זכור אותו האיש לטוב ויהושע בן גמלא שמו—That man should be remembered for good; and his name is יהושע בן גמלא

OVERVIEW The גמרא imparts a great importance to יהושע בן גמלא (for establishing teachers for every city where the children could learn תורה). Our תוספות elaborates regarding this יהושע בן גמלא.

הוא אותו¹ האיש דאמר רב יוסף (ביבמות דף סא,א) תרקבא דדינרי עיילא ליה מרתא בת בייתוס – This יהושע בן גמלא is the same one, regarding whom רב יוסף related that מרתא בת בייתוס gave for him three קבין of דינרים – לינאי המלך² עד דאוקים ליהושע בן גמלא בכהני רברבי וצדיק גמור היה כדאשכחן הכא – To the king ינאי until he appointed יהושב בן גמלא as a כהן גדול, and יב"ג was a צדיק גמור as we find here (that he is being praised effusively) – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:** והא דקאמר התם (שם) קטיר קא חזינא³ הכא לפי שהיו אחרים חשובים ממנו:** And this which רב יוסף said there, ‘I see here a cabal of wicked people’; that is not to be understood the יב"ג was not fit to be כהן גדול, rather it was because there were others who were more prominent than יב"ג, but he was also fit to be כה"ג.****

SUMMARY יב"ג here is the same as יב"ג in מס' יבמות, and he was fit to be a כה"ג, although there were others who were more prominent than him.

THINKING IT OVER Why is תוספות insisting that these two יהושע בן גמלא are the same person; perhaps there were two different people; or perhaps he changed for the better after he became a כה"ג?⁴

footnotes: ¹ The הגהות הב"ח deletes the word האיש so it reads אותו דאמר. ² ינאי המלך was the Jewish king (and a descendant of הורדוס who was an עבד). He had a contentious relationship with the חכמים. See (however) תוס' יומא יח,א ד"ה עיילא. ³ רב יוסף felt that יהושע בן גמלא received the כהונה גדולה only because מרתא בת בייתוס (who was his wife) paid off ינאי המלך. How can תוספות say that we are discussing the same person? ⁴ See ריטב"א here and תוספות ישנים in יבמות.

ולמדתם אותם ולמדתם אתם—And you will teach them; and you will teach

OVERVIEW The גמרא relates that initially the people understood that it is incumbent on the fathers (only) to teach תורה to their children, for the פסוק states ולמדתם אותם את בניכם וגו'; however, the word אתם is written without a וי"ו, so it can be read a אתם (האלף פתוחה והתי"ו סגולה); meaning that אתם, you the father, should teach your children. תוספות offers an alternate גירסא and understanding of this דרשה.

יש ספרים דלא גרסי ולמדתם אתם ודריש מדכתיב ולמדתם משמע¹ מעצמכם:² There are text that are not גורס ולמדתם אתם, rather they expound this דרשה as follows, since it is written ולמדתם (and you shall teach); this indicates that you yourselves the fathers of בניכם are required to teach your children.

SUMMARY We can derive the דרשה that a father is obligated to teach his children, from the word 'ולמדתם' by itself (without the אותם אתם דרשה).

THINKING IT OVER Is there any advantage in one גירסא over the other?

footnotes: ¹ The הגהות הב"ח inserts the word אתם so it reads משמע אתם בעצמכם. ² See מהרש"א who explains (according to the גירסא מעצמכם) that this גירסא is explaining מי שאין לו אב לא היה לומד to mean that no one taught him; he had to learn by himself מעצמכם.

כי מציון תצא תורה—For the Torah will go forth from Tzeeyon

OVERVIEW The גמרא relates that there was a time when the children were taught תורה in ירושלים based on the פסוק of¹ כי מציון תצא תורה [ודבר ה' מירושלים]. Our תוספות explains why indeed does the פסוק state that תורה comes forth from ציון וירושלים.

