Tosefta Online
English Translation and Commentary on the Tosefta by Eliyahu Gurevich
Translation and Commentary
Manuscripts and First Edition
Updates to some notes on Tosefta Berachot 4:8:7 and 5:5:9
Berachot Tosefta 4:8, note 7:
Professor Daniel Sperber (Daniel Sperber, A Commentary on Derech Eretz Zuta, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990, 6:3, p.67-68.) points out that the reason the Tosefta uses the expression "have gotten up" is because the couches on which they reclined during the meal were always elevated above the level of the tables on which the food was placed. (See W. Smith et al., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, London 1890, 1, p.393-395, s.v. cena; 2, p.886, s.v. triclinium.) For a picture of how this appeared in reality see below chapter 5, Tosefta 5, note 9.
Professor Daniel Sperber (Daniel Sperber, A Commentary on Derech Eretz Zuta, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990, 6:3, p.67.) points out that this formation of sitting at meals prescribed by the Rabbis is the same as of the Greeks and the Romans. Even the terminology used here in the Tosefta is a direct translation of the Latin words that describe the classical symposium. The beds for reclining are a translation of the Latin word "lectus" which means a couch. The terms "above" and "below" correspond to the Latin "supra" and "infra", which describe the relative position of two persons reclining next to one another. The three beds, or couches, correspond to the lectus medius (middle couch), lectus summus (uppermost couch) and the lectus imus (lowest couch). The couches were arranged as follows:
Lectus Medius
Lectus Imus
Lectus Summus
For more information about the classical symposium see William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, London 1890, p.1082-1084, s.v. symposium.
Fresco from the Tomb of the Diver. 475 BC. Paestum National Museum, Italy.
Tractate Berachot, Chapter 5, Tosefta 32 – 33
Tractate Berachot, Chapter 5
Tosefta 321
[A person] who comes home on Motzaei Shabbat (Saturday night)2 says a Beracha (blessing) on the wine,3 and on [seeing] the light [of fire],4 and on [smelling] the spices,5 and [then] he says [the Beracha] of Havdalah6 [itself, as a part of the Havdalah procedure]. And if he only has one cup of wine, he should leave it for after the [end of] the meal, and he says all of the [four Berachot of Havdalah] in order after [he finishes saying Birkat Hamazon (Grace after Meals)].7 And [in general] he says Havdalah [on the following days:]8 on Motzaei Shabbat (Saturday night),9 on Motzaei Yom Tov (Evening at the conclusion of Yom Tov),10 Motzaei Yom Kippur (Evening at the conclusion of Yom Kippur),11 on Motzaei Shabbat which falls out on Yom Tov,12 and on Motzaei Yom Tov which falls out on Chol Hamoed.13 [A person] who is used to [saying Havdalah]14 says many proclamations of separation [in the final Beracha of Havdalah itself] and [a person] who is not used to [saying Havdalah] says [only] one or two [proclamations of separation in the final Beracha of Havdalah itself].15, 16
מסכת ברכות פרק ה
תוספתא לב
הנכנס לביתו במוצאי שבת מברך על היין ועל המאור ועל הבשמים ואומר הבדלה. ואם אין לו אלא כוס אחד מניחו אחר המזון ומשלשלן כולן אחריו. ואומר הבדלה במוצאי שבת ובמוצאי יום טוב ובמוצאי יום הכפורים ובמוצאי שבת ליום טוב ובמוצאי יום טוב לחולו של מועד. הרגיל אומר הבדלות הרבה ושאינו רגיל אומר אחת או שתים.
The Tosefta continues with the discussion of Havdalah from the previous Tosefta. It is a little strange that this Tosefta comes after the previous one. Their order should have been reversed since this Tosefta introduces the procedure of Havdalah, where as the previous Tosefta mentioned details about it.
When the person comes home from praying Maariv (the Evening Prayer) in the synagogue on Saturday night he is supposed to say the Havdalah procedure which consists out of 4 Berachot.
The Beracha on the wine is Borei Pri Hagafen, as was mentioned previously in chapter 4, Tosefta 2, note 6.
Mishna 5 of chapter 8 mentions an argument between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel about what the Beracha on seeing the fire is. Bet Shammai say that the Beracha is ברוך אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם שברא מאור האש – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who created the light of fire. And Bet Hillel say that the Beracha ends on the words בורא מאורי האש – Who creates the lights of fire. The reason for their argument is explained in Talmud Bavli (Berachot 52b). Bet Shammai hold that the candle over which he makes this Beracha needs to consist only of one wick and therefore the wording of Beracha is in the singular form – "the light of fire", where as Bet Hillel hold that the candle must consist of at least two wicks so it looks like a torch and therefore the wording of the Beracha is in the plural form – "the lights of fire". The Talmud Bavli downplays the fact that they also use the words "who created" in either present tense or past tense, and says that either wording refers to the past tense and is equivalent. Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 8:5, Daf 60a) adds that Bet Shammai use the expression of Asher Bara instead of Borei in all Berachot that have the language of creation in them, such as the Berachot over the wine, fruits, vegetables, and cookies.
