בבא בתרא כא

בבא בתרא כא

סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְתִינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן, וּמִתַּקָּנַת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן גַּמְלָא וְאֵילָךְ –

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

מֵיתִיבִי: אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חָצֵר שֶׁבִּיקֵּשׁ לֵעָשׂוֹת רוֹפֵא, אוּמָּן, וְגַרְדִּי, וּמְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת – בְּנֵי חָצֵר מְעַכְּבִין עָלָיו! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּתִינוֹקוֹת דְּגוֹיִם.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין בְּחָצֵר, וּבִיקֵּשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן לֵעָשׂוֹת רוֹפֵא, וְאוּמָּן, וְגַרְדִּי, וּמְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת – חֲבֵירוֹ מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו! הָכָא נָמֵי בְּתִינוֹקוֹת דְּגוֹיִם.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

וְאָמַר רָבָא: סַךְ מַקְרֵי דַרְדְּקֵי – עֶשְׂרִין וְחַמְשָׁה יָנוֹקֵי. וְאִי אִיכָּא חַמְשִׁין – מוֹתְבִינַן תְּרֵי; וְאִי אִיכָּא אַרְבְּעִין – מוֹקְמִינַן רֵישׁ דּוּכְנָא, וּמְסַיְּיעִין לֵיהּ מִמָּתָא.

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.

וְאָמַר רָבָא: הַאי מַקְרֵי יָנוֹקֵי דְּגָרֵיס, וְאִיכָּא אַחֲרִינָא דְּגָרֵיס טְפֵי מִינֵּיהּ – לָא מְסַלְּקִינַן לֵיהּ, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִיתְרַשּׁוֹלֵי. רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אָמַר: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּגָרֵיס טְפֵי – קִנְאַת סוֹפְרִים תַּרְבֶּה חָכְמָה.

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.

וְאָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי תְּרֵי מַקְרֵי דַרְדְּקֵי – חַד גָּרֵיס וְלָא דָּיֵיק, וְחַד דָּיֵיק וְלָא גָּרֵיס – מוֹתְבִינַן הָהוּא דְּגָרֵיס וְלָא דָּיֵיק; שַׁבֶּשְׁתָּא מִמֵּילָא נָפְקָא. רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אָמַר: מוֹתְבִינַן דְּדָיֵיק וְלָא גָּרֵיס; שַׁבֶּשְׁתָּא, כֵּיוָן דְּעָל – עָל;

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.

דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת חֳדָשִׁים יָשַׁב שָׁם יוֹאָב וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד הִכְרִית כׇּל זָכָר בֶּאֱדוֹם״. כִּי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּדָוִד, אֲמַר לֵיהּ:

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:

מַאי טַעְמָא עֲבַדְתְּ הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״תִּמְחֶה אֶת זְכַר עֲמָלֵק״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא אֲנַן ״זֵכֶר״ קָרֵינַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא ״זְכַר״ אַקְרְיוּן. אֲזַל שַׁיְילֵיהּ לְרַבֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵיאַךְ אַקְרִיתַן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״זֵכֶר״.

What is the reason that you did that? Why did you kill only the males? Joab said to him: As it is written: You shall blot out the males [zakhar] of Amalek, i.e., the male descendants of Amalek, who descend from Edom. David said to him: But we read the verse as stating: “You shall blot out the remembrance [zekher] of Amalek” (Deuteronomy 25:19). Joab said to him: I was taught to read it as zakhar. Joab went and asked his childhood Bible teacher. Joab said to him: How did you read this word to us? The teacher said to him: I read it as zekher. The teacher had read it the proper way, but he failed to notice that his student had learned it incorrectly.

שְׁקַל סַפְסִירָא לְמִיקְטְלֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אָרוּר עֹשֶׂה מְלֶאכֶת ה׳ רְמִיָּה״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁבְקֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּלֵיקוּם בְּאָרוּר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, כְּתִיב: ״וְאָרוּר מֹנֵעַ חַרְבּוֹ מִדָּם״! אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: קַטְלֵיהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: לָא קַטְלֵיהּ.

Joab took a sword to kill him. The teacher said to him: Why do you want to kill me? Joab said to him: As it is written: “Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord with a slack hand” (Jeremiah 48:10), and you taught me incorrectly. The teacher said to him: Leave that man to remain as cursed. This is a sufficient punishment; there is no need to kill me. Joab said to him: It is also written: “And cursed is he who keeps back his sword from blood” (Jeremiah 48:10). There are those who say that Joab killed him, and there are those who say that he did not kill him. In any event, this episode demonstrates that an error learned in one’s childhood stays with him his whole life.

וְאָמַר רָבָא: מַקְרֵי יָנוֹקָא, שַׁתָּלָא, טַבָּחָא, וְאוּמָּנָא, וְסוֹפֵר מָתָא – כּוּלָּן כְּמוּתְרִין וְעוֹמְדִין נִינְהוּ. כְּלָלָא דְּמִילְּתָא: כׇּל פְּסֵידָא דְּלָא הָדַר – מוּתְרֶה וְעוֹמֵד הוּא.

And Rava says: With regard to a teacher of children, a professional tree planter, a butcher, a bloodletter, and a town scribe, all these are considered forewarned. In other words, they need not be exhorted to perform their jobs correctly, as if they err in the performance of their duties they can be dismissed immediately. The principle of the matter is: With regard to any case where loss is irreversible, the individual is considered forewarned.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַאי בַּר מְבוֹאָה דְּאוֹקִי רִיחְיָא, וַאֲתָא בַּר מְבוֹאָה חַבְרֵיהּ וְקָמוֹקֵי גַּבֵּיהּ – דִּינָא הוּא דִּמְעַכֵּב עִילָּוֵיהּ. דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: קָא פָּסְקַתְּ לֵיהּ לְחַיּוּתִי.

