Siman 245

Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from talmud Torah, as it is written: "And you shall teach them to your sons, to speak of them" – your sons and not your daughters. And every mitzvah from which a woman is exempt – the slave is exempt. And minors are not subject to obligation. However, the father is obligated to teach him Torah, as is explicit in the Torah: "And you shall teach them to your sons," which implies both adults and minors. And the plain meaning of "son" is a minor, as we say "son" – and not a man (at the beginning of the eighth chapter of Sanhedrin, see there). And this is what our sages, of blessed memory, said (Sukkah 42a): A minor who knows how to speak – his father teaches him Torah and Kriat Shema. What is "Torah"? Meaning: behold, does he not yet understand? Rav Hamnuna said: "The Torah that Moses commanded us is the heritage of the congregation of Jacob." Meaning: he should learn only this verse, to root in his heart a faithful belief that the Torah was given to us from Heaven, and it exists forever and for all eternity. And what is Kriat Shema? The first verse, "Hear O Israel," to root in his heart the belief in the oneness of Hashem.

And that which we learned in Avot, "at five years old to Mikra" – this is to bring him slightly into the yoke. And until five years, it is only a general habituation, and this is in the fourth year when his speech is completed, and he shall prepare to speak thus. And your sign is: "three years they shall be forbidden to you... and in the fifth year... to increase for you its yield." And they shall habituate him with letters and vowels until he knows how to read the words. And from five years old he shall teach him Mikra, and that is in the fifth year, for then he teaches him to read the Written Torah little by little. And he teaches him in his home until six years old if he is healthy, or seven years old if he is weak. And afterward, he brings him to a teacher of children to read in the Torah all day.

And know that what we have explained is according to the words of the Semag (Positive Commandment 12) who wrote, and this is his wording: A minor, from the time he knows how to speak – his father teaches him, until he is six years old or seven years old according to his health – he brings him to the teachers of children, etc. Thus far his words. And so wrote one of the great ones in his Laws of Talmud Torah (the Ha-Ga-Ra-Sh-Z). And he explained there that what they said in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 30a): Until where is a man obligated to teach his son Torah? And it is explained there that the obligation is only on Scripture, see there – this is what is required for him to teach him by himself. But in truth, the obligation is upon the father to teach him also Mishnah and Gemara, only not by himself, but rather he should bring him to a teacher. And he brought proof from what they said there that "he is to learn and his son is to learn," that if his son is more discerning and intelligent than he – his son precedes him. And if it should enter your mind that this is not a positive commandment, how could his own commandment of Talmud Torah be pushed aside because of his son?

In my humble opinion, it is impossible to say so, for Rashi, of blessed memory, explained explicitly, and this is his wording: He does not teach him Mishnah – the obligation for his son is only in Mikra; from here on, he shall learn for himself. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Ran, see there. Behold, they explained explicitly that for more than Mikra there is no obligation upon the father at all, only upon him alone like all the mitzvot in the Torah. And that which they said, "he is to learn and his son is to learn," that when his son is more fit than he, his son precedes him, Rashi already explained there, and this is his wording: And he does not have sufficient assets for both of them to learn – his son shall learn, and he shall toil for sustenance and provide for him. Thus far his words. Behold explicitly, that in such a case it is not specifically regarding a father and son, for the same law applies to two others, like that of Shimon the brother of Azaryah (Sotah 21a) and like Issachar and Zebulun, for the reward and the mitzvah belong to both of them equally, that this one shall learn and this one shall support him, and like that which Shevna requested from Hillel in Sotah ibid. And what is the connection between this and that? Furthermore, that great man raised a difficulty: how is it possible that the Talmud would be contrary to the Sifrei, which said "And you shall teach them diligently to your sons" – these are the students, see there. I do not know what the master is saying. On the contrary, there is proof for our words from the Sifrei when we examine closely: From where does the Sifrei know that "your sons" are students? Perhaps "your sons" literally, as in the verse "And you shall teach them to your sons"? Rather, it is because to the Sifrei it is obvious that there is no obligation upon the father except to teach the son Mikra and not with "shinnun" (diligent teaching), for "shinnun" is only relevant to Mishnah and Gemara, as is understood. Therefore, it expounded that the intent is for students, meaning: that one who is great in Torah – certainly an obligation is upon him to explain the Torah of Hashem before anyone who wishes to learn, and this is not a matter at all for the obligations of the father toward the son. (And see there in the Kuntres Acharon in the gloss, how much he pressed himself in the words of Rashi. And the forced explanations are clear to every examiner, see there. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