The reason for making this Beracha altogether after Shabbat is explained in Talmud Bavli (Pesachim 53b) and in Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 8:5, Daf 60b), that since God began to create light at night of the first day of creation, (see Bereishit 1: 3) which is Saturday night, we commemorate that event by making a Beracha on the fire. Pnei Moshe (Talmud Yerushalmi, Berachot 60b, Shekvar) adds that what the Talmud might mean by the statement that "on Saturday night is the beginning of the light's creation" is that the light simply has not been lit for the whole day of Shabbat (and Yom Kippur as well) and therefore since after it is over we can light fire once again it is as if it was created all over again, thus this Beracha on the light of the fire is not simply made as a commemoration, but rather as a reminder that we can do work once again.
There are a few different types of Berachot on smelling different types of spices and other good smelling things. Theoretically any one of them can be said during Havdalah depending what kind of an object the person is using to smell. The most common Beracha that is made is the generic Beracha on smelling spices, which is ברוך אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם בורא מיני בשמים – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who creates different kinds of spices.
The reason that the spices are smelled during Havdalah is explained by the Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 29:29) is that on Saturday night people are sad about the fact that Shabbat is over and that now he has to go back to work, so in order to uplift our spirit we smell something that smells good.
The Beracha of Havdalah (literally: separation) mentions in it different things between which God has made a separation, such as between holy and mundane, between light and darkness (see Bereishit 1:4), between the Jewish people and other nations, and between the day of Shabbat and other 6 days of the weeks.
This is essentially a repetition of the statement of Rebbi Yehudah in the previous Tosefta that everyone agrees that Birkat Hamazon should be said first. Our Tosefta simply clarifies why someone would be saying Birkat Hamazon right before Havdalah. If a person was eating at the end of Shabbat and only had one cup of wine, he should use that cup of wine for both, to say Birkat Hamazon over it and then immediately for Havdalah.
The Tosefta now lists all occasions on which Havdalah must be said. All of these days have one thing in common that the day that is over had a higher level of holiness than the day which began and therefore Havdalah is required. However if the day that was over was more mundane than the day which began Havdalah is not required. It should be noted, that the procedure of Havdalah is not the same on these days. For example, the Beracha on seeing the fire is made only at the conclusion of Shabbat and Yom Kippur, but not any other Yom Tov. The Beracha on smelling the spices is only made at the conclusion of Shabbat. And the text of the Beracha of Havdalah itself varies depending if it is said on a mundane day or on Yom Tov at the conclusion of Shabbat. Our Tosefta does not discuss any of these variations; it simply says that the procedure of Havdalah is said in some kind of form on all of the mentioned days.
This is referring to a regular Saturday night on which the Havdalah is said to separate between the holy day of Shabbat and regular weekday.
This is referring to the night at the conclusion of any Torah holiday, besides Shabbat and Yom Kippur, such as Pesach, Shavuot, Rosh Hashana, Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret.
Yom Kippur is mentioned separately from all other Yamim Tovim, because the level on which work is prohibited on Yom Kippur is the same as on Shabbat as opposed to all other Yamim Tovim when cooking is permitted. Plus Yom Kippur has additional prohibitions on it such as eating, drinking, wearing leather shoes, anointing the body, and having sexual relations. It is for this reason that the Torah calls Yom Kippur, Shabbat Shabbaton – the Shabbat of all other Shabbatot. See Vayikra 16:31.
This referring to when Yom Tov falls out to be on Sunday. Since Yom Tov is of a lower level of holiness than Shabbat, because it has less prohibitions of work (cooking and anything related to it is permitted), Havdalah is required to be said.
Chol Hamoed are the intermediate days of Pesach and Sukkot, on which most work is permitted although there are still some restrictions with regard to work. Since Chol Hamoed is of a lesser level of holiness than Yom Tov Havdalah is required. Yom Tov that concludes on Chol Hamoed, such as the 1st day of Pesach and the 1st day of Sukkot, is mentioned separately than Yom Tov that concludes on a regular weekday, because Chol Hamoed still has some level of holiness to it due to some prohibition of work, where as a regular weekday does not have any holiness to it.
