Nedarim 37a (לז.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

This teaches us that even in a place where payment is taken

for Torah study, specifically

it is permitted to take payment for mikra

as payment, but

for midrash—

it is not permitted to take payment.

And this is the halakhic ruling: it is prohibited to take payment for interpretive study. However, it is permitted to take payment for the time during which one is unable to pursue his own work, as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud.

And we challenge this:

What is different about midrash, that it is not permitted,

that it is prohibited to take payment,

as it is written,

as Moses said to Israel:

“And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you,”

indicating from this verse that Moses was commanded to teach Israel Torah.

And it is written

further, as Moses said to Israel:

“See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord

my God

commanded me.”

And when Moses said, “as the Lord commanded me,” the meaning must be that the Lord commanded him to teach them without charge, for he certainly did not say this merely so that they would not think that he had said these things on his own; for it is written that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: “And they will also believe in you forever.” And they derive:

Just as I,

Moses, teach you

without charge,

so too you—

shall teach forever

without charge.

If so,

even mikra

must be taught specifically

without charge!

And we answer:

Rav said:

Our Mishna is referring to

payment for safeguarding,

that one takes payment for safeguarding those who study.

And ordinarily, those who study mikra are young children, who require safeguarding. But those who study midrash and so on are older, and do not require safeguarding.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Our Mishna is referring to

payment for dividing the cantillation,

for this study is not of Torah origin and is therefore not included among “statutes and ordinances,” and it is permitted to take payment for it.

We learned in the Mishna: One may not teach him

the person subject to the vow

mikra.

Granted, according to the one who says

that the reason it is permitted to teach mikra for payment is that one takes

payment for dividing the cantillation; this is why he may not teach him

mikra without charge, since he is permitted to take payment, and if he does not take it, it is found that he is benefiting him.

But according to the one who says

that the reason it is permitted to take payment for mikra is

payment for safeguarding,

is

an adult subject to safeguarding?

He safeguards himself! If so, it is prohibited for him to take payment when teaching him. Why, then, is it prohibited for the person subject to the vow to teach him without charge? He is not benefiting him.

And we answer:

It is taught with regard to a minor.

That is, the case is one in which the minor was placed under a vow, and therefore it is prohibited for him to teach him without charge.

And although a court is not commanded to separate a minor who eats forbidden food, nevertheless, one may not actively feed it to him. Here too, if he teaches him without charge, he is benefiting him!

And we raise an objection:

If

our Mishna is speaking

of a minor, say the latter clause: But he may teach his sons

of the person subject to the vow

mikra.

And is

a minor capable of having sons?

And we answer: Our Mishna

is incomplete, and this is what it teaches:

He may not teach him mikra—

when he is a minor.

If he was an adult, he may teach him and his sons

mikra.

An objection was raised: Young children may not read initially

[that is, they may not read something new that they had not previously learned]

on Shabbat.

Rather,

if they had already learned that subject before Shabbat, they

review

and repeat that subject

on the first day

[even though this is the first time they are reviewing and repeating it].

Now,

granted, according to the one who says

that the payment made for teaching mikra is

payment for dividing the cantillation; this is why they may not read initially on Shabbat,

since the principal study of dividing the cantillation takes place the first time, involves considerable effort, and payment is taken for it, making this payment for work performed on Shabbat!

But no payment is taken for review, because by then teaching the division of the cantillation no longer involves great effort; therefore, they review it on the first day.

But according to the one who says

that what is paid is

payment

for

safeguarding

the children,

why may they not read initially on Shabbat, and why do they review it on the first day?

What difference is there for this matter between initial study and review?

Indeed,

even if they had already learned the subject,

there is payment for safeguarding on Shabbat!

And we reject this:

And according to your reasoning,

that the payment is for dividing the cantillation,

payment for dividing the cantillation—

is it prohibited on Shabbat?

After all,

it is included

in the payment for the other days of the week;

it is,

for he does not pay him payment for Shabbat separately, but includes its payment within the payment for the other days of the week,

and

payment for Shabbat through

inclusion—

is certainly permitted!

As it was taught in a beraita: One who hires a laborer

in order

to safeguard the child

[the children were raised in courtyards built on bedrock because of the possibility of an unknown grave, so that they would remain pure and be able to draw water from the spring to consecrate the ashes of the red heifer], or who hired him

to safeguard the cow

[the red heifer], so that no yoke would be placed upon it and so that it would not become blemished,

or who hired him

to safeguard the seeds

[for the omer offering and the two loaves]—

he may not give him payment for Shabbat.