פירש רבינו חננאל—Rabeinu Chananel explained

OVERVIEW The גמרא relates that יואב killed only the males of אדום; when asked why, he replied that this is how was taught to read the פסוק as זכר (with two קמצי"ם) meaning males, when the teacher was asked, the teacher replied that he taught him זכר; however there are no vowels in the גמרא, so we are not certain what his רבי taught יואב. The גמרא concludes that יואב wanted to kill his רבי, saying that he was עושה מלאכת ה' רמיה.¹ The ר"ח explains the גמרא as follows:

דרביה אקרייה זכר כדין והיינו רמייה דלא אשגח למידע היכי הוה קרי תלמידיה וכן נראה – That his רבי taught him זכר properly (הזיי"ן צרויה והכ"ף סגולה), meaning the remembrance**** (of עמלק), and the רמייה (the slackness of the רבי) consisted that the רבי did not pay attention how his student was reading it, and תוספות agrees with this explanation –**** תוספות rejects an alternate explanation:

However, תוספות disagrees with an alternate explanation that also the רבי was mistaken and he incorrectly taught him זכר (with two קצמי"ם; meaning males) for if that indeed was the case, it cannot be considered רמייה.

SUMMARY The רבי was slack since he did not follow up on how his student is reading, but not that the רבי made a mistake, for that is not considered רמייה.

THINKING IT OVER Is there any advantage in the second explanation (the אין נראה לפרש)?

footnotes: ¹ This פסוק in ירמיה מח,י means that one who is slack and fraudulent in doing the work of ה' should be cursed. Teaching children how to read תורה is מלאכת ה'. Therefore יואב wanted to kill him since he was not taught the proper way how to read תמחה את זכר עמלק. ² רמייה indicates a lack of diligence in the teaching, but here the teacher was not slack, he merely was mistaken himself, that cannot be called רמייה. It is an honest mistake. See ‘Thinking it over’.

ומקרי דרדקי¹—And a teacher of children

OVERVIEW רבא ruled that certain people are considered forewarned and can be fired if they made a mistake, without any (additional) warning, since their mistake is a mistake which cannot be rectified. Among these people is a מקרי דרדקי. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to why a מקרי דרדקי is considered a פסידא דלא הדר.

פירש בקונטרס בהמקבל² (בבא מציעא דף קט,א ושם) דהוי פסידא דלא הדרא – רש"י explained in פרק המקבל that if a מקרי דרדקי does not teach properly it is considered an irretrievable loss – משום דשבשתא כיון דעל על – Because an error, once it enters into the mind of the student, it remains there, and it cannot be unlearned (easily) – תוספות disagrees with פרש"י: וקשה לרבינו יצחק דהא רבא גופיה אית ליה לעיל³ דשבשתא ממילא נפקא – And the ר"י has a difficulty with this explanation of רש"י, for it is רבא himself who maintained previously, that an error will be corrected on its own; the student will recognize the mistake sooner or later and correct himself – תוספות offers his explanation: ואומר רבינו יצחק דהוה פסידא דלא הדר – And the ר"י says that it is an irretrievable loss – דאותה שעה שמלמד להם טעות הם מתבטלים ואותה שעה אין יכולין להחזיר לעולם: Since at the moment that he is teaching them incorrectly, they are wasting time (and not learning תורה) and that moment can never be retrieved!

SUMMARY A מקרי דרדקי is considered a פסידא דלא הדר since שבשתא כיון דעל על (רש"י), or the time wasted from learning תורה can never be retrieved.

THINKING IT OVER According to תוספות that a מלמד can be fired for making a mistake in teaching, because it causes ביטול תורה, are we allowed to give the children time off in middle of learning (recess, etc.); it is causing ביטול תורה?!

footnotes: ¹ The text in the גמרא reads ומקרי ינוקא (not ומקרי דרדקי). סופר מתא, which was the ד"ה of the previous תוספות is mentioned last in the גמרא (after מקרי ינוקא and שתלא). ² בד"ה מקרי (the last רש"י on the עמוד). ³ See כא,א. How can we explain the ruling of רבא that a מקרי דרדקי is considered a פסידא דלא הדר because of שבשתא כיון דעל על (as רש"י would have it), since רבא himself disagrees with this concept and maintains the opposite that שבשתא ממילא נפקא?!

