איני יכול לישון מקול התינוקות - תקנת בתי הספר בישראל

אא

מַתְנִי׳ חֲנוּת שֶׁבְּחָצֵר יָכוֹל לִמָּחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יָכוֹל לִישַׁן מָקוֹל הַנִּכְנָסִין וּמְקוֹל הַיּוֹצְאִין אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה כֵּלִים יוֹצֵא וּמוּכָּר בְּתוֹךְ הַשּׁוּק וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמָּחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יָכוֹל לִישַׁן לֹא מִקּוּל הַפַּטִּישׁ וְלֹא מִקּוּל הָרֵיחַיִם וְלֹא מִקּוֹל הַתִּינוֹקוֹת:

גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא אִי הָכִי לִיתְנֵי חָצֵר אַחֶרֶת מוּתָּר אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְתִינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן וּמִתַּקָּנַת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן גַּמְלָא וְאֵילָךְ דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב בְּרַם זָכוּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ לַטּוֹב וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן גַּמְלָא שְׁמוֹ שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הוּא נִשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל

שֶׁבִּתְחִלָּה מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אָב מְלַמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אָב לֹא הָיָה לָמֵד תּוֹרָה

מַאי דְּרוּשׁ וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אֹתָם? וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אַתֶּם הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מוֹשִׁיבִין מְלַמְּדֵי תִינוֹקוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם

מַאי דְּרוּשׁ כִּי מִצִּיּוֹן תֵּצֵא תוֹרָה וַעֲדַיִין מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אָב הָיָה מַעֲלוֹ וּמְלַמְּדוֹ מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אָב לֹא הָיָה עוֹלֶה וְלָמֵד הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מוֹשִׁיבִין בְּכׇל פֶּלֶךְ וּפֶלֶךְ וּמַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן כְּבֶן שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה כְּבֶן שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה וּמִי שֶׁהָיָה רַבּוֹ כּוֹעֵס עָלָיו מְבַעֵיט בּוֹ וְיֹצֵא עַד שֶׁבָּא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן גַּמְלָא וְתִיקֵּן שֶׁיְּהוּ מוֹשִׁיבִין מְלַמְּדֵי תִינוֹקוֹת בְּכׇל מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה וּבְכׇל עִיר וָעִיר וּמַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן כְּבֶן שֵׁשׁ כְּבֶן שֶׁבַע

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת עַד שֵׁית לָא תְּקַבֵּיל מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ קַבֵּיל וְאַסְפִּי לֵיהּ כְּתוֹרָא וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת כִּי מָחֵית לְיָנוֹקָא לָא תִּימְחֵי אֶלָּא בְּעַרְקְתָא דִמְסָנָא דְּקָארֵי קָארֵי דְּלָא קָארֵי לֶיהֱוֵי צַוְותָּא לְחַבְרֵיהּ

מֵיתִיבִי אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חָצֵר שֶׁבִּיקֵּשׁ לֵעָשׂוֹת רוֹפֵא אוּמָּן וְגַרְדִּי וּמְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת בְּנֵי חָצֵר מְעַכְּבִין עָלָיו הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן בְּתִינוֹקוֹת דְּגוֹיִם

תָּא שְׁמַע שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין בְּחָצֵר וּבִיקֵּשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן לֵעָשׂוֹת רוֹפֵא וְאוּמָּן וְגַרְדִּי וּמְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת חֲבֵירוֹ מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו הָכָא נָמֵי בְּתִינוֹקוֹת דְּגוֹיִם
תָּא שְׁמַע מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בַּיִת בַּחֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָּפִין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַשְׂכִּירֶנּוּ לֹא לְרוֹפֵא וְלֹא לְאוּמָּן וְלֹא לְגַרְדִּי וְלֹא לְסוֹפֵר יְהוּדִי וְלֹא לְסוֹפֵר אַרְמַאי הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן בְּסוֹפֵר מָתָא

אָמַר רָבָא מִתַּקָּנַת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן גַּמְלָא וְאֵילָךְ לָא מַמְטִינַן יָנוֹקָא מִמָּתָא לְמָתָא אֲבָל מִבֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא לְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא מַמְטִינַן וְאִי מַפְסֵק נַהֲרָא לָא מַמְטִינַן וְאִי אִיכָּא תִּיתּוּרָא מַמְטִינַן וְאִי אִיכָּא גַּמְלָא לָא מַמְטִינַן

