Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the Madir may teach the Mudar Medrash ... , but not Mikra - because, as Shmuel explains, our Mishnah speaks when it is customary to take remuneration for Mikra (in accordance with the Halachah) but not for Medrash ... . Consequently, by teaching him free of charge, the Madir is benefiting the Mudar in the case of Mikra, but not Medrash.

(b) He would even be permitted to teach him Mikra, too - in a place where it was customary not to take remuneration for Mikra (on account of Medrash).

(c) One may even take money for teaching Medrash ... - if, during that time, one could have been earning money in other areas, and he is now merely charging the Mudar his losses ('S'char Batalah').

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Osi Tzivah Hashem ba'Eis ha'Hi" - that Hashem commanded Moshe to teach Yisrael Torah.
2. ... "Re'ei Limadti Eschem Chukim u'Mishpatim *Ka'asher Tzivani* Hashem Elokai" - that He also commanded him to teach it free of charge.

(b) Moshe cannot mean to say ...

1. ... that he should teach them for remuneration - because it is not feasible to say that Hashem ordered him to do that.
2. ... that he was teaching them what Hashem told him to, and not what he himself saw fit to teach them - because the Torah has already written in Yisro "ve'Gam B'cha Ya'aminu Le'olam", from which we learn that Yisrael trusted Moshe implicitly.

(a) According to Rav, the Heter to teach Mikra for remuneration is because the payment is for looking after the Talmidim rather than for the actual teaching. 'Looking after' means - to stop them from running around wild in the streets (see Rosh DH 'S'char Shimur).

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan - the remuneration is for teaching them the Neginos (of Leining, which is not a Torah obligation).

(c) The practical difference between the two explanations is - if one teaches a grown-up. He will also learn the Neginos, but does not need looking after.

(d) The Halachah is like Rebbi Yochanan, because of the principle 'Rav ve'Rebbi Yochanan, Halachah ke'Rebbi Yochanan'.

(a) We ask on Rav from the Reisha of our Mishnah, which we assume, is talking about a Gadol, and which forbids the Madir to learn T'nach with the Mudar - seeing as a Gadol does not need looking after, as we just explained, why should the Madir not teach him T'nach.

(b) We answer that the Reisha is speaking about a Katan. Despite the fact that one is not obligated to stop a Katan from sinning ('Katan Ochel Neveilos, Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho') one is nevertheless forbidden to teach him (thereby helping him to contravene his Neder by gaining 'S'char Shimur') - because Lechatchilah, it is nevertheless wrong to feed a Katan what is Asur to him.

(c) We query this answer - from the Seifa 'Aval Melamed Hu es Banav ve'es Benosav Mikra'. How can a Katan have children? Note: That is also the cause of the initial assumption that we must be speaking about a Gadol.

(d) To answer the Kashya from the Seifa, we amend the Seifa to read '*Im Hayah Gadol*, Melamed Lo u'le'Vanav Mikra'. Despite the fact that his son needs looking after, the Madir is nevertheless permitted to learn with him - because this is not worse than feeding the children of the Mudar, which the Tana permits.

(a) The Beraisa permits learning the second time with children, but not the first, a distinction which is difficult to understand according to Rav ('S'char Shemirah). It (appears to) conforms nicely however, with Rebbi Yochanan (S'char Pisuk Ta'amim) - because the chief remuneration is for learning the first time, which is the most difficult, but not for Chazarah.

(b) Rav will retort (however) that even the first time should be permitted, even if the remuneration is for Pisuk Ta'amim (so why ask specifically on Rav) - because a Rebbe is normally hired for an extended period of time (not just for the Shabbos), in which case he is permitted to receive remuneration 'be'Havla'ah' (when it is absorbed in the wages of the rest of the week).

(a) The Beraisa refers to hiring someone to look after a child, a cow or seeds. By ...

1. ... a child - he is referring to a child who is designated from birth to fill the water from a fountain for the Parah Adumah. He would be born and reared in a courtyard specially built on rocks which were known not to cover hidden graves (to ensure that he was Tahor from Tum'as Meis).
2. ... a cow - he means the Parah Adumah.
3. ... seeds - he means seeds that were specially guarded with the intention of planting for the Omer.

(b) In the above case - the Tana rules that if the man is hired for the Shabbos only - he does not get paid; whereas if he is hired for a week, a month, a or a year, he does.

(c) The Tana also speaks about a S'chir Shavu'a - meaning that he is hired for a seven-year cycle.

(d) The other difference between the man who is hired for Shabbos only, and the one who is hired for an extended period is - that the former, seeing as he does not get paid, is only a Shomer Chinam, and is therefore exempt from paying should the article be stolen or lost; whereas the latter, who does get paid, is a Shomer Sachar, who is obligated to pay for theft and loss.