Meaning a person who is fluent in saying the main Beracha of Havdalah and can say it clearly without stumbling.
As was mentioned above in note 6, in the main Beracha of Havdalah many different expressions of separation are mentioned. A person who is fluent in saying Havdalah should say many expressions of separation, more than 2. But a person for whom it is difficult to say Havdalah, because he is not used to saying it himself, but rather he always hears from someone else, the Rabbis did not require him to say many such expressions, but only 1 or 2. We find a similar requirement by the Rabbis with regard to the prayer of Shmoneh Esreh. See Berachot, Mishna 4:3, where Rebbi Akiva says that if a person is fluent on praying Shmoneh Esreh he should pray the whole thing, but if it is difficult for him then he should only say a part of it. The reason for different requirements in prayer for people who are fluent and people who are not is explained in Berachot, Mishna 5:5. The Mishna says that if a person makes mistake in prayer it is a bad sign for him, meaning that God does not listen to his prayer. Therefore the Rabbis tried to help people eliminate potential mistakes in prayer, thus requiring those who were not fluent in praying to say the bare minimum and nothing extra. It should be noted that in Talmudic times there were no written prayer books and all prayers were said by heart therefore people were much more prone to making mistakes, where as nowadays when everyone has a printed prayer book people can just read their prayers without memorizing them, thus eliminating most mistakes. For this reason these rules do not apply nowadays and all people regardless of how fluent they are or not in prayers say the standard text for Shmoneh Esreh and Havdalah as printed in the Siddur (the Jewish Prayer Book). It should be noted that Talmud Bavli (Pesachim 104a) mentions a lot more expressions of separation that should be said in Havdalah than the 4 expressions that we are accustomed to saying. There are 4 additional expressions besides the 4 that we are accustomed to saying, mentioned by the Gemara.
It is always peculiar when the Tosefta uses the expression "one or two". Obviously if only one is enough, why say "or two". When this Tosefta is quoted in Talmud Bavli (Pesachim 104a) the words "or two" are missing. I think what the Tosefta is trying to say is that a person who is not fluent in saying Havdalah should say as many expressions of Havdalah as he is possible capable of saying without making a mistake. The bare required minimum is to say one. However if he is fluent in saying more than one he should say more than one. Therefore the Tosefta says "or two", implying that if he can say two without making a mistake, he should say two.
[If people were sitting together on Motzaei Shabbat (Saturday night)] in the Bet Hamedrash (study hall for learning Torah)2 [and they had to say Havdalah],3 Bet Shammai say, "One [person] should say the Berachot [of the whole procedure of Havdalah] for all of them."4 And Bet Hillel say, "Every person should say the Berachot [of the whole procedure of Havdalah] for himself."5
תוספתא לג
בבית המדרש בית שמאי אומרים אחד מברך לכולן ובית הלל אומרים כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו.
The Tosefta mentions another argument between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel regarding Havdalah. It is not related to any Mishna.
The Tosefta is specifically referring to the Bet Hamedrash and not to any other public place where many people have gathered together, because in a different public place Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel would not be arguing about this law, as will be explained below in note 5.
Since the Tosefta does not specify what law specifically it is talking about it makes sense to explain it in the context of the previous Tosefta that it is talking about Havdalah in general. Talmud Bavli (Berachot 53a) quotes a Beraita that sounds very similar to this Tosefta, except that the opinions of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel are reversed in it, that says specifically that it is talking about the Beracha on seeing the fire and not about any other Berachot of Havdalah. However it is not necessary to constrict the Tosefta to that meaning specifically since the reasons for each of the opinions apply to any kind of Beracha and not to Havdalah specifically.
The reason for Bet Shammai's opinion is explained in Talmud Bavli (Berachot 53a), that we have a principal of Berav Am Hadrat Melech (based on the verse in Mishlei 14:28) – In the multitude of the nation the king is glorified. This principal means that it is always better to do a commandment when there is large gathering of people and involve all of those people in participating in the performance of that commandment. Therefore it is better for one person to say Havdalah for everyone and have all the people answer Amen to each Beracha, than each person say the Beracha for himself.
Bet Hillel, however, disagree, specifically since this is taking place in the Bet Hamedrash. The reason is that if one person would say Havdalah for everyone then everyone would have to stop learning Torah and listen to the leader, and that is called Bitul Bet Hamedrash – idling in the Bet Hamedrash, which is a great offense as was considered by the Rabbis. Therefore, Bet Hillel say that it is better for each person to say Havdalah individually, because then people will say it at different times and at any given time someone will be learning Torah. They hold that it is more important that Torah is learned continuously in the Bet Hamedrash as opposed to a public performance of a commandment. Obviously if this would be taking place at some other public place where Torah is not learned all day long, then Bet Hillel would agree to Bet Shammai that it is better for one person to say Havdalah for everyone since it will be a public performance of a commandment.
