RICHARD RHEINS

Talmuds of both Babylonia and Eretz Yisrael which provides evidence that, at least in certain places, it was acceptable to pay salaries to the teachers of Scripture. In the following passage the Gemara examines some of the consequences which result when one vows not to derive benefit from another:

"He may teach him Midrash , Halakhot and Aggadot , but not Scripture. Why not Scripture? Because it benefits him. But Midrash does not benefit him? Samuel said:‘This refers to a place where the teaching of Scripture is remunerated. But Midrash is not remunerated.’ How state this definitely? The Tanna informs us that even where a fee is taken, it may be accepted only for Scripture and not for Midrash . Why does Midrash differ? Because it is written,‘And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you.” And it is also written,‘Behold I have taught you statutes and judgements even as the Lord my God has commanded me.” Just as I taught you gratuitously, so you must teach gratuitously. Then should Scripture be remunerated? Rab said:‘The fee is for guarding the children.’ Rabbi Johanan maintained:‘The fee is for teaching the accentuation.”*

"It is written,“Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances.” Just as I do so without remuneration, so you must do so without remuneration. Is it possible that the same rule applies[i.e., no remuneration] also to the teaching of Scripture and the translation? The text says,‘Statutes and ordinances.’ Statutes and ordinances must be taught without remuneration, but not so Scripture and translation. And yet we see that those who teach Mishnah receive remuneration. Said Rabbi Judah b. Rabbi Ishmael, It is compensation for their loss of work.”

In the above passages one can sense the heightened tension between the“ideal” of scholars who“should” teach without compensation and the reality of the necessity of material support.

34