7)

(a) We have just refuted our initial understanding of the Beraisa (that it is forbidden to learn with a child something new because of 'S'char Shabbos'), and go on to ascribe the prohibition to the Mitzvah of participating in Oneg Shabbos together with his father. The reason that the Tana confines the prohibition to the first time is - because that is when the child needs more concentration and his father will be afraid to disturb him from his learning when he goes to eat his Shabbos meal.

(b) The second explanation, bases the distinction on a statement of Shmuel - who says that a change of eating habits causes sickness. Consequently, having eaten special food on Shabbos, the child will feel bloated and not be able to concentrate on something difficult. So Chazal instituted that he should do Chazarah on Shabbos, which is easier and with which he should be able to cope.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan declines to learn like Rav, because 'daughters do not require looking after' - because they do not tend to run outside like boys do.

(b) When the Tana says 'Aval Lo Yelamdenu Mikra', he is talking about girls too - because 'ha'Noder Hana'ah me'Chaveiro', does not indicate any difference between men and women.

(c) Some texts present the Kashya as 'Gadol Mi Ba'i Shimur', in spite of our having already established the Reisha by a Katan - because Rebbi Yochanan considers that explanation a Dochek (forced - because of the Seifa, as we explained there).

(d) Rav declines to learn like Rebbi Yochanan - because in his opinion, the obligation to learn Pisuk Ta'amim is d'Oraysa (in which case, it must be taught free of charge).

(a) Rav Ika bar Avin Amar Rav Chananel Amar Rav explains the Pasuk in Nechemyah "Vayikre'u be'Sefer Toras ha'Elokim, Mefurash, Shum Seichel ... ". These three phrases refer to the text of the Chumash, Targum and the ends of the Pesukim (see Tosfos and the Rosh) respectively. "Vayavinu be'Mikra" refers - either to Pisuk Ta'amim or to the Mesoros (missing and extra letters - Rosh).

(b) Rebbi Yitzchak places Mikra Sofrim, Itur Sofrim, Karyan ve'Lo Kesivan and Kesivan ve'Lo Karyan all in the same category inasmuch as - they are all Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

(c) Mikra Sofrim is - the change of vowels (such as from Eretz to Aretz or from Shamayim and Mitzrayim with a Patach to Shamayim and Mitzrayim with a Kamatz, whenever the latter appear at the end of a Pasuk or by an Esnachta [which is the equivalent of a comma]).

(a) Itur Sofrim refers to "Achar Ta'avoru" (Vayeira)"; "Achar Teilech" (Chayei Sarah); "Achar Te'asef" (Matos); "Kidmu Sharim Achar Nognim" (Tehilim); "Tzidkascha ke'Harerei Keil" (Tehilim). The simple explanation of this ...

1. ... in all the cases where the word "Achar" appears is - that the Torah could just as well have written a 'Vav' instead, only "Achar" is more sophisticated.
2. ... in the case of "Tzidkascha ke'Harerei Keil" - the Torah should have written "Tzidkascha Harerei Keil" (like it writes in the phrase that follows "Mishpatecha Tehom Rabah"), meaning that the large mountains (referring to the angels) need the Tzedakah of Hashem, but that the Pasuk wrote "ke'Harerei Keil" which is more sophisticated (it is unclear what this means, seeing as the addition of "ke" completely changes the meaning).

(b) Others explain it with regard to ...

1. ... all the cases containing the word "Achar" - inasmuch as "Achar Teilech" (for example) normally implies "After you have gone" (and so it is with all of them), so they arranged the Neginos so as to imply "afterwards you will go" (though here too, it is unclear why this is not included in 'Pisuk Ta'amim').
2. ... "Tzidkascha ke'Harerei Keil" - in similar fashion: that the words per se imply that Hashem's righteousness is like the mountains of Hashem, but now that they arranged the Neginos in such a way that "Keil" is separated from "ke'Harerei". Consequently, Keil becomes the subject, as if the Pasuk had written "Keil, Tzidkascha ke'Harerei" ("Hashem, Your righteousness is revealed like the mountains"!)

(c) The difference between 'Karyan ve'Lo Kesivan' and 'Kesivan ve'lo Karyan' - that the former comprises words that are read but not written (such as "be'Lechto Lehoshiv Yado Al Nehar P'ras" [Shmuel], where the word "P'ras is not written); whereas the latter comprises words that are written but not read, such as "be'Hishtachaveisi Beis Rimon Yislach Na Hashem la'Avdecha", where the word "Na" is not read).