לפי שהיה רואה קדושה גדולה וכהנים עוסקים בעבודה – For when the child would see the great holiness and the כהנים occupied in the service of the בית המקדש – היה מכוון לבו יותר ליראת שמים וללמוד תורה – He would direct his heart to the fear of heaven and to study תורה – תוספות supports his view: כדדרשינן בספרי² למען³ תלמד ליראה וגומר גדול⁴ מעשר שני שמביא לידי תלמוד – As the ספרי expounds the פסוק of, ‘in order that you shall learn to fear, etc.’; this teaches us that מעשר שני is great, for it brings to studying the תורה. This concludes the ספרי – תוספות explains how does eating מע"ש in ירושלים bring to תלמוד: לפי שהיה עומד בירושלים עד שיאכל מעשר שני שלו – For the person who brought his מע"ש to ירושלים, would remain there until he finished eating all his מע"ש (which may be eaten only in ירושלים) – והיה רואה שכולם עוסקים במלאכת שמים ובעבודה – And he would see that everyone is involved in the work of heaven and in the service of the ביהמ"ק –

So he too would direct himself to fear heaven and be occupied in תורה study.

SUMMARY Being in a place where people are acting in a holy manner has that same effect on the visitor.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות assumes that being in the environment of ירושלים causes one to be מכוין to יראת שמים ולימוד התורה, and תוספות cites the ספרי as proof. However there is no more proof from the ספרי that the environment causes it,⁵ than from our גמרא here. Why does תוספות cite the ספרי?
2. Why the different לשונות; regarding the child learning in ירושלים, תוספות writes, היה מכוון לבו יותר ליראת שמים וללמוד תורה, while regarding מע"ש, תוספות writes, היה גם הוא מכוון ליראת שמים ועוסק בתורה. [Similarly regarding their impression; by the child he writes, לפי שהיה רואה קדושה גדולה וכהנים עוסקים בעבודה, and regarding מע"ש he writes, והיה רואה שכולם עוסקים במלאכת שמים ובעבודה.]

footnotes: ¹ ישעיה ב,ג. ² דברים (ראה) פיסקא קו. ³ דברים (ראה) יד,כב-כג (regarding מעשר שני) reads, עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר אֵת כָּל תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ הַיֹּצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה שָׁנָה שָׁנָה. כג וְאָכַלְתָּ וגו' שָׁם מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ תִּירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ לְמַעַן תִּלְמַד לְיִרְאָה אֶת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וגו'. ⁴ In our ספרי the לשון is מגיד שהמעשר מביא את האדם לידי תלמוד תורה. ⁵ The ספרי merely states that (eating the) מע"ש (in ירושלים) causes לימוד התורה, but not that it is on account of the environment.

כבן שש כבן שבע—At about the age of six, at about the age of seven

OVERVIEW יהושע בן גמלא instituted that there be teachers for young children in every city, and the children would be brought to learn of the age of six or seven years old. Our תוספות explains whether it was six or seven.

By a healthy child he went to school when he was about six years old, and a weak child would go at about seven years of age

SUMMARY Stronger children would go to school earlier than the weaker ones.

THINKING IT OVER Why should we not say that the smarter children went at the age of six, and the others at the age of seven (regardless of their physical strength)?¹

footnotes: ¹ See יד רמ"ה אות נג.

בבציר מבר שית לא תקבל—Do not accept less than the age of six

OVERVIEW רב instructed רב שמואל בר שילת not to accept a student who is younger than six years of age. תוספות reconciles this with a seemingly contradictory משנה.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: והא דתנן במסכת אבות (פרק ה' משנה כ"א) בן חמש שנים למקרא¹ בבריא לגמרי² – And this which the משנה teaches in מסכת אבות, at five years old a child should be taught חומש, that is only if he is completely healthy – תוספות offers support to his view: כדאמר בכתובות (דף נ,א ושם) הלומד בנו פחות מבן שש רץ אחריו ואינו מגיעו³ – As רב קטינא states in מסכת כתובות, ‘one who teaches his son when he is less than six years old, he may run after him, but he will not reach him. The גמרא continues – ואיכא דאמרי חבריו רצין אחריו ואין מגיעין אותו⁴ ותרוייהו⁵ איתנהו דחליש וגמיר – And some say that his friends run after him, but they cannot reach him; the גמרא concludes; ‘and both these**** statements are true, he is weak (like the first interpretation) and he is learned’ (like the א"ד). The גמרא offers an alternate view –

And if you want I can say, this (that he will be sick) is regarding a weak child, and this (the א"ד) is by a healthy child.

