The Ran says that for teaching torah to the mudar, it is permitted to teach torah shebal peh because there is no $ value, and as far as the teaching of torah itself we say mitzvos la'v liehanos nitnu (as i spoke about in the previous post). However, the Ran permits charging s'char batala for torah shbal peh ans proves it from a yerushalmi. Someone in my shiur asked me that it should be assur to teach even torah shbal peh in a situation where there is s'char batala that he can charge for? I answered that if the Torah itself has a $ value for the tutoring then there is a direct benefit being provided from madir to mudar and is assur. But, if the only payment that the madir should be receiving is s'char batala, this does not give a value to the torah itself, rather it is like the madir is suffering a loss or damage by teaching. He is allowed to receive reimbursement for the loss he is suffering but would not be forbidden by a mudar ha'nah since it still doesn't place any value on the torah being taught.
However, after thinking about it more the mishna says that by returning a lost object if the looser normally pays the machzir, then it would be assur by a mudar (unless he give the money to hekdesh). But there also it is only s'char batala that he is allowed to take, nevertheless it would be considered benefit to the mudar to return it for free. Here too we should consider the torah taught for free without paying for s'char batala to be a benefit? Perhaps the only case that it is permitted to teach is when the teacher has no other job and there is no s'char batala applicable.
Also, the Yerushalmi quoted by the Ran implies that Targum goes hand in hand with mikrah in that one may charge. Does this contradict the gemara on 37b that says Targum is a halacha l'moshe misinai and one cannot charge? It seems to be a machlokes by targum just like there is a machlokes by pisuk ta'amim whether one can charge.
No comments:
Post a Comment