Rather, the clarification of these matters is as follows in my humble opinion: For behold, a minor is exempt from all the mitzvot, and the father is also not obligated that the minor perform mitzvot. For that which we maintain that we are obligated to train the minor—this is rabbinic, as Rashi wrote at the end of the third chapter of Sukkah. But from the Torah, there is no obligation at all to train him. And behold, even if a minor eats nevelot—we are not commanded to separate him (Yevamot 114a). And if so, what is the difference regarding the study of Torah that the Torah obligated the father to teach him? However, the reason is understood: For granted regarding mitzvot—he will fulfill them when he grows up. But if he does not know Torah at all until he grows up, then when he grows up he will be like a wild man and will go out to evil ways, for where there is no Torah there are no mitzvot. Therefore the Torah obligated: "And you shall teach them to your sons"—to habituate him in Torah. And therefore the Shas asked: To what extent is a man obligated to teach his son Torah etc.? That is to say: For it is obvious that what the Torah obligated is not because of an obligation upon the minor, such that we would say he is obligated to teach him the entire Torah, for behold, in a minor there is no obligation. Rather, the reason is in order to habituate him in the Torah of Hashem. And if so, it is obvious that he does not need the entire Torah in its entirety. And to this it says "Mikra," that is to say: That when he habituates him in Mikra—it is enough. And when he grows up—he will study Mishnah and Gemara by himself, according to the explanation of Rashi and the Ran. And to this the Sifrei comes to say that if so, what is that which is written "And you shall teach them diligently (veshinantam) to your sons"? For behold, "shinun" refers to halakhot, and this is not an obligation upon the father at all. And to this it explains: These are the students, as I have written. And see in section 15.

And from the enactment of Yehoshua ben Gamla, they established teachers in every single city (Bava Batra 21a), because those who did not have a father would grow up without Torah, as we say there: They enacted that they should bring into the cheder children of six or seven years, both those who have a father and those who do not have a father. Because with the teachers they would also learn Mishnah and Gemara, and regarding this we learned in Avot: "At ten for Mishnah, at fifteen for Gemara." For upon the father there was no such obligation, as I have written. It follows that after the enactment things changed: for previously the father would teach him until thirteen years only Mikra, and now the father only teaches him the main principles like "Torah tziva" and "Shema Yisrael" to root the faith as I have written, and the forms of the letters and their vowels, until six or seven. And afterwards he brings him into the cheder, and the teacher teaches him Mikra and Mishnah, etc.

And according to this, that which the Semag wrote, that he teaches him until six or seven and afterwards brings him to a teacher, this is not from the essential Torah law but rather from the enactment onwards, as the law was established thus. And a person's agent is like himself, and therefore they compel the father regarding the tuition fee, because it is his mitzvah and it is incumbent upon him. And the essence of the enactment was because of orphans, but since they saw that this was better for everyone—the law remained so for all sons. And this is what the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote, that a man is obligated to hire a teacher for his son—this is all because of the enactment of Yehoshua ben Gamla. And through this, Torah increased, as we say in Bava Batra ibid. And the intention of the Semag is also thus. And the Shas in Kiddushin explains the obligation according to Torah law, that it is only from Scripture. And Rashi explained: Torah. (And the Bach wrote that from the Rambam and the Tur it implies also Prophets and Hagiographa, see there. And in my opinion they do not disagree at all: for Rashi explains according to the Torah obligation, and the Rambam and the Tur wrote the ruling as it is after the enactment.)