שתלא—A tree planter

OVERVIEW רבא ruled that certain people are considered forewarned and can be fired if they made a mistake, without any (additional) warning, since their mistake is a mistake which cannot be rectified. Among these people is a שתלא, one who plants trees. תוספות explains why his mistake cannot be rectified.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מאי פסידא איכא אי יפסיד ישלם – And if you will say; what irretrievable loss is there by the שתלא; if he caused damage (by not planting [properly]) let him pay, so the employer will not sustain any loss?! תוספות answers:

And one can say that the שתלא is not damaging or destroying anything; rather he is negligent in his work so that the saplings do not grow as they were supposed to grow

SUMMARY The שתלא may not cause damage but he minimizes the profit (for which he is not liable), therefore he can be fired.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks about a שתלא; why did תוספות not ask about a טבח or a סופר מתא, why should they not pay if they damaged, just as he asks regarding a שתלא?!²

footnotes: ¹ The שתלא was given saplings to plant. He planted them somewhat recklessly and the saplings did not mature properly, however they are now still worth more than the saplings, therefore he did not cause an actual loss to the owner, he merely deprived him from additional profit. One cannot claim damages from losing potential profit. Therefore this is considered a פסידא דלא הדרא and (even though we cannot hold him liable for the damages, nevertheless) he can be fired without warning. ² See מהרש"א.

סופר מתא—The city scribe

OVERVIEW רבא ruled that certain people are considered forewarned and can be fired if they made a mistake, without any (additional) warning, since their mistake is a mistake which cannot be rectified. Among these people is a סופר מתא. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to the identity of the סופר מתא.

לא כמו שפירש בקונטרס¹ כותב ספר תורה בטעות דאין זה פסידא דלא הדר דיכולין להגיהו – A סופר מתא is not, as רש"י explained, one who wrote a ס"ת with mistakes, for that is not considered an irretrievable loss, for the ס"ת can be amended – אלא כדפרישית לעיל² כותב שטרות: Rather a סופר מתא is one who writes the documents, as I explained previously.

SUMMARY רש"י maintains that the סופר מתא is the scribe who writes the ס"ת, while תוספות maintains it is the scribe who writes the documents.

THINKING IT OVER If the scribe wrote the incorrect amount in a loan document (for instance a sum less than the actual loan) and the לוה paid the smaller amount. Seemingly if witnesses testify to this mistake, cannot the מלוה collect his loss from the סופר (if the לוה is not here, etc.)? Why is it a פסידא דלא הדר?!³

footnotes: ¹ בד"ה פסידא. ² כא,א תוס' ד"ה בסופר [TIE (there) footnote # 8]. A mistake in the amount due in a loan document is an irretrievable loss to either the lender or the borrower. ³ See חי' הרשב"א.