[If a person was brought by the waiter wine and perfumed oil2 at the end of the meal,]3 Bet Shammai say, "He should hold the cup of wine in his right hand4 and perfumed oil in his left hand. [Then] he should say the Beracha (blessing) on the wine,5 and after that [he should make the Beracha] on the oil."6 And Bet Hillel say, "He should hold the perfumed oil in his right hand and the cup of wine in his left hand. [Then] he should say a Beracha on the oil7 and smear it onto the head of the waiter,8 [if the waiter was in fact an Am Haaretz.9 However,] if the waiter was a Talmid Chacham (a Torah Scholar) [then] he should smear it onto the wall,10 because it is not praiseworthy for a Talmid Chacham to go out perfumed."11
תוספתא ל
בית שמאי אומרים אוחז כוס יין בימינו ושמן ערב בשמאלו מברך על היין ואחר כך מברך על השמן ובית הלל אומרים אוחז שמן ערב בימינו וכוס יין בשמאלו מברך על השמן וטחו בראש השמש. אם היה שמש תלמיד חכם טחו בכותל לפי שאין שבח לתלמיד חכם שיצא מבושם.
The Tosefta mentions another argument between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel about the laws of a meal. It is not related to any Mishna.
It should be noted that the text of the Tosefta printed in the back of Talmud Bavli is not correct and it reverses the words in both of the opinions of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. I have corrected the text the way it appears in all Tosefta manuscripts and in Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 8:5, Daf 60a) as well. The reason that the text is different in the printed version of the Tosefta is because it was edited to match the text of the Beraita quoted in the Talmud Bavli (Berachot 43b). However it is obvious that Talmud Bavli is not quoting the Tosefta, but rather a different Beraita which has the opinions of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel recorded differently.
Literally, "spiced oil". It was very common in both Biblical (See (Devarim 28:40, Shmuel II 14:2, Yechezkel 16:9, Micha 6:15, Tehillim 104:15, Tehillim 141:5, Rut 3:3) and Talmudic times to use oil as a cosmetic and rub it on the head and the limbs, whether after bath or just because. Oil used in this way was usually olive oil scented with various spices, especially balsam (אפרסמון in Aramaic, See Talmud Bavli, Berachot 43a). It was made by soaking a stick of balsam tree in olive oil for a long time until the oil absorbed the smell of the balsam. See Meiri, Bet Habechira, Berachot 43b, Shemen Aparsamon. Nowadays it is still common to see Arabs using perfumed oil in this way. I have seen them rub it on the head, neck and arms, myself here in Israel. Perfumed oil was kept in jars or vials (not boxes) made of alabaster. See International Standard Bible Encyclopedia of 1915 (entry Ointment).
The reason that the perfumed oil was brought was in order to rub it on his hands to remove the grease from the food that he ate. See Talmud Bavli (Berachot 53a and Rashi, ibid., Veshemen) The reason that the wine was brought is disputed. According to Rashi (Berachot 53a, Veshemen, Ein Mevarchin Alav) and the Raavad (Note on the Rambam, Hilchot Berachot 7:15) that the oil and the wine were brought to him in the end of the meal but not specifically to say Birkat Hamazon over, but rather just a regular cup of wine to drink. The Rambam (ibid.) however says that this wine was specifically the cup of wine which was brought over to say Birkat Hamazon and that he held both the oil and the wine while saying Birkat Hamazon. I think what may have prompted the Rambam to explain it this way is because right before they said Birkat Hamazon they washed hands with water to remove the salt as was explained above (Tosefta 14, note3). So it would not make sense that he would rub the oil before washing his hands, because then the oil would get washed off by the water and there would be no need to rub it on the waiters head or the wall as Bet Hillel say in the end of this Tosefta. Therefore the Rambam was pushed to say that they must have used this oil after they washed hands, and since there were no interruptions allowed between washing hands at the end of the meal (Mayim Acharonim) and saying Birkat Hamazon, it must mean that he rubbed the oil after Birkat Hamazon and the wine was the wine over which Birkat Hamazon is said. Rashi and the Raavad do not make as much sense in the context of the official etiquette of the meal in Talmudic times, but they do not necessarily restrict their explanation to the etiquette, but rather make it more generic and applicable even to meal that did not follow the strict etiquette, where the person may not have eaten the salt at the end of the meal, therefore not being required to wash his hands, and therefore could use the oil before Birkat Hamazon was said.
