Nedarim 73

הא קא משמע לן דאפילו במקום שנוטלין שכר על המקרא שרי למשקל על המדרש לא שרי למשקל

He [the Tanna] informs us this: that even where a fee is taken, it may be accepted only for Scripture, but not for Midrash. Now, why does Midrash differ, that remuneration is forbidden: because it is written, And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. IV, 14. ');">¹</span>

מאי שנא מדרש דלא דכתיב (דברים ד, יד) ואותי צוה ה' בעת ההיא ללמד אתכם וכתיב (דברים ד, ה) ראה למדתי אתכם חוקים ומשפטים כאשר צוני ה' מה אני בחנם אף אתם נמי בחנם מקרא נמי בחנם

and it is also written, Behold I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 5. ');">²</span>

רב אמר שכר שימור ורבי יוחנן אמר שכר פיסוק טעמים

just as I [taught you] gratuitously, so you must teach gratuitously? Then should not Scripture too be unremunerated? — Rab said: The fee is for guarding [the children]. R. Johanan maintained: The fee is for the teaching of accentuation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The whole system of punctuation and accentuation being post-Biblical, Moses' prohibition does not apply to it. The meaning of the phrase pisuk te' ammim is not altogether clear. Jastrow translates: 'the division of words into clauses in accordance with the sense, punctuation'. Be that as it may, it must at least refer to a particular manner of dividing the Biblical text with or without signs, over and above that which would naturally suggest itself by the subject matter. This conclusion must be drawn from the fact that it is regarded by Rab as non-Sinaitic: yet the clearly natural division, corresponding to peshat, could not have been thought of as introduced after Moses; what sense then did it make otherwise? There is mention of chanting in Meg. 32a, but there the reference is to the Mishnah as well as the Bible, the former being studied in a sort of chant, and the phrase pisuk te'ammim is not used there. [Berliner, A., however, in Bertr. z. hebr. Gram. p. 29, n. 1, quotes Rashi on Gen. Rab. XXXVI, (according to a Munchen MS.) as explaining pisuk te'ammim as Tropen, cantillation.] ');">³</span>

תנן לא ילמדנו מקרא בשלמא למאן דאמר שכר פיסוק טעמים היינו דלא ילמדנו אלא למאן דאמר שכר שימור גדול בר שימור הוא בקטן קתני

We learnt: HE MAY NOT TEACH HIM SCRIPTURE. Now that is well on the view that remuneration is for the teaching of accentuation. But on the view that payment is for acting as guardian — does an adult need one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, Bible teaching to an adult should be unremunerated, in which case it should be permitted in the Mishnah. ');">⁴</span>

אי בקטן אימא סיפא אבל מלמד את בניו מקרא קטן בר בנים הוא חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני לא ילמדנו מקרא בקטן אם היה גדול מלמדו לו ולבניו מקרא

— It refers to a child. If so, consider the last clause: BUT HE MAY TEACH SCRIPTURE TO HIS SONS: can a child have children? — It is defective, and teaches thus: HE MAY NOT TEACH HIM SCRIPTURE in the case of a minor: but if he is an adult, HE MAY TEACH SCRIPTURE BOTH TO him and HIS SONS.

מיתיבי תינוקות לא קורין בתחילה בשבת אלא שונין בראשון בשלמא למאן דאמר שכר פיסוק טעמים היינו דאין קורין בתחילה בשבת אלא למאן דאמר שכר שימור אמאי אין קורין בתחילה בשבת ואמאי שונין בראשון הא איכא שכר שימור דשבת

An objection is raised: Children are not to study a new portion of Bible on the Sabbath; but they may make a first revision on the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., having studied it before, they may revise it even for the first time on the Sabbath. ');">⁵</span>

וליטעמיך שכר פיסוק בשבת מי אסור הבלעה היא והבלעה מישרא שרי דתניא השוכר את הפועל לשמור את התינוק לשמור את הפרה לשמור את הזרעים אין נותנין לו שכר שבת לפיכך

This is well on the view that remuneration is for the teaching of accentuation: hence a passage may not be read for the first time on the Sabbath;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because remuneration is made chiefly for teaching a passage for the first time, as that is the most difficult part of instruction. Hence, if a new passage is thus taught on the Sabbath, the teacher is paid chiefly for Sabbath labour, which is forbidden. ');">⁶</span> but on the view that payment is for acting as guardian, why is it forbidden to teach a passage for the first time on the Sabbath, yet permitted to give a first revision on the Sabbath; surely there is pay for guardianship oil the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What does it matter whether the passage is a new' one or not? The guardianship is the same in both cases, and remuneration for such work on the Sabbath is forbidden. ');">⁷</span> — Now, even according to your reasoning: is remuneration for teaching the accentuation on the Sabbath forbidden? Is it not included [in the weekly or monthly fee], which is permitted? For it was taught: If one engages a [day] labourer to look after a child,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he should not ritually defile himself. It was customary for a child to draw the water from a well to mix with the ashes of the red heifer; this child had to be ritually clean. ');">⁸</span> or the heifer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the red heifer. The guardian was to take care that 'no yoke came upon it' (Num. XIX, 2). ');">⁹</span> or to watch over the crops,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the barley specially sown seventy days before Passover (Men. 85a) for the ceremony of 'sheaf waving' (v. Lev. XXIII. 11) and to the wheat of which were made the 'two wave-loaves' on Pentecost (ibid. 17). These crops were specially guarded. ');">¹⁰</span> he may not pay him for the Sabbath:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since each day is separately paid for, and payment for the Sabbath per se is forbidden. ');">¹¹</span> therefore