people called Chaverim (literally “friends”, singular “Chaver”) who were extra stringent and scrupulous about keeping mitzvot. Most of them made sure that all food that they ate was completely ritually pure (Tahor) even if it was Chulin and was not required to be Tahor by the Jewish law. Talmudic Sages and Torah scholars generally were Chaverim, although not exclusively. See Talmud Bavli (Bechorot 30b) that even Talmidei Chachamim (Torah Scholars) had to accept upon themselves to become Chaverim in front of three people, implying that some of them did not. For more details about who the Chaverim were see Mishna Demai 2:3, Tosefta Demai chapter 2, and Talmud Bavli (Bechorot 30b). Now that you understand how basic Tumah works and how serious people were about keeping it I can explain the reason for washing hands before a meal.

During a meal it was customary for people to dip various foods into liquid relishes and various dips. Since Chaverim required that all of their food remained Tahor, they had to wash their hands before eating, because otherwise their hands which would by default were Sheni Letumah would make all of the liquids Rishon Letumah, and then in turn the liquids would touch the rest of the food and make it Sheni Letumah, thus making everything Tameh. Thus in order for this not happen all of the people had to wash their hands before the meal, so that their hands would be Tahorim and nothing would become Tameh.

It seems from our Tosefta that it is of the opinion that the reason for washing hands before a meal is due to Tumah and not due to cleanliness. Therefore since technically everybody were not required to wash their hands, because food that was Chulin was allowed to become Tameh, the Tosefta says that it is optional. In other words, if a person was a Chaver and wanted everything to remain Tahor then he would wash and if he was not a Chaver and he did not care if his food was Tameh then he would not wash.

1. Talmud Bavli (Eruvin 17b) says that the reason for Mayim Acharonim being obligatory is because the Salt of Sodom may remain on the hands and damage someone’s eyes. In Israel, the area around the Dead Sea, otherwise known as Sodom (based on the location of the Biblical City) was the chief source of salt both in Biblical and in Talmudic times. Salt can be scooped up from the bottom of the Dead Sea or chiseled off the mountains around the Dead Sea many of which are comprised of salt. The salt that comes from the Dead Sea is different from regular table salt that we are used to in a way that it is mostly comprised from chloride and bromide of magnesium and calcium, as opposed to regular table salt or sea salt which is mostly sodium chloride. See International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Dead Sea entry). Magnesium chloride gives the Dead Sea salt an especially bitter taste. It is also a severe eye irritant. It is not really clear if Magnesium Chloride is any more dangerous to the eyes than Sodium Chloride. My suspicion is that people felt in ancient times that since the Dead Sea salt was much more bitter than regular salt it was also much more dangerous to the eyes, than regular salt; however I was not able to find any information to substantiate that.

It should be noted that the Rabbis recommended to eat salt at the end of the meal to prevent bad smell from a person’s mouth and throat pain (אסכרא – croup or angina). See Talmud Bavli (Berachot 40a). This means that people specifically ate salt right before they said Birkat Hamazon and since the most common salt around was Salt of Sodom it was bound to remain on their hands if they did not wash them and eventually would end up in their eyes.

1. The text quoted in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 8:2, Daf 58b) does not say the words “if he wants” implying that it is obligatory by Mayim Rishonim to wash the hands twice, but by Mayim Acharonim it is not obligatory. The reason is because since the purpose of washing Mayim Rishonim is due to Tumah of the hands, he has to pour the water once on the hands to purify the hands themselves, and then pour the water on the hands the second time in order to wash off the first water which became Tameh after it touched the Tameh hands. However by Mayim Acharonim he does not have to do so, because the reason to wash then is to wash off the Salt of Sodom and not to purify the hands, besides his hands are considered to be Tahorim at the end of the meal anyway since he already washed and thus purified them before the beginning of the meal. However, according to the version of the text in the Tosefta manuscripts, as quoted here, this explanation does not fit, because the Tosefta says exactly the opposite, that by Mayim Rishonim he may wash twice if he wants to, although he does not have to, but by Mayim Acharonim he is not allowed to wash twice even if he wants to. Due to this problem the Gra (Vilna Gaon) modified the text of the Tosefta here so it matches the text quoted in the Yerushalmi. However, I believe that this is unnecessary and the text of the Tosefta should be explained in a different fashion than the Yerushalmi explains it.