SUMMARY A child who is בריא לגמרי can begin learning at five years old.

THINKING IT OVER Perhaps בן חמש in the משנה means when he completed his five years and is entering his sixth year and כבן שש here means when he is entering his sixth year, so there is no contradiction at all!⁸

footnotes: ¹ This seemingly contradicts our גמרא which requires the child be at least six years old (not five). ² In the previous תוס' ד"ה כבן we were told that a weak child begins learning at seven years old, and a healthy child (בריא) at six years old, however a בריא לגמרי can begin even at five years old. ³ See רש"י there that this means the father will attempt to revive him and make him healthy (רץ אחריו), but he will not be successful (ואינו מגיעו) for he is in danger of dying because of his excessive weakness. ⁴ He is too advanced so they cannot keep up with him. ⁵ This view reconciles that both the first לשון and the second are true by the same child, he is weak but smart. ⁶ The ואיבעית אימא maintains that the two previous statements are discussing two different types of children. ⁷ The 'ואיבעית אימא' in the גמרא there substantiates what תוספות says here that by a בריא [לגמרי], he can begin even younger than six years old. ⁸ See תורת חיים.

אחד¹ מבני מבוי² כולי—One of the Mohvooy dwellers, etc.

OVERVIEW Our גמרא cites a ברייתא, which states that if one of the בני מבוי decided to open a medical practice in the מבוי,³ or to become a אומן, גרדי or מלמד תינוקות, any other member of the מבוי can prevent him from doing so.⁴ תוספות rejects this גירסא.

פירש רבינו שמשון בן אברהם דלא גרס מבוי⁵ אלא חצר⁶ – The רשב"א explained that the גירסא is not מבוי, but rather חצר – דאי גרס מבוי תיקשי לאביי⁷ דשרי בחצר אחרת – For if the גירסא is מבוי, there will be a difficulty according to אביי who permits opening a business in another חצר – וההיא⁸ דעושה אדם חנות בצד חנות של חבירו שרי⁹ לכל הפחות בחצר אחר¹⁰ – And the גירסא of מבוי will also contradict that ברייתא, which states, ‘a person may open a store next to his friend’s store’, that permission is [also] granted at least to open a store in an adjacent חצר (in the same מבוי) – ורבא¹¹ נמי לא פליג עליה אלא¹² דמוקי מתניתין דשריא אף באותה חצר – And even רבא does not argue with אביי (that members of another חצר cannot be מעכב), rather he establishes the משנה that it is permitted to establish a children’s school even in the same חצר and no one can protest –

And here (if the גירסא is מבוי) it is forbidden even if the people of another חצר protest; therefore we must rather conclude that the גירסא is אחד מבני חצר, only they can protest.

SUMMARY Only a dweller of the same חצר can prevent a fellow dweller from opening certain businesses in this חצר, but dwellers of other חצרים in this מבוי have no say.

THINKING IT OVER Perhaps we can resolve the contradiction on אביי.¹⁴ In the case of אביי the noise of the תינוקות is their coming to the store¹⁵, therefore the people of the מבוי cannot be מעכב for presumably they too use this store; however in the ברייתא of רופא וכו', this will attract people from other neighborhoods, therefore maybe even the בני מבוי can prevent him from increasing the foot traffic?¹⁶