מרחיקין מצודת הדג כולי—We distance the fish nets, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a ברייתא which states that one must distance his trap to catch fish from an existing trap, the distance that a fish can travel (which is a פרסה). This proves that one cannot encroach on his fellow’s livelihood. תוספות discusses this ruling.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דרבינו תם מפרש דבדבר של הפקר אפילו רשע לא מיקרי¹ – Even though that the ר"ת explained that by an item of הפקר, one is not even called a רשע if he encroaches on his friend’s intent to acquire the הפקר item. The ר"ת proves this – כדתנן (פאה פרק ד משנה ג) גבי פאה פירס טליתו עליה² מעבירין אותו ממנה – As the משנה taught regarding פאה, ‘if a poor person spread out his טלית over the פאה (with the intent of acquiring it for himself), the rule is we remove him from this פאה and we allow the other poor people (also) to collect the פאה – Another proof to the view of the ר"ת: וכן תנן בפרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף י,א) ראה את המציאה ונפל עליה ובא אחר והחזיק בה – And similarly the משנה taught in the first פרק of מסכת ב"מ, ‘he saw a מציאה and fell on it (but did not pick it up) and another person came and took possession of it, the rule is – זה שהחזיק בה זכה – The one who took possession acquires it’, and we do not consider him to be a רשע even though his friend wanted it and made his intention clear by falling on the מציאה – ולא מיקרי רשע אלא בעני המהפך בחררה ובא אחר ונטלה – And one is not called a רשע in these cases of הפקר, only by a case of עני המהפך בחררה and another came and took it away from the עני, in that case he is called a רשע – משום שאם לא ישתכר במקום זה ימצא להשתכר במקום אחר – Because we say to him that if he will not profit in this place, he will find another place from where to profit – תוספות now answers his initial question:³ והך דשמעתא לא קשיא דאף על גב דהוי דבר של הפקר – And there is no difficulty from this ruling here, even though the fish is an item of הפקר, and by הפקר there is no rule of עני המהפך בחררה, it is free for anyone – מכל מקום בכמה מקומות ימצא שיוכל לפרוס מצודתו⁴ ועוד⁵ דהכא אומנותו בכך – Nevertheless, he can find many other places where he can spread his net, and additionally that here this is his trade and livelihood of the initial fisherman – תוספות continues with a question:⁶ והא דאמרינן בפרק חזקת הבתים (לקמן דף נד,ב) נכסי כנענים הרי הן כמדבר – And this which רב יהודה אמר שמואל states in פרק חזקת הבתים; ‘the properties of gentiles, which are being sold to Jews, are like a wilderness; meaning they are הפקר, so that – כל המחזיק בהן זכה בהן מאי טעמא – Whoever takes possession of them acquires them’; the גמרא explains, that the reason is – כנעני מכי מטא זוזי לידיה איסתלק ליה⁷ וישראל לא קני עד דמטי שטרא לידיה – As soon as the gentile receives the money in his hand, he is removed from the property, and the ישראל who is purchasing the land does not acquire it until he receives a deed in his hand – ופירש רבינו שמואל בן מאיר התם⁸ דישראל המחזיק רשע מיהא מיקרי⁹ – And the רשב"ם explained there that the other ישראל (not the purchaser) who takes possession of the property, is nevertheless called a רשע – ולפירוש רבינו תם אפילו רשע לא הוי כיון שלא ימצא במקום אחר¹⁰ – However according to the פירוש ר"ת the מחזיק is not even considered a רשע, since he cannot find a הפקר property elsewhere – וקשה¹¹ לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם מהא דאמר באיזהו נשך (בבא מציעא דף עג,ב) – So based on the aforementioned, the רשב"א has a difficulty with the פר"ת from this which the גמרא states in פרק איזהו נשך – רב מרי בר רחל משכן ליה ההוא נכרי ביתא אזל רבא וזבניה – A certain gentile transferred his house to רב מרי בר רחל as a security (משכון) for a loan; רבא went and bought this house from the נכרי, while רמב"ר was still living in the house – נטר תריסר ירחי שתא שקל אגר ביתא אמטייה לרבא¹² – רמב"ר waited twelve months and then took with him the rent for the house and bought it to רבא – אמר ליה האי דלא מטאי לה למר אגר ביתא עד השתא דאמר מר סתם משכנתא שתא – רמב"ר said to רבא, ‘the reason that I did not bring you rent until now (for the past twelve months) is because the master said that an unqualified משכון is for one year – ולא מצי נכרי לסלוקי¹³ – And the נכרי cannot remove me for this whole year’. This concludes the גמרא. והשתא כיון שקדמה חזקת רב מרי לחזקת רבא¹⁴ – But now since the חזקה of ר"מ preceded the חזקה of רבא – אם כן זכה בה רב מרי דנכסי הכנעני הרי הן כמדבר – Therefore ר"מ acquired the house, since we said¹⁵ that the properties of a נכרי who is selling to a ישראל are הפקר like a מדבר. The question therefore is why did רמב"ר need to pay rent to רבא, since the house now belonged to רמב"ר.** ואי מקרי רשע¹⁶ אתי שפיר דלא היה רוצה לזכות בה – So if he is called a רשע** (as the רשב"ם stated), it is understood why ר"מ paid the rent, since he did not want to acquire it (for he did not want to be a רשע) – אבל לפירוש רבינו תם דאפילו רשע לא מיקרי – However according to the ר"ת that**** רמב"ר would not even be called a רשע – אמאי לא זכה בה רב מרי כיון דהיתר גמור הוא – Why did not ר"מ acquire it, since it is perfectly permissible?! תוספות responds: ושמא לפנים משורת הדין עבד – And perhaps רמב"ר acted beyond the requirement of the law; he did not want to cause a loss for רבא, even though legally it is permitted. תוספות offers an alternate explanation: ולרבינו יצחק בן אברהם נראה דחזקת רב מרי לא היתה אלא בתורת משכון¹⁷ – And it appears to the ריב"א that ר"מ took possession only in regards to a משכון, but he had no intention of making a חזקה for ownership – ורבא קנה ממנו בשטר וזכה בה ואחר כך נתן מעות¹⁸ And (additionally/alternately) רבא bought the house from the נכרי with a שטר and thereby acquired it first and only afterwards did he give the money to the נכרי.