Since Bet Shammai hold that the Beracha should be first said on the wine, the wine should be held in the right hand to show that it was more important than the oil. Bet Hillel who hold that the Beracha should be made on the oil first said that he should hold the oil in his right hand.
The Beracha for wine is Borei Pri Hagafen as was already explained earlier in chapter 4, Tosefta 2, note 6.
There was a special Beracha for anointing oneself with perfumed oil. See Talmud Bavli (Berachot 43a). It was ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם בורא שמן ערב – Blessed You Hashem Our God, King of the world, Who created perfumed oil. It is interesting to note that if one would anoint oneself with such oil today he would have to say this Beracha prior to anointing himself. From the language of the Beracha it would seem that it should not be said over regular perfume simply because it mentions perfumed oil specifically by name and does not generalize to all kinds of perfumes. However this can be up for discussion.
The reason for the argument between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel according to the version of their opinions in this Tosefta is unclear. According to the version quoted in Talmud Bavli (Berachot 43b) where their opinions are reversed regarding the order of the Berachot, we could say that Bet Hillel hold that he should make the Beracha on the wine first because it is a more common Beracha, as Bet Hillel already said earlier in Tosefta 25. However, in our Tosefta it is Bet Shammai who says that the Beracha on the wine should be made first, so we cannot explain that their reasoning is due to the fact that it is more common. I would like to propose an explanation of their argument based on the text in our Tosefta. Bet Shammai hold that the Beracha on the wine should be said first, because it is the wine that causes him to use the oil, similar to Bet Shammai's opinion earlier in Tosefta 25. Since the reason he is using the oil is to remove the grease from his hands, he might end up spilling some wine over his hands and therefore he would need the oil to remove the spilled wine. However Bet Hillel hold that the Beracha on the oil should be said first, because in the verse in the Torah that mentions the seven species for which the Land of Israel is blessed (Devarim 8:8), the word "oil" is closer to the word "land" as compared to the word "vine" which gives it priority. See Talmud Bavli (Berachot 41b). For a discussion how Bet Hillel according to the text in Talmud Bavli (which has their opinion stated in the opposite fashion) would refute this reasoning see the commentary Male Haroim (Berachot 43b), printed in the back of Talmud Bavli.
Nowadays this seems to be extremely insulting to wipe one's hands with oil on them on someone else's head. However in Biblical and Talmudic times it was a sign of great honor to the person to have his head smeared with perfumed oil. One way of showing honor to a guest was to anoint his head with oil. See Tehillim 23:5. This custom was not only prevalent in ancient Israel, but also in Egypt (See Eugen Strouhal, Life of the ancient Egyptians, 1992, p.133), and I would guess all over the Mediterranean region, although I do not have a source for that. Therefore I would assume that the reason Bet Hillel recommended to wipe the hands with perfumed oil on the head of the waiter was to show great honor to the waiter. It was similar to us giving the waiter a tip for good service.
An Am Haaretz is someone who is not a Torah scholar. See above Tosefta 29, note 4, for a discussion of Bet Hillel's opinion that only a Talmid Chacham waiter should be used if possible.
It is kind of strange that Bet Hillel recommended smearing his hands on the wall of the house and not on a napkin. I would guess that they only had one napkin per guest and by the end of the meal the napkin was already dirty, because he used it during the whole meal to wipe his dirty hands on. Obviously they did not view wiping perfumed oil on the wall as something that would be damaging to the looks of the house. It is also possible that what Bet Hillel are saying is not that he should wipe his hands on the wall as his first choice, but even if he has nothing else to wipe them on and his only option is to wipe them on the wall, it is better to do that then walking outside smelling like perfume.
Talmud Bavli (Berachot 43b) explains that the reason why a Torah scholar should not walk outside perfumed is because it may appear like he is a homosexual and is trying to attract other men. Walking around perfumed was looked down upon not only by the Rabbis, but also by the Romans (See Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 6.2, 5, Loeb ed. 2., p.59; Pliny, Natural History, 12 (5) 24, Loeb ed. 4, p.113). Josephus (The Jewish War 4.9.10 [561-562], Loeb ed. 3, p.167) writes that the only people who were well perfumed among Jews were the Zealots, who "indulged in effeminate practices." Walking in public perfumed for men was considered to be extravagant, effeminate and indicative of homosexual tendencies. For a more detailed discussion on this and other references on this matter see Daniel Sperber, A Commentary on Derech Eretz Zuta, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990, 6:1, p.53-54.