Bava Batra 20a-21a

let the barrel itself serve as a barrier. It should not be susceptible to impurity in this case, as an earthenware vessel does not contract impurity if its exterior is exposed to impurity. Rather, one must say that its opening faces inward, and it is rendered impure because the impurity enters through its opening. And if you wish, say instead that actually its opening faces outward, and with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a metal barrel, which does contract impurity through its exterior. The Gemara raises another objection to the assumption that an item for which there is a use does not reduce the dimensions of a window, even if is not susceptible to impurity, from a baraita (Tosefta, Oholot 14:6): With regard to grass that one plucked and placed in a window or that grew on its own in windows; and scraps of fabric that do not measure three by three fingerbreadths; and a limb or flesh dangling from an animal or a beast; and a bird resting in the window; and a gentile sitting in the window; and a child born after eight months of pregnancy, who is not expected to survive, that is placed in the window; and salt; and an earthenware vessel; and a Torah scroll, all these reduce the dimensions of the window. Consequently, impurity passes through only if there remains an open space of a square handbreadth. But with regard to snow, hail, frost, ice, and water, all these do not reduce the dimensions of a window. The Gemara proceeds to challenge Shmuel’s ruling from each of the cases of the baraita. The Gemara asks: But according to Shmuel, who says that an item that has a use is not considered part of the window and does not reduce the dimensions of the space, grass is fit for consumption by one’s animal, so it will not remain in the window. Yet the baraita states that grass reduces the dimensions of the window. The Gemara answers: This is referring to afrazta, which is poisonous grass that is unfit for an animal to consume. The baraita teaches: Or grass that grew on its own also reduces the dimensions of the window. The Gemara asks: But since the grass damages the wall, the owner will remove it. Therefore, it should not serve as a barrier to impurity. Rabba says: This is referring to a wall of a ruin, whose structural integrity is insignificant, and therefore the owner will not trouble himself to remove the grass. Rav Pappa says: The baraita may even be referring to a wall in a settled house, and it is referring to a case where the grass comes from three handbreadths beyond the window. In other words, the grass does not grow on the window but takes root some distance away, and from there it reaches the window. The homeowner is not particular about this grass and will not uproot it. The Gemara further asks: Why do scraps of fabric reduce the dimensions of the window? After all, they are fit for patching a tear in a garment. The Gemara answers: This is referring to thick scraps, which are unsuitable for patching. The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, they are fit for a bloodletter to wipe up the blood at the point of incision. The Gemara answers: It is referring to sackcloth, which scratches the skin, and would not be used for that purpose. The Gemara asks: If it is referring to sackcloth, why does the baraita state that it is not three by three fingerbreadths? It should have said that it is not four by four handbreadths. Rough woven material of the kind used for sacks rather than clothes is susceptible to impurity only if its area measures at least four by four handbreadths. The Gemara answers: It is not actual sackcloth; rather, it is like sackcloth, i.e., it is stiff, and will therefore not be used by a bloodletter, but is woven like regular clothing. The baraita teaches: And a limb or flesh dangling from an animal or a beast reduces the dimensions of a window. The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Shmuel, why should this be so? After all, the animal can arise and escape, and therefore it should not be considered as part of the window. The Gemara answers: This is referring to an animal that is tied in place. The Gemara challenges: But the owner of the animal will take it and slaughter it. The Gemara answers: It is referring to an animal that is non-kosher and will not be slaughtered. The Gemara challenges: Even so, he will take it and sell it to a gentile. The Gemara responds: It is referring to a lean animal, which no one will buy. The Gemara continues: Even if the animal does not move, there is a use for the part that is dangling, since he can cut it off and throw it to the dogs. The Gemara answers: Since there is suffering to an animal if he cuts it off, he will not do that. The baraita further teaches: And a bird resting in the window reduces its dimensions. The Gemara challenges: But it will fly away, and therefore it should not be considered as part of the window. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a bird that is tied in place. The Gemara further challenges: But the owner will take it and slaughter it. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a non-kosher bird, which he will not slaughter. The Gemara continues: Even if it is non-kosher he will take it and sell it to a gentile. The Gemara responds: It is referring to a kelanita, a type of bird that is so bony that no one would purchase it to consume it. The Gemara asks: But even so, he can give it to a child to play with, so why does it reduce the dimensions of the window? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a bird that scratches. The Gemara challenges: But a kelanita does not scratch. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a type of bird that is like a kelanita in that it is bony, but is inclined to scratch people. The baraita further states: And a gentile sitting in the window reduces its dimensions. The Gemara asks: But the gentile will arise and leave, so why does he reduce the dimensions of the window? The Gemara answers: This is referring to someone who is tied in place. The Gemara continues: Another person will come and release him. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a leper, whom people are afraid to touch. The Gemara challenges: Another leper will come and release him. Rather, this is referring to a prisoner of the monarchy. Since he is confined as a punishment, others are afraid to release him. The baraita teaches: And a child born after eight months of pregnancy who is placed in the window reduces its dimensions. The Gemara challenges: Perhaps his mother will come and remove him from there. The Gemara answers: This is referring to Shabbat, when it is prohibited to move this child, as it is taught in a baraita: A child born after eight months is like a stone with regard to the halakhot of set-aside [muktze], and therefore it is prohibited to move him; but his mother may bend over the child and nurse him, due to the danger that failure to nurse will cause her to fall ill. The baraita teaches: Salt reduces the dimensions of a window. The Gemara challenges: It is fit for use and people will remove it from there. The Gemara answers: This is referring to bitter salt, which is not used as a seasoning. The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, it is fit for tanning hides. The Gemara responds: It is referring to salt that has thorns mixed with it, and therefore it will not be used for tanning. The Gemara challenges: Even so, since this salt is damaging to the wall, he will remove it from there. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where it sits on a shard of earthenware, and consequently it does not damage the wall. The Gemara states: If it is resting on earthenware, let the shard itself serve as a barrier against the spreading of the impurity. Why, then, is the salt mentioned? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the shard does not have the sufficient measure for ritual impurity, and is therefore considered insignificant. As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 82a): One who carries a shard of earthenware on Shabbat is liable only if it is equivalent in size to that which is used to place between one pillar and another when they are piled on the ground, to strengthen the pillars. The baraita teaches: An earthenware vessel reduces the dimensions of a window. The Gemara challenges: But it is fit for one to use; therefore, it is likely to be removed from the window. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the earthenware is dirty. The Gemara challenges: Even so, it is fit for a bloodletter to collect the blood. It would not matter to him if the earthenware were dirty. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where it is perforated and therefore unfit for that use. The baraita teaches: A Torah scroll reduces the dimensions of a window. The Gemara challenges: But it is fit for reading; therefore, it might be removed. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a Torah scroll that is worn out and unfit for reading. The Gemara challenges: But one is required to place the Torah scroll in a repository for unusable sacred books; therefore, he will certainly remove it to be stored away. The Gemara answers: This is referring to one who determines that its repository will be there. In other words, it was placed in the window with the intent of storing it there in its worn-out state. § With regard to the halakha of the baraita referring to salt, the Gemara cites that which Rav says: One can construct a barrier to delineate a private domain on Shabbat or to block the spreading of ritual impurity with anything except for salt and fat, as salt crumbles and fat melts in the heat. And Shmuel says: Even salt can be used as a barrier. Rav Pappa said: And they do not disagree, as this ruling of Shmuel is referring to Sodomite salt, which is like stone and can be used as a barrier, and that ruling of Rav is referring to isterokanit salt, which is taken from the sea and is composed of grains. The Gemara adds: And now that Rabba said: If a person makes two piles of salt at the opening to an alleyway and places a cross beam on top of them, so that the salt supports the cross beam and the cross beam supports the salt by weighing it down and compressing it, he can use this beam to render it permitted to carry in the alleyway on Shabbat, one can say that even isterokanit salt can be used as a barrier. And even so, Rav and Shmuel do not disagree: This ruling of Shmuel is referring to a case where there is a cross beam to weigh the salt down, and that ruling of Rava is referring to a case where there is no cross beam. § The mishna teaches that one must distance a mill from a neighbor’s wall by a distance of three handbreadths from the lower stone of the mill, which is four handbreadths from the upper stone of the mill. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that one must distance a mill from the property of his neighbor? It is due to the vibrations it causes. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: And the measure for distancing a mill on a base is three handbreadths from the lower millstone [ha’isterobil], which is four handbreadths from the mouth [hakelet], where the wheat is fed in? But there, what vibrations are there? Rather, the reason for the distancing is due to the noise generated by the mill. The mishna teaches: And there must be a distance of three handbreadths from the protruding base of an oven until the wall, which is four handbreadths from the narrow upper rim of the oven. Abaye said: Learn from the mishna that the base of an oven is a handbreadth wider than its rim. The practical difference of this observation is with respect to buying and selling, i.e., a buyer should know that this is the proper ratio for the dimensions of an oven. MISHNA: A person may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is a space four cubits high above it, i.e., between the top of the oven and the ceiling, to avoid burning the ceiling, which serves as the floor of the residence above. If one was setting up an oven in the upper story, there must be a plaster floor beneath it, which serves as the ceiling of the lower story, at least three handbreadths thick, so that the ceiling below does not burn. And in the case of a stove the plaster floor must be at least one handbreadth thick. And if he causes damage in any case, he pays compensation for that which he damaged. Rabbi Shimon says: They said all of these measurements to teach only that if he causes damage he is exempt from paying, as he took all reasonable precautions. The mishna continues: A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the storeroom of another, and he may not establish a cattle barn there, as these produce heat, smoke, and odors, which rise and damage the items in the storeroom. The mishna comments: In truth, the halakha is that in the case of a storeroom of wine the Sages rendered it permitted to set up a bakery and a dye shop beneath, as the heat that rises does not damage the wine. But they did not render it permitted to establish a cattle barn, because its odor damages the wine. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that in the case of an oven the plaster floor must be four handbreadths thick, and with regard to a stove it must be three? By contrast, the mishna says that the plaster floor beneath and oven and a stove must be three handbreadths and one handbreadth thick, respectively. Abaye said: When that baraita is taught it is with regard to ovens and stoves of bakers. Since they bake all day long, their implements get very hot. The oven discussed in our mishna is similar to a baker’s stove, which is why in both cases a distance of three handbreadths is required. The mishna teaches that one may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the storeroom of another, and he may not establish a cattle barn there. A Sage taught: If the cattle barn preceded the storeroom it is permitted, i.e., the barn owner is not required to move it. With regard to this point, Abaye raises a dilemma: If he cleaned and sprinkled the area, i.e., he prepared it for use as a storeroom but he has not yet filled it, what is the halakha? Is it considered a storeroom already, and therefore others may no longer put a cattle barn beneath it, or perhaps the halakha is that as long as it is empty he cannot prevent others from establishing a cattle barn? Similarly, if he added windows for ventilation, which demonstrates his intention to use it as a storeroom, what is the halakha? Likewise, if he establishes an enclosed veranda beneath the storeroom, what is the halakha? If he built an upper room on top of his house for storage, what is the halakha? None of these questions are answered, and the Gemara declares that they shall stand unresolved. The Gemara cites a similar question: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raises a dilemma: If he placed dates and pomegranates there, what is the halakha? Is this considered the start of its use as a storeroom or not? No answer was found to this question either, and the Gemara declares: The dilemma shall stand [teiku] unresolved. § The mishna teaches that in truth, it is permitted in the case of wine but not in the case of a cattle barn. The Gemara states that a Sage taught: They permitted it in the case of wine because the heat and the smoke improve the wine. But they did not permit one to establish a cattle barn, because a barn creates a bad odor. Rav Yosef said: This wine of ours spoils quickly, and therefore even the smoke of a candle also damages it. Rav Sheshet said: And alfalfa [ve’aspasta] is considered like a cattle barn in this regard, because it rots over time and creates a foul odor. MISHNA: If a resident wants to open a store in his courtyard, his neighbor can protest to prevent him from doing so and say to him: I am unable to sleep due to the sound of people entering the store and the sound of people exiting. But one may fashion utensils in his house and go out and sell them in the market, despite the fact that he is not allowed to set up a store in the courtyard, and the neighbor cannot protest against him doing so and say to him: I am unable to sleep due to the sound of the hammer you use to fashion utensils, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the mill that you use to grind, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the children. It is permitted for one to make reasonable use of his own home. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the mishna, which states that one can prevent his neighbor from opening a store in the courtyard because the noise keeps him awake, and what is different in the latter clause, which states that one cannot protest when his neighbor performs labor that is noisy? Abaye said: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of one who operates in another courtyard, i.e., one cannot prevent activity in a separate courtyard that is connected to the alleyway in which he lives. Rava said to him: If so, let it teach that in a different courtyard it is permitted. Why does the mishna not specify that it is referring to a different courtyard? Rather, Rava said: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of schoolchildren who come to learn Torah in his house, and this ruling applies from the time of the ordinance of Yehoshua ben Gamla and onward. What was this ordinance? As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is Yehoshua ben Gamla. If not for him the Torah would have been forgotten from the Jewish people. Initially, whoever had a father would have his father teach him Torah, and whoever did not have a father would not learn Torah at all. The Gemara explains: What verse did they interpret homiletically that allowed them to conduct themselves in this manner? They interpreted the verse that states: “And you shall teach them [otam] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), to mean: And you yourselves [atem] shall teach, i.e., you fathers shall teach your sons. When the Sages saw that not everyone was capable of teaching their children and Torah study was declining, they instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in Jerusalem. The Gemara explains: What verse did they interpret homiletically that enabled them to do this? They interpreted the verse: “For Torah emerges from Zion” (Isaiah 2:3). But still, whoever had a father, his father ascended with him to Jerusalem and had him taught, but whoever did not have a father, he did not ascend and learn. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in one city in each and every region [pelekh]. And they brought the students in at the age of sixteen and at the age of seventeen. But as the students were old and had not yet had any formal education, a student whose teacher grew angry at him would rebel against him and leave. It was impossible to hold the youths there against their will. This state of affairs continued until Yehoshua ben Gamla came and instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in each and every province and in each and every town, and they would bring the children in to learn at the age of six and at the age of seven. With regard to the matter at hand, since this system was established for the masses, the neighbors cannot prevent a scholar from teaching Torah in the courtyard. Concerning that same issue, Rav said to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, a teacher of children: Do not accept a student before the age of six, as he is too young, and it is difficult for him to learn in a steady manner. From this point forward, accept him and stuff him with Torah like an ox. And Rav further said to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat: When you strike a child for educational purposes, hit him only with the strap of a sandal, which is small and does not cause pain. Rav further advised him: He who reads, let him read on his own; whoever does not read, let him be a companion to his friends, which will encourage him to learn to read. With regard to a courtyard, the Gemara concluded that it is permitted for one to establish an elementary school to teach Torah and the neighbors cannot protest. The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: With regard to one member of a courtyard who wishes to become a doctor, a bloodletter, a weaver [vegardi], or a teacher of children, the other members of the courtyard can prevent him from doing so. This indicates that neighbors can protest the teaching of children in their shared courtyard. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here, i.e., when can they protest his teaching children? We are dealing with a case of gentile children, as there is no mitzva to educate them. In this situation, the neighbors can protest about the noise. Come and hear another baraita: With regard to two people who are residing in one courtyard, and one of them sought to become a doctor, a bloodletter, a weaver, or a teacher of children, the other can prevent him from doing so. The Gemara answers: Here too, we are dealing with a case of gentile children. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita: One who has a house in a jointly owned courtyard may not rent it to a doctor, nor to a bloodletter, nor to a weaver, nor to a Jewish teacher [sofer], nor to a gentile teacher. This indicates that one’s neighbors can prevent him from teaching Jewish children. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with the scribe [sofer] of the town, who does not teach children but writes documents and letters for residents of the town. This type of work is not a mitzva, and since many people seek his services, the residents of the courtyard can prevent him from performing this job near their houses. § With regard to the ordinance of Yehoshua ben Gamla, and concerning teaching children in general, Rava says: From the time of the ordinance of Yehoshua ben Gamla, that schoolteachers must be established in each town, and onward, one does not bring a child from one town to another. Rather, each child is educated where he resides. But one does bring them from one synagogue where they learn to another synagogue. And if a river separates the areas one does not bring the children across, lest they fall into the river. And if there is a bridge spanning the river one may bring them across the river. But if there is only a narrow bridge [gamla] one does not bring them. And Rava said: The maximum number of students for one teacher of children is twenty-five children. And if there are fifty children in a single place, one establishes two teachers, so that each one teaches twenty-five students. And if there are forty children, one establishes an assistant, and the teacher receives help from the residents of the town to pay the salary of the assistant. And Rava said: If there is a teacher of children who teaches a few subjects, and there is another who teaches more subjects than him, one does not remove the first teacher from his position to hire the second, as perhaps the other teacher will come to be negligent due to the lack of competition. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a said: On the contrary, all the more so is it the case that he will teach in a better manner if he knows that he is the sole instructor in the place, as jealousy among teachers increases wisdom. The one who was dismissed will try to refine his skills so that he will be rehired, and this will prevent negligence on the part of the other teacher. And Rava said: If there are two teachers of children, one who teaches a lot of material but is not precise in his statements, and one who is precise but does not teach a lot of material, one hires the one who teaches a lot of material but is not precise. Why is this? Errors will be corrected by themselves, and no lasting harm will be caused. By contrast, Rav Dimi of Neharde’a said: One hires the instructor who is precise and does not teach a lot of material, as once an error is taught, it is taught, and cannot be easily corrected. The Gemara cites a proof for the opinion of Rav Dimi of Neharde’a: This is as it is written: “For Joab and all Israel remained there six months until he had cut off every male in Edom” (I Kings 11:16). When Joab came before King David after this episode, David said to him:

המשנה עוסקת באיזה דברים אתה יכול לעשות בבית
בעבר בשונה מהיום היו עובדים בבית זאת הייתה הנורמה וכאשר אתה עובד בבית אתה מפריע לשכנים אלייך
המשנה אוסרת על חנות בתוך הבית
הסיבה לכך היא שחנות אנשים זרים נכנסים לחצר בחצר כמובן משותפת
אבל מקולות של פטיש תינוקות אדם לא יכול למחות

הגמרא מקשה איך יכול להיות שתחילת המשנה סותרת את סוף המשנה חנות שאנשים זרים אפשר למחות אבל תינוקות זרים שנכנסין ויוצאים אי אפשר למחות
הגמרא מציגה שני תשובות:

אביי - כל חלק במשנה מדבר על חצר שונה תחילת המשנה מדברת על החצר שלך על מי שאיתך בחצר ואילו סוף המשנה מדברת על חצר אחרת כלומר אנשים שלא נמצאים איתו באותו חצר שמפריע להם
רבא - סוף המשנה בא ללמד שאי אפשר למחות בגלל תינוקות של בית רבן אי אפשר למחות בגלל הפרעה מבית ספר

המחלוקת שלהם היא במה מגדיר קבוצה
אביי אומר מי שלא במעגל הפנימי שלך החצר לא יכול להשפיע עלייך בגלל שהוא לא חלק ממך
רבא אומר העיר יכולה להשפיע על החצר שלך בגלל שאתה חלק ממנה וגם החצר שלך חלק מהציבור ולכן יש לך אחריות כללית ולפעמים אתה צריך לסבול לתת קצת מחלקך לטובת הכלל

תקנת יהושע בן גמלא
תקנה זאת באה לתקן את בעיות החינוך שנוצרו:

הפער החינוכי שנוצר מבנים שלא היה להם אבא לעומת כאלה שהיה להם אבא
נערים בגיל 17 שבאים ללמוד אי אפשר להשתלט עליהם הם עושים המ שבא להם

התיקונים

התקנה אומרת שכל עיר ועיר צריכים להקים בית ספר
הורדת גיל הלימוד מאזור 18 לגיל 7 - 6 ילדים היו באים

תקנת יהושע בן גמלא עובדת על שני צירים:

גאוגרפי - כל תלמיד עכשיו יכול ללכת לבית ספר בגלל שזה לא רוחוק ממנו
גיל הלימוד - נער היא אפשר כבר לחנך הוא עושה מה שבא לו הוא כבר רגיל לסדר מסוים כאשר אתה מוריד את הגיל ומתחיל חנך בגיל צעיר יש אפשרות לחנך

מי באמת התקין את התקנה?

תלמוד ירושלמי כתובות ח׳:י״א

וְהִתְקִין שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים.

שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בִּכְתוּבַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ.
וְשֶׁיְּהוּ הַתִּינּוֹקוֹת הוֹלְכִין לְבֵית הַסֵּפֶר.
וְהוּא הִתְקִין טוּמְאָה לִכְלֵי זְכוּכִית.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 8:11

MISHNAH: He should not say to her “here your ketubah is lying on the table” but “all my properties are pledged for your ketubah.” If he divorced her, she has no ketubah- lien. If he took her back, she is like all women who have a ketubah. HALAKHAH: “He should not say to her ‘here is your ketubah’”, etc. What does he do? “He marries her, he may divorce her and take her back, and she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rebbi Yose said, the baraita has two possibilities. “Or she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: If he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, a Mishnah said so: “For he who takes back his wife, takes her back under the terms of her first ketubah.” In the end, if he married her, divorced her, and took her back? He tells you something new. Even if he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna said: A betrothed woman who died does not have a ketubah since she was not permitted to marry outside. That you should not say [the case] should be considered as if he divorced her and she should have a ketubah; therefore it was necessary to say that she does not have a ketubah. In earlier times, her ketubah was deposited with her family; then it was easy for him to divorce her. They then instituted that her ketubah had to be deposited with her husband; even so it was easy for him to divorce her. Then they instituted that a man should buy with his wife’s ketubah cups, plates, and bowls; that is what we did state: “He should not say to her ‘here your ketubah is lying on the table’ but all his properties are pledged for her ketubah.” Finally they instituted that a person should use his wife’s ketubah in business, then because he uses his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings he loses track of it and it becomes difficult for him to divorce her. Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ decreed three things: That a person should use his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings. And that children have to go to school. Also, he decreed impurity for glass ware. But did not Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Yose ben Yo‘ezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity for Gentile lands and glass ware; Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah bar Ṭabbai? Rebbi Jonah said, Jehudah bar Ṭabbai and Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ decreed on metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed on the purity of hands. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the Court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rebbi Mana said (Deut. 32:47): “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself!

הירושלמי סותר את הבבלי הוא אומר שמי שהתקין את התקנה של הילדים הולכים לבית ספר ולא יהושע בן גמלא בשונה מהבבלי
האם שתי המסורות סותרות?
מיהו אותו יהושע בן גמלא?

תוספות על בבא בתרא כ״א א:ב׳:א׳

זכור אותו האיש לטוב ויהושע בן גמלא שמו.

הוא אותו האיש דאמר רב יוסף (ביבמות דף סא.) תרקבא דדינרי עיילא ליה מרתא בת בייתוס לינאי המלך עד דאוקים ליהושע בן גמלא בכהני רברבי וצדיק גמור היה כדאשכחן הכא והא דקאמר התם (שם) קטיר קא חזינא הכא לפי שהיו אחרים חשובים ממנו:

Tosafot on Bava Batra 21a:2:1

...

ביאור שטיינזלץ על יבמות ס״א א:ו׳

א משנה כהן הדיוט שאירס את האלמנה, ולאחר מכן נתמנה להיות כהן גדול — יכנוס (ישא) אותה. ומעשה ביהושע בן גמלא שקדש את מרתא בת ביתוס שהיתה אלמנה, ומנהו המלך להיות כהן גדול, ואחר כך כנסה. לעומת זאת, שומרת יבם שנפלה לפני כהן הדיוט, ונתמנה להיות כהן גדול, אף על פי שעשה בה מאמר בהיותו הדיוט — הרי זה לא יכנוס, שהרי כהן גדול אסור באלמנה.

Steinsaltz on Yevamot 61a:6

...

יהושע בן גמלא היה כהן ונתמנה להיות כהן גדול
תוספות אומרים שהוא היה צדיק גמור אבל במקרה של הכהונה היו כהנים אחרים יותר חשובים ממנו ולכן הוא השתמש בפרוטקציות
ריטב"א לעומת זאת חולק עליו ואומר שהוא הגיע לכהונה במרמה ולאחר מכן הפך לחסיד
תוספות וריטב"א חולקים על המהלך של יהושע בן גמלא

האם הוא היה צדיק בהתחלה ונהיה רשע? לפי תוספות הוא שהוא היה רשע בהתחלה והכהונה הכשירה את מעשיו?

