The Ran writes that one is allowed to teach torah shebal peh to a mudar hana'ah. The fact that it is Torah shebal peh ensures that there is no dollar value to the teaching since one is not allowed to charge for teaching torah shebal peh. But, the Ran is still apparently bothered that even if there is no dollar value, it should still be considered a hana'ah and therefore offers the solution of "mitzvos la'av leihanos nitnu". The concept seems a bit odd when applied to this situation. Usually Reuven is not allowed to receive a particular benefit from an object if it is assur bhana'ah, yet if the benefit is a mitzvah for him we allow him to do it. Here, the mudar is receiving the benefit and we allow him to receive this benefit since there is a mitzvah on the madir to teach torah. Unless the Ran means that the mitzvah on the mudar to study torah entitles him to learn from the madir and receive that benefit.
R' Akiva Eiger points to a Turei Even who questions how will the opinion who says that mitzvos are leihanos nitnu, going to explain the heter to teach torah to the mudar? The Imrei Baruch answers based on the Rambam (who says like the nimukei yosef that i quoted yesterday) that just as one who returns a lost object is not considered to be benefiting the owner since he is "employed" by G-d. So too one who teaches Torah to a mudar is working for G-d, so it is as if G-d is providing benefit to the mudar, not the madir. This would indicate that the Ran does not hold of this sevara from the fact that he needs to say mitzvos la'av leihanos nitnu.
No comments:
Post a Comment