Therefore, it is a positive commandment upon every man to teach his son Torah. And if he has no father, or if his father did not teach him—he is obligated to learn for himself when he grows up. And in all the cities of Israel there are Talmud Torahs, where they place orphans and the children of the poor to teach them Torah, and the wages of the teachers are given from the community fund. And just as it is a commandment to teach his son, so too it is a commandment to teach his grandson, as it is written: "And you shall make them known to your children and your children's children." And the same law applies to his daughter's son, for what is the difference? And not to them alone, rather it is a commandment upon every sage of Israel to teach students, as we expound in the Sifrei: "And you shall teach them diligently to your children"—these are the students who are called "children," as it is written: "the children of the prophets," who were the students of the prophets. For "son" [ben] is an expression of "building" [binyan]. And the teacher builds a building for his students in this world and in the world to come. And this is what our sages, of blessed memory, said: "Do not read 'your children' [banayikh] but 'your builders' [bonayikh]," meaning: that "your children" is defined as "your builders," as I have written. And even though it is a commandment for everyone, nevertheless, his son takes precedence over his grandson, and his grandson over his daughter's son, and his daughter's son over all other people. And the closer relative takes precedence.

One is obligated to hire a melamed for his son unless he studies with him himself, just as with a melamed. However, for the son of his fellow, he is not obligated to hire one alone, but rather as part of all the city residents to establish a Talmud Torah, as I have written. And they compel him to hire a melamed for his son. If he is not in the city and has assets, if it is possible to inform him—they inform him. And if not—they descend to his assets and hire a melamed for his son. And also for his grandson, and his great-grandson, and his daughter's son—they compel him to hire one to teach them when his hand can afford it and the hand of their fathers cannot afford it, or if they have no fathers. And so too, they force all the city residents to establish a Talmud Torah, to seat melamdim to teach the children of the poor and orphans. And they compel regarding this, that each one should give a donation for this or from the community fund. And any city that does not have melamdim for children—its end is to be destroyed, and one separates from it. And the world only exists by the breath of the mouths of the children of the house of their teacher (Shabbat 119b). And so it is the custom in all the dispersions of Israel that they should have houses of Talmud Torah, and the children of the poor and orphans go there, and they supervise them to feed them and clothe them until they grow in years. And then, one who is capable in Torah—they support him for study. And those who are not capable—they give them to craftsmen to teach them a trade. And more will be explained regarding this in siman 249.

And perhaps you will say: Since in every single city there is a general Talmud Torah, if so, how is it found that one coerces a father to hire a teacher for his son? For the father will say: "Let my son go to the Talmud Torah. Behold, I also contribute to this charity, and why should my son not go there?" And the answer to this is: That certainly when he is poor he can say so. But middle-class householders, and all the more so the wealthy – they do not allow their sons to go to the Talmud Torah unless he gives a great deal of money. And there is a benefit in this for the children of the poor, according to the assessment of the gabbaim. But without this they do not allow them, for if the sons of the householders enter the Talmud Torah – there will remain no room for the sons of the poor. And so we consistently rule as practical halacha. (However, regarding the son of his son or the son of his daughter, if he is not very wealthy he may bring them into the Talmud Torah. And everything is according to the assessment.)

And they may compel one another regarding the Talmud Torah of children. And even though in Shabbat (Shabbat 32b) there is one who holds that "so that your days may increase" is written regarding Talmud Torah, see there, and thus its reward is stated alongside it, nevertheless they may compel regarding it because the entire existence of the Torah depends upon this. And the entire world depends upon Talmud Torah, as it is written: "If not for My covenant day and night, I would not have set the laws of heaven and earth." Therefore, one must be very, very careful regarding the study of children of the house of their teacher. And one brings a child to learn at five full years of age for the sixth year, when he is healthy. And at less than this, one does not bring him. And if the child is weak—one waits for him another year, so that he is six full years of age for the seventh year. And it is customary to begin with them in Parashat Vayikra regarding the matter of sacrifices, so that the pure may come and occupy themselves with pure things. And there are further reasons for this. And even if there is a child who does not understand how to read well—one should not remove him from there, but rather he should sit with the others for companionship and perhaps he will understand.

And the teacher shall teach with them all day and a portion of the night, in order to train them to study by day and by night. And the children shall not be idle at all, except for the eve of Shabbat and the eve of Yom Tov at the end of the day. And also on Roshei Chodashim the custom is to release them at the end of the day, and likewise on Chanukah. And according to the custom – so shall they do. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said (Shabbat 119b) that we do not interrupt the children even for the building of the Beit HaMikdash. And Heaven forbid that the teacher should strike them the blow of an enemy with cruel discipline, neither with whips nor with a rod, but rather with a small strap. And it is brought in Nedarim (Nedarim 37a) that we do not read with the children on Shabbat a new matter, which they have not yet learned, for it is difficult for them to understand due to the exertion of Shabbat. But that which they have read one time – we review with them on Shabbat. (See Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 7, who wrote that all the more so an old matter that they already learned should not be reviewed with them, for learning an old matter is harder than a new one, see there. And it is not so, for that refers to analytical study, which is not the case regarding the study of children.)

