Halakhah к Бава Батра 2:15

The Halachah normally follows the majority opinion,⁵Yachid verabim Halachah kerabim; see Mo'eid Katan 20a and Tosafot s.v. Kol. and the Halachah generally follows the later Amora,⁶Halachah kevatrai; see Encyclopedia Talmudit 9:341-345. In this case, Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua lived later. so virtually all Rishonim⁷These Rishonim include the Rif (Bava Batra 11a in pages of Rif), Tosafot (Bava Batra 21b s.v. Peshita), the Rambam (Hilchot Shecheinim 6:8), and the Rosh (Bava Batra 2:12). follow Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua's view, as do the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 156:5) and most of its commentaries (see Aruch Hashulchan, Choshen Mishpat 156:6- 7). The Rif, Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch do not even mention the Gemara's restriction regarding the fishing nets, so perhaps they understood that the Gemara eventually rejected that law. In fact, the Meiri (Bava Batra 21b) explicitly rejects the restriction on setting new fishing nets near old ones. It would thus seem that the Halachah sanctions nearly unrestricted free enterprise.

Nonetheless, Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua adds that such competition is only permitted when the new competitor comes from the same mavuy, for he is just as entitled as the first businessman to earn a livelihood in that area. The new competitor can claim, "You do work on your home turf, and [so too] I do work on my home turf." However, one who comes from a different city and challenges the established local business is unfairly encroaching. Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua inquires whether one who comes from a different mavuy but resides in the same city is considered sufficiently local to be granted the right to compete. Due to the fact that the Gemara never reaches a conclusion regarding such a person (teiku), the Rishonim rule that there is insufficient basis for preventing a resident of another mavuy in the same city from opening a competing business.⁸See Rif and Nimukei Yosef s.v. Lo Chayat, Bava Batra 11a in pages of Rif; Rosh, Bava Batra 2:12; and Tur, Choshen Mishpat 156. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 156:5) rules accordingly.

The Gemara adds that even an outsider is permitted to compete if he pays taxes to the local authority. The Tur (ibid.) writes that an outsider who pays taxes is permitted to compete "like the residents of the city," and the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) accepts this presentation. However, Tosafot (Bava Batra 21b s.v. Ve'i) assert that, even if the outside resident pays taxes to the local authority, he may only open a business in a different mavuy in that city. The Rama rules like Tosafot.⁹The Rishonim also debate precisely what constitutes the necessary type of tax for this purpose. See the commentary attributed to Rabbeinu Gershom (Bava Batra 21b s.v. Bar Mata), Hag'hot Ashri (Bava Batra 2:12), Bach (C.M. 156 s.v. Umah Shekatav Im), Beit Yosef (C.M. 156 s.v Hacheilek Hasheini), and Biur Hagra (C.M. 156:23).