Siman 246

The study of Torah is the commandment greater than all other commandments, and its reward is also greater than the reward of all the commandments. And even from those great commandments "of which a person eats their fruits in this world, and the principal remains for him in the world to come" – it is also equivalent to all of them. As we learned in the Mishnah at the beginning of Peah: "These are the things of which a person eats their fruits in this world, and the principal remains for him in the world to come: honoring father and mother, and acts of kindness, etc. – and talmud Torah is equivalent to them all." And whose power can recount the magnitude of the obligation, and the magnitude of the commandment, and the magnitude of the granting of its reward? And conversely: the magnitude of its punishment for the neglect of talmud Torah, Heaven forbid – there is no sufficient explanation, and it cannot be sufficiently put into writing. And it is enough for us with what the sages of truth said: "The Holy One, Blessed be He, and the Torah, and Israel – are one." And the people of Israel were not called "a treasure from among all the nations" except at the time of the giving of the Torah.

And our sages, of blessed memory, said at the beginning of Sotah and at the end of Horayot: "She is more precious than pearls [mipninim]" – she is more precious than a Kohen Gadol who enters the innermost sanctum [lifnai velifnim], see there. And this homiletic interpretation is necessary, because the written text is "mipnayim" and the read text is "mipninim." And we say in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 9b), it is written: "She is more precious than pearls, and all your desires cannot compare to her" – implying that the desires of Heaven can compare to her. That is to say: if you have a mitzvah to perform – you should nullify Torah study and engage in the mitzvah (Rashi). And it is written: "all desires cannot compare to her," implying that even the desires of Heaven cannot compare to her, for one nullifies a mitzvah and engages in Torah study (Rashi). Here – it refers to a mitzvah that can be performed by others. Here – it refers to a mitzvah that cannot be performed by others. And in the Yerushalmi, the first chapter of Peah, we say that even the entire world in its entirety is not equal to one word of Torah. And even all the mitzvot of the Torah – they are not equal to one word of Torah, see there. And one should not ask: if so, in the case of a mitzvah that cannot be performed by others, why do we interrupt Torah study to fulfill the mitzvah? For it is certain that Torah without mitzvot – is nothing. And anyone who has nothing but Torah – even Torah he does not have. And the purpose of the Torah is to learn and to teach, to observe and to do. But when it can be performed by others – the mitzvah of Torah study is greater than the action.

And even though the greatness of the merit of every mitzvah is great unto the heavens, the merit of the Torah is high above the high. As our sages, of blessed memory, expounded (Sotah 21a): "'For a mitzvah is a lamp, and Torah is light.' The verse associated the mitzvah with a 'lamp': just as a lamp only protects for a moment, so too a mitzvah etc., and the Torah with 'light': just as light protects forever, so too Torah protects forever." And regarding the Torah it was said (Proverbs 6:22): "'When you walk, it shall lead you' – this is this world. 'When you lie down, it shall watch over you' – this is death. 'And when you awake, it shall talk with you' – for the future to come." And all the worlds were not created except for the sake of the Torah. And all the greatness of Moshe our teacher, and the holy Patriarchs, and all the prophets, and all the sages of Israel – is for the sake of the Torah.

And one of the great sages of the truth said: If you wish to know the greatness of the Torah, go and learn from Moshe Rabbeinu, who was the teacher of all the prophets and all the sages, and his comprehension was above human intellect. And there did not arise in Israel one like Moshe, "whom Hashem knew face to face." And certainly he continued to increase in wisdom until he departed from the world. And what did he say at the end of the days of his life? "You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness, etc.," for he grasped only the beginning of the holy Torah. And also our sages, of blessed memory, said in Rosh Hashanah (Rosh Hashanah 21b) that the fiftieth gate was not revealed to Moshe Rabbeinu. And this gate rises above them all with greater excellence and greater strength, like the way of the great outer circle that surrounds all the inner circles, and they are all nullified relative to it. And these matters are ancient.

And there is no remedy for breaking the evil inclination except for the Torah, as their memory for a blessing said: I created the Torah as a spice, and if you occupy yourselves with Torah – you are not delivered into its hand (Kiddushin 30b). And in Sotah there it is stated: Torah protects from suffering, and saves from the evil inclination. And anyone who occupies himself with Torah – his property prospers for him (Avodah Zarah 19b). And King David, peace be upon him, said: "Ashrei ha-ish etc. but his desire is in the Torah of Hashem etc. and all that he does shall prosper."

And if there is no Torah study—there is no performance of the mitzvot, for an ignoramus cannot be a pious person. And this is what we say in "Al HaNissim": "When [the wicked Hellenic government] rose up etc. to make them forget Your Torah, and to make them transgress the statutes of Your will." That is to say: that through the forgetting of the Torah—one transgresses the statutes of the Torah. And this we see tangibly: in places where they study Torah—the performance of the mitzvot is also in its strength, and the opposite is true of the opposite. And as they said at the end of the first chapter of Kiddushin, that Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva and the elders were reclining in the upper chamber of the house of Nitzeh in Lod. This question was asked before them: Is study greater or is action greater etc.? They all answered and said: Study is greater, for study leads to action. And it turns out that both are in his hand (Rashi). And after the passing of a person when they bring him to judgment, the beginning of his judgment is only regarding Torah study. And also his reward precedes action (ibid.), that is to say: the punishment and the reward are for Torah study before all other things (and see there in Tosafot).