§ Rav Huna said: There was a certain resident of an alleyway who set up a mill in the alleyway and earned his living grinding grain for people. And subsequently another resident of the alleyway came and set up a mill next to his. The halakha is that the first one may prevent him from doing so if he wishes, as he can say to him: You are disrupting my livelihood by taking my customers.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: מַרְחִיקִים מְצוּדַת הַדָּג מִן הַדָּג – כִּמְלֹא רִיצַת הַדָּג. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: עַד פַּרְסָה. שָׁאנֵי דָּגִים, דְּיָהֲבִי סְיָיארָא.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports his opinion: One must distance fish traps from fish, i.e., from other fish traps, as far as the fish travels, i.e., the distance from which the fish will travel. The Gemara asks: And how much is this distance? Rabba bar Rav Huna says: Up to a parasang [parsa]. This indicates that one must distance himself from the place where another has established his business. The Gemara responds that this is no proof: Perhaps fish are different, as they look around. One fish explores the area ahead of the others, indicating to them where to go. Once they encounter the first trap they will not approach the second.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: לֵימָא רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא יְחַלֵּק חֶנְוָנִי קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִין לְתִינוֹקוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמֵּרְגִילָן אֶצְלוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין.

Ravina said to Rava: Shall we say that Rav Huna spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 60a): Rabbi Yehuda says: A storekeeper may not hand out toasted grain and nuts to children who patronize his store, due to the fact that he thereby accustoms them to come to him at the expense of competing storekeepers. And the Rabbis permit doing so. This indicates that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, all forms of competition are prohibited, which would include the scenario concerning the mill.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן; עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָתָם – אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא קָמְפַלֵּגְינָא אַמְגּוֹזֵי, אַתְּ פְּלוֹג שְׁיוּסְקֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא – אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָא פָּסְקַתְּ לֵיהּ לְחַיּוּתִי.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You may even say that Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda only there, as the storekeeper can say to his competitor: If I distribute walnuts, you can distribute almonds [shiyuskei]. But here, with regard to a resident of an alleyway who sets up a mill in that alleyway where another mill already exists, even the Rabbis concede that the owner of the first mill can say to him: You are disrupting my livelihood, as beforehand whoever required grinding came to me, and you have provided them with another option.

מֵיתִיבִי: עוֹשֶׂה אָדָם חֲנוּת בְּצַד חֲנוּתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וּמֶרְחָץ בְּצַד מֶרְחָצוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ; וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלְּךָ, וַאֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּי!

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A man may establish a shop alongside the shop of another, and a bathhouse alongside the bathhouse of another, and the other cannot protest, because the newcomer can say to him: You operate in your space, and I operate in my space.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: כּוֹפִין בְּנֵי מְבוֹאוֹת זֶה אֶת זֶה – שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹשִׁיב בֵּינֵיהֶן לֹא חַיָּיט, וְלֹא בּוּרְסְקִי, וְלֹא מְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת, וְלֹא אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת; וְלִשְׁכֵנוֹ אֵינוֹ כּוֹפֵיהוּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף לִשְׁכֵנוֹ כּוֹפֵיהוּ.

The Gemara answers: This entire matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The residents of an alleyway can compel one another to agree not to allow among them in that alleyway a tailor, a tanner, a teacher of children, nor any type of craftsman. They can bar outside craftsmen from plying their trade in that alleyway. But one cannot compel his neighbor, i.e., one who already lives in the alleyway, to refrain from practicing a particular occupation there. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One can even compel his neighbor not to conduct such work in the alleyway. Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי – בַּר מָתָא אַבַּר מָתָא אַחֲרִיתִי, מָצֵי מְעַכֵּב. וְאִי שָׁיֵיךְ בִּכְרָגָא דְּהָכָא, לָא מָצֵי מְעַכֵּב. בַּר מְבוֹאָה אַבַּר מְבוֹאָה דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ – לָא מָצֵי מְעַכֵּב.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: It is obvious to me that a resident of one town can prevent a resident of another town from establishing a similar business in the locale of the first individual. But if he pays the tax of that first town, he cannot prevent him from doing business there, as he too is considered a resident of the town. The resident of an alleyway cannot prevent a resident of his alleyway from practicing a particular trade there, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in the baraita, and contrary to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

בָּעֵי רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: בַּר מְבוֹאָה אַבַּר מְבוֹאָה אַחֲרִינָא, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: וּמוֹדֵי רַב הוּנָא בְּמַקְרֵי דַרְדְּקֵי – דְּלָא מָצֵי מְעַכֵּב, דְּאָמַר מָר: עֶזְרָא תִּיקֵּן לָהֶן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיְּהוּ מוֹשִׁיבִין סוֹפֵר בְּצַד סוֹפֵר.

With these conclusions in mind, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raises a dilemma: With regard to a resident of one alleyway protesting about a resident of another alleyway conducting business there, what is the halakha? No answer was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved. Rav Yosef said: And Rav Huna, who said that a resident of an alleyway can prevent another from setting up an additional mill, concedes with regard to those who teach children that one cannot prevent him from working, as the Master said: Ezra instituted an ordinance for the Jewish people requiring that they establish one teacher alongside another teacher, to raise the standard of teaching.

וְנֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְאִיתְרַשּׁוֹלֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ:

The Gemara challenges: And let us be concerned lest the teachers will thereby come to be negligent. Rav Yosef said to the Sage who raised this objection: