Assertion: This is the same whom Rav Yosef said (Yevamos 61a) that Marsa Bas Baisus gave three Kabim of Dinarim (coins) to Yanai ha'Melech until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla to be Kohen Gadol.

He was a total Tzadik, like we find here.

Implied question: Why does it say there "I see a band of Resha'im here" [regarding the bribe to appoint Yehoshua]?

Answer: There were others more distinguished [and worthy to be Kohen Gadol] than he.

Alternate text: Some texts do not say v'Limadtem Atem. We expound "v'Limadtem", which connotes "by yourselves."

Explanation: Because one would see great Kedushah and Kohanim engaging in Avodah, he would direct his heart more to Yir'as Shamayim and to learn Torah;

Source: We expound in the Sifri "Lema'an Tilmad Leyir'ah..." - Ma'aser Sheni is great, for it brings to learning Torah;

One would stay in Yerushalayim until he finished consuming his Ma'aser Sheni, and he would see everyone engaging in Hash-m's service and Avodah (Korbanos), also he would intend for Yir'as Shamayim and engage in Torah;

Explanation: A healthy boy begins at six. A weak boy begins at seven.

Implied question: It says in Pirkei Avos (5:21) that a five year old begins to learn written Torah!

Answer: That refers to one who is totally healthy, like it says in Kesuvos (50a) "one who teaches his son below six, he runs after him and cannot reach him (cure him)";

Version #2: Some say that his peers run after him and cannot reach him (his level of learning)";

Explanation #1: Both of these are true. He will be sickly, and learned.

Explanation #2: [The former] discusses a weak boy. [The latter] discusses a healthy boy.

Explanation (Rashba): The text does not say "Mavoy", rather, "Chatzer."

Proof #1: If the text said "Mavoy", we should challenge Abaye, who permits in another Chatzer!

Proof #2: Also, [we should ask a contradiction from the Beraisa (21b),] which permits to set up a store next to another's store. At the least, it permits in another Chatzer [in the same Mavoy].

Proof #3: Rava does not argue with Abaye [about the Halachah], just [Rava] establishes our Mishnah, which permits, even in the same Chatzer [for Talmud Torah. He agrees that one cannot protest about children entering another Chatzer, even not for Talmud Torah. If the text says "Mavoy",] here we forbid even in another Chatzer! (Proof #1 applies also regarding Rava.)

Conclusion: Rather, the text says "Chatzer".

Question: Why is a weaver different than the owner of a mill? Our Mishnah teaches that one cannot protest and say "I cannot sleep due to the noise of the mill or hammer"!

Answer: Our Mishnah discusses one who does [with a mill or hammer] for himself. Here we discuss one who weaves for others, so people enter and leave.

Question #1: It says below (21b) "if someone in the Mavoy set up a mill... he can stop him (another who wants to set one up), for he says "you infringe on my income!"

Inference: If not for infringing on his income, he would be able to set up a mill, even though he does (grinds) for others!

Question #2: Also, a Beraisa below (21b) says that one may set up a store next to another's store..., even though many enter and leave!

Poor answer: We distinguish, and say that there, already people enter and leave due to the mill or store of the first [therefore it is permitted, if he does not infringe on the first's income].

[Proper] Answer #1: There, we permit in another Chatzer.

Answer #2: Also our Mishnah discusses one who does for others. Regarding a mill and the noise of a hammer, people do not enter and leave so much, for they give to him once, and he grinds;

Regarding a weaver, many enter and leave, for many bring yarn to him.

Inference: If he were not a teacher, it would be permitted to rent to a Nochri.

Question: In Bava Kama (114a), we say that if a Yisrael who sold land to a Nochri bordering on the land of another Yisrael, we excommunicate the seller, for [the other Yisrael] says "you put a lion on my border"!

Poor answer: We distinguish between a sale and rental.

[Proper] Answer (Ri): There, a Yisrael wanted to buy. If no Yisrael wants to buy, it is permitted [to sell to a Nochri].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He teaches children of the entire city. There is a great noise.

Objection: Below (21b), Rava says that a teacher or Sofer Masa is like one who was warned (if he errs, he is discharged immediately), for it is a loss that does not return.

Surely, this applies also to one who teaches all children of the city. [It would suffice to teach "a teacher."] Why did it need to mention also Sofer Masa?

Explanation #2: In Bava Metzi'a (97a), Rashi explained that Sofer Masa cuts the hair of people of the city.

Objection: Here, the Beraisa says Sofer! (A barber is called "Sapar", without a Vov.)

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): Sofer Masa writes documents of the city. Therefore, below it is considered a loss that does not return, i.e. if the document was written improperly.

Explanation: This is when there are 25 children. It is proper to hire a teacher for them.

Question: If we would take them to another city, they would require their own teacher, since there are 25 children. What difference does it make?

Answer: It makes a difference when there are two teachers in the other city. They could put half the children in front of one, and half in front of the other. (Here, there is only one teacher. He will need to teach all of them by himself.)

Explanation: If there are less than this, people of the city cannot force each other to hire a teacher.

Explanation (R. Chananel): His Rebbi read "Zecher" properly. The fraud was that he did not pay attention to know how his Talmid reads. It seems that this is correct.