We learned in Avot (Avot chapter 5, mishna 21): "A five-year-old for Mikra, a ten-year-old for Mishna, a fifteen-year-old for Talmud." And the poskim did not cite this. And it appears that because in their days the entire Mikra was written without vocalization, like our sefer Torah, and they needed to be proficient by heart in their vocalization and cantillation marks, and the keri and ketiv, and the deficient and full spellings—they required five years for this, which is not the case in our time. And likewise, they would learn the Mishna by heart, and they required five years to be proficient by heart in every dispute of the Tannaim, which is not the case in this time. And behold, we see that it is almost among the impossibilities to engage in Mikra for five years, and in Mishna for five years. Furthermore, the Babylonian Talmud is comprised of all of them, as our teacher Tam wrote in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 30a), see there.

By Torah law, one must teach Torah for free and not for payment, as it is written: "See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances as Hashem my G-d commanded me" – just as I taught you for free, so too you, when you teach one another, shall teach for free. Nevertheless, teachers of children are permitted to receive payment by law, because children require supervision, and he takes the payment for the supervision. So too, if the teacher does not engage in any business except for teaching – he is permitted to take payment, for this is "payment for idleness," meaning: he takes the payment not for the teaching but for the fact that he is idle from all work and from all business. And this is the permission for the rabbis and the dayanim who receive payment for this reason, as will be explained in siman 246.

This is the wording of the Tur, and Shulchan Aruch section 6 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 245, 6): If it was the custom in the city that a melamed of children takes a fee—one is obligated to teach him for a fee until he reads the entire Written Torah. But he is not obligated to teach him Mishnah and Gemara for a fee. And these words apply when it is not possible, for his circumstances are strained. But if it is possible for him—it is a mitzvah to teach him Mishnah and Gemara, laws and aggadot. Thus far their words. And in "Written Torah," Prophets and Writings are also included (Bach and Taz and Shach). And the explanation of the matters is as I wrote in section 5, that the obligation upon the father is only in the Written Torah alone. Therefore, since the Torah obligated him in this, even if his circumstances are strained, he is obligated to teach him even for a fee, and to hire a melamed for him if he cannot teach him himself. But Mishnah and Gemara, which he is not under an obligation to teach him, and it is not an obligatory mitzvah even though it is a great mitzvah, nevertheless we do not compel him to pay a melamed when his circumstances are strained. Rather, he should learn by himself, or go to the house of Talmud Torah and the like. However, if he is wealthy, we certainly compel him even for Mishnah and Gemara, for it should be no less than general tzedakah—and we compel regarding tzedakah, as I wrote in siman 248. And all the more so Talmud Torah, which is weighed against all the mitzvot, and this is the pillar of the world. And there is also tzedakah in this, in what the melamed takes, as is understood. (And from this there is also proof for what we wrote there with the help of Heaven. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

A teacher of children who leaves the children and goes out, or who performs other work with them, or who is negligent in his teaching—behold, he is included in "Cursed is he who does the work of Hashem deceitfully." And if he takes tuition—he is also a thief. Therefore, one should only appoint a teacher who is God-fearing, and swift to read and to be precise, and who understands how to supervise the children, and who loves them and guides them in the Torah of Hashem. A teacher must not stay awake at night excessively, so that his strength does not fail him from teaching them properly during the day. Likewise, he shall not fast except for public fasts, and he shall not afflict himself regarding food and drink. And likewise the opposite, not to eat and drink excessively, for all these things bring about laziness and weakness, such that he will not have the ability to teach well with them. And anyone who deviates—his hand is at a disadvantage. And not only is he not performing a mitzvah, but he is committing a transgression. And we remove him without warning, because it is an irreversible loss, as I wrote in Choshen Mishpat siman 306. And in Sefer Chasidim (siman 124) it is written that a person should not stand to speak much with a teacher of children, lest he cause them to be idle through his words. The rest of the laws of teachers were explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 334 and 335, see there.

If there are two teachers available to hire, one who reads much with the children but is not meticulous in making them understand the plain meaning correctly, and one who is the opposite, who does not read much with them but is meticulous in making them understand correctly—we hire this second one who is more meticulous. For once a mistake has entered, it has entered, and it is difficult to remove the error from the child (Bava Batra 21a). And the Gemara brings that Yoav stumbled because his teacher was not meticulous with him as is proper in the reading of a verse, see there.

The Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 18 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 245:18) wrote: If there is a teacher here who teaches children, and another comes who is better than him—we remove the first because of the second. Thus far their words. And it appears that the same law applies in the previous case, for the second is better than him. And there is one who does not say so (see Pitchei Teshuva subsection 11), but it is not clear. And know that this law is in the Gemara there, and thus it is stated there: And Rava said: A teacher of children who is diligent, and there is another who is more diligent than him—we do not remove him, lest he come to be negligent. That is to say: he will boast in his heart that there is none like him, and he will become negligent, etc. (Rashi). Rav Dimi said: All the more so will he be diligent—envy among scribes increases wisdom. And we hold like Rav Dimi.

And it is clearly implied that even if he teaches for a wage—we remove him. For if it were not so, they should have specified. And so it is clearly explained from the language of the Shas and the poskim, that we remove him even in the middle of the term, for at the end of the term "removing him" is not applicable, since the term of the hiring has concluded. Furthermore: if it were so, the poskim should have explained this. And if so, it is seemingly not understood: why should the melamed be worse than any other worker, for an employer cannot retract during the middle of his hiring term when he finds no defect in his work? For would it be that if there is a craftsman greater than him, he may remove this one during his term? Behold, only a worker may retract during the term, because: "For the children of Israel are servants to Me," as I wrote in Choshen Mishpat siman 333. And from this is a proof to what we innovated in Choshen Mishpat there, section 8, that the employer may also retract just like the worker. And we brought this from the Yerushalmi, see there. And we explained there the reason for the matter, see there. And according to this it works out well, for the melamed has the law of a worker, and if so, the employer may retract. Therefore, when there is a benefit to the child in Torah—the sages permitted him to hire another melamed better than him. And there it was explained that the law of the melamed is like the law of a worker, see there.

A teacher who does not dwell with his wife in this city – shall not be a teacher of children, because their mothers bring the children to the cheder, and they may come to be in yichud due to the great familiarity between them. However, when he has a wife in the city, even if she is not in the school but rather she is in her home, and he teaches in his place – it is permitted. And the reason: for in truth it is far from a concern of yichud, as there are many children in this house. Rather, the concern is because of the great familiarity with them. And so it is explained by Rashi at the end of Kiddushin, see there. Therefore, if only his wife is in the city – they did not concern themselves with this. For it appears that the primary concern is lest, out of familiarity, he will go with her to the room where he sleeps. But when his wife is in the city – there is no concern in this, as is understood. And it seems to me that they are not careful in this now. And perhaps because among us it is not the way of the mothers to bring the children to the school, but rather they come on their own or a man leads them. And so too, a woman shall not teach male children, because of their fathers who bring their sons occasionally. And in this there is more concern, as is understood; therefore it does not avail even if she has a husband in the city. And the proof: for regarding her, this permission was not mentioned in the Gemara or in the poskim – learn from this that even in such a case it is forbidden.

It has already been explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 156 that even though regarding all types of crafts the residents of an alleyway or the residents of a courtyard may protest against one who wishes to practice, nevertheless regarding Talmud Torah they do not have the power to protest. Therefore, if one of the residents of the alleyway or the residents of the courtyard sought to be a teacher of children, even though through this those entering and exiting will increase along with the voices of the students, nonetheless they cannot protest, for "He shall make the Torah great and glorious." However, in a single house we explained there that he can protest, see there. And it was also explained there that even according to the one who holds that any craftsman can protest against another so that he does not enter his courtyard with his craft, nonetheless regarding Talmud Torah it is not so. Therefore, if there was a teacher of children in a courtyard or an alleyway, and another came and established a room there to teach children—the first cannot protest against him, as it is said: "The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness' sake, to make the Torah great and glorious." And even though it is possible that the children of the first will come to the second if they find him better than the first, nonetheless he cannot protest against him.