Therefore, every Jewish man is obligated in the study of Torah, whether poor or rich, whether whole in body or a sufferer of afflictions, whether a youth or a very old man. Even a poor man who goes around to the doorways, and even a man with a wife and children—is obligated to set for himself a time for Torah study by day and by night, as it is said: "And you shall meditate upon it day and night." That is to say: a portion for the day and a portion for the night. And even though the plain meaning of the verse is to study constantly, throughout the entire day and the entire night, as it is written beforehand: "This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall meditate etc."—nevertheless, this matter is impossible for every person who is preoccupied with his livelihood, and this is only for the unique individuals of the generation. And as their memory is for a blessing said: The Torah was only given to the eaters of the manna. Therefore, there was not and will not be a generation of knowledge like the generation of the wilderness, because they were not preoccupied with livelihood, and they would study all day and all night. But for those such as us, the obligation is to set times for Torah, a time by day and a time by night. And so they ask him after his passing: "Did you set times for Torah?" And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 246:1), and this is his wording: And in a time of pressing need, even if he only recited the Shema morning and evening—we read regarding him "they shall not depart from your mouth." Thus far his words, that is to say: if a remote circumstance occurs, such as being very preoccupied on this day, like at a market or the like—he has fulfilled his obligation with the recitation of the Shema, in which it is said: "And you shall speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, when you lie down and when you rise up." (See Menachot 99b. And it seems to me that Rabbi Yose also holds that two intentions are implied: one according to its plain meaning, and the second by setting times, as I have written. And so too the word "constantly"—implies both of them. And certainly the first is preferable, and when it is impossible—he fulfills the obligation with the second. And according to this, the difficulty of the Lechem Mishneh in the first chapter of Talmud Torah halacha 8 (the Rambam, Laws of Talmud Torah 1) is resolved, for here the Rambam ruled like Rabbi Yose, and in the fifth chapter of Temidin (the Rambam, Laws of Daily and Additional Offerings 5) he ruled like the Rabbis, see there. And according to what I have written, it is resolved that he ruled like Rabbi Yose. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 246:1), that one for whom it is impossible to study because he does not know how to study at all, or because of the preoccupations that he has—he should provide for others who study, and it will be considered for him as if he studies himself. And a person can stipulate with his fellow that the latter will engage in Torah, and the former will provide him with a livelihood, and he will share the reward with him. But if he has already engaged in Torah—he cannot sell him his portion for money that he will give him. Thus far their words. And the reason is simple: for the reward of the World to Come is not subject to sale or giving to others, and the soul that performed [the deed]—it shall attain its reward and not another. However, when from the beginning they partner in the mitzvah—it follows that both of them performed the mitzvah, like Issachar and Zebulun, and Shimon the brother of Azaryah. And regarding this it is said: "It is a tree of life to those who hold fast to it, and its supporters are happy." And all the salvations and consolations, and all the blessings that the prophets prophesied—they are all for one who marries his daughter to a talmid chakham, and conducts business for a talmid chakham, and benefits a talmid chakham from his property (Berakhot 34b). But as for the talmidei chakhamim themselves: "No eye has seen, O God, besides You" (ibid.).

And a person should not say when he learns by himself: I no longer need to support the hands of those who learn Torah. For it is not so; on the contrary, since he knows the power of the Torah—the obligation upon him is greater to be among the supporters of the Torah, and to give donations to the yeshivot and to places that spread the Torah. And for the most part, the Torah will emerge from the children of the poor, and they require support. And every single perutah that one gives for Talmud Torah combines into a great account, and saves from suffering. And the summary of the matters is: anyone who learns Torah himself—the mitzvot are beloved to him, and he loves the sages, and supports them and assists them so that they may learn and engage in the Torah. And the opposite is true of the opposite.

And so we have learned in Torat Kohanim, Parshat Bechukotai: "And if you will not listen to Me, and will not perform all these commandments" – is there such a person who does not learn but does perform? The verse teaches: "And if you will not listen, and will not perform" – behold, anyone who does not learn does not perform. Or is there such a person who does not learn and does not perform, but does not despise others? The verse teaches: "And if you despise My statutes" – behold, anyone who does not learn and does not perform, ultimately he despises others. Or is there one who does not learn and does not perform, and despises others, but does not hate the sages? The verse teaches: "And if your soul loathes My ordinances" – behold, anyone who does not learn and does not perform and despises others, hates the sages. Or is there a person etc., but allows others to perform? The verse teaches: "so as not to perform" – behold, anyone who does not learn etc., ultimately he does not allow others to perform. Or is there a person etc., but acknowledges the commandments? The verse teaches: "so as not to perform all My commandments" – behold, anyone etc., ultimately he denies the commandments that were stated at Sinai. Or is there a person who possesses all these traits and does not deny the Fundamental Principle? The verse teaches: "to your breaking My covenant" – behold, anyone who possesses all these traits ultimately denies the Fundamental Principle. Thus far his words. And from this one must understand how great is the power of Talmud Torah.

A person should always learn Torah and afterwards marry a woman. For if he marries a woman first—it is impossible for him to engage in Torah since a millstone is around his neck, as he will be forced to seek a livelihood. This is when he is cold by nature, or he is a tzaddik and is able to overcome his inclination. But otherwise, when he sees that his inclination is overcoming him—he should marry a woman first. And he should strive to take the daughter of a wealthy and G-d-fearing man, who will help him so that it will be within his ability to sit for some years over the Torah. And so they practiced in the generations before us, for great is the reward of those who take a talmid chacham for their daughters. Or if it is within his ability to take a woman who fears Hashem who will support him—how good it is. And if none of these exist—he should marry a woman and toil for a livelihood, and establish fixed times for it. For the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not come with tyranny toward His creatures, and whether one does much or one does little, provided that he directs his heart to Heaven. However, from establishing fixed times for Torah, no Jewish man in the world can be exempted. And furthermore, how much a person is obligated to learn until the day of his death, as it is said: "And lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life." For as long as he does not engage in Torah he forgets, as the words of Torah are as difficult to acquire as golden vessels, and as easy to lose as glass vessels. And this is what Iyov said, "Free among the dead": once a person dies—he becomes free from the Torah and from the mitzvot. But all the days of a person's life—it is not within one's ability to be exempted from Torah and mitzvot, even for one day and even for one hour.

And know that regarding that which has been explained, that if his inclination does not overcome him—he should study and afterward marry, the Tur wrote in the name of the Rosh, and this is his wording: And a fixed limit for that study I do not know. For it is not possible to nullify "be fruitful and multiply" all his days, as we have not found this except with Ben Azzai, whose soul desired the Torah. Thus far his words. And from the words of the Rambam in the fifteenth chapter of Ishut, it is implied that in truth there is no fixed limit to the matter, for he wrote regarding the obligation for a twenty-year-old to marry a woman, and this is his wording: However, if he is occupied with Torah and is engrossed in it, and is afraid to marry a woman so that he will not be distracted by his sustenance and be nullified from the Torah—it is permitted to delay. Thus far his words. And it is implied for as long as he desires, until his inclination overcomes him, or until he has that with which to support himself without nullification from the Torah (and so wrote the Beit Shmuel in Even HaEzer siman 1, subsection 5). And this is not the same matter as Ben Azzai, for he did not want to marry even though he had that with which to support himself. And he did not want to be nullified even for the sake of procreation alone, because of his great diligence. See there.