Rebbi Yehudah said, "[If a person is eating a meal on Saturday night before the end of Shabbat and now he is done eating and he has to say Birkat Hamazon (Grace after meals) and Havdalah2,] Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not argue about Birkat Hamazon which [should be said] first and Havdalah which [should be said] last.3 [So] what do they argue about? About the [order of the Berachot] on [seeing] the fire and on [smelling] the spices [in Havdalah itself]. Bet Shammai say [first he makes the Beracha on seeing the] fire and [only] after that [he makes the Beracha on smelling the] spices, and Bet Hillel say [first he makes the Beracha on smelling the] spices and [only] after that [he makes the Beracha on seeing the] fire."4
תוספתא לא
אמר רבי יהודה לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על ברכת המזון שהיא בתחלה ועל הבדלה שהיא בסוף. על מה נחלקו? על המאור ועל הבשמים שבית שמאי אומרים מאור ואחר כך בשמים ובית הלל אומרים בשמים ואחר כך מאור.
Mishna 8 of chapter 5 mentions an argument between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel about the order in which Birkat Hamazon and the Berachot of Havdalah should be said at the conclusion of Shabbat. Bet Shammai say that the order should be first the Beracha on the fire, then Birkat Hamazon, then on the spices, and then the Beracha of Havdalah itself. Where as Bet Hillel say that first he says the Beracha on the fire, then on the spices, then Birkat Hamazon and then the Beracha of Havdalah itself. Our Tosefta quotes the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who says that that is not the argument between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel, but rather it is as our Tosefta describes it.
Just like a person is obligated to say Kiddush in the beginning of Shabbat (see above Tosefta 25, note 10) so too he is obligated to say Havdalah at the end of Shabbat. It is an argument between the Rishonim (Medieval authorities) if the obligation to say Havdalah verbally is a Torah obligation or a Rabbinical obligation. See Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 29:1 and Maggid Mishna there). However everybody agree that Havdalah over a cup of wine is a Rabbinical obligation. The Rabbis have decreed that at the end of Shabbat a person has to say 4 Berachot as a part of Havdalah. The Beracha on wine, the Beracha on smelling the spices, the Beracha on a fire (a lit candle with multiple wicks) and a Beracha of Havdalah itself which mentions how God has separated between the holy and the mundane.
Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that a person can complete his meal first by saying Birkat Hamazon and only after that he needs to say Havdalah. The person does not need to interrupt his Shabbat day meal which has continued into the night in order to say Havdalah, but he can continue eating until he is done. In this way Havdalah is different from Kiddush on Friday night which does require and interruption of the Friday afternoon meal, as has been already mentioned in Tosefta 1 of this chapter. The only thing that they argue about is the order of 2 out of the 4 Berachot during Havdalah itself. They agree that the Beracha on the wine should be said at the beginning of the Havdalah procedure and the Beracha of Havdalah itself should be said in the end of the Havdalah procedure. They argue about the order of the 2 Berachot that are said in the middle of Havdalah, namely the fire and spices.
It should be noted that the neither the Tosefta, nor the Mishna explicitly say that the Beracha on the wine is said first and the Beracha of Havdalah itself is said last, however this is implied by the fact that since Birkat Hamazon was said first, there was a Beracha at the end of it on the wine, which would serve its purpose for Havdalah as well. And when the Tosefta says the word "Havdalah which [should be said] last" it is not just referring to the general procedure of Havdalah which includes in it all 4 Berachot, but rather it is referring to the Beracha of Havdalah specifically which is the last Beracha out of the 4. Rashi (Berachot 51b, Ner Umazon) explains that the reason Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel include Birkat Hamazon into their argument about Havdalah is because they are talking about a case where there is only 1 cup of wine and it needs to be used both on saying over it Birkat Hamazon and Havdalah, so that is a further proof to the implication that when the Tosefta says that Birkat Hamazon is said first that includes the Beracha over the wine.
According to Bet Shammai the order of the Berachot of Havdalah is as follows: 1) Wine 2) Fire, 3) Spices, 4) Havdalah itself. And according to Bet Hillel the order is as follows: 1) Wine 2) Spices, 3) Fire, 4) Havdalah itself. The reason for the argument is based on their earlier opinions mentioned in Tosefta 25. Bet Hillel hold that the Beracha on smelling the spices is more common since it is something people do every day, as opposed to the Beracha on seeing the fire which is only said at the end of Shabbat, therefore the Beracha on the spices should be said first. But Bet Shammai hold that since the Beracha for seeing the fire is caused by the fact that it is the end of Shabbat, it should be said first and only after that the Beracha on the spices should be said since the whole reason for smelling spices during Havdalah is to make the person feel better about the fact that Shabbat is over and now he has to go to work. So once the person has been reminded by the fire that Shabbat is over and he can now do work, he can now smell the spices to make himself feel better about that fact.
