Is It Permissible to Receive a Salary for Teaching Torah or Answering Halachic Questions?

Is It Permissible to Receive a Salary for Teaching Torah or Answering Halachic Questions?

Question: A Torah scholar was offered the position of rabbi of a community. The role includes delivering classes in the community and answering halachic questions. However, in order for the rabbi to move and live in the community, he needs a source of livelihood for his family’s support, living expenses, and housing. The question therefore arises whether he may receive a salary from the funds of the community, association, or institutions.

Answer: This question divides into several separate issues: a. May he receive payment for his work as a rabbi? b. From which fund may he receive it? c. What amount may he receive?

The Prohibition of Taking Payment

There are two prohibitions regarding taking payment. One concerns receiving payment for teaching Torah or performing necessary mitzvot for the benefit of the public; the other is the prohibition of making the Torah into “a spade with which to dig.” We shall expand on each of them.

The Prohibition of Teaching for Payment

In several places in the Shas we find a prohibition against teaching Torah for payment:

The Gemara (Nedarim 37a) states that there is an obligation to teach Torah for free, and that it is forbidden to receive payment for this, as it says (Devarim 4:5): “ראה למדתי אתכם חוקים ומשפטים כאשר ציוני ה'” — “See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord commanded me”: just as I did so for free, so too you must do so for free. See below as to which type of teaching this prohibition applies. In addition, we learned in the Mishnah (Bekhorot 29a): “One who takes payment to judge — his judgments are void.” The Gemara derives this from the above exposition: just as I did so for free, so too you must do so for free. It adds: “And from where do we know that if he did not find someone to teach him for free, he should learn for payment? The verse says: ‘Buy truth.’ And from where do we know that he may not say: just as I learned it for payment, so I will teach it for payment? The verse says: ‘Buy truth and do not sell it.’”

The Mishnah makes clear that the prohibition is not only regarding teaching Torah, but also applies to a judge or witness, and to sprinkling and sanctifying the waters of purification. All this is learned from this verse. Rashi (Kiddushin 58b, s.v. בשכר) explained why these mitzvot were also prohibited: “He is taking payment for teaching the mitzvah.” That is, the prohibition is not on Torah study itself, but on any payment made because of knowledge of the wisdom of the Torah; permission exists only to take payment for the technical work. This is similar to a physician, who may not charge for the knowledge of the discipline, nor for the years invested in acquiring that knowledge and the license, etc., since this is a mitzvah; however, he may charge for his effort, expenses, and compensation for lost time.

Yet the Mishnah continues and specifies that a person may claim any amount of loss he suffers because of the teaching, even if it is indirect damage. For example, a kohen who sprinkled the waters of purification thereby became impure and cannot eat pure terumah, and is forced to buy ordinary food at full price. Therefore, he may claim not only food and drink, but even oil with which to anoint himself.

On the other hand, we find in the Gemara (Ketubot 105a): “Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav Asi: the judges who issued decrees in Jerusalem would receive their wages, ninety-nine maneh, from the terumat ha-lishkah; if they did not want it, they would add to it. ‘If they did not want it’ — are we dealing with wicked people? Rather, if it was not sufficient for them, even if they did not want it, they would add to it.” It is also explained there (106a) that those who corrected scrolls in Jerusalem, and Torah scholars who taught the kohanim the laws of slaughter and kemitzah, received their wages from the terumat ha-lishkah. Rambam rules accordingly (Shekalim 4:4, 4:7). It is clear from here that although a person’s annual livelihood requirement is 200 zuz, i.e., 2 maneh, the judges were given from the terumat ha-lishkah a great fortune of 99 maneh for themselves and all members of their household, in very generous comfort. Moreover, there is a law that if a sage needs a higher salary for some reason but does not wish to take such an excessive payment from sacred funds, he is compelled to take it against his will.

The Gemara further states (Ketubot 105a) that Karna would take a coin from each litigant and judge their case. The Gemara concludes that he took compensation for lost time. Although we learned in a baraita that it is unbecoming for a judge to take compensation for lost time, here it was evident compensation for lost time, for he would smell wine stores. Rashi explains that this work was available every day, and therefore it was clear that the payment was for lost time. Likewise, when Rav Chisda was asked to judge, he would request that they hire someone in his place to do his work.

The Permission to Teach Scripture

The Gemara (Nedarim 37a) writes that one may receive payment for teaching Scripture. Two reasons are given in the Gemara why this is permitted: Rav said it is payment for supervision, and Rabbi Yochanan said it is payment for teaching punctuation and cantillation. The Ran explained that Rav holds that Scripture is taught to minors, and the teacher must supervise them so that they do not wander about; therefore he may take payment. But Mishnah and other midrashim, which are not taught to minors, as it says “at age ten for Mishnah,” may not be taught for payment. Rabbi Yochanan held that the prohibition applies only to what the Holy One, blessed be He, taught Moshe, but punctuation and cantillation, which are rabbinic, may be taught for payment. The Gemara explains that the difference is that according to Rav, when teaching an adult or in the presence of the father who supervises the children, one may not take payment even for teaching Scripture; whereas according to Rabbi Yochanan, there is no prohibition. Furthermore, according to Rav, punctuation and cantillation are also biblical, and there is a prohibition. In the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 4:3; cited by the Rif and Rashba, Nedarim 37a, and by the Rosh, Bekhorot 4:5), this distinction is derived from the verse (Devarim 4:5): “ראה לימדתי אתכם חוקים ומשפטים” — “See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances”: just as I did so for free, so too you must do so for free. One might think that Scripture and translation are the same; therefore the verse says “statutes and ordinances” — statutes and ordinances you teach for free, but Scripture and translation you need not teach for free. According to this approach, even if he teaches Scripture itself, or if one says that punctuation and cantillation are biblical, it is permitted.

In Darkhei Moshe (no. 4), based on Hagahot Maimoniyot (Talmud Torah ch. 1), it is written that all rabbinic teachings may be taught for payment, just as one may take payment for teaching punctuation. However, Aruch HaShulchan (Yoreh Deah 246:18) questioned this permission, writing that only payment for teaching the melody was permitted, since it is not biblical; but all words of the Sages were shown by the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moshe at Sinai, so how can it be said that they are not biblical? He wrote that perhaps one may say, with some difficulty, that the Holy One, blessed be He, merely showed them to him but did not give them to him as a gift, and therefore one may transmit them for payment.

Whom the Halachah Follows

Ramban (Bekhorot 4, 36b) ruled like Rabbi Yochanan. So too ruled Nimukei Yosef (Nedarim 37a, cited in Beit Yosef, Yoreh Deah 246:5), that in the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan the halachah follows Rabbi Yochanan, and therefore payment for punctuation and cantillation, which are rabbinic, is permitted. He added that this appears to be the ruling of Rambam (Talmud Torah 1:7; Nedarim 6:7). However, in Turei Even (Talmud Torah 1:7) it is written that Rambam ruled in accordance with the Jerusalem Talmud, and he wondered why he did not rule like the Babylonian Talmud.

Beit Yosef (Yoreh Deah 246:5) wrote that although the halachah follows Rabbi Yochanan, nevertheless the Tur cited Rav’s reason, for even Rabbi Yochanan agrees that in the case of teaching a minor it is in any case permitted, since Rabbi Yochanan too concedes that payment for supervision is permitted. The Levush (Yoreh Deah 246:5) added that part of the payment for supervision includes educating the youths not to do bad things.

In Our Times

The Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 4:3; cited by Ramban, Bekhorot 4, 36b, by Rashba, Nedarim 37a, and by the Rosh, Bekhorot 4:5) writes that the fact that in practice teachers of Mishnah receive payment is compensation for lost time. The Rishonim further wrote (Tosafot, Nedarim 37a, s.v. מה; Ran ad loc.; Rosh, Bekhorot 4:5, cited in Beit Yosef, Yoreh Deah 246:5) in the name of Ri that in our times it is permitted because he has no other means of livelihood. The Rosh (Bekhorot 4:5) added that even one who has money and does not need the payment for his livelihood, if there is evident compensation for lost time — that he leaves his business and engages in this — it is permitted. From the words of the Rosh it appears that the first permission applies only to one who has no money.

Practical Halachah

In practice, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 246:5) ruled that in our times the custom is to teach for payment, because if one has no other livelihood, it is permitted; and similarly, if it is evident that he leaves all his affairs and teaches Torah, it is permitted. The Rema added that anything instituted rabbinically may be taught for payment. However, the Pnei Yehoshua (Ketubot 105a, Tosafot s.v. גוזרי) wrote that Tosafot disagree and hold that even with rabbinic decrees it is forbidden to take payment, unless there is another permissive factor.

Aruch HaShulchan (ibid., sec. 18) added that although God helped Rambam support himself from other means, the earlier authorities wrote that had we not acted this way, Torah would already have been nullified from Israel. This is especially true when the rabbi has no other livelihood, in which case it is permitted by the letter of the law. His son, the Torah Temimah (Devarim ch. 4, note 5), explained that although punctuation and cantillation were transmitted to Moshe Rabbeinu, studying them is not part of the Torah itself but preparation and training in order to study the Torah correctly; it is general knowledge for which payment may be taken.

Upon Whom Is the Prohibition

However, we must consider upon whom the prohibition was stated: is the prohibition upon the rabbi to derive his livelihood from transmitting Torah, or is there an obligation to transmit Torah in the form of free teaching, as the Meiri phrases it: just as I did so graciously, so too you must do so graciously.

The Rishonim disagree as to how this is learned from the verse. According to the Rosh, it is learned as follows: just as Moshe Rabbeinu learned for free from God, so too the Jewish people learned for free from Moshe Rabbeinu, and so it is proper to conduct oneself for all generations. But according to the Ran, just as God taught Moshe Rabbeinu for free, so he taught the Children of Israel for free, and so they are commanded to teach future generations for free. This is cited in Tiferet Yisrael (Bekhorot 4, Yakhin no. 28) and elsewhere as two opinions, and seemingly the above doubt depends on this dispute. The Torah Temimah (Devarim ch. 4, note 5) noted that the language of the Gemara (Bekhorot 29a) leans more toward the idea that the entire discussion is about the student: he is obligated to learn for free, and only when he cannot find free instruction is he obligated to learn for payment; nevertheless, when he transmits the learning onward, he must do so for free. He wrote that this is the implication of Rambam (Talmud Torah 1:7).

A Spade with Which to Dig

We must now consider the additional prohibition. We learned in Avot (4:5): “Rabbi Tzadok says: Do not make them a crown with which to magnify yourself, nor a spade with which to dig. Thus Hillel would say: one who makes use of the crown passes away. From here you learn that anyone who derives benefit from words of Torah takes his life from the world.”

The sharp words of Rambam are well known, both in his commentary (Avot 4:5; Nedarim 4:3) and in his code (Talmud Torah 3:10–11). We shall cite his words in the code: “Anyone who sets his heart to engage in Torah and not work, and to be supported from charity, has desecrated the Name, disgraced the Torah, extinguished the light of religion, caused harm to himself, and taken his life from the World to Come, because it is forbidden to benefit from words of Torah in this world. The Sages said: anyone who benefits from words of Torah has taken his life from the world. They further commanded and said: do not make them a crown with which to magnify yourself, nor a spade with which to dig. They further commanded and said: love work and hate authority. Any Torah that is not accompanied by work will ultimately cease and lead to sin, and the end of such a person will be that he robs people. It is a great level for one to be supported by the work of his hands, and it is the trait of the early pious ones; through this one merits all honor and good in this world and in the World to Come, as it says: ‘יגיע כפיך כי תאכל אשריך וטוב לך’ — ‘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, which is entirely good.”

Much ink has been spilled over Rambam’s view. Briefly, however, Maran the author of the Shulchan Aruch, although he generally takes Rambam’s view as the foundation of his rulings, in his work Kesef Mishneh (Talmud Torah 3:10) wrote at length, and unusually sharply, to disagree with Rambam. He wrote that the Mishnah’s words apply only to one who studies for the sake of honor or money; but if he studied for the sake of Heaven and cannot support himself unless he receives payment, it is permitted. He detailed that this permission applies whether the teacher takes payment from fathers to teach their children, whether he teaches the public and takes payment in order to bring people closer to Torah and mitzvot, or whether he takes payment in order to judge a true judgment. The proof is that Rambam himself ruled in accordance with the Gemara that judges of decrees and teachers of the laws of slaughter and kemitzah received their wages from the terumat ha-lishkah. Maran concluded: “After God has informed us of all this, it is possible to say that our master’s intention here is that a person should not cast off the yoke of work from himself in order to be supported by people so that he may study; rather, he should learn a trade that supports him, and if it suffices him, well and good, and if it does not suffice him, he may take his support from the public, and there is nothing wrong with this.” Practically, Maran wrote that wherever the halachah is uncertain, one follows the custom, and so all the sages of the generations conducted themselves. Even if one were to say that there is a prohibition involved, this is a case of “It is time to act for the Lord; they have violated Your Torah,” for “if the support of students and teachers were not available, they would be unable to toil properly in Torah, and the Torah would, God forbid, be forgotten; when it is available, they can engage in it, and the Torah will be magnified and glorified.”

So too the Mishnah Berurah ruled practically (Biur Halachah 231:1), that a person who has no other source of livelihood is obligated to take money from the public and engage in Torah. The Mishnah Berurah calls one who acts otherwise someone who grasps foolishness and lacks wisdom, causes himself various harms and obstacles, and withholds good from its owners, who could benefit from his brothers.

In Igrot Moshe (Yoreh Deah 2:116), it is written that one who is stringent upon himself not to take money is following the advice of the evil inclination and causes Torah to be forgotten. Only in the earliest generations, when people were like angels and could both work with their hands and become great in Torah, was such conduct possible. One who says that he can be like them displays arrogance; moreover, righteous wives who would afflict themselves for this are not commonly found. One who refrains from taking support acts against the will of God, blessed be He, that the earth be filled with knowledge.

The Practical Conclusion

The practical conclusion is that we have found several permissions, all of which apply in this case: a. He receives compensation for lost time, and since he has no other occupation, it is evident that this is compensation for lost time. Some hold that having no other occupation is itself an independent permission; however, according to all opinions it is permitted, as is clear from the sugya of the judges of decrees, and one may receive a comfortable salary and need not restrict himself. b. The rabbinate includes other matters as well, and even supervising the youths so that they not leave the path of God and bringing them back to the good is something for which one may take payment; all the more so in the rabbinate of our times, especially since it includes many personal matters. c. The rabbinate includes teaching Scripture and translation and other matters for which payment may be taken. d. The rabbinate includes teaching the words of the Sages, for which payment may be taken according to most opinions, although the Pnei Yehoshua disagrees with this permission. e. Since for those attending the class the teaching is free, according to some Rishonim there is no prohibition in taking payment from the fund. f. There is the principle of “It is time to act for the Lord; they have violated Your Torah,” and therefore in our times refraining from taking a salary is the advice of the evil inclination.

Accordingly, if there is a question from which fund the payment should be taken, there is a preference that the payment come from the funds of an association and not directly from the membership dues of the public. Even when this is not possible, there is an advantage that there not be a direct obligation designated for the rabbi’s salary; although this is permitted ab initio, when it can be done indirectly, that is preferable. However, in any case where there will be difficulty obtaining the funding, each member of the community may also be obligated to make a direct payment toward the rabbi’s salary.

Avot (4:5); Nedarim (37a); Bekhorot (29a); Ketubot (105a); Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 4:3; cited by the Rif and Rashba, Nedarim 37a, and by the Rosh, Bekhorot 4, sec. 5); Rambam (Shekalim 4:4 and 4:7; Talmud Torah 1:7; 3:10–11; Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 4:5; Nedarim 4:3); Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 246:5); Darkhei Moshe (Yoreh Deah 246, no. 4); Aruch HaShulchan (Yoreh Deah 246:18); Pnei Yehoshua (Ketubot 105a, Tosafot s.v. גוזרי); Kesef Mishneh (Talmud Torah 3:10); Mishnah Berurah (Biur Halachah 231:1); Igrot Moshe (Yoreh Deah 2:116).