It is unreasonable to say that also his Rebbi erred, and taught him Zachar. If so, the Rebbi was not fraudulent!

Note: Why didn't Yo'av hear the correct Keri'ah every year at Parshas Zachor? Terumas ha'Deshen says that it is a Torah Mitzvah to read it with a Minyan! However, Mishnah Berurah (685:16, and Sha'ar ha'Tziyun 5) questioned his source. Yalkut Yosef (Hilchos Mo'adim, Keri'os Parshiyos Shekalim..., Ha'arah 12) says that our Gemara connotes that an individual can fulfill the Torah Mitzvah. Afterwards, Chachamim decreed to read it in a Minyan.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He wrote a Sefer Torah with a mistake.

Rebuttal: This is not a loss that does not return. They can fix it!

Explanation #2: Rather, it is like I explained above. He writes documents.

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Bava Metzi'a): This is a loss that does not return, for once he learns incorrectly, the mistake stays with him.

Question (Ri): Rava himself holds above the mistake goes away automatically!

Explanation #2 (Ri): It is a loss that does not return, for the time that he taught to them wrong, they were Batel [from learning true Torah], and he cannot return that time to them.

Question: What is the loss [that warrants immediately discharge without warning]? If he causes a loss, he pays!

Answer: He does not cause a loss, but he is negligent. The saplings do not grow like they are proper to grow.

Implied question: R. Tam explains that regarding a Hefker matter, he is not even called a Rasha!

Source #1 (Pe'ah 4:3 - Mishnah): If Ploni spread his garment over Pe'ah, [another Oni] may take it!

Source #2 (Bava Metzi'a 10a): If one saw a Metzi'ah and fell on it, and someone else came and seized it, the latter acquired it;

The only case in which he is called a Rasha is regarding an Oni Mehafech b'Chararah, and someone else took it, for if he is not hired here, he can be hired elsewhere.

Note: R. Tam (Kidushin 59a) explains that Oni Mehafech b'Chararah is one who seeks to be hired, or to buy something.

Answer #1: Our Sugya is not difficult. Even though it is Hefker, in any case he can find several places to spread his trap.

Answer #2: Also, here this is his profession.

Observation: In Bava Basra (54b) it says that property of Kena'anim (Nochrim, that a Yisrael paid for,) is [Hefker] like a Midbar. Whoever makes Chazakah in it acquires it;

Citation (54b): What is the reason? The Nochri, once the money comes to his hand, he removes himself from it. The Yisrael does not acquire it until the document comes to his hand.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): The Yisrael who makes Chazakah is called a Rasha.

Explanation #2: According to R. Tam, he is not even called a Rasha, since he will not find [Hefker land] elsewhere.

Question (Rashba): It says in Bava Metzi'a (73b) Rav Mari bar Rachel took a house for collateral from a Nochri. Rava bought it. [Rav Mari] waited 12 months and took the rent for the house and gave it to Rava;

He said "I did not give rent until now, because it was taught that a Stam mortgage is for a year, and the Nochri could not remove me."

Since Rav Mari's Chazakah preceded Rava's, Rav Mari acquired it, because property of Nochrim is like a Midbar. If [one who takes it] is called a Rasha, we understand why Rav Mari did not want to acquire it;

Summation of question: However, according to R. Tam, he is not even called a Rasha. Why didn't Rav Mari acquire it, since it was totally permitted?

Answer #1: Perhaps Rav Mari went beyond the letter of the law.

Answer #2 (Riva): Rav Mari's Chazakah was only for a security. Rava bought [from the Nochri] with a document, and acquired it, and afterwards he paid the money. (See also Tosfos Kidushin 59a, Bava Metzi'a 73b.)

Question (Rashba): Why didn't we bring the Mishnah above? No matter how you explain, R. Yehudah, who says that a grocer may not give nuts to children, argues with this Beraisa!

Answer: Perhaps we prefer to bring Tana'im who explicitly argue about this.

Explanation #1 (Ri): We discuss one who teaches Nochri children.

Observation: It is impossible to say so if the text above says "one of the members of the Mavoy", for we establish this to discuss Nochri children, and people of the my can stop him;

Here we say that he cannot force his neighbor, and even R. Shimon ben Gamliel argues only because he infringes on his income. However, he was not concerned for the noise of children;

However, based on what I explained above, that the text says "one of the members of the Chatzer", this is fine.

Explanation #2 (Rashba): Here we discuss Yisrael children, and even after the enactment of Yehoshua ben Gamla. Here is different, for there is already another teacher of children there.

Implied question: Above, Rav Huna said that one cannot protest against a teacher of children, even though he holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel!

Answer: We must say that R. Shimon ben Gamliel does not argue about a teacher of children, only about the other matters.

Explanation: Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua holds like Rabanan. He asks whether a member of the Mavoy can stop another member of the Mavoy. Is he in the category of "his neighbor", or not, like Rashi explained.

We hold like him (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua) against Rav Huna, for he is Basra (later).

Explanation: This refers to people of the city. People of the Mavoy can stop him from entering their Mavoy.