Regarding the order of study, we say in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 30a) that one should divide his study into three: a third in Mikra, a third in Mishnah, and a third in Gemara; see there. The Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 246:4) explained, and this is their wording: A person is obligated to divide his study into three: a third in the Written Torah, which is the twenty-four books of Torah, Prophets, and Writings; a third in Mishnah, which is the Oral Torah, and included in this is the commentary on the Written Torah; and a third in Talmud, which is that he should contemplate and understand the end of a matter from its beginning, and derive one matter from another, and compare one matter to another, and deliberate using the hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded, until he knows how the essence of the mitzvot are, and how the forbidden and the permitted emerge, and similar matters that he learned from the oral tradition. How so? If he were a craftsman and engaged in his work three hours a day and nine in Torah, he reads three of them in the Written Torah, and in three the Oral Torah, and in three he understands one matter from another. In what case are these words said? At the beginning of a person's study. But when he grows in Torah, and will not need to learn the Written Torah, nor to engage constantly in the Oral Torah – he should read at appointed times the Written Torah and the words of the Oral Torah, so that he does not forget any matter of the laws of the Torah. And he should turn all his days to Talmud alone, according to the breadth of his heart and the settling of his mind. Thus far their words.

And some have written that that which we say "a third for Mikra" is only for a child who has not yet read Mikra sufficiently. But a person who has read Mikra sufficiently is not permitted to occupy himself with it a third of his days; rather, he should turn his heart to Mishnah and Talmud. And some have written in this wording: that they only said this in the earlier generations, when their hearts were open like the entrance of a hall, and two-thirds of their days sufficed for them for Mishnah and Talmud. But for us, regarding Mikra, the study of one's youth is sufficient, and would that the rest of our years suffice for Mishnah and Talmud (Beit Yosef in Bedek HaBayit in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham and the Ramah). And Rabbeinu Tam wrote that now the Babylonian Talmud alone is sufficient, for in it are included Mikra, Mishnah, and Gemara, as he wrote in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 24a) that the Babylonian Talmud is mixed with Mikra, Mishnah, and Gemara. And upon this we rely, and we study only the Babylonian Talmud. Our teacher, the Rema, cited these words of his, and so we practice and consistently instruct. Nevertheless, one certainly needs to know the Mikra and the Mishnah.

And regarding the matter of studying the wisdom of Kabbalah – happy is he who merits it, for it enlightens the eyes to understand the depth of our holy Torah. However, this requires holiness and purity, alacrity and cleanliness, and great knowledge in the Talmud. And there are those who wrote that one should not study this before forty years of age, for "at forty one attains understanding," and the boiling heat of youth has passed and gone. And most of those who burst forth to ascend before the proper time – were shriveled before their time, as the sages of truth wrote (Shach, subsection 6). And this wisdom is proper to be studied from a teacher, from mouth to ear. But now, in our many iniquities, we do not have this; yet, in contrast to this, there are holy books that show us the way in the beginning of the study of this wisdom. These are the books "Shefa Tal," "Sha'arei Orah," "Avodat HaKodesh," and their like. And he who comes to purify himself – they assist him from Heaven.

Regarding the study of other wisdoms, the Rambam wrote at the end of the fourth chapter of Yesodei HaTorah that it is permitted to study other wisdoms occasionally, provided they are not the books of heretics. For it is forbidden to read the books of heretics, as they mislead the reader from the good path to the evil path, and their end is to rebel against the Torah and mitzvot. And there are some among them who in their hearts rebel also against the earthly kingdom. Not so those who occupy themselves with Gemara and poskim and the wisdom of truth – they are subjugated to the kingdom of the land with a whole heart and a willing soul, because we were so commanded by our teachers, of blessed memory, in many places. And so Solomon said: "My son, fear Hashem and the king." That is to say: he who fears Hashem – he also fears the king.

And in this language Rav Hai Gaon responded to our teacher, Shmuel HaNagid: The rectification of the body and the straightness of a person's conduct—this is the occupation of the Mishnah and the Talmud, and that which is good for Israel. For the study of Torah benefits himself, and others like him. And it benefits the common people, for it will draw them to the paths of the Torah and the mitzvah, etc., and they will lead the entire multitude to a good end and hope, etc.; and you will not find fear of Heaven and fear of sin, and zeal and humility and purity and holiness, except among those who occupy themselves with the Mishnah and the Talmud. Thus far his words (brought in the Rivash, siman 45). And now in these generations of ours, a father must be very careful regarding his sons and daughters, so that they do not fall into the net of heresy and apikorsut which has increased in our many sins, and there has been fulfilled in us "in the footsteps of the Messiah, insolence will increase": insolence toward Heaven, and more and more, may Hashem have mercy. See Shach, and Taz, subsection 1, who wrote in the name of the Derishah: The laypeople who study only a few hours on a Yom Tov, it is better that they study books of poskim and not Gemara, see there. And certainly every man must know the laws of "Orach Chaim," and some laws from "Yoreh Deah" and "Choshen Mishpat" and "Even HaEzer" that are necessary for every man, see there in the Laws of Talmud Torah by the HaGrash"z, of blessed memory. However, we have seen that if we say this to them—they will not study at all, for their desire is only to study a page of Gemara every day. Therefore, one should not discourage them, and would that they should persevere in this. And every word of Torah restores the soul, and brings one to pure fear of Hashem.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 246:5): In a place where it is the custom to teach the Written Torah for a wage—it is permitted to teach for a wage. But the Oral Torah—it is forbidden to teach for a wage. If one did not find someone to teach him for free—he should learn for a wage. And even though he was required to learn for a wage, he should not say: "Just as I learned for a wage, so I will teach others for a wage." Rather, he should teach others for free. Thus far his words, and this is from the words of the Rambam in the first chapter (Rambam Hilchot Talmud Torah 1). And he brought proof from the verse where it is written: "Acquire truth and do not sell it," meaning: even though you acquired the truth with money, do not sell it for money but rather for free. And behold, the Rambam, of blessed memory, may Hashem have helped him not to sustain himself from the Torah. But the early authorities already wrote that if we did not practice this way—the Torah would have already been nullified from Israel. Furthermore: according to the law it is permitted to take a wage for one who occupies himself all day teaching others, and has no other livelihood, and it is considered "payment for idleness." And this is what the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote there, that what is practiced nowadays to teach everything for a wage if he has nothing from which to sustain himself—it is permitted. And even if he has, if it is "payment for idleness" that is evident, in that he leaves all his occupations and his business—it is permitted. Thus far their words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that all "innovations of the scribes," which are those things enacted by the rabbis—it is permitted to take a wage to teach it. Thus far his words. (And it is from the Hagahot Maimoniyot chapter 1, and its source is from Nedarim 37a. And in my humble opinion it would seem that only regarding the cantillation marks did they say so, and as the Rosh wrote there: "to chant the verses according to their law," see there. But other rabbinic laws—they are like Torah law, for they were all given to Moshe at Sinai. As it is brought in Megillah 19b, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed Moshe the refinements of the Torah and the refinements of the scribes, etc., see there. And perhaps because it says He "showed him" and not that He "gave him," and it requires further study. Examine and you will find it simple.)

A woman is not commanded in the study of Torah. The poskim wrote: A woman who studied Torah has a reward, but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded. Greater is the reward of one who is commanded and performs than one who is not commanded and performs, because the one who is commanded has his inclination inciting him not to fulfill it, and he is always anxious to nullify his inclination and fulfill the commandment of his Creator. This is not the case for one who is not commanded—his inclination does not incite him to the contrary. And even though she has a reward, our sages, of blessed memory, commanded (Sotah 20a) not to teach his daughter Torah. And the sages said that anyone who teaches her Torah, it is as if he teaches her tiflut, meaning: a matter of transgression. And the reason: because their minds are light, and they turn the words of Torah into matters of vanity according to their meager understanding. To what do these words apply? To the Oral Torah. But regarding the Written Torah, he should not teach her initially, but if he teaches her, it is not like teaching her tiflut. So wrote the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch. And in the Tur it is written the opposite: that the Written Torah is like teaching her tiflut, and not the Oral Torah, see there. And they wrote that it is a printing error (Beit Yosef). And there is one who wishes to uphold the version, but it is not sufficient (see Perisha). And our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 246:6) that nevertheless she is obligated to learn the dinim that pertain to a woman. Thus far his words. And we have never practiced teaching them from a book, nor have we heard of the custom. Rather, the known dinim every woman teaches to her daughter and daughter-in-law. And it is only recently that the dinim of women were printed in the vernacular, and they are able to read from them. And our women are diligent, for in every matter of doubt they ask, and they do not rely on their own opinion even in the smallest of small matters.

The woman is not obligated to teach her son Torah. Nevertheless, if she assists her son or her husband so that they may engage in Torah—she shares the reward with them. And the promise that the Holy One, Blessed be He, promised to women is greater than that to men (Berakhot 17a), as it is said (Isaiah 32:9): "Rise up, you women who are at ease, hear my voice; you confident daughters, give ear to my speech." And Rava said to Rabbi Hiyya: By what do women merit? By bringing their children to the synagogue to read, and by having their husbands study in the house of the rabbis, and by waiting for their husbands until they return from the house of the rabbis, see there. And in truth, those women who support the hands of their husbands and the hands of their sons so that they may study Torah—their merit is very great, and their reward is very much. And all the more so those women who engage in providing a livelihood so that their husbands may sit over the Torah; regarding them it is said: "A woman of valor, who can find?" and "Strength and majesty are her clothing, and she laughs at the final day," and "A woman who fears Hashem, she shall be praised." And she eats of its fruits in this world, and the principal remains for her in the world to come.

One does not teach Torah to a student who is not proper. Rather, one returns him to the good path, guides him in a straight way, and examines him. Afterward, one brings him into the beit midrash and teaches him. And thus the sages said (Chullin 133a): Anyone who teaches a student who is not proper—it is as if he throws a stone to Merkulis. That is to say: even though he throws the stone at Merkulis to degrade it, nevertheless he commits a transgression, since its worship is performed in that manner. So too in this case, where he intends for the sake of a mitzvah, yet he commits a transgression, as it is said: "As a cluster of stones in a sling—so is he who gives honor to a fool." And there is no honor but Torah, as it is said: "The wise shall inherit honor," see there. And one must wonder about this from that incident of Rabban Gamliel in Berakhot (Berakhot 28a), where he would proclaim: "Any student whose inside is not like his outside—let him not enter the beit midrash." But Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah did not do so. And it is explained there that Rabban Gamliel did not act correctly, and the halacha is like Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. And "his inside is not like his outside" is called such when he lacks fear of Heaven, as is proven in Yoma (Yoma 72b), see there. And behold, he is certainly not proper. And it must be said that the matter is as follows: for the reason that one does not teach one who is not proper is because he will learn not for its own sake. But it is difficult: for we hold that a person should always learn even not for its own sake, for from [learning] not for its own sake, he comes to [learning] for its own sake. However, our teachers the authors of the Tosafot in Pesachim (Pesachim 50b) distinguished between this statement and what they said there, that one who learns not for its own sake—it would have been better for him had he not been created. And they distinguished between one who learns not for its own sake but for some personal motive, for in this case it is permitted because in the course of time he will come to learn for its own sake, and one who learns to provoke, for in that case it would have been better for him had he not been created. And it must be said here as well: for this one whose inside is not like his outside—it is possible that he will learn for some personal motive. But a student who is not proper is one who learns to provoke, or to apply words of Torah to other matters. Nevertheless, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch should have explained this, and it requires further study.

And likewise, a teacher who does not walk in a good path, even though he is a great scholar and all the people need him—one does not learn from him until he returns to what is good. Thus ruled the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch section 8 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 246, 8), and its source is from Moed Katan (Moed Katan 17a), see there. And even though in Chagigah (Chagigah 12b) it raises a difficulty regarding Rabbi Meir who learned Torah from Acher, and answers: This refers to a great person and that refers to a small person. That is to say: a small person is forbidden to learn from his mouth lest he stumble, but a great person is permitted, for "he eats its inside and throws away its peel," see there. And why did they not make a distinction in this? For it can be said that we do not learn from the greatness of Rabbi Meir for our generations, and we are all considered small. (Shach subsection 8, and see there that he further answered in the name of his father that the halakhah in this is not like Rabbi Meir. And I wonder: for if so, the Gemara should have said "and it is not so?" as it says in Berakhot 28a regarding the incident of Rabban Gamliel.)

How do they teach? The teacher sits at the head, and his students are before him surrounding him like a crown, so that they all hear the teacher and see his face. For even seeing the face of the teacher is a great matter, as it is written: "And your eyes shall see your teachers." And Rabbi said: The reason I am sharper than my colleagues is because I saw Rabbi Meir from behind (Eruvin 13b). The teacher shall not sit on a chair and his students on the ground; rather, either all are on the ground or all are on chairs. Originally, the teacher would sit and his students would stand. Before the destruction of the Second Temple, everyone began the practice of teaching students while they were sitting, because weakness descended to the world and they did not have the strength to stand. This is what we learned in the Mishnah at the end of Sotah: From the time Rabban Gamliel died, the honor of the Torah ceased. Some say this applies specifically when the students are fit for ordination, but when they have not reached this—the teacher sits on a chair and they are on the ground. In our countries, this is not applicable.

If the teacher teaches the students from his own mouth—he teaches. And if he teaches by means of a translator, as was the custom in the days of the sages of the Gemara—the translator stands between the teacher and the students, and the teacher speaks to the translator, and the translator makes it heard to the students. And when the students ask—they ask the translator, and the translator asks the teacher. And the teacher responds to the translator, and the translator responds to the students. The teacher shall not raise his voice louder than the voice of the translator, and likewise the translator shall not raise his voice louder than the voice of the teacher at the time he asks the teacher. But at the time he makes it heard to the students and they are many—then he may make a loud voice heard, so that they all shall hear (Beit Yosef).

The interpreter is not permitted to add or subtract from the words of the teacher, even a single utterance. However, regarding the mention of the names of the sages, there are times when it is necessary to change; for example, if the teacher says something in the name of his father or in the name of his teacher, and says: "Thus said my father, my master" or "my teacher." The interpreter is compelled to mention his name, since that sage was not his father or his teacher, and he says: "Thus said our teacher, so-and-so." The teacher cannot say this, for it is forbidden to mention his father or his teacher by name. Similarly, when the teacher says something in the name of the interpreter’s father, or in the name of the interpreter’s teacher, and says "Thus said our teacher, so-and-so." The interpreter is forbidden from mentioning their names, and is compelled to say "Thus said my father, my master" or "my teacher." And know that in the Rambam it is written in this language: The interpreter is not permitted to diminish, nor to add, nor to change, unless the interpreter was the father of the sage or his teacher. If the teacher said to the interpreter: "Thus said to me my teacher" or "my father," when the interpreter says etc., and mentions his name etc. Thus far his words. And it implies that these are two matters: for first it says that he is not permitted to change unless the interpreter was the father of the sage or his teacher, for then he is permitted to change from what the teacher is expounding, like that case of Rav and Rav Shila in Yoma (Yoma 20b). And afterward it speaks regarding the change of names. And it is a wondrous thing that the father or the teacher should be an interpreter for the son or the student. And the Ra'avad already challenged this, see there, for that incident of Rav in Yoma was also in error, because Rav Shila did not know that this was Rav, see there. (And the Kesef Mishneh brought a Tosefta in this language. And what is clarified is as the Bach wrote, that a scribal error fell into the Rambam, and so it must say: unless the interpreter was interpreting for the father of the sage or his teacher, the teacher says: "Thus said my father etc.," see there.)

A teacher who taught, and the students did not understand—he should not become angry with them. Rather, he repeats and returns to the matter several times, until they understand the depth of the halacha. And we find regarding our holy teachers, of blessed memory, that they repeated for the student up to four hundred times when he did not understand (Eruvin 54b). And the student should not say "I understood" when he truly does not yet understand, but says so because of shame. And regarding this we learned: "The bashful person does not learn." Therefore, the student should not be ashamed before his peers who already understood the halacha, while he has not yet understood, for if he is ashamed and does not ask—it turns out that he enters the beit midrash and leaves with nothing. Rather, he asks and returns and asks several times. And the teacher is not permitted to become angry with him, as we learned: "The impatient person does not teach." And if it happened that the teacher became angry with him, he should say to him: "My teacher and master, what shall I do, for my intellect is limited, and I must learn?" And his anger will subside, and he will see that he did not do well, and he will appease him and teach him. And all this is when the students did not understand because of the depth of the matter, or because their intellect is limited. But if the teacher sees that their failure to understand is because they are negligent in their study, and do not persevere as is proper—he is obligated to become angry with them and shame them with words, in order to sharpen them. And regarding this they said: "Cast bile among the students." Therefore, it is not proper for a teacher to behave with lightheadedness before the students, so that his awe shall be upon them. And he should not jest before them, and he should not eat or drink with them constantly, for all these things remove the awe and the heights of honor. And it is not proper for it to be so, for when his awe is cast upon them—they will learn from him quickly, and persevere in their study.

It is stated in Shabbat (Shabbat 30b) that one should not sit to study from a state of sadness, nor from laziness, nor from laughter, nor from lightheadedness, nor from conversation, nor from idle matters, but rather from the joy of a mitzvah. And it asks from that which Rava said: Any talmid chakham who sits before his teacher—his lips drip bitterness, they shall be scorched. That is to say: that he must sit in awe and fear. And it answers: This is for the teacher, and this is for the student. For the student must sit in awe, and the teacher in joy. And if you wish, I will say: Both are for the teacher, and this is before he begins the legal discourse, he must be in joy, and this is after he begins the legal discourse, even the teacher must sit in fear. Like that of Rabbah, before he would open for the rabbis, he would say a matter of jest, and the rabbis would be cheered. In the end, he sat in awe and opened the legal discourse, see there. And the poskim did not mention anything of this, and I do not know why. And perhaps their reason is because in these generations, if we were to cast all this upon them—they would come to the neglect of Torah, and therefore they omitted them intentionally. And it requires further study.

One does not question the teacher immediately upon his entering the beit midrash, until his mind is settled upon him. And the student does not question upon entering, until his mind is settled and he rests. And two do not question as one. And one does not question the teacher regarding another matter that they are not currently engaged in, but rather from that same matter they are engaged in, so that he will not be embarrassed. And who is greater to us than our holy teacher? And when Rav questioned him regarding a different matter, and he answered him properly despite all this, Rabbi Hiyya said to Rav: Did I not tell you, when Rabbi is standing in this tractate, do not question him in another tractate? For if Rabbi were not a great man—you would have shamed him (Shabbat 3b). And the teacher has permission to mislead the students with his questions, and with actions that he performs before them, in order to sharpen them. As we find in the Gemara: And Rabbah only desired to sharpen Abaye. And so that he may know if they remember what they are learning. And it goes without saying that he has permission to question them regarding another matter that they are not engaged in, in order to stimulate them.

One does not ask while standing, and one does not answer while standing. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 13 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 246:13): And some say when asking a matter—everything requires standing. Thus far his words. And there is one who challenged him, for his ruling stems from Tosafot in Bekhorot (Bekhorot 36b), from that case of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Tzadok. But from the time Rabban Gamliel died—the honor of the Torah ceased, and they began to learn while sitting. And what is the proof from Rabban Gamliel (Shach, subsection 11)? But this is not a challenge, for that was Rabban Gamliel the Elder, the grandfather of the Rabban Gamliel in Bekhorot (and so wrote the Yad Shaul and the Kitzur Hanhagot there). And there is one who challenged him for another reason: for behold, this law that one does not ask while standing is in the Tosefta Sanhedrin in the seventh chapter. And that which he wrote that a matter of halacha requires standing is in the Yerushalmi at the end of the tenth chapter of Nedarim. And the intention of our teacher, the Rema, is that the case in the Tosefta refers to something other than a matter of halacha, and the case in the Yerushalmi refers to a matter of halacha. However, in the Yerushalmi there it states that one who asks halacha and aggadah must stand, see there. And if so, perforce the Yerushalmi disagrees with the Tosefta (the Gra, subsection 43). Furthermore, it is difficult to me, for in the Tosefta it is explicitly proven there that it deals with a matter of halacha, for it concludes there that one should not ask more than three halachot, see there. Consequently, it deals with halacha.