דמותו של יהושע בן גמלא לא ברור מי זה
אבל זה שהתקנה עברה גלגולים יכולה להסביר את הסתירה מי תיקן את התקנה
רבי שמעון בן שטח הגה את המציאות של בית ספר וכל דוד ודור התקנה התגלגלה וכל פעם התווסף אלייה עוד משהו עד שזה הגיע גם עד יהושע בן גמלא

חידושי חתם סופר על בבא בתרא כ״א א

אלא אמר רבא סיפא אתאן לתשב"ר.

נ"ל דאביי לא ס"ל הא דרבא דאע"ג דיהושע ב"ג תיקן להגדל תורה ולהאדירה. מ"מ כל עיר ועיר יבנו להם בי כנישתא לכך וכמ"ש נמוק"י.

ורבא נמי לא אמר אלא מתקנת יהושע ולא קאמר הכא במאי עסקינין בעיר שיש בה תשב"ר כגון בירושלים או בכל פלך ואפי' קודם תקנה אע"כ דאז כשם שהי' מטרוחי' ליסע כמה פרסאות לעיר של פלך במקום שיש מקרי דרדקי מכ"ש שהטריחו באותה העיר לילך דוקא למקום דמיוחד לתשב"ר לבי כנישתא

אך מתקנת יהושע ב"ג ואילך דחייש הרבה להגדיל תורה ס"ל לרבא דאפי' טירחא כל דהו לא מטרחיני' להסיעם משכונה לשכונה.

ונ"ל עוד פשוט דודאי מאז ומעולם הי' מלמדי תינוקת בישראל בכל עיר ועיר כי מי שיש לו אב שחייב ללמוד בנו שכרו האבות מלמדי' לבניהם והרי זה הי' קללות יעקב אבינו לשמעון אחלקם ביעקב שיהי' מלמדי תינוקת ועיי' לקמן כ"ב ע"א תוס' ד"ה קינאת וכו' ע"ש שכתבו שזה לא הי' בכלל עשר תקנו' ולא כ' בקיצור שהרי עזרא קדי' ליהושע ב"ג טובא אע"כ כהנ"ל דכבר הי' מלמדי תינוקת מימות עולם למי שיש לו אב. אך בשאר אז דרשי ולמדתם אתם. ולא הי' החיוב מוטל על הציבור אלא על האב או על עצמו. מכ"ש ששום יחיד לא התחייב לסבול ריבוי דרך וקול תינוקות והאב ימציא לבניו מקום שיפוייסו השכני' לסבול אך משתיקנו יהושע ב"ג והוטל על הציבור א"כ ה"ה על כל יחיד אפי' מי שאין לו בן היטל חיובו של בן זה לסייעו לאביו או להציבור להניחו לגור בשכונתו. ונ"ל עוד דגוף הדין לאו מיהושע ב"ג ואילך נתחדש אלא כן הוא מעיקור הדין וכל מצווה המוטלת על הציבור לסייעו זא"ז כגון מוהל דמילת הבני' מוטל על כל ישראל למי שאין לו אב ה"ה כשיש לו אב עכ"פ מוטל על כל ישראל להניח לדור המוהל בשכונתם או רופא נפשות וכן תפלה בציבור. אך תשב"ר מאז לא הי' מוטל אלא על האב לא סבלו השכני' הזיקא דדהו וחזית יהושע ב"ג להטיל גם זה על הציבור. וס"ל לרבא ה"ה על היחידי' שלא יכלו לומר לך לבה"כ שבעיר וכהנ"ל. ויש לתמוה על ט"ז סי' קנ"ו שכ' רופא נפשו' ואומן מוהל ילכו הם אצל הבני' והחולי' ולא יבואו אצלם ותימה רוב החולי' אינם יכולי' לילך אצל הרופא ורוב פעמי' לא הי' מביאי' הבן כמבואר ר"פ ראד"מ וע"ש בתוס' אך מ"מ מנא ידע הרופאי' שיש חולי או האומן שיש בן למול אם לא יבואו ויקראו אותו לבוא והיינו ריבוי נכנסי' ויוצאי' וע"כ פי' הרב"י רופא אומן מקיז דם שאין בו סכנת נפשו' והצלה כל כך אבל רופא נפש ואומן מוהל אין יכול למחות וע"ד הלצי י"ל מה שפירשו הפשטני' בפסוק והי' כי יראו המילדות את אלקים ויעש להם בתים. שעשה פרעה להם בתים קבועי' וידועי' לדור שם ויהי' מוכני' המילדי' ולא יאוחר דבר. ולפי הנ"ל י"ל טענו' המילדו' הי' כי אין השכני' מניחי' ריבוי דרך הקוראי' למילדות. וצריכה המילדות לחשוב עת לידת כל אשה ולהשכי' לפתחה עת לידתה והיות כי חיות הנה בטרם תבא אליהם וילדו. ע"כ עשה להם המלך בתים ידועי' כבי כנישתא שבעיר הנ"ל ויקראו אותם בזמנו:

Chidushei Chatam Sofer on Bava Batra 21a

...

החתם ספר מחדש שני חידושים

החותם סופר מדייק שאין שאביי לא מתנגד לתקנה אביי - מתנגד שהבית ספר יהיה בחצר
רבא - מחדש שאפילו בחצר עושים חצר
יהושע בן גמלא החידוש שלו שהוא מיסד את בית הספר כחובה שהציבור מחויב תמיד היה בתי ספר אבל זה היה בהתנדבות מי שרצה להקים הקים יהושע בן גמלא מתקין שהציבור מחוייב להקים בית ספר

בבא בתרא כ״א א

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת כִּי מָחֵית לְיָנוֹקָא לָא תִּימְחֵי אֶלָּא בְּעַרְקְתָא דִמְסָנָא דְּקָארֵי קָארֵי דְּלָא קָארֵי לֶיהֱוֵי צַוְותָּא לְחַבְרֵיהּ