It is stated in Bava Batra ibid.: Rava said: From the enactment of Yehoshua ben Gamla, who enacted to seat teachers of children in every single city, we do not transport a child from city to city. That is to say: that each person can compel his fellows to hire a teacher of children in the city (Rashi). But from synagogue to synagogue in the same city – we do transport. And if a river intervenes – we do not transport. And if there is a titura, that is to say, a wide bridge – we do transport. And if there is a gamla, that is to say, a narrow bridge – we do not transport. Because the child may come to danger by falling into the river. And this which we have explained is according to the approach of Rashi, Tosafot, and the Rosh, who interpreted this law regarding the matter of compulsion, to seat a teacher in this city or in the side of the city where this synagogue is located, according to the details that have been explained.

But from the words of the Rambam in the second chapter, it appears that it does not refer at all to the matter of coercion, but rather to the matter that was explained in section 18, that if a better teacher than the first is found, we take the second and remove the first—regarding this he said that this is specifically when the teacher is in this city. This is the wording of the Rambam: We move the child from one teacher to another who is more fluent than him, etc. In what case are these words said? When they were both in one city, and there is no river separating them. But from city to city, or from the side of a river to its other side in that city—we do not move them, unless there was a bridge of healthy construction over it, etc. Thus far his words. And such is the wording of the Shulchan Aruch, section 16. And I wonder at the commentators who did not explain that there is a difference between this and that. And this is the intention of the Tur who afterwards brought the wording of the Rambam, see there. And why did he bring it? Rather, it is as our words, to indicate that there is a distinction between this and that. And it is possible that regarding the law, the Rambam would agree to their interpretation, and they would agree to the Rambam regarding his interpretation. (And it is slightly difficult for the Rambam: What is the relevance of the enactment of Yehoshua ben Gamla that Rava said? Furthermore: that this law of removing [the teacher] is explained later in the Gemara. And it can be settled. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

It is further stated there: And Rava said: The maximum number for a teacher of children is twenty-five children. And if there are fifty—we appoint two. If there are forty—we establish a resh dukna, who hears from the teacher and repeats with the children. And they assist him from the city. That is to say: the payment to the resh dukna is not upon the teacher, even if they hired him without specification for forty children. Rather, the people of the city provide the wages of the resh dukna. And if there are not twenty-five children in the city, our teachers the authors of the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote that they do not have the power to compel one another to hire a teacher. But the Nimukei Yosef wrote in the name of our teacher Yonah that it is obvious that even with fewer than this they can compel to hire a teacher, but rather Rava informs us that twenty-five can learn with one teacher, that is to say: that in this case they cannot compel to hire another teacher. And so it is implied from the words of the Rambam in the fifth chapter (the Rambam, Laws of Talmud Torah, chapter five), see there.

And in truth, the words of the Tosafot and the Rosh are seemingly not understood at all. For how is it possible to say that fewer than twenty-five shall go to waste, Heaven forbid? And it is clear to me that the intention of our teachers is as follows: that if there is a nearby city where there are teachers of children, and in this city there are not twenty-five children—they cannot compel to hire a teacher here, but rather they bring them to the nearby city. For that which they said, that we do not bring from city to city—this is when there are twenty-five children here, but with fewer than this, they bring them to the nearby city. And there is clear proof for this from what the Tosafot wrote there regarding that which we do not bring a child from city to city; they wrote, and this is their wording: And for example, where there are twenty-five children here who are fit to hire a teacher for them. Thus far their words. And so wrote the Rosh, see there. And what do they require by this? It is obvious that with fewer than twenty-five they do not compel one another? Rather, certainly this is what they are saying: that when there are twenty-five here—they compel to hire a teacher here, and not to bring them to the nearby city. But when there are not twenty-five here—they do not compel, but rather they bring them. And all this is when there is a nearby city with teachers. But where there is not—it is obvious that they compel one another to hire a teacher.

And according to this, the words of our teacher, the Rema, in section 15 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 245, 15) are not precise, as he wrote: There are those who say that if there are not twenty-five children in the city, the residents of the city are not obligated to hire a melamed for them. And there are those who say that even with fewer than this they are obligated. Thus far his words. And it appears from his words that he interpreted the intent of the Tosafot and the Rosh and the other Rishonim who wrote this according to its plain meaning. And these matters are astonishing, for certainly their intent is as we have explained. And Heaven forbid to say that fewer than twenty-five should go idle from Torah. And even though it is possible that the intent of our teacher, the Rema, was also similar to this, to teach them in another manner, nevertheless he should have explained. And also the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch should have explained. And it requires further study.