And I say that despite all this, the words of our teacher, the Rema, are correct. For granted that the Yerushalmi disagrees with the Tosefta, nevertheless, since in our Talmud as well, in Berakhot (Berakhot 27b) and in Bekhorot (Bekhorot 36a), it is explained that the questioner stood and asked, consequently that which is in the Tosefta is pushed aside. However, in my humble opinion, the essence of the matter is perplexing. For it is known that the Yerushalmi brings the Toseftas in every place; if so, why did it not bring it and push it aside? Rather, certainly they are two different matters. For certainly anyone who asks a matter of any sage—whether a question for practical application, or a matter of halakha, or a matter of Aggada—must stand due to derekh eretz. But that of the Tosefta is a different matter, for there the entire chapter deals with the conduct of the Sanhedrin, and when the questioner came and asked, he did not ask one individual but rather all of them, and nothing was issued from them without a count of opinions. And thus it is stated there: Previously, they would not be counted for two matters as one, and they would not be asked about two questions as one. Rather, they are counted for the first and afterwards for the second. And they are asked about the first and afterwards for the second, etc. They do not ask while standing, and they do not answer while standing, nor from a high place, nor from afar, nor from behind the elders, etc. Thus far his words. And according to this, it works out well: since the question was to everyone, and they must count a majority of opinions, and much time is needed for this. Therefore, one should not do this in a temporary manner while standing, but rather in a fixed manner while sitting. And this law applies only to the Sanhedrin, and not in any other place. But in the Yerushalmi, it deals with when one asks a sage; certainly the questioner is in a standing position and the sage is in a sitting position, due to derekh eretz. And according to this, the words of our teacher, the Rema, are correct. And it is true that from the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch it does not imply so; nevertheless, the words of our teacher, the Rema, have a basis in halakha. (And that which in Berakhot and Bekhorot the questioner stood and asked, even though many were there—this was because of the dispute as is explained there, for even to Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabban Gamliel commanded: "Stand on your feet," etc., see there. And it can be said that the Rema also does not disagree at all, for the Rambam and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch deal with a question in the beit midrash before many, which requires a count. But the Rema says that when they ask a matter of halakha, meaning from a single sage, one must stand. And so it appears to my humble opinion to be the primary view. And he wrote "some say" as is his way in several places. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

Just as one does not ask while standing, so too one does not ask from a high place, nor from a distant place, nor from behind the elders. And one only asks regarding the actual matter that they are occupied with, and not regarding another matter even though it is of the same subject, such as if both are from the laws of Shabbat and the like. And one only asks out of awe, that is to say: with great humility before the elders. And even regarding that same matter, he should not ask more than three halachot, even though he has many questions; when they answer him regarding the three, he may ask more, so as not to confuse many matters together.

Two who asked, one asked relevantly and one asked irrelevantly – we attend to the relevant one. A practical case and a non-practical case – we attend to the practical case. Halacha and Midrash – we attend to Halacha. Midrash and Aggadah – we attend to Midrash. And Midrash means the expositions of "Torat Kohanim" and "Sifrei" and "Mechilta," and similar to these. Aggadah and a kal vachomer – we attend to the kal vachomer, and some have the version "to the Aggadah" (Shach, subsection 12). And before us the version in the Tosefta there is: Midrash and a kal vachomer – we attend to the kal vachomer. A kal vachomer and a gezerah shavah – we attend to the kal vachomer. If the questioners were one a sage and one a student of a sage – we attend to the sage. A student of a sage and an am ha'aretz – we attend to the student of a sage. And there is reason to doubt whether this is specifically regarding questions of one type or even of two types, such as where the sage asks irrelevantly and the student of a sage relevantly, if in this too we prioritize the student of a sage. And this which they said previously: we attend to the relevant one, means with equal questioners. Or perhaps the one who asks relevantly precedes even if he is lesser in status. And so it implies from the arrangement of the language. And if both were sages, both students of sages, both amei ha'aretz, and two asked about two halachot or two questions, two answers, two practical cases – the authority is in the hand of the respondent, to whomever he wishes he may prioritize. And it appears that he should prioritize the one who came first to ask. And this which they said: to whomever he wishes he may prioritize, means when both came as one. And a mamzer who is a student of a sage precedes a Kohen who is an am ha'aretz, and one must answer him first, for the honor of Torah is superior. And the wife of a chaver, it appears that her law is like a chaver. And a man and a woman who came to ask, it appears that we prioritize the woman over the man. And see Choshen Mishpat siman 15 (Aruch HaShulchan Choshen Mishpat 15) that we prioritize the judgment of a woman over a man.

One may not sleep in the beit midrash during the time of the sermon and study. And anyone who dozes in the beit midrash at this time—his Torah becomes tatters, for at the time he dozes he does not know what was said, as it is said: "and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags." And one may not converse in the beit midrash during the time of study except for words of Torah. And even one who sneezed—one does not say "asuta" to him because of the bitul Torah. And they wrote that now we do say "asuta" (ibid. subsection 16). And the sanctity of the beit midrash is more stringent than the sanctity of the synagogue, for Torah is much greater in level than prayer. And a covenant is made that anyone who studies in the beit midrash—he does not quickly forget. And anyone who toils in his study in private—becomes wise, as it is said: "and with the modest is wisdom." And anyone who makes his voice heard during his study—his study is preserved in his hand. But one who reads in a whisper quickly forgets, as it is said: "For they are life to those who find them"—to those who express them with the mouth. And it is said: "Ordered in all and secure"—if it is ordered in all your 248 limbs, such that you study with a voice—it is secure with you (Eruvin 54a). And know that there is one who wrote regarding this which was explained that one may not sleep in the beit midrash, that a temporary sleep is permitted, as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 151 (Shach subsection 15). And I wonder: for behold, even to doze it was explained that one may not, and all the more so a temporary sleep. For that of Orach Chaim deals with when it is not the time of the sermon, and here it is during the time of the sermon. And one may not doze, and all the more so any sleep even temporary (so it appears in my humble opinion).

