ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 37
(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.
(b) Moshe cannot mean to say ...
2. ... "Re'ei Limadti Eschem Chukim u'Mishpatim *Ka'asher Tzivani* Hashem
Elokai" - that He also commanded him to teach it free of charge.
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
(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
(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).
(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.
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.
(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.
(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
(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
(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
(b) Others explain it with regard to ...
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).
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
(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).
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"!)