There is a doubt when there are twenty-five children in a city, and some of them say, "We will study on our own with our children," and some are unable to study on their own, whether they can compel those to hire a melamed for everyone? According to reason, it appears that they cannot compel them. And of necessity, they must either bring them to another city or hire a melamed themselves. However, this is when they have the means. But otherwise, it follows that they assist them, as with the general Talmud Torahs in the city for which everyone is obligated to give, as I wrote in section 9.

And also regarding this which Rava said, that at forty we establish a reish duchna, and at fifty two melamdim are required, our teachers disagreed: for according to the Rambam, our teacher Yonah, and the Nimukei Yosef, if there are only more than twenty-five—a reish duchna is required up to forty. And with more than forty up to fifty—two are required, for with more than this sum, two and a reish duchna are required. But according to the Tosafot and the Rosh, specifically at forty is a reish duchna required, but with fewer than forty there is no need. And similarly at fifty two are required, and with fewer than fifty there is no need. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 15 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 245:15) ruled without attribution like the first opinion, see there. And know that there are some among the great authorities who said that now it is impossible for one melamed to study with twenty-five children, and ten or twelve are sufficient (the Ha-Gaon Rabbi Baruch Fraenkel in the name of the Eliyahu Rabbah, and so wrote the Pitchei Teshuvah). Nevertheless, we see according to the melamed and according to the children, for it appears that the measures of our sages, of blessed memory, shall never change. (And so wrote the Shach in subsection 10, regarding the dispute between the Rambam and the Rosh that we wrote, see there.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 245): A rav who dwells in a city and teaches the public—another sage may come and teach there as well, even if he slightly diminishes the livelihood of the first. For example, if the community accepted the first as a rav and he receives a stipend from them for this—even so, the second may come to dwell there and maintain a rabbinate in every matter like the first, if he is great and fit for it. However, if a visiting sage comes to the city—he must not diminish the wages of the rav dwelling there, to perform weddings and betrothals and take the wages resulting from them, since it is the stipend of the rav dwelling there. But it is permitted to perform the wedding and give the wages to the permanent rav. Similarly, it is permitted for him to judge between two litigants in the city who come before him to judge, for perhaps the rav in the city is not acceptable to them. But he must not rule on matters of issur v'heter, or preach to exercise authority in the place of his fellow. And one who was established as the rav in a city, even if he established himself in some authority—he is not to be removed from his greatness even though another who is greater than him arrived there. Even his son and his grandson—they always precede others as long as they fill the place of their fathers in fear [of Heaven], and they are somewhat wise. And in a place where there is a custom to accept a rav for a fixed time, or where the custom is to choose whomever they wish—the authority is in their hands. But as long as the community accepted him upon themselves, and certainly if they did so by the will of the government—no great person in the world may exercise authority over him and remove him. Thus far his words. And the giants of the world have already written that now the custom is that as long as there is a rav in the city—it is forbidden for another to come to the city and settle there, and it is a trespass of boundaries and absolute theft. For in truth the matter is so, that in ancient times the custom was not that every city chooses a rav for itself, but rather when a sage came and disseminated Torah—it followed automatically that he had a share of honor and some stipend. And afterward a second came and conducted himself likewise, as is evident from the books of responsa of the Ribash, the Tashbetz, the Maharik, and the Terumat HaDeshen. Therefore, they said regarding this as well that his son precedes [others]. But now that we have not seen this custom in our days, but rather the people of the city choose for themselves a certain rav to rule and to judge, and even though they make a contract with him for such and such years—nevertheless, they never remove him. And such is the simple custom in all the dispersions of Israel. And specifically if he uproots his residence from another city to here—it is certainly and certainly so that anyone who comes to trespass his boundary is an absolute thief, and he is no less than a standard employee. And in such a case, it appears to my humble opinion that the son also does not precede, even if he fills his place; for they desired to hire his father, and they do not desire the son. It is only as a matter of course, that if he fills his place in Torah and fear [of Heaven]—why should he be less than another? And such is the primary ruling.