SUMMARY The ruling of עני המהפך בחררה does not apply to הפקר, except for cases like fishing (where there are other places to fish) or where one is encroaching on someone’s livelihood. A חזקה for a משכון is not effective for an ownership חזקה.

THINKING IT OVER From תוספות it seems that רבא acquired the house with the receiving of the שטר.¹⁹ However תוספות there in ב"ב (נד,ב ד"ה עובד) clearly states,שטר ודאי לא קנה בעובד כוכבים, so תוספות should have rather answered that רבא gave him the money at the same time that he received the שטר.²⁰

footnotes: ¹ There is a rule that by an עני המהפך בחררה (a poor person circling around a cookie) and someone took it away from him, that person is called a רשע (even though that legally he may keep the object). The ר"ת explains that this rule applies only if the עני wants to buy something and another buys it ahead of him; in that case he is called a רשע, since he could have bought the same item elsewhere. However if it is a מציאה (something which is הפקר) anyone can go ahead and be זוכה from הפקר even though another may be planning to acquire it, In this case we cannot say to him, ‘why are you taking this, go find another מציאה’, since מציאות are not [easily] found. Here too by the fish, the fish is הפקר, so why do we need to distance one’s net from another’s net, since by הפקר (according to the ר"ת) there is no rule of עני המהפך בחררה. ² By merely spreading a טלית over the פאה he does not acquire it (there was no מעשה קנין); the question, however is why we remove him and let the others collect the פאה, this person (who spread his טלית) is seemingly an עני המהפך בחררה, so if others take it they should be considered a רשע. This proves (the ruling of the ר"ת) that by הפקר (like פאה, which is הפקר לעניים) the concept of עני המהפך בחררה does not apply. ³ See footnote # 1. ⁴ This is not like regular הפקר (like מציאה) where we cannot say to him, ‘find your מציאה elsewhere’; however here by fishing there are many places where one can fish, so therefore if one is already fishing in this area, anyone else should find other fishing grounds, or be considered a רשע. ⁵ תוספות is differentiating (in this second answer) between the ruling of עני המהפך בחררה (which does not apply to הפקר), and the ruling of 'פסקת לחיותי', which can apply even to הפקר. ⁶ See later by footnote # 11. ⁷ The mode of acquisition and sale by a נכרי is through money (כסף), therefore as soon as the נכרי received the money for his field, he relinquishes his ownership of the field. However the ישראל who is purchasing the field from the נכרי, does not acquire the field until the נכרי writes him a שטר (a deed) granting him the field. In the interim (after the נכרי received the money and before the ישראל received the שטר) the field is ownerless; it no longer belongs to the נכרי since he forfeited his ownership of the field as soon as he was paid, while the ישראל does not assume ownership until he has his שטר, therefore the field is הפקר and כל המחזיק בו זכה בו. ⁸ בד"ה הרי. The רשב"ם there maintains that the מחזיק is not even required to repay the original buyer for the loss of his money ⁹ The purchaser was an עני המהפך בחררה and this other ישראל snatched it away from him. ¹⁰ This field is הפקר, and by הפקר the rule of עני המהפך בחררה does not apply (see footnote # 1). ¹¹ This is the conclusion of the question mentioned by footnote # 6. ¹² The rent was for the following twelve months. ¹³ When the נכרי gave