קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה—The jealousy of teachers increases wisdom

OVERVIEW רב יוסף said that even though רב הונא maintains that a miller in a מבוי can prevent another בן מבוי from opening a competing mill, nevertheless regarding teaching children, there is no right to prevent another teacher from teaching, because the jealousy among the teachers of each other will bring an increase of wisdom to the children. There is another גירסא which תוספות rejects.

ולא גרסינן כמו שיש בספרים¹ – And we are not גורס the way it is in other texts, namely – דאמר² מר עזרא תיקן להם לישראל שיהו מושיבין סופר בצד סופר – For the master said, ‘עזרא instituted for the Jewish people that they should place a teacher next to a teacher’; תוספות explains why this גירסא is incorrect – דהא לא חשיב ליה במרובה³ (בבא קמא דף פב,א) גבי עשר תקנות שתיקן: For the גמרא does not mention this enactment of עזרא among the ten enactments which עזרא instituted.

SUMMARY עזרא did not enact that they should place one teacher next to another.

THINKING IT OVER If we would assume that there was such a תקנת עזרא to place סופר בצד סופר, would that not contradict what we learnt previously that it was יהושע בן גמלא who instituted that there be מלמדי תנוקות, but according to this גירסא it had already begun by עזרא (who lived much before יהושע בן גמלא)?!

footnotes: ¹ This is the גירסא (in parenthesis) on the very bottom of the previous עמוד ב'. ² According to this (rejected) גירסא the reason for the ruling of ר"ה regarding מלמד דרדקי is based on this תקנת עזרא. ³ The גמרא there enumerates ten תקנות which עזרא enacted, and this (שיהו מושיבין סופר בצד סופר) is not one of them.

מעלמא אתו ולעלמא ליזבנן—They came from elsewhere, let them sell to those who come from elsewhere

OVERVIEW רבינא ruled that the merchants (דיקולאי) who came from outside the city, may sell their wares in the marketplace where there are buyers who also come from other cities. תוספות draws a halachic conclusion based on this גמרא.

מכאן משמע דביומא דשוקא היה מותר להלוות לבני אדם הבאים ממקומות¹ שם לשוק – From here it seems that on the market day it would be permitted for people, who come from elsewhere to the market here, to lend, with interest – נכרים דאתו מעלמא אבל לבני המקום לא² – To the gentiles who come from other places to the market**; however not to the local** gentiles –

And they may lend specifically only in the marketplace but not to circulate in the city and find customers who wish to borrow.

SUMMARY Non local lenders may lend to non-local gentiles in the marketplace only.

THINKING IT OVER

1. From תוספות it is clear that (even in the שוק) they may lend only to the נכרים that are non-local. Is the same true in the ruling of רבינא that the דקולאי were able to sell only to the non-locals, or even to the locals, and if yes why the difference?⁴
2. What is the novelty in תוספות ruling? Why would I think that lending is different from selling merchandise?

footnotes: ¹ A marginal note amends this to ממקומם (instead of ממקומות). The language seems somewhat stilted in any event. ² The lenders from elsewhere may lend (in the marketplace only) to other gentiles who are not local, but they may not lend to the local gentiles. That is reserved for the local lenders. ³ This seemingly means they cannot circulate in the city (outside the marketplace) to find non-local gentiles to lend. ⁴ See מאירי כא,א ד"ה כל and נחלת משה.

*אמר ליה רבא לרב אדא בר אבא—Rovosaid to Rav Ado bar Abo*

OVERVIEW The גמרא relates that רבא said something to רב אדא בר אבא. There is another גירסא, however תוספות substantiates our גירסא.

כן גריס רבינו חננאל ולא גרסינן בר אהבה דאותו היה בימי רבי – This is the גירסא of the ר"ח (that it is בר אדא), but the text does not read בר אהבה, for רב אדא בר אהבה lived in the time of רבי – כדאמרינן בקדושין¹ (דף עב,ב ושם) היום ישב² רב אדא בר אהבה בחיקו³ של אברהם אבינו: As the גמרא states in מסכת קדושין that רבי said, ‘today רב אדא בר אהבה is sitting in the bosom of אברהם אבינו’.

SUMMARY רב אדא בר אהבה lived in the times of רבי, and רב אדא בר אבא lived in the times of רבא.

THINKING IT OVER Why does תוספות here prefer the first פרש"י (so the גירסא here cannot be בר אהבה), but in קידושין he cites the second פירש"י and the פר"י so that the גירסא here can be רב אדא בר אהבה?

