Nedarim 37a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

This teaches us that even in a place where they take payment

for the study of Torah, specifically

for Scripture it is permitted to take

payment, but

for midrash—

it is not permitted to take payment.

And we raise a difficulty:

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

that it is forbidden to take payment,

as it is written,

what Moses said to Israel:

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

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

And it is written

further, what Moses said to Israel:

“See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me.”

And what Moses said, “as the Lord commanded me,” necessarily means that the Lord commanded him to teach them for free, for certainly he did not say this so that they would not think that he had said these things on his own, since it is written that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: “And also in you they will believe forever”

.

And they expound:

Just as I,

Moses, teach you

for free,

so you too—

shall teach forever

for free.

If so,

Scripture too

must be taught specifically

for free!

And we answer:

Rav said,

our Mishna is speaking about

payment for supervision,

that he takes payment for supervising the students.

And ordinarily those who study Scripture are minors, who require supervision. But those who study midrash and so forth, who are adults, do not require supervision.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

our Mishna is speaking about

payment for the division of accents,

for this study is not from the Torah, and therefore is not included among statutes and ordinances, and it is permitted to take payment for it.

We learned: He may not teach him

the one forbidden by vow to derive benefit

Scripture.

Granted, according to the one who says

that what permits teaching Scripture for payment is that he takes

payment for the division of accents; this is why he may not teach him

Scripture for free, since it is permitted for him to take payment, and if he does not take it, it turns out that he is benefiting him.

But according to the one who says

that what permits taking payment for Scripture is

payment for supervision,

and is

an adult subject to supervision?

After all, he supervises himself! And if so, it is forbidden for him to take payment when he teaches him; and why is it forbidden for the one who imposed the vow to teach him for free? After all, he is not benefiting him?

And we answer:

It was taught with regard to a minor.

That is, it is speaking of one who imposed the vow on a minor, and therefore it is forbidden for him to teach him for free.

And although a court is not commanded to separate a minor who eats forbidden food, nevertheless one may not feed him directly. And here, if he teaches him for free, he is benefiting him!

And we object:

If

our Mishna is speaking

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

the one forbidden by vow to derive benefit

Scripture.

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 Scripture—

when he is a minor.

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

Scripture.

An objection was raised: Young children may not read at first

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

on Shabbat.

But

if they already learned that subject before Shabbat, they

review

and repeat and practice that subject

on the first day

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

And now,

granted, according to the one who says

that the payment given for the study of Scripture is

payment for the division of accents; this is why they may not read at first on Shabbat,

since the principal study of the division of accents is the first time, and it involves considerable effort, and they take payment for this, and this is payment for Shabbat!

But for repetition they do not take payment, because then teaching the division of accents is no longer a great effort; therefore they review it on the first day.

But according to the one who says

that what they are paid is

payment

for

supervision

of the children,

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

What difference is there between first study and repetition with regard to this?

After all,

even if they have already learned the subject,

there is payment for supervision on Shabbat!

And we reject this:

And according to your reasoning,

that the payment is for the division of accents,

payment for the division—

is it forbidden on Shabbat?

After all,

it is included

in the other days of the week

—

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

and

payment for Shabbat by means of

inclusion—

is certainly permitted!

As it was taught: One who hires a laborer

in order

to supervise the child

[they would raise children in courtyards built upon rock because of the abyssal grave, so that they would be pure in order to draw water from the spring to sanctify the ashes of the cow ], or if he hired him

to supervise the cow

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

or if he hired him

to supervise the seeds

[for the purpose of the omer offering and the two loaves]—

he is not given payment for Shabbat.