רמב"ר the house for a משכון it is presumed that רמב"ר (the מלוה) can live there for a year (סתם משכנתא שתא), and the מלוה deducts the amount of rent due from the loan. Therefore even though רבא bought the house from the נכרי (but after the loan and the giving of the משכון), nevertheless רמב"ר already acquired the right to live in the house for a year, and the purchase of רבא cannot deprive him of this right. ¹⁴ When רבא bought the house, ר"מ was already living in the house; meaning that he made a חזקה in the house before רבא. At the moment when the house became הפקר (while רבא was purchasing it) ר"מ was מחזיק in it (by living there). ¹⁵ See footnote # 7. ¹⁶ See footnote # 8 & 9. ¹⁷ Presumably a חזקה must be with intent to own the property, however רמב"ר had no such intention. ¹⁸ In this scenario the house was never הפקר, since רבא acquired it first with a שטר before the נכרי removed himself from the house (which happened later when he received the money). See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁹ See footnote # 18. ²⁰ See משפט שלום (למהרש"ם) סי' קצא בהגה"ה אות ג'.

תנאי היא דתניא כולי—There are Tahnoh’im; as it was taught, etc.

OVERVIEW רב הונא ruled that if one בן מבוי has a mill in the מבוי, he can prevent another בן מבוי from opening a competing mill (since קא פסקת ליה לחיותי). The גמרא challenged ר"ה from a ברייתא which stated that one may open up a competing business. The גמרא answered that this is really a dispute between תנאים and cites another ברייתא (of כופין בני מבואות), where רשב"ג agrees with ר"ה. Our תוספות discusses why the גמרא did not cite the משנה we already mentioned.

תוספות asks: תימה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דאמאי לא מייתי (הברייתא¹) דלעיל² – The רשב"א is astounded, why did the גמרא not cite the previous משנה – דממה נפשך³ רבי יהודה דאמר לא יחלק חנוני קליות ואגוזים לתינוקות פליג אהך ברייתא – For in any event, ר"י who maintains one may not distribute קליות ואגוזים to children, certainly argues on this ברייתא of עושה אדם חנות בצד חנותו של חברו וכו', so why the need to cite a new ברייתא, when the previously cited משנה is sufficient – תוספות replies:

But perhaps it is preferable for the גמרא to cite תנאים who argue explicitly in this situation whether we allow competition or not.

SUMMARY It is (sometimes) preferable to bring an explicit (weaker) proof than an implicit stronger proof.

THINKING IT OVER What is the main advantage if we would cite the משנה of ר"י?

footnotes: ¹ A marginal note amends this to read המשנה (instead of הברייתא). ² This is referring to the previously cited מחלוקת between ר' יהודה ורבנן regarding יחלק חנוני קליות לתינוקות. In that משנה it is apparent that ר"י supports the view of ר"ה, and the גמרא concluded that even the רבנן may agree with ר"ה. ³ This means whether the חכמים (who argue with ר"י regarding חילוק קליות) agree with ר"ה (for they differentiate between חילוק קליות and the case of ר"ה), or whether the חכמים disagree with ר"ה (see footnote # 2), however ר"י certainly disagrees with the ברייתא of פותח אדם חנות וכו', and agrees with ר"ה so we can say that there is no question on ר"ה from the ברייתא, because ר"ה can argue that he follows the view of ר"י! See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ However, the משנה of ר"י with חילוק קליות, is not explicitly discussing whether one may open a competitive business near another business (which is what the ברייתא and ר"ה are discussing). .