Chazon Yechezkel explains our Tosefta as follows. Our Tosefta is talking about the interruption between the washing of the hands and the thing that comes next, mainly the meal itself or Birkat Hamazon. By Mayim Rishonim, if he wants he may wash his hands in two pours since it is ok that their will be a longer interruption between the washing of the hands and the meal itself. However, by Mayim Acharonim the person is required to say Birkat Hamazon immediately after washing without any interruption at all. See Talmud Bavli (Berachot 42b). Hence the extra pour on the hands will serve as an extra interruption and thus it is not allowed.

I do not like the explanation of the Chazon Yechezkel simply because washing in one pour or in two pours is still washing and cannot be considered an interruption. When Talmud Bavli (Berachot 42b) says that he must say Birkat Hamazon immediately after washing Mayim Acharonim without an interruption it is referring to an interruption by eating something or by talking and not by simply taking a little longer to wash. See Rashi (ibid. Lenetilat Yadayim). Also, the Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 1:1, Daf 6a) implies that this statement is referring to Mayim Rishonim and to Mayim Acharonim at all, like Rashi explains.

I would like to propose a different explanation of our Tosefta. We have to remember that the cup that he is using to pour water on his hands is the same size in both cases. It must hold a minimum amount of water, which is a Reviit. See Mishna Yadayim 2:1. (The Halacha seems to follows Rebbi Meir there as can be seen from the Rambam Hilchot Berachot 6:10. It is possible that the Rambam ruled like Rebbi Meir there, because our Tosefta agrees with him, based on my explanation.) If he pours the whole thing at once then he is pouring a Reviit on his hands in one shot. However if he pours it in two shots then he is pouring half a Reviit each time. The reason that by Mayim Rishonim he may wash in two pours if he wants to is because the reason that he is washing then is due to Tumah and therefore it makes sense for him to pour the water from the cup in two shots to wash off the Tameh water, although that is not required since he must dry his hands anyway before he starts eating thus removing all of the water.  See Talmud Bavli (Sotah 4b). However by Mayim Acharonim he is not allowed to pour the water in two shots, because if he does so he may not pour an adequate amount of water each time enough to wash off the Salt of Sodom, since half a Reviit may not be enough to melt the salt that is on his hand. Therefore he must pour out the whole Reviit in one shot so that for sure the whole hand will get washed and all of the salt will get washed off.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta continues with a list of people who are obligated in Birkat Hamazon. It is not related to any Mishna.
2. Birkat Hamazon is a Torah obligation, as it is said, “And you should eat, and be satisfied, and bless Hashem, your God, for the good land that He gave you.” (Devarim 8:10) It is not a commandment that is related to time (i.e. said only at specific times), which means that everyone is obligated in saying it, including women and slaves, as is mentioned in the Mishna Berachot 3:3. Our Tosefta does not list women and slaves, because later on in Tosefta 18 it says that women and slaves are exempt from Birkat Hamazon and it seems to argue on the Mishna. I will discuss this in more details later on in Tosefta 18.

The list of people in this Tosefta is somewhat strange, since the Torah addresses all Jews when it says the commandment of Birkat Hamazon, we would assume that all Jews are obligated in it, and there is really no reason to assume that someone would not be obligated. It is possible however, that since the Torah says, “… for the good land that He gave you” people who did not receive a portion in the land when the land was divided and who do not inherit land in the Land of Israel from their fathers such as Kohanim, Leviim, converts, freed slaves, Natinim and Chalalim we might think that they also do not have to say Birkat Hamazon, so the Tosefta teaches us that they do. However it is still unclear why the Tosefta lists the other people since all of them did get a portion in the land. Also, see Talmud Bavli (Arachin 4a) regarding another potential reason why Kohanim are mentioned in our Tosefta.