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא there mentions many statements that רבי said on the day of his פטירה. One was concerning רב אדא בר אהבה that he is sitting בחיקו של א"א. According to the first פי' of רש"י, it means that he died that day (and was together with א"א in ג"ע). According to this פי' he could not have spoken to רבא who lived many generations after רבי. ² The גירסא there in קידושין (in the גמרא, רש"י ותוספות) is יושב (not ישב). ³ See תוספות there ד"ה היום who cites two explanations from רש"י, and one from the ר"י; quote - פירש בקונטרס יש אומרים מת וא"כ אין זה רב אדא בר אהבה שבגמרא ונראה לומר יושב בחיקו של אברהם שנכנס לברית מילה וזה רב אדא בר אהבה שהאריך ימים הרבה משמת רבי עד דורות אחרונים בימי רב נחמן בר יצחק כדאמרי' בב"ב (דף כב.א) אך ר"י פי' דשני רב אדא בר אהבה הוו. .

פיל שבלע כפיפה מצרית—An elephant that swallowed a wicker basket

OVERVIEW A query was posed regarding a wicker basket which an elephant swallowed and excreted it together with his waste. The question is whether the basket is now considered as כלי גללים (utensils made out of dung), which are not מקבל טומאה, or not (and they are מקבל טומאה).¹ תוספות offers an alternate interpretation of this query.

בפרק רבי ישמעאל (מנחות דף סט,א ושם דיבור המתחיל פיל) איתא להך בעיא דהכא – This query here is (also) cited in פרק ר' ישמעאל – ומסיק התם למאי אי למבטל טומאתו תנינא² – And the גמרא there concludes, ‘regarding which issue is this query, if it is regarding nullifying its present טמאה; this cannot be, for we learnt this in a משנה – כל הכלים יורדין לידי טומאה במחשבה³ ואין עולין מטומאה⁴ אלא בשינוי מעשה⁵ – ‘All utensils descend to become טמא, with thought alone; however they do not ascend from their טומאה to become טהור, unless there is a change of action’’ – וקאמר לא צריכא דבלע הוצין ועבדינהו כפיפה אי הוי עיכול והוי ככלי גללים או לא – So the גמרא concluded that this query was necessary only in a case where it swallowed palm fronds and excreted them and the fronds were used to make a basket; the query is whether these הוצין are considered digested by the elephant and the basket should be considered like dung vessels (and are not מקבל טומאה), or they are not considered digested and the baskets made from them are מקבל טומאה. This concludes the citation from the גמרא in מנחות –** והכא בלע הוצין בעא מיניה דאי כפיפה שלימה אמאי לא הוה בידיה מתניתין היא⁶ – So** therefore here they asked רב דימי מנהרדעא regarding a case where the elephant swallowed הוצין (as the גמרא concluded in מנחות), for if the query was regarding a whole basket, why did רב דימי not know the answer, since it is an explicit משנה?! תוספות asks: וקשיא לרבינו תם אם כן אמאי לא נקיטו ליה שוקא⁷ הא בעיא זו לא איפשיטא התם – And the ר"ת has a difficulty with this interpretation; if indeed it is so (that the query was regarding בלע הוצין), why did they not hold up the market for him, since this query was not resolved there?! תוספות answers:

And one can say that (regardless**** that there is no resolution), nevertheless he should have cited those various proofs that were offered there to resolve this query and were rejected.

SUMMARY The query is not regarding swallowing a whole basket (for we know from a משנה that it will remain טמא), rather the query was where palm fronds were swallowed and a basket was made from them; is it considered כלי גללים or not. Even when one may not know the final answer, he should mention the various sources that may answer the question and why ultimately they don’t.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why cannot we resolve the story in this manner; רב דימי assumed that they were asking about הוצין (and therefore he did not answer), however in truth they were asking about a whole basket (and therefore לא נקיטו ליה שוקא)?!⁹
2. It seems that רב דימי was wrong in that he did not discuss the issue.¹⁰ However from the גמרא later it seems that רב דימי was wronged, for he claimed אנא ענישתיה that רב אדא בר אבא died because he (seemingly) wronged רב דימי. So which way is it?!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ See פרש"י ד"ה מהו who writes, מי חשוב כמעוכל והוה ליה ככלי גללים ואין מקבל טומאה עוד. It is not clear if רש"י (only) means that they will not be מקבל טומאה in the future, or he means that if they were טמא before, they are טהור now. ² כלים פכ"ה מ"ט. ³ A כלי cannot be מקבל טומאה unless it is a complete כלי. The decision whether the כלי is complete or not depends on the one making the כלי. If at any point he decides that it is a finished product and no additional work needs to be done, this מחשבה is sufficient for it to be considered a גמר כלי and it can be מקבל טומאה. ⁴ If a כלי became טמא (after the owner decided that it was completed), and now he decides that more work needs to be done. that is not sufficient to remove the טומאה. In order to remove the טומאה, the כלי must cease to exist as a proper כלי; it needs to be broken [for instance]). ⁵ However in this (proposed) query there was no שינוי מעשה for it was swallowed whole and excreted whole, therefore it cannot become טהור. ⁶ It is an assumption that the אמוראים were well versed in all the משניות. See ‘Thinking it over # 1. ⁷ If a תלמיד חכם has wares to sell we announce that no one can sell this item until the ת"ח has sold out his wares. In our case why did they not prevent them from selling before רב דימי, since this question was not resolved; how can he have answered this query. If we were to learn that the query was regarding a complete כפיפה מצרית, we understand why לא נקיט ליה שוקא, since he should have known the ruling from the משנה, but in this case there is no ruling. ⁸ רב דימי could have told them that we cannot resolve this query from this source or another source, the way the גמרא in מנחות attempted to resolve the query and he should have explained why it cannot be resolved from those sources. Instead רב דימי remained silent, which indicated to them that he was not that well versed in the issue, therefore לא נקטו ליה שוקא. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁹ See כוס הישועות. ¹⁰ See footnote # 8. ¹¹ See תורת חיים.