כופין בני מבוי זה את זה כולי ולא מלמד תינוקות—The residents of a Mohvuy can force each other, etc. and not a teacher of small children

OVERVIEW The ברייתא (of כופין) taught that a tradesman who is a resident of the מבוי and practices his trade in that מבוי can prevent any other of the מבוי residents from allowing a similar tradesman from another מבוי to move his trade into this מבוי. However if the other tradesman lives in this same מבוי, he cannot be prevented from practicing in this מבוי. One of the tradesmen enumerated is a מלמד תינוקות. Our תוספות discusses what type of מלמד תינוקות we are discussing.

נראה לרבינו יצחק דבמלמד תינוקות נכרים איירי¹ – It is the view of the ר"י that we are discussing a teacher of small gentile children – ולא יתכן אי גרס לעיל² אחד מבני מבוי – However this would not be correct if previously the גירסא would be, ‘one member of the מבוי can prevent another from becoming a מלמד תינוקות’ – תוספות explains the difficulty: דהא מוקמינן ליה³ בתינוקות נכרים ומעכבין עליו בני מבוי – For [previously] (in the ברייתא of אחד) we have established that ברייתא by gentile children, and the ברייתא rules that the בני מבוי can prevent another בן מבוי from becoming a מלמד תינוקות נכרים – והכא קאמר דלשכינו אינו כופהו⁴ – However here (in the ברייתא of כופין) it states that he cannot prevent a neighbor (a fellow בן מבוי) from being a מלמד תינוקת נכרים – ואפילו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא פליג אלא משום דפסיק לחיותיה – And even רשב"ג (who maintains that he can prevent even שכנו) he only argues because the new מלמד is disrupting his livelihood – אבל משום קול תינוקות לא חייש⁵ – But רשב"ג is not concerned on account of the children’s noise, however in the previous ברייתא (of אחד) they can prevent each other from having a מלמד because of the noise made by the children – ומיהו לפי מה שפירשתי [לעיל]⁶ דגרסינן אחד מבני חצר אתי שפיר⁷ – However according to what I explained previously that the גירסא (in the ברייתא of אחד מבני וכו') is אחד מבני חצר, it works out well – תוספות offers an alternate explanation of the מלמד תינוקות in the ברייתא of כופין: ולרבינו שמשון בן אברהם נראה דהכא בתינוקות ישראל⁸ – However it appears to the רשב"א that here we are discussing Jewish children – ואפילו אחר תקנת יהושע בן גמלא ושאני הכא דכבר יש שם מלמד תינוקות אחר⁹ – And even after the enactment of יהושע בן גמלא (that מלמדי תינוקות are to be installed in every city, but nevertheless) here it is different, for there is already another מלמד תינוקות (like all the other cases in this ברייתא) – תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ובסמוך¹⁰ דקאמר דמודה רב הונא¹¹ במקרי דרדקי דלא מצי מעכב¹² – And when רב יוסף stated shortly that ר"ה admits that one cannot prevent a מלמד דרדקי, from teaching in a מבוי which already has a מלמד דרדקי – ואף על גב דאיהו¹³ סבר כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל¹⁴ – And even though that ר"ה agrees with רשב"ג – תוספות replies:

It will be necessary to say (according to ר"ה) that רשב"ג does not argue with the ת"ק regarding מלמד תינוקות, rather he only argues regarding the other tradesmen.

