Bava Batra 21b — the Talmud in English

Why did you do this?

David asked Yoav why he had done so, killing only the males.

He said to him: As it is written: “You shall obliterate the memory of Amalek,”

Yoav read the word zekher with a kamatz, meaning the males.

He said to him: But we read zekher.

David argued that we read zekher with a tzeirei or segol, meaning both males and females,

He said to him: I was taught to read it as zekher.

Yoav replied to David that his teacher had taught him, when he was a child, to read it as zekher with a kamatz.

He went and asked his teacher, saying to him: How did you teach me to read it?

Yoav went to his teacher and asked him, “How did you teach me to read it?”

He said to him: Zekher.

He answered him: Zekher, with a kamatz.

He took a sword to kill him.

Yoav took the sword to kill him,

and his teacher said to him: Why?

His teacher asked him why he wanted to kill him.

He said to him: For it is written [Jeremiah 48] “

Иеремия, 48 ] «

Cursed is he who performs the work of the Lord deceitfully.”

Cursed is one who performs the work of the Lord—teaching children—deceitfully, meaning that he teaches them erroneous readings, which are deceitful.

His teacher said to him: Leave that man; let him remain under the curse.

His teacher told him to leave him and not kill him, so that the curse of “Cursed” written in the verse would remain upon him.

He said to him: It is written [ibid.]

там же ]

“And cursed is he who withholds his sword from blood.”

The end of that verse means that one who withholds his sword from blood is cursed; that is, even one who does not kill someone who must be killed is cursed.

Some say that he killed him; and some say that he did not kill him.

Some say that he ultimately killed him, and some say that he ultimately did not kill him.

And Rava said: A teacher of young children,

a teacher of children,

a planter,

a worker who works in a field or vineyard, planting and tending to everything necessary, and receives payment for this,

a slaughterer,

a ritual slaughterer,

a bloodletter,

one who performs bloodletting,

and a town scribe,

the town scribe who writes sifrei Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot or legal documents,

all are considered as having been formally warned.

If any of these people perform their work improperly, they may be dismissed without a prior warning, even though they had not previously been warned.

The general principle is: Any loss that cannot be restored is considered as having been formally warned.

The general principle is that whenever negligence in one’s work causes a loss that cannot be repaired, the worker is considered as having been formally warned, so that if he causes damage, he may be dismissed. In all the cases mentioned above, the loss cannot be repaired: in the case of a teacher of children, because once he teaches them an error, it is difficult to remove it from them. In the case of a worker who works in a field, because through his negligence the plants do not grow properly, as they were meant to grow. In the case of a slaughterer, if he slaughters improperly, he renders the animal non-kosher. In the case of a bloodletter, if he does not exercise proper care, he can kill people. And a town scribe may write a Sefer Torah with an error, and if he writes legal documents improperly, he causes a loss to the owner of the document.

Rav Huna said: If a resident of an alley establishes a mill,

if one resident of an alley sets up a mill to grind grain for the local residents and earns his livelihood from it,

and another resident of the alley comes and establishes one beside him,

and his fellow resident of the alley comes and sets up another mill in the same alley in order to earn a livelihood,

it is the law that he may prevent him from doing so, for he can say to him: You are cutting off my livelihood!

The first one may prevent the second from doing so, saying to him: You are cutting off my source of livelihood.

Let us say that this supports him,

that a beraita can be brought as proof for Rav Huna.

As it was taught:

One must distance a fish trap from a fish by the distance that the fish can swim.

If a fisherman has set his sights on a fish until he has identified the hole from which it comes, and he has placed food where the fish can see it, so that it will come to the trap, other fishermen may not place their traps there. Rather, they must distance their traps by the distance that the fish can swim. The Gemara asks:

And how much

is this distance?

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Up to a parasang.

The distance is a parasang.

It is evident from here that even though the first fisherman has not yet acquired the fish, the other fishermen must nevertheless distance their traps from there so as not to deprive him of his livelihood. If so, the same should apply in Rav Huna’s case.

The Gemara rejects this:

Fish are different, because they are guided by sight.

The case of fish is different, because it is their nature that as soon as the fish see food in a particular place, they rush to that place. Therefore, once this fisherman has identified the fish’s hole and placed food within the area visible to it, he is certain to catch it. By rabbinic enactment, this is considered as though it has already come into his possession, since he has already performed an act that will cause him to catch this fish; therefore, his fellow is prohibited from taking the fish from him. In Rav Huna’s case, however, the first mill owner has performed no action with regard to the people who will come to him. In this case, the second one can perhaps say: Whoever comes to you will come to you, and whoever comes to me will come to me.

Ravina said to Rava: Shall we say that Rav Huna stated his ruling in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

and not in accordance with the Rabbis!?