אנא ענישתיה—I punished him

OVERVIEW The גמרא relates that when רב אדא בר אבא passed on, each one of the various אמוראים stated that ראב"א died because, ‘I punished him’. תוספות has a novel view on this story.

כל אחד מהן היה מתאונן שעל ידו מת רב אדא – Each one of them (who stated 'אנא ענישתיה') was bemoaning that fact that ר"א died because of him; the reason they bemoaned it, is – משום דאמרינן בשבת בפרק שואל (דף קמט,ב) כל מי שחבירו נענש על ידו – For ר' יעקב said in מסכת שבת in פרק שואל, ‘whoever causes that his friend is punished on his account – אין מכניסין אותו במחיצתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא – We do not let him enter into the partition where הקב"ה is found’, and we derive it –

For it is written, ‘it is also not good for the righteous to punish’ meaning that it is rather evil, and it is also written, ‘evil shall not dwell by You’. This was said by the ר"י.

SUMMARY They were bemoaning [the possibility of] causing the death of ר"א, thereby denying themselves to be במחיצתו של הקב"ה.

THINKING IT OVER The simple reading of the text (for instance אנא ענישתיה דאפסיד גרוגרות דידי) indicates that they we not bemoaning, just stating that ה' took up their cause, and therefore ר"א was punished;⁴ why did תוספות find it necessary to interpret it as bemoaning?!

footnotes: ¹ פסוק כו. ² פסוק ה'. ³ The צדיק who causes punishment did not do something good, but rather something evil, and evil cannot dwell with הקב"ה, so therefore all these אמוראים bemoaned the fact that they may have caused the death of ר"א. ⁴ According to פי' הוס' they each should have said 'על ידי מת', why אנא ענישתיה!

וקמא היכי סמיך—And how was the first one close

OVERVIEW The משנה stated, ‘if a man had his wall close to his friend’s wall, he should not place another wall near his friend’s wall unless he distanced himself four אמות from it’. The גמרא asked, ‘but how was the first wall close to his friend’s wall’. רב יהודה answered, this is what the משנה means, if one wishes to build a wall near his friend’s wall, he should distance himself four אמות. רבא asked, but the משנה stated, ‘he who has a wall next to his friend’s wall’. תוספות clarifies the discussion taking place in the גמרא.

סלקא דעתין דבנפל איירי שכן משמע הלשון דקתני מי שהיה¹ כותלו סמוך לכותל חבירו – The questioner who asked, וקמא היכי סמיך, assumed that the case in the משנה is where the first wall collapsed (and now he wants to build a second wall in place of the first one), for the language of the משנה indicates so, for the משנה states, ‘one who had his wall near his friend’s wall’ – ומשני רב יהודה הכי קאמר הבא לסמוך כולי – And ר"י answered this is what the משנה meant; one who comes to be near his neighbor’s wall, etc. he should not come closer than ד' אמות. תוספות clarifies – ומתניתין הכי פירושה מי שהיה גבול כותלו² סמוך לכותל חבירו – And this is the explanation of our משנה; when the boundary of someone’s wall was close to his neighbor’s wall, he should distance his (proposed) wall ד' אמות. ורבא פריך דכותל קתני ולא גבול³ – And רבא challenged ר"י, but the משנה states כותל and not גבול כותל. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר לרבא דאמר בריש פירקין דאסור לסמוך קמא היכי סמך – And if you will say; according to רבא who said in the beginning⁴ of our פרק that it is forbidden to be close to the boundary line; how did the first neighbor build his wall close to the boundary⁵ – תוספות rejects a proposed answer: ואפילו לפירוש רבינו תם⁶ דלמסקנא שרי רבא לכולהו לסמוך לבד מבור – And even according to the explanation of the ר"ת who maintains that according to the conclusion of the גמרא, even רבא permits to be סומך in all cases except for בור, this would seemingly answer תוספות question – מכל מקום אמאי לא פריך מהכא⁷ דהוי רישא אלא ממשרה וירק דהוי סיפא – Nevertheless there is still a difficulty, why did not the גמרא challenge רבא from this משנה which is the first משנה, but rather it chose to challenge רבא from the משנה regarding soaking flax and vegetables which is the later משנה – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דלא אסר רבא לסמוך אלא מילתא דמגופיה אתי היזק⁸ – And one can say that רבא (even in the הוה אמינא) only forbade סמיכה by objects which the damage comes from them – אבל הכא הכותל אינו מזיק כלום אלא שגורם למעט⁹ הדוושא: However here, the wall which the first neighbor is building does not damage anything at all; rather it only causes to reduce the traffic.