1. Kohanim (singular: Kohen) are Jewish priests. All men who are direct descendants of Aharon, Moshe’s brother, are inherently Kohanim. Kohanim were the priests who served in the Bet Hamikdash and they are entitled to various gifts, such as Terumah, parts of sacrifices, first sheared wool and others. See Bemidbar 18:1-20.
2. Leviim (singular: Levi) are all men who are direct descendants from the tribe of Levi. Even though Kohanim are also direct descendants from the tribe of Levi, they are excluded from the title of Leviim since they have their own separate category. Leviim were singled out by the Torah as caretakers of the Bet Hamikdash and they are entitled to receive Maaser (tithe). See Bemidbar 3:5-9 and Bemidbar 18:21-32.
3. Yisraelim (singular: Yisrael) are regular Jewish men who are not descendant from the tribe of Levi.
4. Gerim (singular: Ger) are people who have formally converted to Judaism in a Jewish court, by accepting upon themselves to keep the Torah, circumcising themselves (if it is a man), and dipping in the Mikvah (ritual pool) for the sake of conversion. See Talmud Bavli (Keritut 9a).
5. There are two types of slaves that the Torah discusses, Jewish slaves and Non-Jewish slaves. Jewish slaves are considered to be of the exact same status as regular Jews as far as the fulfillment of commandments goes, so they are not the ones that the Tosefta is talking about. Non-Jewish slaves are essentially in the same category as women with regard to their obligations in commandments and will be discussed in detail later on in this chapter in Tosefta 18. However Non-Jewish slaves that have been freed generally acquire the same status as that of a Ger (a convert) and therefore they are listed here separately. See Talmud Bavli (Yevamot 47b-48a and 77b).
6. A Chalal (literally: desecrated) is a boy born from a union between a Kohen and a woman whom the Kohen is not allowed to marry, such as a divorcee or a prostitute. See Talmud Bavli (Yevamot 69a). Also see note 10 below. A boy who is a Chalal is not allowed to serve as a priest in the Bet Hamikdash.
7. Natinim (singular: Natin) were descendants of the converts from the town of Givon, Gibeonites, who have converted to Judaism during the time of Yehoshua (about 1150 BCE) due to fear of being exterminated during the conquest of the land of Canaan. See Yehoshua chapter 9 and Talmud Bavli (Yevamot 79a). The reason they were called Natinim, because the verse in Yehoshua (Yehoshua 9:27) says that Yehoshua “gave them over” to be wood cutters and water carriers. The name Natin comes from the word נתן meaning “gave”. Gibeonites came to Yehoshua under false pretences that they were from a far away land and not from the land of Canaan, asking that Yehoshua make a treaty with them. Yehoshua made a treaty with them, swearing to them that they would not be exterminated like the other nations during the conquest. However, when he found out that the lied to him and that really they were inhabitants of the land of Canaan whom he was supposed to kill out, he got upset, but decided to keep them alive and make them wood cutters and water carriers for the Israelites. Apparently they have converted to Judaism since they were allowed to remain among Jews, but remained as a separate group and were treated as second rate citizens even into Talmudic times, over a thousand years later after the event. They were not allowed to marry regular Jews, but could only marry converts, freed slaves, and Mamzerim. See Talmud Bavli (Yevamot 79a) and Mishna Kiddushin 4:1. However they were still considered to be full fledged Jews as far as their obligations in commandments were concerned.
8. Mamzerim (singular: Mamzer) are children produced from a union of a couple who are not capable to marry each other due to the fact that their marriage is invalid, such as a man and another person’s wife or a sister and a brother or a son and a mother. See Mishna Kiddushin 3:12. The word Mamzer is commonly translated as a “bastard” however it has a wider connotation than the word “bastard” is used in common English, since it also applies to children from incestuous marriages and not just adulterous marriages. The key difference between a Mamzer and a Chalal is that a Mamzer is a child who comes from a union in which marriage is not only forbidden, but also invalid, where as a Chalal is a child who comes from a union in which marriage is forbidden, but nevertheless valid if it was done anyway.
9. A man who is castrated is not allowed to marry a regular Jewish woman, but can marry a convert or a freed slave woman. See Devarim 23:2 and Mishna Yevamot 8:2. As far as castration goes there is really no difference with regard to marriage if the person was actively castrated, born castrated, became castrated due to some disease, had even one of his testicles damaged or had his member cutoff. However there are some nuances with regard to various laws that differentiate between them. For some examples, see Mishna Yevamot 8:4-6. Since regarding other laws these people are treated differently our Tosefta lists them separately.
10. סריס חמה literally means “a person castrated by the sun”. This is an expression used to refer to someone who was not actively castrated, but rather was born incapable of reproduction. It does not mean that he is physically castrated. See Talmud Bavli (Yevamot 79b-80a). The reason he is called “castrated by the sun” is because, we say that the sun never shun on him as a real man. See Talmud Yerushalmi (Yevamot 8:5, Daf 50a).
11. People can say Berachot for others who have the same type of obligation as them or better. For example, if one person is obligated in a Beracha from the Torah and the other one is also obligated in it from the Torah then either one of them can say it for the other. However if one of them was only obligated by the Rabbis and the other one was obligated by the Torah then the one obligated by the Rabbis cannot say it for them who is obligated by the Torah since his obligation is of a lower level. But vice-versa it would be ok since the obligation of the one from the Torah is of a higher level than the one who is only obligated from the Rabbis. In our Tosefta, since all of the men mentioned are obligated by the Torah to say Birkat Hamazon they can say it for others.
12. A Tumtum is a person who is born with his sex organs not revealed, but rather has them covered over with skin. Since his sexual identity is unknown he is treated as a doubt of a man or of a woman.
13. A hermaphrodite is a person who has both sexual organs of a man and of a woman present. Androginos is a compound Greek word άνδρόγυνος, which means “man and woman”. I have seen mentioned on the internet that this word was made up by the Rabbis in Talmudic times who did not want to use the other Greek word, namely hermaphrodite, since it was the name of a Greek pagan god, Hermaphroditus, after whom the term was named. This allegation is completely not true, since Plato uses this word in his work Symposium (189E), written a few hundred years earlier than any of the Rabbinic works.