footnotes: ¹ See footnote # 5. ² A neighborhood was set up in the following manner; there was a small street or alleyway (מבוי) which opened (on one side [usually]) to the main street (the רה"ר). Let us picture this מבוי in the shape of the letter חי"ת, with the bottom opening into a רה"ר. Along the outside walls of this חי"ת (מבוי) were courtyards חצרים (which opened into the מבוי). Each חצר consisted of a few houses which opened into this חצר. The houses in one חצר shared a communal courtyard (חצר), the various חצרים around the outside walls of the מבוי shared the same מבוי. ³ This means that the practice will be in his house which is opened to a חצר which opens to this מבוי (not that the practice will take place in the מבוי). ⁴ This would mean that any member of this מבוי, even if he lives in a different חצר of this מבוי, can prevent him. ⁵ In our גמרות the text reads חצר, however there was a גירסא of מבוי and the רשב"א rejects that גירסא. ⁶ This means that only a fellow member of the same חצר can prevent him, but not a member of a different חצר, even though they share the same מבוי. ⁷ See previously on the bottom of כ,ב where אביי explains the סיפא of the משנה in a case of חצר אחרת; meaning that the people of another חצר in the same מבוי cannot prevent one from opening a business in another חצר. If the גירסא here would be בני מבוי, this would contradict the ruling of אביי. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁸ See the גמרא on the עמוד ב'. ⁹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read שרי נמי לכל (instead of שרי לכל). ¹⁰ That permission cannot mean that he can only open up in another מבוי, for that is obvious! It must mean (at least) that he can open another store in the same מבוי, but in a different חצר. ¹¹ See on the end of the previous עמוד, where רבא disagrees with אביי and maintains that the משנה is not discussing חצר אחרת, so perhaps according to רבא even the members of a different חצר (in the same מבוי) can be מעכב. ¹² רבא argues that sאביי' answer of בחצר אחרת does not fit in the משנה, for the משנה does not state חצר אחרת. ¹³ This is an even greater contradiction to רבא, who permits a school even באותה חצר and this ברייתא rules that even a חצר אחרת can protest! ¹⁴ See footnote # 7. ¹⁵ See תוס' כ,ב ד"ה מאי. ¹⁶ See נחלת משה.

וגרדי—And a weaver

OVERVIEW The ברייתא taught that if one member of the חצר wants to become a weaver (in the חצר), another member of this חצר can prevent him from doing so.¹ תוספות reconciles this ברייתא with other seemingly contradictory rulings.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ומאי שנא גרדי מבעל ריחים – And if you will say; but why is a weaver different from a mill owner – דתנן במתניתין² דאין יכול למחות בידו ולומר איני יכול לישן מקול הריחים ומקול הפטיש³ – For our משנה taught that ‘he cannot protest and say I cannot sleep because of the noise of the mill and the noise of the hammer’; why is a גרדי different?!**** תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמתניתין בעושה לעצמו והכא בגרדי העושה לאחרים דאיכא נכנסין ויוצאין – And one can say that in the משנה the case is that the mill owner is working for himself (so there is no traffic, only the noise of the mill), however here we are discussing a גרדי who works for others (he weaves cloth for the pubic) so there are people coming and going, and one can protest this type of disturbance – תוספות asks: ואם תאמר הא אמרינן בסמוך⁴ האי בר מבואה דאוקי ריחייא כולי – And if you will say; but רב הונא ruled shortly, this member of a מבוי who established a mill in his מבוי, etc. and another מבוי member intended to place another mill in the same מבוי – דינא הוא דמעכב עליה משום דאמר ליה קא פסקת לחיותי – The rule is that the first miller can prevent him from placing his mill in the same מבוי, since he can tell him, ‘you are infringing on my livelihood’. This concludes the ruling of ר"ה – משמע דאי לאו משום דקא פסקת לחיותי היה יכול להעמיד שם הריחים – It seems that if not for the claim of קא פסקת לחיותי, the second one would be permitted to place his mill there – אף על גב דעושה⁵ לאחרים⁶ – And even though his is working for others; the mill is a business enterprise – תוספות continues to ask: ולקמן נמי תניא⁷ עושה אדם חנות בצד חנותו של חבירו כולי – And later the ברייתא also teaches us that ‘one may make a store next to his friend’s store, etc.’; this is true – דאף על גב דאיכא נכנסין ויוצאין טובא – Even though there are many people coming and going, and here we say that if it is a business one can prevent it from opening – תוספות rejects a possible solution: ודוחק לחלק דהתם כבר יש יוצאין ונכנסין לריחים הראשון או לחנות הראשון⁸ – And it is difficult to differentiate that there (in the cases of רחיים and חנות) there is already foot traffic from the first mill or the first store, therefore the additional foot traffic is somewhat bearable. תוספות rejects this answer as a דוחק. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהתם בחצר אחרת שרי⁹ – And one can say that there it is permitted because the other business is opening in another חצר – תוספות offers an alternate answer to his first question:¹⁰ אי נמי מתניתין נמי בעושה לאחרים – Or you can also say that our משנה, which does not allow anyone to be מעכב on the mill and the banging of the hammer is also in a case where he works for others – ובריחים ובקול הפטיש אין נכנסין ויוצאין כל כך שנותנין לו פעם אחת וטוחן – But nonetheless by a mill and hammer noise there is not so much foot traffic for they give him the wheat one time and he grinds it; ¹¹ the same is with the smith –

