RICHARD RHEINS

scholars” who refused to use their expertise for personal support and gain were ascribed to the early generations of Hillel and R. Tarfon respectively.>® While the more permissive traditions were ascribed to the later Amoraic generations of Rab Judah and Raba.’* But modern scholars are usually hesitant to put undue emphasis on the Talmudic attributions to specific personalities. Another explanation of the varying traditions is that the social realities changed and therefore Jewish custom was forced to adjust. This is certainly possible, but in which direction did the custom adjust? Must the ideal precede pragmatism?

The answer is beyond us. Still, it is enough that we recognize that even though there were varying opinions, the rabbinate of the first centuries of the common era was or was in the process of becoming a professional class. A significant number of rabbis saw themselves as the inheritors of priestly benefits. And like the priests, provision had to be made for the rabbis material support and welfare. Incidentally, just from the Talmudic evidence we can see that the“common knowledge”(which maintains that the professional rabbinate was a creation of the 14th century) is, to say the least, an exaggeration.

As it turned out, the later halakhic authorities were generally permissive of rabbinic compensation, benefits and salaries. Some openly promoted the professionalization of the rabbinate, while others simply turned a blind eye to the fact that rabbis were being hired by communities.*®> Joseph Karo summarized the need for leniency in regard to rabbinic financial support:

"If there had not been support for those who study and teach on a regular basis, then no one would have been able to endure the hardship of Torah[study] as it is deserving[to be studied]."°