Sefer Bamidbar starts with the pasuk: וידבר ה' אל משה במדבר סיני – “Hashem spoke to Moshe in the Sinai Desert”. The Medrash teaches: “Why in the Sinai Desert? From here Chazal teach, Torah was given in three things, in fire, in water, and in the desert ... why was it given with in these three things? Just like these three things are free for everyone to take, so too Torah should be free for everyone to take ...”. We see from the Medrash, that one is not allowed to charge for teaching or learning with someone Torah. Torah is supposed to be a free commodity (this is known in halachic terms as mah ani bechinom).
Mishnah in Bechoras
The Mishnah in Bechoros (29a) teaches:הנוטל שכרו לדון דיניו בטילים להעיד עדותיו בטילין להזות ולקדש מימיו מי מערה אפרו אפר מקלה -“If one takes money for being a dayan [judge], his rulings are nullified, if one takes money for giving testimony his testimony is nullified, and if one takes money for sprinkling or for mixing ashes of the porah adumah in water, the water is considered regular water, and the ashes are considered regular ashes (i.e. they don’t have any special porah adumah status).”
The Gemara says:מנא הני מילי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב דאמר קרא ראה למדתי אתבם וגו' מה אני בחנם אף אתם כחנם – “From where do we know this from (Rashi explains: That one isn’t allowed to charge for ruling, or for teaching Torah)? Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav teaches: Because it says in the pasuk ‘see, I taught you etc.’, just like I (Hashem) taught for free, so too you must teach for free”.
Hashem spent 40 days and 40 nights teaching Moshe Rabbeinu the Torah, and He never charged. Just like Hashem never charged, similarly one who teaches Torah is not allowed to charge.
Insights Into Halachah
The Gemara then cites a beraisa: כאשר צוני ה' אלקי מה אני בחנם אף אתם בחנם – “’Like Hashem my G-d commanded me’, just like for me it was free, for you as well it must be free.”
The Gemara continues:ומנין שאם לא מצא בחנם שילמד בשכר תלמוד לומר אמת קנה ומנין שלא יאמר כשם שלמדתיה בשכר כך אלמדנה בשכר תלמור לומר אמת קנה ואל תמכור - “How do we know that if one can’t find someone to teach him for free, that he must pay? Therefore, it says ‘Truth (Torah) one should buy’. How do we know that one should not say, just like I had to pay so too I will teach it for pay? Therefore, it says ‘Truth you shall buy, and you shall not sell’”.
Some Important Qualifications
There is a Gemara in Nedorim (37a) which adds some important qualifications to the above halachah. The Gemara teaches: If one is in a place where they charge for teaching Mikra (Written Torah) he is allowed to take money, however, he shouldn’t take money for teaching Medrash. The Gemara asks: What’s the difference between Mikra and Medrash, and why by Medrash must one be more careful? The Gemara cites two answers: 1) Rav answers: שכר שימור – “money for guarding”. The Ran explains, normally one who teaches Mikra teaches young children, and young children need babysitting. So true, one isn’t allowed to charge for Torah teaching, however, one is allowed to charge for the babysitting. In other words, when one pays a schoolteacher who teaches Mikra, the teacher is being paid for babysitting, not for teaching Torah. 2) R’ Yochanan answers: שכר פיסוק טעמים – “money for teaching the trop [the cantillation marks on the words in the Chumash]”. The Ran explains that the notes and how to read pasukim on a de’O’raisa level are not considered Talmud Torah. Consequently, we don’t apply the drosha of “just like for me it was free, for you as well it must be free”, and a teacher may charge.
From the Gemara in Nedorim it comes out, that technically there is no real difference between Mikra and Medrash, and one is never allowed to charge for teaching Torah. However, when it comes to Mikra, there is babysitting, or teaching one the trop which is not considered Talmud Torah, therefore, one may charge.
What is the Heter?
It’s clear from the aforementioned Medrash, and the Gemara in both Bechoras and Nedorim that one isn’t allowed to charge for teaching Torah. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 246:5) rules accordingly: אבל תורה שבע"פ אסור ללמוד בשכר – “It is forbidden to charge for teaching Oral Torah”. The difficulty is, most Rebbeim and teachers do in fact charge, what are they relying on?
