RICHARD RHEINS

of students. Perhaps they only gave aid to some of them or, perhaps, anyone who could[support] himself would not receive benefits. But when a sage became worthy and he taught his wisdom to the people, he would be elevated accordingly. You should not think that he remained a wood chopper”!

Karo maintained that Rambam 's opposition to rabbis who accepted charity and gifts was untenable in the light of Talmudic precedent. As Karo noted, the Talmudic sages taught that when one brought a gift to a scholar it was considered as if that person fulfilled the mitzvah of bringing the first-fruits to the Temple priests.” Karo also cited the example of the dayyanei gezerot™ who received gifts and fees; and he pointed to the prophet Elisha ” who received gifts and support. Karo continued his assault on Rambam 's position by citing the example in the Talmud, ® where once a gift of a bag of golden dinars arrived at the beit midrash. Rabbi Ammi came in first and took the gold. Karo paraphrased the text and then concluded:

"And there was no difficulty for them[those that protested] as to why he(Rabbi Ammi) took[the gift], except for the fact that he took it for himself. So, if it were not like this it would be correct [for him to take the gift). Furthermore, as it is implied in the commentary, an eminent person, even if he takes the gift for himself, it is permitted."

Karo referred to the Tosafot in order to support his argument permitting rabbinic salaries:

"It says that scholars who taught the priests the laws of ritual slaughter and kemitzah[i.e., taking of a“handful” from the meal offering] received their salaries from the Temple funds.®'

46