Bet Shammai say, "[After washing the hands before the meal, a person] wipes his hands with a cloth napkin and puts it down on the table [so that he can use it during the meal to wipe himself], [because if he will put it on the cushion instead] may be the liquid inside the cloth napkin will become Tameh (ritually impure) because of the cushion2, and it will revert and make his hands Tameh [when he touches the cloth napkin again]."3 [And] Bet Hillel say, "[In case of] a doubt [if the] liquid [touches his] hands [or not, the hands remain] Tahor (ritually pure)."4 [Besides this there is] another explanation. Hands do not [need to be] washed [by Torah law, when eating] Chulin (ordinary food that does not have any special holiness to it). But rather [instead of putting the cloth napkin on the table, he should wash his hands and then] wipe his hands with a cloth napkin and put it on the cushion [so that he can use it during the meal to wipe himself], [because if he will put it on the table instead] may be the liquid inside the cloth napkin will become Tameh because of the table and it will revert and make the food Tameh [when the cloth napkin touches the food].5
תוספתא כח
בית שמאי אומרים מקנח ידו במפה ומניחה על השולחן שמא נטמאו משקין שבמפה מחמת הכסת ויחזרו ויטמאו את הידים. בית הלל אומרים ספק משקים לידים טהור. דבר אחר. אין נטילת ידים לחולין. אלא מקנח ידו במפה ומניחה על הכסת שמא יטמאו משקין שבמפה מחמת השולחן ויחזרו ויטמאו את האוכלין.
Mishna 3 of chapter 8 mentions the argument between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel about where should the person put the cloth napkin with which he wipes his hands after washing them, on the table, or on the chair. Our Tosefta adds reasons for that argument.
The regular Hebrew word for a chair is כסא. The word כסת really means a soft cushion. Since in Talmudic times they ate while reclining on beds, the beds were covered with soft cushions. However, for all practical purposes the cushion would be identical in this case to a chair since it is something the person is sitting on top of, therefore in all notes below I referred to it as a chair.
For the rules of Tumah (ritual impurity), why unwashed hands are Tameh and why liquids make objects Tameh see above chapter 5, Tosefta 14, note 2. As was explained previously in Tosefta 26, note 4, Bet Shammai hold that a person is not allowed to eat with his hands being Tameh, because of a Rabbinical decree. So if he would put the cloth napkin which became wet from him wiping his wet hands on it, on to the chair, the chair which possibly may be Tameh on the second level of impurity (Sheni Letumah) will make the liquid inside it Tameh. People generally would use such Tameh chairs, because they cannot make anything else of importance Tameh, such as people or other utensils. The only thing that can become Tameh from such a chair is a liquid, since when liquids touch Sheni Letumah they become Rishon Letumah. However, the table cannot be Tameh, because Bet Shammai hold that people are not allowed to eat on a Tameh table, even if it is only Sheni Letumah, because may be they will eat Terumah on it and Terumah can become Tameh on a Third level of impurity (Shlishi Letumah), as I explained earlier in Tosefta 14, note 2.
Bet Hillel hold that he should put the napkin on the chair and not on the table as they say in the end of this Tosefta. They hold that a person is allowed to use a Tameh table which is Sheni Letumah, since only Kohanim eat Terumah, but not most people who only eat Chulin. See Talmud Bavli (Berachot 52b). Also, it is only a doubt if the cloth napkin can actually make something else wet again, because it does not really have that much water in it. Bet Hillel hold that in the case of a doubt the Rabbis did not decree that liquids which become Rishon Letumah can make hands Tameh (see Mishna Taharot 4:7) and therefore the wet cloth napkin will not make his hands Tameh even if it touches the Tameh chair. However, Bet Hillel hold that even in the case of a doubt liquids which become Rishon Letumah can still make food Tameh, therefore it is better to keep the cloth napkin on the chair instead of the table, far away from the food.
Talmud Bavli (Berachot 52b) as interpreted by Rashi (Berachot 52b, Afilu) explains that the reason that Bet Hillel add a second reason to their opinion is in order to refute Bet Shammai, even if they would theoretically agree to them that people cannot use a Tameh table. Bet Hillel are saying to Bet Shammai that even if the table is Tahor it is still better to put the cloth napkin on the chair and not on the table. The reason is that it is possible that someone will use a Tameh table which is Sheni Letumah, even though they are not allowed, and then the water in the napkin will make the food on the table Tameh. Since by Torah law there is no such thing as Tameh hands, because by Torah law only the person's whole body can be Tameh, but not separate body parts, but there is such a thing as food becoming Tameh, we should be more concerned with the remote possibility of the food becoming Tameh and not the hands. It should be noted that this reasoning is just a logical derivation of why we should be concerned with the food possibly becoming Tameh as opposed to the hands. Both cases here are based on Rabbinical prohibitions since the whole concept of liquids becoming Tameh from something that is Sheni Letumah is a Rabbinical decree, so it really has nothing to do with Tumah by Torah law.