However by a weaver there is a lot of foot traffic for many people bring him yarn to weave –

SUMMARY The משנה is when it is a private mill or smithy, the case of גרדי is a business, the case of ריחים וחנות is in two separate חצרים, or all cases are businesses, however there is more traffic by a weaver than by a mill or a smith.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות answers that the case of a חנות (בצד חנותו וכו') is when they are in two different חצרים. However when תוספות asked his question he assumed that they were in the same חצר;¹² why therefore did not תוספות ask how can we say that we cannot be מעכב the חנות, when in our משנה it clearly states חנות שבחצר יכול למחות?!¹³

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה מעכבין that they may prevent him since this business will increase the noise of the people coming and going. ² כ,ב. ³ Why can one protest the noise of the weaver, but not the noise of the mill owner? ⁴ See עמוד ב'. ⁵ It is obvious that both mills are not private but for business purposes, for otherwise if they were intended only for private use, how can he claim קא פסקת לחיותי. ⁶ The question is that תוספות previously stated that if the mill is used for business one can be מעכב, and from ר"ה it seems that the only reason he can be מעכב is because of competition, but otherwise one would be allowed to establish a mill for business and no one can be מעכב. ⁷ On the עמוד ב'. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁸ The rejected proposed answer was that when there is no prior business and one wants to open a new business, the others may be מעבכ because of the traffic; however in those two cases where there already was a business and there was already traffic (so the people are used to it), perhaps an additional store will still be bearable. תוספות rejects this as a דוחק for obviously two stores means much more traffic than one store. ⁹ See previous תוס' ד"ה אחד that a person from one חצר cannot be מעכב on a person from another חצר (even in the same מבוי). Therefore there is no question from ריחיים and חנות since the new business was in a different חצר. ¹⁰ See footnote # 3. ¹¹ According to this answer we can also explain why by ריחיים וחנות they cannot be מעכב (if not for the claim of קא פסקת) because in those cases there is little foot traffic. ¹² See footnote # 7. ¹³ See מהרש"א and נחלת משה.

ולא לסופר ארמאי—And not to a gentile teacher

OVERVIEW The ברייתא teaches us that one may not rent out his house in a חצר השותפין to a gentile teacher (because of the noise the students will make). תוספות reconciles this ברייתא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

משמע דאם לא¹ סופר הוה שרי להשכיר לארמאי² – It seems from this ברייתא that if this gentile was not a teacher, it would be permitted to rent out one’s house to a Gentile. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר דאמרינן בהגוזל בתרא (בבא קמא דף קיד,א) האי בר ישראל – And if you will say, in פרק הגוזל בתרא where רב אשי stated, ‘this Jewish person – דזבין ליה ארעא לעובד כוכבים אמיצרא דבר ישראל חבריה משמתינן ליה – Who sold to a gentile land, which bordered the property of another Jew, the rule is, the seller is placed in חרם (excommunication) – דאמר ליה אריא ארבעת אמיצראי³ – For the Jewish neighbor says to the seller ‘you placed a lion (the נכרי) at my border’; we see that it is forbidden to sell land to any gentile (next to a ישראל), so why here do we only prevent a סופר ארמאי to rent, but not a regular ארמאי – תוספות rejects an anticipated solution: ודוחק לחלק בין מכר לשכירות⁴ – And it is difficult to differentiate between a sale and a rental – תוספות answers:

And it is the view of the ר"י that there in פרק הגוזל it is in a situation where a Jew wanted to buy this property, therefore the seller should not sell it to the נכרי, however if no ישראל wants to buy, it is permitted to sell**** it to a נכרי, and similarly it is permitted to rent it to a נכרי (near another ישראל).