As we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: A shopkeeper may not distribute roasted grain and nuts to children, because he thereby habituates them to come to him; but the Sages permit it.

Rabbi Yehuda holds that a shopkeeper may not distribute roasted grain and nuts to children who come to him to buy, because when their parents send them to the shops to make purchases in the future, they will go specifically to this shopkeeper, who distributes roasted grain and nuts, thereby depriving the other shops of their livelihood. But the Sages permit it. The Gemara understood that they fundamentally disagree about whether one person may enter another’s trade and cause the number of customers coming to the other to decrease. If so, Rav Huna’s case depends on the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav Huna stated his ruling in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara rejects this:

You may even say that Rav Huna’s ruling is in accordance with the Rabbis.

It is possible to establish Rav Huna’s ruling even in accordance with the Rabbis.

The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda there only

for the following reason:

He can say to him: I distribute nuts,

the shopkeeper who distributes nuts can say to his fellow: I distribute nuts;

you distribute almonds.

You can distribute almonds, and therefore I am not depriving you of your livelihood.

But here, even the Rabbis agree, for he can say to him: You are cutting off my livelihood.

Here, in Rav Huna’s case, even the Rabbis agree, since by opening another shop there, the second person takes customers away from the first.

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rav Huna from the following beraita:

A person may establish a shop beside his fellow’s shop, or a bathhouse beside his fellow’s bathhouse, and the latter cannot prevent him from doing so, because he can say to him: You are operating within your property, and I am operating within my property.

It is explicitly stated in the beraita that one may open a shop beside his fellow’s shop, and likewise establish a bathhouse, to which people come to bathe and for which they pay, beside his fellow’s bathhouse. The latter cannot prevent him from entering his trade, because the second can say to him: I operate within my domain, and you operate within yours. This is evidently not in accordance with Rav Huna.

The Gemara answers:

It is a dispute between tanna’im.

Rav Huna’s ruling is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im.

For it was taught: Residents of an alley may compel one another

to prevent one another

from establishing among them neither a tailor,

meaning that they may prevent someone from another place who wishes to rent a house in the alley and work there as a tailor, if there is already another tailor in that alley,

nor a tanner,

one who processes hides,

nor a teacher of children,

nor any one of the members of the various trades; but with regard to his neighbor, they may not compel him.

With regard to his neighbor who lives in the same alley, they cannot prevent him from working as a tailor, tanner, or in any of the trades mentioned above. They may prevent only someone who comes from another place in order to work there as a tailor or in one of the other trades.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They may even compel him with regard to his neighbor.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with the first tanna and holds that they may also prevent a neighbor who lives in the same alley from establishing such a trade. It follows that Rav Huna holds in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, while the earlier beraita, which permits one to establish a shop beside his fellow’s shop, holds in accordance with the first tanna, namely, the Rabbis.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is obvious to me that a resident of one city may prevent a resident of another city,

It is obvious to me that a resident of this city may prevent a resident of another city from opening a shop here if there is already another shop there, and likewise from engaging in one of the trades when another person already practices that trade in the city. This is so even according to the Rabbis, who hold that they may not prevent their neighbor.

But if he pays the tax here, he cannot prevent him.

If he pays the head tax to the governor of this city, he is considered a resident of this city, and his fellow cannot prevent him from opening a shop or the like in this city.

A resident of one alley cannot prevent a resident of his own alley.

A resident of an alley cannot prevent his fellow resident of that same alley from opening a shop or engaging in another trade. This is in accordance with the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and not with Rav Huna, who rules in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised a dilemma: With regard to a resident of one alley vis-à-vis a resident of another alley, what is the law?

Teyku.

Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, was uncertain whether a resident of one alley can prevent a resident of another alley, who lives in the same city, from opening a shop or the like in the first alley. Should we say that since he lives in the same city, he is considered his neighbor, and the Rabbis hold that one cannot prevent his neighbor? Or perhaps, since he does not live in the same alley, he is not considered his neighbor, and the first resident can prevent him.

Rav Yosef said: And Rav Huna concedes with regard to a teacher of children that he cannot prevent him,

A teacher of children who wishes to teach in the same alley cannot be prevented from doing so, even if there is already another teacher there.

For the Master said

“Ezra instituted for the Jewish people that they should establish a scribe beside another scribe.”

And he cannot be prevented from doing so.

The Gemara asks:

But let us be concerned lest he come to be negligent,

let us be concerned that he might become negligent when he sees that he cannot be prevented from establishing his business even though another is already there, as Rava held above on the first side, that the first one is not dismissed because of the second, lest he become negligent.

He said to him: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact location on the page")

Competition among scribes increases wisdom.

When there are two teachers, each will fear the other, lest the second say about him that he is not a good teacher, and as a result they will take care to teach well.