SUMMARY The ברייתא of כופין prohibits competition from people outside the מבוי including מלמד תינוקות. According to the ר"י this refers to תינוקות נכרים, while according to the רשב"א it refers even to תינוקות ישראל. However בני חצר can prevent a מלמד תינוקות even if there is no competition. According to the רשב"א, even רשב"ג agrees with the ת"ק that we cannot prevent a מלמד דרדקי from teaching (according to ר"ה).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that if we are גורס the word מבוי in the ברייתא of אחד מבני כו', there would be a contradiction regarding a מלמד דרדקי (according to the ר"י).¹⁶ There are seemingly additional contradictions between the ברייתות; for in the ברייתא of אחד מבני it states that they can prevent a רופא, אומן, גרדי from opening shop; while in the ברייתא of כופין here it states that one cannot prevent another בן מבוי from being a חייט or a בורסקי. Why did not תוספות discuss this contradiction?!¹⁷

footnotes: ¹ The reason for this view of the ר"י is that if this ברייתא is discussing תינוקות ישראל, how can we prevent someone from coming and teaching them. רבא taught us that from the times of יהושע בן גמלא we need to establish מלמדי תינוקות everywhere. Therefore we must say that we are discussing תינוקות נכרים. ² On the עמוד א' the ברייתא beginning with אחד מבני וכו'. See there תוס' ד"ה אחד. The ברייתא there stated that neighbors can prevent each other from practicing their trade, including מלמד תינוקות. The גמרא concluded that this refers only to תינוקות עכו"ם. There is a dispute there if the text reads the neighbors of one חצר, or [even] the neighbors of one מבוי. ³ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, ליה לעיל בתינוקות (instead of ליה בתינוקות). ⁴ There is a contradiction between the ברייתות if we are גורס in the previous ברייתא, אחד מבני מבוי. According to that ברייתא any member from a מבוי can prevent another member of this מבוי from becoming a מלמד תינקות נכרים; however from our current ברייתא (of כופין) one can only prevent a non-מבוי person from becoming a מלמד but not a fellow מבוי member. ⁵ In the previous ברייתא (אחד) however it seems that one can prevent his fellow בן מבוי from becoming a teacher because of the increased noise created by the (non-Jewish) school children. ⁶ See footnote # 2. ⁷ The first ברייתא states that the people from a courtyard can prevent anyone in their courtyard from becoming a מלמד. However they cannot prevent someone in another courtyard (חצר) from becoming a מלמד even though it is in the same מבוי. This is what the second ברייתא states that no one in a מבוי can prevent another מבוי member from becoming a מלמד (if it is not in his חצר). ⁸ The רשב"א disagrees with the reasoning of the ר"ת; see footnote # 1. However, the רשב"א already taught us that the גירסא in the previous ברייתא is אחד מבני חצר (not מבוי), so there is no issue or contradiction between the ברייתות, rather the רשב"א (merely) disagrees with the ר"י how to interpret this ברייתא of כופין. In any event there would be no contradiction, since that ברייתא which prohibits is by נכרים, and this ברייתא which permits is by תינוקות ישראל. ⁹ Our ברייתא (of כופין) is discussing competition, not noise (like the ברייתא of אחד), therefore they can prevent competition from a בן מבוי אחר (but not from a fellow בן מבוי) ¹⁰ Towards the very bottom of this עמוד. ¹¹ ר"ה ruled previously (on this עמוד) that if one has a mill in a מבוי, he can prevent another fellow בן מבוי from opening another mill (for קא פסקת ליה לחיותי). ¹² ר"ה however admits if there is a מלמד דרדקי (a teacher of small Jewish children) in a מבוי, he cannot prevent another מלמד דרדקי from teaching in this מבוי as well (for קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה). ¹³ ר"ה maintains that no competition is allowed even among members of the same מבוי (see footnote # 11).. ¹⁴ The רשב"ג maintains that one can prevent competition even from a fellow בן מבוי just like ר"ה. Now according to the רשב"א the ברייתא in which רשב"ג prohibits competitions we are discussing מלמד תינקות ישראל, meaning that רשב"ג does not allow competition even by מלמד דרדקי; this conflicts with ר"ה who permits it, even though he generally agrees with רשב"ג. ¹⁵ He agrees that we cannot prevent competition by מלמד דרדקי (from the same בני מבוי). ¹⁶ See footnote # 4. ¹⁷ See מהרש"א.