SUMMARY The prohibition of selling (or renting) to a gentile a property near another Jew, is only if there is another Jew who wants to buy (or rent) the property; otherwise it is permitted.

THINKING IT OVER What would be the ruling if there is another ישראל who is interested in buying, however the נכרי is offering a higher price; may the ישראל sell it to the נכרי?⁵

footnotes: ¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, לא היה סופר שרי (instead of לא סופר הוה שרי). ² The ברייתא only prohibits renting to a סופר ארמאי, but not to a ‘plain’ ארמאי. ³ The gentile buyer will make all sorts of problems for the Jewish neighbor (like a lion, which causes problems). ⁴ One may choose to say that the prohibition is only to sell to a נכרי (who borders a ישראל), for then the damage is for an extensive time; however renting to a gentile is only temporary and may be permitted. תוספות finds this distinction not to be adequate, for even a temporary damage is untenable. ⁵ See נחלת משה.

בסופר מתא—By aSoifayr of the city

OVERVIEW The גמרא answered that when the ברייתא stated that one may not rent out his house בחצר השותפין to a סופר, it meant a סופר מתא (not a ‘regular’ teacher of children). There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות how to explain ספר מתא.

אין נראה לפרש כפירוש הקונטרס¹ דסופר מתא היינו מלמד תינוקות של כל העיר – It does not appear to be correct to explain סופר מתא to mean as רש"י explained it that a סופר מתא is the teacher of the small children of the entire city – דאיכא קול גדול – So there is much noise (therefore it is prohibited to rent him a house in the חצר השותפין). The reason תוספות rejects פרש"י is – דהא לקמן² אמר רבא מקרי דרדקי וסופר מתא כמותרין ועומדין³ – For later רבא ruled that one who teaches small children to read, and a סופר מתא are considered as if they were duly forewarned, תוספות asks according to פרש"י – כיון דאשמועינן דמקרי דרדקי הוי פסידא דלא הדר הוא הדין מלמד כל תינוקות העיר – Since רבא informed us that a מקרי דרדקי (who is negligent) is considered a damage that cannot be repaired, the same should apply to a סופר מתא who, according to רש"י is the teacher of all the city’s little children – ואמאי איצטריך תו למינקט סופר מתא⁴ – So why was it necessary for רבא to also mention סופר מתא, it is obvious! תוספות rejects another פרש"י elsewhere: ואין לפרש נמי כפירוש הקונטרס בהמקבל (בבא מציעא דף קט,ב)⁵ סופר מתא מספר אנשי העיר – And we also cannot explain it as רש"י explains it in פרק (המקבל) [השואל] that ספר מתא means the barber for the city people – דהא קרי⁶ הכא בברייתא סופר – For in the ברייתא here he is called 'סופר' (a teacher or scribe), not a ספר (barber) – תוספות offers his interpretation of a סופר מתא: אלא נראה כמו שפירש רבינו חננאל סופר מתא כותב שטרות העיר – Rather תוספות prefers how the ר"ח explains it that סופר מתא means the scribe who writes the documents for the people in the city –

And therefore the גמרא considers a mistake of the סופר מתא as an irreparable damage, for if the document is written improperly there is no recourse.

SUMMARY סופר מתא can mean a master teacher, (a barber?), or the city scribe for documents.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why does not תוספות cite פרש"י on the עמוד ב' that סופר מתא means a לבלר (a scribe)?⁹
2. According to the ר"ח that a סופר מתא writes the שטרות העיר, why indeed, can one prevent someone from renting him a house בחצר השותפין?