SUMMARY The מקשן assumed there was a wall which collapsed (since it states מי שהיה כותלו), ר"י suggested that כותלו means גבול כותלו, which רבא rejected. רבא even in the הו"א, only prohibited placing items which may cause damage near the boundary, but not in a case where it merely prevents improving a situation.

THINKING IT OVER What is the difference between our case of the wall, where תוספות claims that he is not causing damage,¹⁰ to the case of the mustard and the bees,¹¹ where the mustard does not damage the bees (it merely causes them to eat up their honey) and nevertheless we require a הרחקה?!¹²

footnotes: ¹ The words מי שהיה (in the past tense) indicate that in the past he had a wall סמוך לכותל חבירו (which collapsed) and now he wants to rebuild that collapsed wall; the משנה tells us that he cannot rebuild the wall in the same place as the first wall, but rather he must distance it ד' אמות from his friend’s wall. The question then is obvious; how come the first wall was within ד' אמות from כותל חבירו?! ² It would seem that 'גבול כותלו' here means that the boundary of his property, on which he could theoretically build a wall, was within ד' אמות of his neighbor’s wall (which may have been slightly distanced from the border). רב יהודה agrees that the word היה indicates (something in) the past, but it does not mean that there was a wall there in the past (as the מקשן assumed), but rather גבול כותלו (his border) was near his neighbor’s wall. We therefore tell him that even though your border is within ד' אמות of כותל חבירו, nevertheless the wall you wish to build must be distanced at least ד' אמת מכותל חבירו. ³ How can ר"י explain the משנה that there was no wall originally, when the משנה clearly states that there was a wall, therefore the question remains how was the first wall within ד' אמות from כותל חבירו. ⁴ יז,ב. The גמרא there cites the view of רבא, that one may not dig a pit next to the property line, even if the neighbor did not dig a pit near the property line. עיי"ש. ⁵ The first assumption here is that when the משנה states that he must distance himself ד' אמות; this means that he must distance himself ד' אמות from the property line (regardless where the neighbor’s wall is). The second assumption here is that the first neighbor (who has his wall up) built it within two אמות of the boundary, for if he recessed his wall two (complete) אמות on his property (or more), why should the second neighbor, who wishes to build a new wall, be required to distance himself ד' אמות from the property line; he should only be required to distance himself no more than two אמות, for then there will already be a distance of ד' אמות between the old wall and the prospective new wall! The question is that according to רבא the first neighbor was not permitted to build his wall unless he recessed it, which cannot be, for if he already recessed it why is the second neighbor required to distance the full ד' אמות?! See מהר"ם ומהרש"א. ⁶ See יח,ב תוס' ד"ה וסבר, where the ר"ת ור"ח maintain that according to the conclusion of the גמרא, even רבא admits that one can be סומך; the only exception (and argument with אביי) is concerning a בור. This would explain the משנה here. The first neighbor had the right to build his wall up to the property line (since there was no wall on the other field. The משנה rules that the second neighbor must distance the full ד' אמות from the first neighbor’s wall. This would (seemingly) answer תוספות question. ⁷ The גמרא (when it originally assumed that רבא prohibits סמיכה in all cases [not only בור]), challenged the view of רבא from various משניות (in our פרק). The question is why did not the גמרא challenge רבא from our משנה which is the רישא (the first of a series of משניות), and instead challenged רבא from the סיפא (the later משניות)! ⁸ The item which you are being סומך will cause your neighbor some type of damage; for instance משרה where the moisture on your property can seep into the other property. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁹ When the first person built his wall on the property line there is no damage at all; however if the second person will want to build a wall he will need to recede ד' אמות so there will be traffic to solidify the walls. However even if there is no distancing of ד' אמות the first wall is not ruining the second wall (directly) it is only preventing us from having something which will strengthen the walls; that is not considered a damage even according to רבא (even in the הו"א). ¹⁰ See footnote # 8. ¹¹ דף יח,א (וב'). ¹² See נחלת משה.