פשיטא לי דבר מתא אבר מתא [אחריתי מצי] מעכב—It is obvious to me that a city member can prevent a member of another city

OVERVIEW רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ruled that a city dweller can prevent a dweller from another city from coming into his city and opening a competing business. ר"ה בדר"י queried whether the same ruling applies to two people who live in different מבואות (in the same city) from opening a competing business in the other’s מבוי.

רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כרבנן סבירא ליה¹ – ר"ה בדר"י agrees with the רבנן who argue on רשב"ג and maintain that one cannot prevent a neighbor from opening a competing business – ומיבעי ליה בר מבואה אבר מבואה דעלמא אי מצי מעכב אי הוי בכלל שכינו אי לאו – However, ר"ה בדר"י queried in a case of one בן מבוי against another בן מבוי (of the same city), whether he can be מעכב or not; the query is whether the other בן מבוי is included in שכנו (since they live in the same city) and he cannot be מעכב, or he is not considered שכנו since he lives in a different מבוי (albeit in the same city) –

As רש"י explained the query. תוספות concludes we rule like ר"ה בדר"י against the ruling of רב הונא, since ר"ה בדר"י was a later אמורא.

SUMMARY The query of ר"ה בדר"י is whether people in different מבואות are considered שכנו.

THINKING IT OVER Why was it necessary for תוספות to explain the query of ר"ה בדר"י; it seems clear enough (especially since רש"י explained it already)?!

footnotes: ¹ The ruling of the רבנן certainly applies to two people of the same מבוי that neither can prevent the other from opening a competing business; this is certainly included in what the רבנן meant when they said 'ולשכנו אינו מעכב'. ² בד"ה ואי. ³ A בן מבוי can certainly not prevent a fellow בן מבוי from opening a competing business. ⁴ ר"ה ruled previously on this עמוד (like רשב"ג) that a miller can prevent his neighbor (in the same מבוי) from opening a competing mill. ⁵ The general rule is הלכה כבתראי we follow the later אמוראים. See תוס' קדושין מה,ב ד"ה הוה, who writes אבל מכאן ואילך (after the times of אביי ורבא) פסקינן כבתראי לפי שדקדקו יותר מן הראשונים להעמיד הלכה על בוריה.

ואי שייך בכרגא דהכא לא מצי מעכב—But if he pays the local taxes, one cannot prevent him

OVERVIEW ר"ה בדר"י ruled that any of the people from one city can prevent a person from another city from doing business in their city.¹ However if the outsider pays taxes in this city, he cannot be prevented. תוספות qualifies this ruling.

The explanation of this exception is regarding the people of the city in general; however the dwellers of a מבוי can prevent a person from another city from entering in their מבוי and doing business there even though he pays city taxes.

SUMMARY A stranger from a different city can be prevented from opening in a specific מבוי even if he pays taxes.

THINKING IT OVER What is תוספות ruling based on?⁵

footnotes: ¹ This means that any person in a city can prevent a stranger from doing business anywhere in the city, even if it is not his מבוי (since the stranger pays no taxes locally). ² The word 'פירוש' generally denotes that the meaning is not what it seems to be at first glance, as we can see here. ³ If the stranger pays taxes, a local person cannot prevent him from opening business in any part of the city (meaning if he is opening his business not in the מבוי of the one who seeks to prevent him, he cannot prevent him). ⁴ However, the dwellers of a מבוי can prevent a stranger (from a different city) from opening a business in their מבוי even though he is paying the local taxes. Paying local taxes allows him the right to open a business in the city at large, but not in a specific מבוי where he is not wanted. ⁵ Can we derive anything from the query of ר"ה בדר"י?!