A hermaphrodite is also treated in Jewish law as an individual whose sexual identity is in doubt.

1. The reason they are obligated is because since they are individuals whose sex is in doubt, they may be potentially a man, and therefore be obligated just like a regular man is.
2. Since women are not obligated in Birkat Hamazon as will be stated later on in Tosefta 18, an individual whose sex is in doubt may potentially be a woman and therefore not be obligated in Birkat Hamazon; hence not being able to say it for another person who is obligated.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta continues with the discussion of the law discussed in the previous Tosefta.
2. From our Tosefta it appears that it considers a hermaphrodite a separate creature, and not a doubt man, doubt woman, since if it would have been a doubt he could not relieve another hermaphrodite, because theoretically it is possible that the first hermaphrodite is really a man and the second hermaphrodite is really a woman. See Talmud Bavli (Yevamot 83a-83b). On the other hand it is possible to explain that even if the Tosefta holds that a hermaphrodite is a doubt it would still allow him to relieve other hermaphrodites of their obligation of saying Birkat Hamazon, because since both hermaphrodites have organs of both sexes present their status of doubt is not any different from each other. Meaning that it is not that they are any different from each other, but we are simply not sure if they would be considered men or women.  For a discussion on this matter see Lechem Mishneh (Rambam, Hilchot Nachalot 5:1).

It should be noted that there are various levels of intersexuality found in humans and some cases are more clear cut than others. The terms used by the Talmudic literature such as that “a hermaphrodite is a separate creature” may make more sense in some cases where the sex is truly unidentifiable even through genetic testing and may make less sense in other cases where the person is more closer to one particular sex but has certain deformities. There are cases of people who have been classified as hermaphrodites, but later on gave birth to healthy children, which would make them much closer to a woman than to a separate creature.

