The gemara goes through a discussion about Karna, trying to explain how he was allowed to receive money for judging. The gemara begins from the perspective of bribery and establishes that so long as he is taking the money from both, and that it is not being given as bribery rather as payment for the din, then there is no problem of bribery. However, the gemara continues that there is still a prohibition for a judge or anyone else doing a mitzvah to take money for the mitzvah (based on 'ma ani b'chinum, af atta b'chinum') and the consequence would be that the din is batul. The gemara concludes that if it is payment for din then the din is batul, if it sechar b'teila the din is binding but it is still assur, and if it is sechar b'teila d'muchach it is even mutar.
Tosafos asks, Why did the gemara not have an issue with the daynei gezeiros who would take payment from the terumas halishka - although there may not be an issur of bribery, there should be an issur of taking payment for a mitzvah? Rabbeinu Tam says that it is only assur to take money from the ba'lei dinin, but from the tzibbur it is allowed. This answer is hard to understand, since it only explains why there would not be a concern of bribery, but would not justify the concern of 'ma ani b'chinum....'. The primary answer of Tosafos is that a person who does not have another job and his involvement in tzarchei tzibbur prevents him from earning a living any other way, it is incumbent on the tzibbur to support them so that they will be available to judge, teach.....
Based on this it is understandable why the gemara assumes by the dayanei gezeiros that if they would want more than they needed to live, they would be considered a rasha. In Karna's situation where his heter is s'char b'teila, he can certainly take more than the bare minimum needed to support his family. But by the daynei gezeiros where the heter is solely based on the communal obligation to support him, it would only be a heter for the amount he needs to live, but not anything extra.
1 comment:
שוב מצאתי שהכס"מ בהל' ת"ת פ"ג הל' י' שבא להשיג על הרמב"ם שאסר ללומדי תורה לקבל פרנסה מהצבור, שעיקר היתרו הוא מתוס' שהבאתי וז"ל וכל אלו החלקים (לקבל שכר לימוד מאבות הבנים שמלמדם, העוסקים בתורה, והדיינים) למדנו היתרם מפרק ב' דייני גזירות דאמרינן התם ת"ח המלמדין הל' שחיטה וכו' וכתבו התוס' דאע"ג דאמרינן בפרק אין בין המודר דשכר תלמוד אסור, הכא שאני דכל שעה היו יושבים ולא היו עוסקין בשום מלאכה ולא יהה להם במה להתפרנס והיה מוטל על הצבור לפרנסם (ע"כ דברי התוס') מדבריהם למדנו שלא אסרו שכר התלמוד אלא כשיש לו ממקום אחר כדי פרנסתו עיי"ש
Post a Comment