There are two things that we rely on:
- Tosfos in Bechoros (29a) says: If the Rebbe has no other money to live off, he is allowed to charge. The Mechaber brings this down halachah lemaseh [practically] and says: אם אין לו במה להתפרנס שרי – “If one has no other money to live off, he may charge”. This is one of the heterim that Rebbe’s and teachers rely on today.
- Tosfos in Bechoros and other Rishonim bring down a second heter, which applies even if the Rebbi or teacher has money: If one chooses to teach Torah at the expense of working in a profession, he may receive a wage to compensate for the loss of income that he incurs as a result of teaching. In such a case, the money is not for the teaching, rather it is for not working (this is known as sechar batolah, reward for teaching instead of working).
The Mechaber cites this heter as well and says:ואפילו יש לו אם הוא שכר בטלה דמוכח שמניח כל עסקיו ומשאו ומתנו שרי – “Even one who has money is allowed to take money for loss of income, if it’s clear that by teaching he is leaving some other job”.
Why Were Shemayah and Avtaliyon Allowed to Charge?
There is a famous Gemara in Yoma (35b) which talks about Hillel HaZokein. The Gemara relates: Every day he would earn a tropik [certain amount of money], half of it he would give to the guardian of the beis hamedrash, and half of it he would use to support his family. One time he didn’t earn enough money to pay the guard, and the guard never let him in. Left with no other choice, Hillel climbed onto the roof of the beis hamedrash to listen to the holy words of Shemayah and Avtaliyon.
Presumably, if Shemayah and Avtaliyon didn’t want a guard taking money at the door then there wouldn’t have been one. If there was one, it must be that they wanted one. However, we just said that there is a halachah that one isn’t allowed to charge for teaching Torah, so why were Shemayah and Avtaliyon charging?
The Maharsha explains, in those days the beis hamedrash was in the fields and they needed a special guard to keep everyone safe. The reason the guards took money was not because Shemayah and Avtaliyon were charging for teaching Torah, but because money was needed to pay the guards.
The Maharsha offers a second explanation based on the Gemara in Berachos (28a). The Gemara teaches: Rabbon Gamliel called out, “Any talmid who is not the same on the inside as he is on the outside (תוכו כברו) is not allowed into the beis hamedrash . Since only certain talmidim were allowed into the beis hamedrash, a guard had to stand by the door, monitoring who was allowed in. Again, money was being collected to pay for the guard, not for the Torah being taught.
The Ben Yehoyadah writes: The Maharsha’s first explanation of the beis hamedrash being far out in the fields is a bit strained, and he offers two others answers of his own: 1) The beis hamedrash was open day and night, however, the doors had to be kept closed at night to ensure that the people inside were kept safe. However, if people would come to learn at night, who would let them in? Therefore, they had a guard who would be there at night to let people in. 2) Perhaps the money was to pay towards the costs of heating up the beis hamedresh when it was cold, and for the lighting when it was dark. In these two cases, the money being collected was not for Torah, it was to help cover various other costs, therefore, there was nothing wrong with charging.
One May Charge for Teaching Pilpul [In Depth Learning]
The Sheilas Dovid (R’ Dovid Karlin, Piskei Hilchos Ishus 104b) writes:דעל ללמד פלפול מותר ליטול שכר – “If one is teaching pilpul, he is allowed to charge”.
The Sheilas Dovid bases himself on the Gemara in Nedorim (38a) which says:דלימוד פלפול לא ניתנה לישראל ומשה נהג בה טובת עין – “The learning of pilpul wasn’t given to Yisroel, however, out of kindness Moshe shared it”.
Strictly speaking, there is no obligation to learn pilpul, it is not included in the halachah of: כאשר צוני ה' אלקי מה אני בחנם אף אתם בחנם – “’Like Hashem my G-d commanded me’, just like for me it was free, for you as well it must be free”, and a Rebbe my charge for teaching it.
Presumably, the shiur of Shemayah and Avtaliyon was pilpul, therefore, it was ok for them to charge.