footnotes: ¹ בד"ה בסופר רש"י actually writes, מלמד תינוקות העיר ומושיב מלמדים תחתיו והוא מורה את כולם איך יעשו ויש שם קול גדול. It is not clear how תוספות understood this רש"י. ² See כא,ב. ³ This means that if they are negligent in performing their duties, they can be discharged without any additional warning. Their negligence causes irreparable damage. ⁴ If a teacher of one class is considered forewarned because of the irreparable damage he can cause if he is negligent, how much more so this applies to the master teacher of the whole city! See however רש"י there ד"ה סופר מתא that it refers to a scribe (not a master teacher). See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ This is amended to read פרק השואל צז,א, The text there reads ספר מתא (without a וי"ו), not סופר מתא. Perhaps the text in תוספות here should be amended to read ספר (not סופר). A ספר (סמ"ך פתוחה, פ"א קמוצה) is indeed a barber. ⁶ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read קרי ליה הכא (instead of קרי הכא). ⁷ We can understand if סופר מתא means a teacher why it is a פסידא דלא הדר (see תוס' כא,ב ד"ה ומקרי), however תוספות feels it necessary to explain why by a scribe it is a פסידא דלא הדר. ⁸ If for instance if was a note of debt and the סופר entered the wrong amount, either the מלוה or the לוה will lose. ⁹ See (עד"ז) בנחלת משה.

מתקנת יהושע בן גמלא ואילך לא ממטינן ינוקא ממתא למתא—From the enactment of יהושע בן גמלא and onwards we do not bring a child from city to city

OVERVIEW רבא taught that after the תקנה of יהושע בן גמלא that each city is required to provide teachers for the young children, we do not move the children from one city to another, but rather each city is obligated to provide a teacher for their city. [A teacher can teach from twenty five up to (but not including) forty students in a class. Once there are forty students (up to fifty) we need to hire an assistant. Fifty of more requires two teachers.] תוספות first qualifies and then explains this ruling.

וכגון שיש כאן כ"ה ינוקי שראויין להשכיר להם מלמד¹ – And this rule is valid provided where for instance there are twenty-five children in this city that require that a teacher be hired for them – תוספות asks: ואם תאמר הא אי הוה ממטינן להו למתא אחריתי יצטרכו מלמד בפני עצמן – And if you will say, but if the rule would be not like רבא, and we would be permitted to bring them (these twenty-five students) to another city, they would require a teacher for themselves – כיון דאיכא כ"ה ינוקי ואם כן מאי נפקא מינה² – Since they are twenty-five children, so therefore what difference does it make whether we move them to another city, or not?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דנפקא מינה דאי הוו ב' מלמדי תינוקות באידך מתא – And one can say; that there is a difference in a case if there are two teachers in the other city (with a total of fifty students; twenty five in each class), if not for רבא –

They could place half the students (twelve) before one teacher and the other half (thirteen) before the other teacher.

SUMMARY The rule of רבא is only if there are twenty five students. The rule is necessary in a case where in the other city there are fifty students and two teachers.

THINKING IT OVER Why is it that if there are less than twenty-five students, they can be moved to another city (so the local city will not incur the expense of a teacher),⁴ so even if there are twenty-five students why can’t they be moved as well, to limit the expense?!

footnotes: ¹ Otherwise if there are no twenty-five students, the local children may be transported to another city and join the classes there. See the following תוספות ד"ה סך. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² תוספות taught us that the ruling of רבא is only if there are twenty five students (see footnote # 1). Why do we need the ruling of רבא, what will be the purpose of moving twenty-five children from one city to another, they will still require a separate teacher for their class, so we can have them learn here, why take them elsewhere?! ³ One would have 37 student and the other 38; it is still less than 40. See ‘Overview’. They will save the wages of one teacher. Therefore רבא teaches that this is not permitted and they must hire a separate teacher for these 25 students locally. ⁴ See footnote # 1.

סך מקרי דרדקי כ"ה ינוקי—The total for a teacher of beginners is twenty-five children

OVERVIEW רבא taught that the total amount of students for one teacher is twenty-five. תוספות explains how we are to understand this.¹

אבל פחות מכאן אין בני העיר יכולין לכוף זה את זה להשכיר להם מלמד: However less than this amount, if there are not twenty-five students in the city, the people of the city cannot force each other to hire a teacher for these children.

SUMMARY We require a minimum of twenty-five children to coerce all the people of the city to hire a teacher.

THINKING IT OVER Why did תוספות not want to learn that twenty-five is the maximum amount² of children for one teacher?³

footnotes: ¹ The expression סך מקרי וכו' would indicate perhaps that the total should not be more than twenty-five, or perhaps it means that we need a total of twenty-five to hire a teacher. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² See footnote # 1. ³ See רמב"ן, רשב"א, etc.