Israel merited three crowns, and one of them is the crown of Torah, and it is greater than all of them. Every man of Israel can merit it, and it is equivalent to all the mitzvot. If one is engaged in Torah and a mitzvah comes before him, if it is possible for it to be performed by others – he shall not interrupt his study. And if not – he shall interrupt and perform the mitzvah, and return to his study. The beginning of a person's judgment is regarding Talmud Torah, and afterwards regarding the rest of his deeds. A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot even if not for its own sake, for from doing it not for its own sake – he will come to do it for its own sake, as he will recognize the truth. And specifically "not for its own sake" such as for the sake of honor, or for the sake of money, and the like. But one who studies to provoke – it would have been better for him had he not been created. And "for its own sake" is defined as not for any ulterior motive, but rather because the Holy One, blessed be He, so commanded. And all the more so regarding one who teaches others, that it must specifically be for its own sake. And a fortiori, the grandson of a fortiori, regarding one who authors a book; if he intends for some ulterior motive, better than him is the stillborn, and the author should intend only for the sake of Hashem and His Torah alone.

The words of Torah are not sustained in one who is lax regarding them, nor in those who study amidst indulgence and excessive eating and drinking. Rather, they are sustained in one who kills himself over it and constantly afflicts his body. He should not give excessive sleep to his eyes or excessive slumber to his eyelids, unless he knows that if he does not sleep properly, he will be unable to study. Regarding this it is said: "In all your ways, know Him." One who wishes to merit the crown of Torah should be careful with all his nights, and not lose even one of them to sleep, eating, drinking, conversation, and the like, but rather occupy them with words of wisdom and words of Torah. For a person does not learn the majority of his wisdom except at night. Any house in which words of Torah are not heard at night, fire consumes it (Sanhedrin 92a). During the short nights, such as from Shavuot until the fifteenth of Av, he should study a little, and from the fifteenth of Av onwards, he should increase his study. One who does not increase shall be gathered, Heaven forbid. Anyone for whom it is possible to engage in Torah and does not engage, or who read and studied and turned away by his own will to the vanities of the world, and left his study and abandoned it—behold, he is included in "For he has despised the word of Hashem." One should not speak much idle chatter unnecessarily. Anyone who neglects the Torah out of wealth, his end will be to neglect it out of poverty. And anyone who fulfills the Torah out of poverty, his end will be to fulfill it out of wealth. A person should not say: "How can I study Torah, for its measure is longer than the earth?" But our sages, of blessed memory, already said in Avot: "It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it." Whatever your hand finds within your power to do—to study and to teach, and to strengthen the breaches of the Torah, and to strengthen the yeshivot and the talmudei Torah—do it. And He will illuminate your darkness in the World to Come, and your righteousness shall go before you, and kindness and truth shall precede you.

The Rambam wrote in the third chapter (Rambam Laws of Torah Study 3): One whose heart motivates him to fulfill this mitzvah properly, and to be crowned with the crown of Torah—he should not divert his mind to other matters, and he should not take to heart that he will acquire the Torah along with wealth and honor as one. Such is the way of Torah: a morsel of bread with salt you shall eat, and water by measure you shall drink, and upon the ground you shall sleep, and a life of suffering you shall live, and in the Torah you labor, etc. And if you have increased Torah—you have increased reward. And the reward is according to the suffering. And perhaps you will say: Until I gather money, I will return and read; until I acquire what I need and become free from my business, I will return and read. If this thought enters your heart—you will never merit the crown of Torah. Rather, make your Torah fixed, and your work temporary. And do not say: "When I am free I will study," lest you never become free. And it is written in the Torah: "It is not in heaven, nor is it across the sea." "It is not in heaven"—it is not found among the haughty, nor among those who travel across the sea. Therefore the sages said: "Not everyone who increases in business becomes wise." And the sages commanded: Minimize business and engage in Torah.

Words of Torah are likened to water, as it is said: "Ho, everyone who thirsts, go to the water." To tell you: just as water does not gather in a sloped place, but rather glides off it and collects in a level place, so too words of Torah are not found among the haughty, nor in the heart of any of proud heart, but rather in the crushed and humble of spirit; who provides himself with the dust of the feet of the sages, and removes desire and the pleasures of the time from his heart, and performs a small amount of labor each day for his livelihood if he has nothing to eat. And the rest of his day and night – he engages in Torah.

And anyone who sets his heart to occupy himself with Torah and not perform work, and to be sustained from charity—behold, such a person has profaned the Name, disgraced the Torah, and extinguished the light of the faith. He has caused evil to himself and removed his life from the World to Come, because it is forbidden to derive benefit from words of Torah in this world. The sages said: Anyone who derives benefit from words of Torah has removed his life from the world. And they further commanded and said: Love work and hate positions of power. And all Torah that is not accompanied by work—its end is that it will be nullified and lead to sin. And the end of such a person is that he will rob people. And it is a great virtue for one who is sustained by the work of his hands, and it is the trait of the early pious ones. And through this, he merits all honor and goodness in this world and in the World to Come, as it is said: "When you eat the labor of your hands, you are fortunate and it is good for you." "You are fortunate"—in this world, "and it is good for you"—in the World to Come. And all these matters are the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory. And he elaborated on this further in the commentary on the Mishnah in the fourth chapter of Avot.

And also according to his words, this is regarding a healthy person, who is able to engage in some craft or in some commerce, and is able to sustain himself. But an elderly or sick person, or one who has no livelihood at all—it is permitted to benefit from his Torah, and that they should provide for him. And likewise, if the public does not desire and it is not to their honor that the scholar engage in craft or in commerce—certainly it is permitted for him to receive from the public, so that he will have that with which to sustain his soul. And like the decree-issuers in Jerusalem, who would take their wages from the Terumat HaLishkah, and you have no greater sechar batala than this. And certainly even in his days there were rabbis who were supported by the public, as he himself wrote there in the fourth chapter. However, he disparaged them, for they themselves established for themselves statutes upon individuals and upon communities, and they themselves requested money, see there. But if the public accepted upon themselves a certain scholar, that they would pay him such and such salary, and such and such income—certainly even according to his opinion it is a complete permission.