Alternatively, based on our discussion early, that there are two heterim to charge for teaching, 1) If one has no other source of income, 2) Sechar batolah, we can answer very simply that this is why Shemayah and Avtaliyon were allowed to charge. Tzorich iyun [it needs looking into], why the meforshim don’t actually offer this as an answer.
Is There a Problem of Lifnei Iver [Creating a Stumbling Block] for a Talmid to Pay a Rebbe?
We mentioned above the Gemara in Bechoros (29a) which teaches, that if one isn’t able to find someone to teach him Torah for free, he is obligated to pay. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 246:5) rules accordingly and writes:תורה שבע"פ אסור ללמד בשכר לא מצא מי שילמדנו בחינם ילמוד בשכר - “It is forbidden to charge for teaching Oral Torah. If one can’t find a free teacher, he must pay”.
The question is, what is the heter [room to allow] for a talmid to pay a Rebbe, surely it should be a problem of lifnei iver, as he is causing the Rebbe to transgress on the prohibition of charging for teaching Torah (mah ani bechinom)?
The Imrei Binah (Garmizan, Zeroim and Likutim pg. 438) answers:דלכן מותר לו ללמוד בשכר, דלא גרע חיי עולם מחיי שעה, שבמקום שיש סכנה ופיקוח נפש הותר כל איסור, דהיינו, להימנע מללמוד את התורה הקדושה, זה חשש פיקוח נפש, שהרי היא חיינו ואורך ימינו, וחיי בעלי חכמה ומבקשיה בלא תלמוד תורה, כמיתה חשובין רמב"ם פ"ז מהלכות רוצח ה"א ולכן אם אינו מוצא אלא ללמוד בשכר, רשאי לשלם על מנת לזכות לחיי עולם - “One is allowed to pay money for learning Torah, as eternal life is no worse than life in this world. When there is a danger and one’s life is at stake one is allowed to violate all prohibitions, meaning: To refrain from learning the Holy Torah is life threatening, as Torah ‘Is our life and length of days’, life without Torah is comparable to death (see Rambam Hilchos Rotze’ach 7:1) consequently, if one can’t find someone to teach him unless he pays, one is allowed to pay, to ensure that he gets life in the world of eternity.”
R’ Zilberstein in his Chasukei Chemed (Bechoros 29a) asks: “Is one really allowed to violate prohibitions in order to learn. For example, if the only way for one to learn is by wearing shatnez, is one really allowed to wear shatnez (which is an issur de’O’raisa)? Or, if one is in a dirty place for an extended period of time is one really allowed to learn there?”
R’ Zilberstein then explains what the Imrei Binah means: We find that if one is in danger he is allowed to steal money from his friend in order to save himself, if he intends to return the money at a later point, even though by doing so he is causing the person he stole from discomfort. Since it’s for a lifesaving reason it’s allowed. Similarly, one is allowed to cause his Rebbe to do an aveirah, since it is pikuach nefesh (of eternal life). Although the talmud causes the Rebbe to transgress an issur, since it’s only an issur kal [light transgression], as the prohibition against charging for teaching Torah is only an issur aseh [positive commandment] it’s ok.
Incredible Story
R’ Zilberstein then cites an interesting story:
There was a Yid who was desperate to learn Torah, however, he couldn’t do it alone and he needed help. He approached a certain talmid chocham, and asked him to teach him Torah. The talmud chocham agreed, however, he made it clear that he wouldn’t do it for free. The Yid went to ask R’ Elyashiv if he was allowed to pay, or if there was a problem of lifnei iver?
R’ Elyashiv answered: The issue involved is not that the Yid doesn’t want to pay, but that he is worried about causing the talmid chocham to violate the prohibition of ‘mah ani bechinom’. That being the case, the Yid doesn’t gain by not paying and not learning with the talmid chocham. Either way the talmid chocham is doing something wrong. If he takes money and teaches, he violates the prohibition of ‘mah ani bechinom’, and if he doesn’t take money and doesn’t teach he is also doing something wrong as he has an obligation to teach Torah. Since either way he is doing something wrong, R’ Elyashiv ruled that he should pay the talmid chocham and at least he will be able to learn Torah.
We see from the above, that there is no problem of lifnei iver to pay a Rebbe to teach, as either way the Rebbe is doing something wrong.