1. Since a Tumtum’s sexual organs are covered up by skin he is really a doubt man, doubt woman. Meaning, that if we would do surgery on him and cut off the skin that covers his sexual organs we may discover that he is either a regular man or a regular woman, since a Tumtum has only one set of sexual organs present just they cannot be seen on the outside. Therefore there is a very real possibility that one Tumtum is really a man and neither Tumtum is really a woman. Since that possibility is very real a Tumtum cannot say Birkat Hamazon for another Tumtum, and for sure not for anyone else.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta continues with the discussion of the law discussed in the previous Tosefta.
2. There are a few possible ways how a slave can become half slave, half free. The simplest way for it to occur if there was a slave who was owned by two partners and then one partner freed his half and the other partner did not. See Talmud Bavli (Gittin 42a). Another really strange way is that the master says to his slave that one side of his body is free and the other side of his body remains a slave. In the last case, the only reason why a master would do that is to torment his slave, since it gives no benefit to the master. See Talmud Bavli (Gittin 41b). The Rabbis were very against a master who puts his slave into such a situation, because when it happens the half slave cannot get married neither to a regular free woman, nor to another slave woman, since half of him is forbidden from marrying the other kind, thus preventing him from having children and leading a normal life. The Rabbis decided that if such a case occurs it is the responsibility of the local court (Bet Din) to force the master to completely free such a person. See Mishna Gittin 4:5.
3. It is obvious why a half slave, have free person cannot relieve another free person from his obligation of saying Birkat Hamazon. Since the one half of him is exempt from Birkat Hamazon he is clearly not fully obligated as a regular free person. However we need to explain why he cannot relieve another half slave, half free person, since both of them are obligated on the same level. Tosafot (Gittin 41a, Lisa Shifcha) ask a similar question, why a half slave, half free person cannot marry a woman who is also a half slave, half free? Tosafot answer that the problem is that within the person himself we cannot differentiate which part of him is free and which part of him is a slave, therefore what would happen is that the part of him that is free will end up marrying the part of the other person which is a slave and vice versa, and since a free person is not allowed to marry a slave, this type of marriage would not be allowed. The same answer can apply in the case of our Tosefta, that since we cannot differentiate between the two halves of the person, it will end up that the half that is not obligated in Birkat Hamazon (i.e. the slave half) will end up saying Birkat Hamazon for the free half of the other person, which is obligated in Birkat Hamazon. In fact, there is an opinion mentioned in Talmud Bavli (Rosh Hashana 29a) says that due to this problem of not being able to differentiate between the halves of a person he cannot even fulfill his own obligation of a mitzvah (in the case there of blowing the Shofar no Rosh Hashana), but I am not sure if our Tosefta agrees with that statement or not.

Notes:

1. The Tosefta continues with the discussion of who is obligated in Birkat Hamazon and who is not. It is not related to any Mishna.
2. Children (boys until 13 and girls until 12 years of age) are exempt from all Torah commandments and only by a Rabbinical decree the parents are obligated to train their children in performing commandments once they are ready. Women and slaves are exempt from commandments that are time bound (i.e. that apply only during certain times) like saying sitting in the Sukkah on Sukkot or blowing the Shofar on Rosh Hashana. See Mishna Kiddushin 1:7. However, Birkat Hamazon is not really a time bound commandment since a person has to say it after he eats no matter when that happens. In fact, our Tosefta argues on the Mishna (Berachot 3:3) which says that women and slaves are obligated in Birkat Hamazon. Due to this contradiction, Cheshek Shlomo takes out the word “exempt” from our Tosefta and says that it is a printing mistake. The Meiri (Berachot 20b, Betosefta) quotes our Tosefta with a different reading. His version says the word “obligated” instead of the word “exempt”. However, all Tosefta manuscripts that we have (Vienna and Erfurt) have the word “exempt” in the text, so I assume it to be the correct text. Also, the question whether women are obligated by Torah law or by Rabbinical law is asked by Talmud Bavli (Berachot 20b) and as a part of the answer the Gemara quotes the second half of our Tosefta from the words “In reality …” and until the end, implying that it agrees with the fact that it is the Rabbis who said that a woman can say Birkat Hamazon for her husband, a son for his father, and a slave for his master. From there we can infer that that Gemara held that the first part of our Tosefta meant that women and slaves are exempt from Birkat Hamazon by Torah law. Also the fact that the Talmud did not quote the first half of our Tosefta further confirms that it said the word “exempt” and they did not quote it because it was in contradiction with the Mishna and therefore was ignored.

One possible explanation proposed by Rashi (Berachot 20b, Oh Deraban) to exempt women and slaves is due to the fact that the Torah mentions land in the verse of Birkat Hamazon, “And you should eat, and be satisfied, and bless Hashem, your God, for the good land that He gave you.” (Devarim 8:10) Since women and slaves do not inherit land in the Land of Israel, thus they would be exempt from saying Birkat Hamazon by Torah law. However, this explanation is problematic, because earlier Tosefta 15 said that Kohanim, Leviim, and converts are obligated in Birkat Hamazon, despite the fact that they also do not inherit land in the Land of Israel, because either they do not get a portion in the land at all (Kohanim and Leviim) or they do not have a Jewish father to inherit it from (converts). Due to this question Tosafot (Berachot 20b, Nashim) proposes a different answer, saying that since women are not obligated in learning Torah and they do not have circumcision, they cannot really say the words in the 2^nd Beracha of Birkat Hamazon, which say “Al Beritcha Shechatamta Bivsareinu Veal Toratcha Shelimadetanu” (For Your covenant that you sealed in our flesh, and for Your Torah that You have taught us), therefore they should be exempt. However this explanation is even more problematic, since the text of Birkat Hamazon was written by the Rabbis and by pure Torah law there is no requirement to say this text exactly as it is.