And many great authorities understood his intention as completely forbidding the taking of money for the rabbinate. They challenged him with a strong hand and wrote that if they were to conduct themselves so—Torah would already have been forgotten from Israel. And through the provisions—one shall magnify the Torah and make it glorious (Beit Yosef). And the Tashbetz (Part One, siman 147) wrote at length to disagree with him, and wrote, this is his wording: And if fortune assisted the Rambam, of blessed memory, and he was close to the monarchy and honored in his generation due to his medical skill and his wisdom, and he did not need to take a reward from the communities, what shall the rabbis and the sages do who have not reached this measure? Shall they die of hunger, or be degraded from their honor, or cast off the yoke of Torah from their necks? This is not the intention of the Torah, etc. Thus far his words. And he brought many proofs that even in the days of the sages of the Talmud, many would benefit from the public. And in Sotah regarding Rabbi Abbahu, where they were counted to sit at the head, and he gave the place to Rabbi Abba because the hour was pressed for him (Sotah 40a), Rashi explained there: Because whoever they seated at the head, they would give him gifts and enrich him, as it is written: "And the Kohen Gadol from among his brothers"—exalt him from that which belongs to his brothers. And so too in Taanit regarding Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan (Taanit 21a); and in Nedarim (Nedarim 50a) from six things Rabbi Akiva became wealthy; and in Horayot (Horayot 10a) he set his mind to seat them at the head, so that they would be sustained from what they would give to them, see there. And all the sages of the generations conducted themselves so, and in my humble opinion even the Rambam does not disagree with this, for when the public takes it upon themselves to support him and to treat him with honor—it is obvious that this is the honor of the Torah. And he only forbade when the sage imposes it upon them, as I have written.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema: That they have practiced in all places of Israel that the Rav of the city has an income and sustenance from the people of the city, so that he will not need to engage in craft before the public, and the Torah be disgraced before the masses. And specifically a sage who needs this. But for a wealthy man, it is forbidden. And there are those who are even more lenient to say that it is permitted for a sage and his students to receive sustenance from the givers in order to support the hands of those who study Torah, for through this they are able to engage in Torah with ease. Nevertheless, one for whom it is possible to support himself well from the work of his hands and engage in Torah—it is a measure of piety, and it is a gift of God. However, this is not the measure of every man, for it is impossible for every man to engage in Torah and become wise in it, and support himself. And all this that is permitted, that is where he takes a prize from the community, or a fixed sustenance. But he should not receive gifts from the public. And that which we say: Anyone who brings a gift to a sage, it is as if he offers first-fruits—that is regarding small gifts. For such is the way of people to bring a small gift to an important person, even if he is an ignoramus. And it is permitted for a Torah scholar to taste a bit from his ruling, in order to clarify his ruling. But to take a gift of an important thing from that which he permitted—it is forbidden. And he who makes use of the crown passes away. And there are those who say that this refers to one who makes use of the Names. And it is permitted for a young Torah scholar to make himself known in a place where they do not know him, if he has need for this. Thus far his words. (And in Megillah 28b it is brought that this refers to one who makes use of one who studies laws.)

The great Acharonim wrote even more than this, and this is their wording: We have seen all the sages of Israel accustomed to taking their wages from the community. I say: one who is the head of a yeshiva and spreads Torah to the masses, and it is impossible for him to leave his home except for a matter of a mitzvah—it is a sin in his hand if he does not receive from others. Even if he knows a craft or a wisdom through which he could toil and earn enough to support the members of his household—they would utterly despise him for the love of the Torah. However, if he already has money that suffices for him to sustain himself and to lend it out with interest, and the like, such that he has no bitul Torah at all—then he shall not benefit from that which belongs to the community, but rather he shall eat the toil of his hands. And that which he receives from the community—he should spend on the expenses of Talmud Torah. Also, they are obligated to take the money of the sage and earn a profit with it (Shach, subsection 20 in the name of the Maharshal). And some say further that it is permissible for an Av Beit Din to receive large gifts until he becomes wealthy (ibid., subsection 21 and in the name of the Bach). And some hesitate regarding this (Taz, subsection 7), and the righteous shall live by his faith.

It is a known matter that it is forbidden to meditate on words of Torah in filthy places, and all the more so is it forbidden to speak words of Torah there. Therefore, it is forbidden for a talmid chakham to stand in a place of filth, because it is impossible for him to be without meditation on Torah (Berakhot 24b). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 246) that nevertheless, it is permitted for him to enter a bathhouse, even from the midst of a halacha that is not finalized. We do not fear that he will meditate, for in a bathhouse he guards himself from meditation on Torah. Thus far his words. And it is not similar to what he wrote in Orach Chaim siman 92 (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 92) that one should not stand in prayer from the midst of a halacha that is not finalized. That is because he certainly will not be able to concentrate properly on the prayer. But to meditate on mundane matters—he is able to concentrate, for this does not require concentration, obviously (see Shach, subsection 28, who labored over this). Furthermore: for it is impossible otherwise, for if so, he would also not enter a beit hakise from the midst of a halacha that is not finalized, and what shall he do when he has a need at that moment? And if, Heaven forbid, he should concentrate against his will, what shall he do in this? And so it is explicit in Zevachim (Zevachim 102b). (And in the name of the Arizal, they wrote a segulah for this, that he should say: "Be honored, honored ones...", as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 3.)

It is stated in Shabbat (Shabbat 118b): Abaye said: May I be rewarded, for when I see a young Torah scholar who has completed a tractate—I make a festive day for the rabbis. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 246) that when one finishes a tractate—it is a mitzvah to rejoice and to make a feast, and it is called a "seudat mitzvah." Thus far his words. And even for others who did not learn, it is a seudat mitzvah (Shach, subsection 27), as is proven from that passage in Shabbat. And it is implied in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 9a) that one is able to leave over a small amount of the completion for a suitable day, see there. And they say "Kaddish DeRabbanan" and "Hadran Alach," and they mention the ten sons of Rav Papa, and the prayer "Haarev Na" (ibid.). And they can rejoice for several days, as is proven from that passage in Moed Katan, see there.

And know that the Maharshal in Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kamma chapter seven, siman 37) wanted to instruct that they should say over the completion of a masekhta "for the joy is in His abode." And he wrote that when he instructed thus—the joy was nullified in a bitter and evil matter. And then he saw that one should not disagree with the ancients, see there. And according to my humble opinion, it is impossible to say "for the joy is in His abode" at all if we understand what kind of expression it is at a wedding feast, for it should have said "for the joy is here." Rather, the explanation is the opposite: that in this world there is no complete joy, for the joy of marriage is because man exists as a species and not as an individual, and were it not that man lived forever—he would not need to marry a woman and beget children. And this is what our sages, of blessed memory, said at the beginning of the chapter "Ein Omdin," where the rabbis said to Rav Hamnuna Zuta at the wedding feast of the son of Mar bria de-Ravina: let the master sing for us. And he said to them: woe to us that we die, woe to us that we die. That is to say: because we must die, therefore it is necessary to marry a woman and beget children. And therefore we say "for the joy is in His abode," meaning: that here is not complete joy, and the joy is in the abode of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is written: "Strength and gladness are in His place." However, regarding the study of Torah which is the greatest of all the mitzvot, and we learned in Avot: better is one hour of repentance and good deeds in this world than all the life of the world to come—if so, the joy is here, and there is no need to say "for the joy is in His abode." (See Shach there regarding a yahrzeit not to eat at a completion of a masekhta, because thus they were accustomed, see there. And we are not accustomed thus, and we do not fast when there is a completion.)