Bet Shammai say, "[After the meal is over] we sweep the house [in order to clean up the bread crumbs that fell on the floor], in order to [prevent] the destruction of food, and [only] after that we wash hands [after the meal]."2 And Bet Hillel say, "If there is a waiter there, who is a Talmid Chacham (a Torah scholar),3 who picks up [all of] the crumbs that are the size of a Kezait (olive size), [then first] we wash hands [after the meal] and [only] then we sweep the house [from the crumbs]."4
תוספתא כט
בית שמאי אומרים מכבדין את הבית מפני אבוד אוכלין ואחר כך נוטלין לידים. ובית הלל אומרים אם היה שמש תלמיד חכם מלקט פירורין שיש בהן כזית נוטלין לידים ואחר כך מכבדין את הבית.
Mishna 4 of chapter 8 mentions the argument between Bet Shammai abd Bet Hillel regarding what should be done first at the end of the meal, sweeping the house from bread crumbs or washing the hands after the meal (Mayim Acharonim). Our Tosefta adds reasons for that argument. The law of Mayim Acharonim was already explained earlier in chapter 5, Tosefta 14.
It is disrespectful to food when it is left on the floor where people can step on it. Therefore prior to leaving the dining room, it needs to be swept to remove all of the food that fell on the floor. Bet Shammai hold that the house should be swept from dropped food before washing the hands after the meal, because if people would start washing hands while the food is laying on the floor they may spill some water on the floor and that will make the food that is there disgusting, thus disrespecting it.
The reason that the waiter has to be a Talmid Chacham is because he has to be aware of this law that crumbs larger than a Kezait must be picked up. If he is uneducated then he would not know to do this and will leave them lying around.
Bet Hillel hold that since the waiter will pick up by hand all of the bread crumbs that are larger than a Kezait before people are ready to wash Mayim Acharonim, we do not need to worry about water spilling on the floor and making the food disgusting. Bet Hillel hold that spilled water can only make disgusting pieces of bread that are larger than a Kezait. Crumbs that are smaller than that or other types of food do not become disgusting from spilled water. However Bet Shammai hold that any type of food of any size will become disgusting by having water spilled on it and therefore should be cleaned up first. Obviously Bet Hillel would agree to Bet Shammai that if there is no waiter there or the waiter is an Am Haaretz (an person uneducated in Torah law) then the house should be swept first and only then people should wash Mayim Acharonim, since some water may spill on pieces of bread larger than a Kezait and make them disgusting. Talmud Bavli (Berachot 52b) points out that Bet Hillel in fact hold that people are not allowed to use a waiter who is an Am Haaretz in general, but they must use a Talmid Chacham (i.e. a Chaver). For an explanation of what Chaverim were see above Tosefta 14, note 2.
It is important to note that it is apparent from the Tosefta that for some reason Bet Hillel would prefer in an ideal situation that everyone should wash Mayim Acharonim before the house is swept. Some commentators (see Pnei Moshe and also Perush Mibaal Sefer Chareidim on Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 8:4, Daf 60a, Im Hashamesh) ) say that really Bet Hillel does not have a preference for Mayim Acharonim to be washed before the house is swept. All they are saying is that a person is allowed to wash Mayim Acharonim before the house is swept if he wants to, but he may do the other way around as well. I do not agree with this explanation, because from the language of the Tosefta and even from the Mishna (Berachot 8:4) it is apparent that Bet Hillel insist that this must be the order and not the other way around. I would guess that the reason Bet Hillel insist on washing before sweeping the house is because it was more proper as far as the meal etiquette is concerned. Washing Mayim Acharonim and saying Birkat Hamazon is a part of the meal itself, but sweeping the house is not a part of the meal, therefore in an ideal situation it would more appropriate to complete the meal and only then sweep the house.
Tosefta Berachot in Print
English Translation (116)
Ancient Recipes
Bavli Online
Seforim Online
Tanach Online
Yerushalmi Online
Tosefta Online was featured on the Jewish Drinking Podcast
Audio Shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer on Tosefta Bava Kamma have been completed
Audio Shiurim have been updated until the end of 2016
For any issues contact us at eli@toseftaonline.org.
Copyright ToseftaOnline.org © 2021