I would like to propose a different explanation, although I realize that it is somewhat farfetched as well. Talmud Bavli (Berachot 20b) asks why the Mishna (Berachot 3:3) has to say that women and slaves are obligated in Birkat Hamazon, when it should be obvious since it is not a time bound commandment. It answers that since there is a verse in the Torah that says, “… when Hashem will give you meat in the evening to eat, and bread in the morning to satisfy yourselves …” (Shemot 16:8) we may think that eating bread is time bound and therefore Birkat Hamazon is also time bound, therefore the Mishna has to teach us that despite that verse Birkat Hamazon is not a time bound commandment and therefore women are obligated in it. What is strange in the Gemara’s answer is that that verse is taken completely out of context. It is simply an expression which Moshe says to rebuke the Jews for complaining against God and has nothing to do with putting any kind of time limit on eating. However it is possible that the Tosefta held that due to that verse it was implicit that eating is time bound especially that people ate only at specific times of the day, and therefore Birkat Hamazon was a time bound commandment as well. In addition, Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 3:3, Daf 25b) says that we might assume that people can say for others Birkat Hamazon even though they did not eat at all, therefore the Torah had to explicitly say, “You should eat, and be satisfied …” meaning that only a person who ate is obligated and no one else. We can infer from this that the Torah itself set a time limit on Birkat Hamazon in terms that you only say it after you eat, and this was enough of a time limit for the Tosefta to hold that it is a time bound commandment and therefore women and slaves are exempt.

1. The Tosefta now clarifies that even though women and slaves are exempt from Birkat Hamazon by Torah law, the Rabbis still obligated them in saying it. Talmud Bavli (Berachot 20b) says that our Tosefta is talking about a case where the man (i.e. the husband, the father, and the master) did not eat enough bread to be obligated to say Birkat Hamazon by Torah law and therefore he himself is obligated to say it only by Rabbinical law. Since now his obligation and the woman’s, slave’s or child’s obligation is of the same level, namely Rabbinical, they can say Birkat Hamazon for the man and he can fulfill his obligation this way. However if he would be obligated to say Birkat Hamazon by Torah law then obviously they would be able to say it for him. Rashi (ibid., Shiura Derabanan) explains that in order to be obligated to say Birkat Hamazon by Torah law the person must eat to his full satisfaction, where as according to the Rabbis he only has to eat a Kezait (olive size) in order to be Rabbinically obligated.

Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 3:3, Daf 25b) says that our Tosefta could be talking about a case even if the man ate to his full satisfaction, and it means that the woman, slave, or the child are merely saying the words of Birkat Hamazon out loud so that the man can repeat it after them as they say it. I have to admit that the Bavli’s explanation fits the words of the Tosefta better, since the Tosefta begins by saying, “In reality …” implying that despite the Torah law the Rabbis still said that the woman, slave or child can still say Birkat Hamazon for the man, referring to them fulfilling his obligation and not him merely repeating after them. For a discussion on this see Mareh Panim (Talmud Yerushalmi, Berachot 3:3, Daf 25a, Ubirkat).

Notes:

1. Mishna 2 of chapter 7 states that a child is not included into a group of three people to say the Zimun. Our Tosefta expands on that law.
2. Zimun is a special blessing that is said before Birkat Hamazon if at least three people ate together. See Mishna Berachot 7:1 and 7:3. It is a rabbinical commandment and not a Torah commandment as is implied from Talmud Bavli (Berachot 45a). The Mishna (Berachot 7:2) states that a child (a boy before the age of 13) does not get included into a group of three people to say Zimun no matter what. However our Tosefta seems to explicitly argue on the Mishna, since it says that if a child can eat a Kezait of bread he does get included into a group of three to say the Zimun.
3. Our Tosefta implies that the child can be included as the 3^rd person even if he did not eat a Kezait of bread, because the Tosefta says that he must be capable of eating a Kezait, but not that he actually ate it. Also, since the Tosefta says that we do not physically check if the child can eat a Kezait of bread or not by making him eat a piece of bread before being included into the group of three to say Zimun, implies that he did not eat any bread. Otherwise the Tosefta would not need to say that he does not need to be checked, since he would have eaten a Kezait of bread right in front of us anyway. This seems to be a contradiction since Mishna 1 of chapter 7 says clearly that a waiter that serves two people must eat a Kezait of bread with them before he can join them in saying Zimun and Tosefta 11 earlier in this chapter seems to agree with the Mishna’s statement.

Due to this problem as well as a different quote of what seems to be our Tosefta in Talmud Bavli (Berachot 47b) the Gra (Vilna Gaon) and the Minchat Bikkurim want to change the reading in our Tosefta. Instead of “a child who can eat a Kezait of bread … a child who cannot eat a Kezait of bread …”, they say that the reading should be “A child who has two pubic hairs [even though he is younger than 13 years old] … a child who does not have two pubic hairs [even though he is younger than 13 years old”. According to that reading the Tosefta merely discusses a case where a child has reached puberty and has two pubic hairs, but he is still not 13 years old, is he old enough to say Zimun or not. According to that reading the last phrase in the Tosefta that says, “And we do not check the child.” is referring to a child who has become 13 years old, but who has not produced 2 pubic hairs, thus technically remaining a minor or vice-versa a child who is not 13 years old, but who already has 2 pubic hairs thus technically reaching puberty and being an adult. What the Tosefta teaches us that in that case (i.e. if a child is 13 years old) we do not physically check him if he has 2 pubic hairs or not, or vice-versa if the child has 2 pubic hairs we do not check how old the child is (i.e. if he is 13 or not). The same explanation of this last statement is given by Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 7:2, Daf 53a-b). Despite all of this all manuscripts of the Tosefta have the reading the way it is stated above and not the way it is stated in Talmud Bavli, which implies to me that our reading of the Tosefta is correct and the Bavli merely quotes a different Beraita and not this Tosefta. We do not know what the Yerushalmi quotes since the Yerushalmi only quotes the last line and not the Beraita, but I am almost convinced that it is not our Tosefta, since the Yerushalmi’s explanation of it does not fit into our text.

I would like to propose a different resolution of the contradiction between this Tosefta and Tosefta 11. Our Tosefta clearly argues with Mishna 1 of chapter 7 and the Tosefta holds that the 3^rd person does not have to eat a Kezait of bread in order to join the group of two to say Zimun. However Tosefta 11 does not necessarily agree with the Mishna. It can even agree with our Tosefta. Tosefta 11 is a continuation of discussing proper etiquette at the meal. Since it is clearly better if all three people in the group ate a Kezait of bread than if only 2 of them did and one did not, the waiter is allowed to join the other 2 people without their permission. However our Tosefta states a bare minimum law, which says that the 3^rd person does not have to eat with the other two people, but can simply join them to say Zimun without eating at all. Therefore a child who did not eat at any bread, as long as he is old enough to be capable to eat a Kezait of bread, can join the other 2 people to say Zimun.

It is important to note that there is a 3^rd different explanation of this Tosefta proposed by the Cheshek Shlomo. He says that the Tosefta really agrees with the Mishna that the child must eat a Kezait in order to join the other 2 people in the Zimun. The phrasing in our Tosefta that he must be capable is not very precise and does not pose a contradiction. However, most importantly, the last sentence of our Tosefta and the first sentence of the next Tosefta must be read together as one sentence. If that is the case what the Tosefta is saying is that we do not check (meaning, “correct”) the child if instead of saying Nevarech (Let us Bless) as adults should say in the Zimun he simply says Barchu (Bless) thus implying that he did not include himself into the Zimun. This explanation is certainly plausible since in the manuscripts there are no divisions between the Toseftot, thus we do not know for sure where each Tosefta begins and ends. Zuckermandel’s edition of the Tosefta has this Tosefta and the next Tosefta read together as the Cheshek Shlomo explains. I have decided to keep my explanation as the main one, because in my opinion the next Tosefta is talking about a different subject and is not connected to this Tosefta at all. Cheshek Shlomo’s explanation for the next Tosefta is problematic as will be explained in note 6 on the next Tosefta.