מֵיתִיבִי

אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חָצֵר שֶׁבִּיקֵּשׁ לֵעָשׂוֹת רוֹפֵא אוּמָּן וְגַרְדִּי וּמְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת בְּנֵי חָצֵר מְעַכְּבִין עָלָיו הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן בְּתִינוֹקוֹת דְּגוֹיִם
תָּא שְׁמַע שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין בְּחָצֵר וּבִיקֵּשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן לֵעָשׂוֹת רוֹפֵא וְאוּמָּן וְגַרְדִּי וּמְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת חֲבֵירוֹ מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו הָכָא נָמֵי בְּתִינוֹקוֹת דְּגוֹיִם
תָּא שְׁמַע מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בַּיִת בַּחֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָּפִין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַשְׂכִּירֶנּוּ לֹא לְרוֹפֵא וְלֹא לְאוּמָּן וְלֹא לְגַרְדִּי וְלֹא לְסוֹפֵר יְהוּדִי וְלֹא לְסוֹפֵר אַרְמַאי הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן בְּסוֹפֵר מָתָא

Bava Batra 21a

In the latter clause we arrive at the case of schoolchildren who come to learn Torah in his house, and this ruling applies from the time of the ordinance of Yehoshua ben Gamla and onward. What was this ordinance? As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is Yehoshua ben Gamla. If not for him the Torah would have been forgotten from the Jewish people. Initially, whoever had a father would have his father teach him Torah, and whoever did not have a father would not learn Torah at all. The Gemara explains: What verse did they interpret homiletically that allowed them to conduct themselves in this manner? They interpreted the verse that states: “And you shall teach them [otam] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), to mean: And you yourselves [atem] shall teach, i.e., you fathers shall teach your sons. When the Sages saw that not everyone was capable of teaching their children and Torah study was declining, they instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in Jerusalem. The Gemara explains: What verse did they interpret homiletically that enabled them to do this? They interpreted the verse: “For Torah emerges from Zion” (Isaiah 2:3). But still, whoever had a father, his father ascended with him to Jerusalem and had him taught, but whoever did not have a father, he did not ascend and learn. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in one city in each and every region [pelekh]. And they brought the students in at the age of sixteen and at the age of seventeen. But as the students were old and had not yet had any formal education, a student whose teacher grew angry at him would rebel against him and leave. It was impossible to hold the youths there against their will. This state of affairs continued until Yehoshua ben Gamla came and instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in each and every province and in each and every town, and they would bring the children in to learn at the age of six and at the age of seven. With regard to the matter at hand, since this system was established for the masses, the neighbors cannot prevent a scholar from teaching Torah in the courtyard. Concerning that same issue, Rav said to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, a teacher of children: Do not accept a student before the age of six, as he is too young, and it is difficult for him to learn in a steady manner. From this point forward, accept him and stuff him with Torah like an ox. And Rav further said to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat: When you strike a child for educational purposes, hit him only with the strap of a sandal, which is small and does not cause pain. Rav further advised him: He who reads, let him read on his own; whoever does not read, let him be a companion to his friends, which will encourage him to learn to read. With regard to a courtyard, the Gemara concluded that it is permitted for one to establish an elementary school to teach Torah and the neighbors cannot protest. The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: With regard to one member of a courtyard who wishes to become a doctor, a bloodletter, a weaver [vegardi], or a teacher of children, the other members of the courtyard can prevent him from doing so. This indicates that neighbors can protest the teaching of children in their shared courtyard. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here, i.e., when can they protest his teaching children? We are dealing with a case of gentile children, as there is no mitzva to educate them. In this situation, the neighbors can protest about the noise. Come and hear another baraita: With regard to two people who are residing in one courtyard, and one of them sought to become a doctor, a bloodletter, a weaver, or a teacher of children, the other can prevent him from doing so. The Gemara answers: Here too, we are dealing with a case of gentile children. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita: One who has a house in a jointly owned courtyard may not rent it to a doctor, nor to a bloodletter, nor to a weaver, nor to a Jewish teacher [sofer], nor to a gentile teacher. This indicates that one’s neighbors can prevent him from teaching Jewish children. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with the scribe [sofer] of the town, who does not teach children but writes documents and letters for residents of the town. This type of work is not a mitzva, and since many people seek his services, the residents of the courtyard can prevent him from performing this job near their houses. § With regard to the ordinance of Yehoshua ben Gamla, and concerning teaching children in general, Rava says: From the time of the ordinance of Yehoshua ben Gamla, that schoolteachers must be established in each town, and onward, one does not bring a child from one town to another. Rather, each child is educated where he resides. But one does bring them from one synagogue where they learn to another synagogue. And if a river separates the areas one does not bring the children across, lest they fall into the river. And if there is a bridge spanning the river one may bring them across the river. But if there is only a narrow bridge [gamla] one does not bring them. And Rava said: The maximum number of students for one teacher of children is twenty-five children. And if there are fifty children in a single place, one establishes two teachers, so that each one teaches twenty-five students. And if there are forty children, one establishes an assistant, and the teacher receives help from the residents of the town to pay the salary of the assistant. And Rava said: If there is a teacher of children who teaches a few subjects, and there is another who teaches more subjects than him, one does not remove the first teacher from his position to hire the second, as perhaps the other teacher will come to be negligent due to the lack of competition. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a said: On the contrary, all the more so is it the case that he will teach in a better manner if he knows that he is the sole instructor in the place, as jealousy among teachers increases wisdom. The one who was dismissed will try to refine his skills so that he will be rehired, and this will prevent negligence on the part of the other teacher. And Rava said: If there are two teachers of children, one who teaches a lot of material but is not precise in his statements, and one who is precise but does not teach a lot of material, one hires the one who teaches a lot of material but is not precise. Why is this? Errors will be corrected by themselves, and no lasting harm will be caused. By contrast, Rav Dimi of Neharde’a said: One hires the instructor who is precise and does not teach a lot of material, as once an error is taught, it is taught, and cannot be easily corrected. The Gemara cites a proof for the opinion of Rav Dimi of Neharde’a: This is as it is written: “For Joab and all Israel remained there six months until he had cut off every male in Edom” (I Kings 11:16). When Joab came before King David after this episode, David said to him:

חושן משפט קנ״ו

(א) דין מי שירד לאומנתו של חבירו ומי שמביא סחורה לעיר אחרת ובו ז' סעיפים:
אחד מבני המבוי שאינו מפולש (י"א דבמבוי אינם יכולים למחות ואין דינין אלו אמורים רק בחצר) (טור וב"י בשם קצת הפוסקים) שביקש לעשות רופא או אומן או גרדי (פי' אומן להקיז דם) (ופי' גרדי אורג בגדים) או סופר שטרות או מלמד תינוקות לימוד שאינו של תורה בני המבוי מעכבים עליו מפני שמרבה עליהם הנכנסים והיוצאים ואפילו נתרצו לו כולם חוץ מאחד אותו אחד מעכב עליו וכן מי שיש לו בית בחצר השותפין לא ישכירנו לאחד מאלו: הגה אבל למכרו י"א דשרי ואח"כ ישתעו דינא בהדי לוקח ובלבד שלא ימכרנו לעכו"ם דלא ציית דינא (מרדכי ריש פרק לא יחפור):

(ב) חנות שבחצר יכולים השכנים למחות בידו ולומר לו אין אנו יכולים לישן מקול הנכנסים והיוצאים אלא עושה מלאכתו בחנותו ומוכר לשוק אבל אינם יכולים למחות בידו ולומר אין אנו יכולים לישן מקול הפטיש או מקול הריחים מאחר שכבר החזיק לעשות כן ולא מיחו בידו: הגה וי"א דכל מה שעושה בחנותו ובביתו אפילו לכתחילה אינן יכולין למחות (המגיד פ"י דשכנים בשם הרמב"ן ורשב"ם וב"י בשם התו' ומרדכי) ודוקא בני אדם בריאים אבל אם הם חולים והקול מזיק להם יכולים למחות (ריב"ש סי' קצ"ו וכפול לעיל סי' קנ"ה סט"ו):

(ג) וכן יש לו ללמד תינוקות ישראל תורה בתוך ביתו ואין השכנים יכולים למחות בידו ולומר לו אין אנו יכולים לישן מקול התינוקות של בית רבן והוא הדין לכל מילי דמצוה שאינם יכולים למחות בידו:

Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 156

(5) The residents of an alleyway can force one another not to set up among themselves, [a shop of] a tailor, a tanner or any other of the types of craftsmen. If there was one of the residents of the alleyway who was [already working as] a craftsman and they did not protest against him or if there was [already] a bathhouse or a shop or a mill, and someone comes and makes another bathhouse next to him, [the owner of the first cannot] prevent him, saying, "You are cutting off my livelihood." Even if [the owner of the second] is from another alleyway, they cannot be prevented, since that type of craft is already in their midst. Gloss: And [according to] the many that say that the residents of the courtyard or a dead end alleyway may protest, the craftsman may [nevertheless] not protest and say, "You are cutting off my livelihood" (Beit Yosef in the name of many decisors). However a stranger from another country who comes to open a shop next to [a pre-existing] shop or a bathhouse next to [a pre-existing] bathhouse, may be prevented by them. But if [the stranger] has contributed along with them to the royal tax, they cannot prevent him. Gloss...

(7) The residents of the city may prevent merchants from bringing their merchandise into the cities for retail sale, in the way of shopkeepers. But if [these merchants] sell only on the market day, they cannot be prevented, provided they do the selling in the market; but they must not go from door to door even on a market day. If they have a debt [to collect] in the city, they may sell as much as they need for their livelihood, even when it is not a market day, until they collect their debts and leave. Gloss: And likewise concerning lending with interest to [gentiles] may they prevent [outsiders]. But they may not prevent them if they come on the market day and lend with interest to the people of the [many] cities who gather there to come to the market (Tur and Hagahot Maimoniot, Chapter 6 of the Laws of Neighbors). If they have a debt [to collect] in the city, they may lend as much as they need for their livelihood, so that they can collect their debts (Tur and Beit Yosef in the name of Tosafot and the Rosh). There are those who say that the ability of residents of a city to [prevent] residents of another place [from opening a business in their city], is only when there will be no loss to the buyers; whereby [the proposed new business] would sell [at the same prices] as the other residents of the city, and that their merchandise would likewise be no better than that of the residents of the city. However if they were to sell the merchandise for cheaper or it were to be better, such that the buyers would benefit, the [original] merchants may not protest (the Rosh and Tur in the name of Rabbi Y. HaLevi). And this is only when the buyers are Israelites, but not for gentiles that would benefit (Rabbenu Yerucham 31:6 and Hagahot Maimoniot, Chapter 10 of the Laws of Neighbors). [Additionally, if the new business] would bring different merchandise, which the residents of the city did not have - even if not cheaper in price or better - they may not prevent [them] (Beit Yosef in the name of the decisors)...

שו"ת שבט הלוי נשאל יש תלמיד חכם שלומד בלילה בקול רם והוא עונה שהוא יכול ללמוד בשקט ואומר שזה לא קשור לתקנת יהושע בן גמלא
שו"ת משנה הלכות מגיב על אותו מקרא שברור שהוא יכול לצעוק זה חלק מהלימוד וזה תקנת יהושע בן גמלא
קשה להבין זאת הרי תקנת יהושע בן גמלא קשורה לנערים שאי אפשר לשלוט בהם להם יותר קשה להגיד שיהיו בשקט לעומת אדם מבוגר שברור שהוא יכול ללמוד בשקט

תקנה כמו כל דבר צוברת הרבה קליפות
מצד אחד יש בה משהו מאוד יפה כל ילד מקבל חינוך רואה זאת חזק בימינו חוק חינוך חובה
מצד שני אנחנו מאבדים את המסורת אין כמעט מסורת אין לימוד מהאבא אתה לומד מהמורה הוא מקור הידע ואבא תפקידו לעבוד
מהפכה כמו כל דבר היא לא קדמה היא עסקה ותמיד צריך לזכור שלמרות הרווחים תמיד יש הפסדים