It is important to note that later in this chapter Tosefta 21 says that a person does not have to eat bread to join the Zimun, but merely can partake in the meal by eating any type of food in any amount. Our Tosefta agrees with that and obviously the child would have to eat something in order to join the meal. However the Tosefta does not mention that, because its main point is to teach us that he does not have to eat bread.

Notes:

1. Mishna 3 of chapter 7 says that if there are 3 people saying the Zimun then the leader begins the Zimun by saying Nevarech (Let us bless), but if there are 4 people then the leader begins by saying Barchu (Bless). Our Tosefta argues on that law and says that regardless of how many people there are if the leader said either Nevarech or Barchu it is ok. Mishna 4 of chapter 7 says that 10 people cannot split up until there are 20 people, because their Zimun has the word Eloheinu (our God) in it which cannot be said with less than 10 people. Our Tosefta expands on that law.
2. The leader can begin the Zimun by saying to the other people Nevarech – Let us bless.
3. Or the leader can begint he Zimun by saying Barchu – Bless. Barchu is a command to people, but it implies that the person himself is commanding others to bless and thus excluding himself, where as by saying Nevarech he clearly includes himself into the command as well.
4. תופסין means literally “grab”, but I have translated it as “stop” because it makes more sense like that in English.
5. A caviler is a person who raises annoying petty frivolous objections. The word הנקדן is correctly translated as a caviler, because it has a negative connotation to it as can be seen from Masechta Derech Eretz Zuta 6:4 which says that a person should not be a Nakdan. It is not the same as the word מדקדק which means a careful and precise person who pays attention to detail, and has a positive connotation.
6. The Tosefta says this in a mocking manner, clarifying that if someone decides to nitpick on the leader over this issue, he is clearly a caviler, something that a person should strive not to be. See Masechta Derech Eretz Zuta 6:4. This is in clear contradiction to the Mishna which says that it is not a choice for the leader to say Nevarech or Barchu, but rather Nevarech is said in a group of 3 people and Barchu is said in a group of 4 people or more. Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 7:3, Daf 54b) explains the Tosefta in the same fashion that the word Nakdan is used in a negative connotation and therefore a person should not be pedantic over the wording of Nevarech or Barchu.

It should be noted that Rashi on Talmud Bavli (Berachot 50a, Vehanakdanin) explains this Tosefta differently and says that the word Nakdan has a positive connotation as someone who is scrupulous in the phrasing. According to the Bavli our Tosefta does not argue on the Mishna, but merely clarifies it to say that it is proper to correct the leader if he said Barchu instead of Nevarech. However I do not think that the Gemara’s explanation is the simple meaning of our Tosefta. I think the Gemara simply used it to make a proof to its previous statement that saying Nevarech is better than saying Barchu, but it had to twist the simple meaning of the Tosefta in order to do so. Hence I am sticking with my explanation as confirmed by the Yerushalmi.

See note 3 on the previous Tosefta where I have quoted a completely different explanation of this Tosefta proposed by Cheshek Shlomo. According to his explanation it is a continuation of the previous Tosefta and it is referring to the cavilers correcting the child. However this does not really make sense, because this implies that it is the child who is leading the group in the Zimun since only the leader says the words Nevarech or Barchu and no one else. Also, the previous Tosefta used the phrase מזמנין עליו which implies that Zimun is lead by someone else and the child is a mere participant and not the leader. Due to this reason I prefer my explanation over Cheshek Shlomo’s. Talmud Bavli (Berachot 50a) also explained this Tosefta as a separate statement and not a continuation of the previous Tosefta, although in somewhat different fashion as I already mentioned.

1. When 10 or more people make a Zimun together they add the word Eloheinu (our God) to the blessing, as explained by Mishna 4 of chapter 7. If there are 20 people who ate together they can split up into two groups of 10 each and each group can still say the word Eloheinu. Thus the Tosefta says that it would be ok for 20 people to split up into two groups of 10.
2. However they can split up providing that not even one person leaves either of the groups, because if he would leave there will be only 9 people in that group and they will not be able to say the word Eloheinu thus diminishing the Beracha of Zimun, since now they will not be able to say God’s name in it.