Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Bava Batra 21a proclaims:
Remember that man for good! Yehoshua ben Gamla is his name. Were it not for him, the Torah would have been forgotten by the Jewish people.
Originally, a person who had a father would be instructed by him, while a person who had no father would not be instructed... [Afterwards,] they instituted [the practice of] employing teachers of young children in Jerusalem, [as implied by Isaiah 2:3]: “From Zion shall go forth the Torah.” Nevertheless, whoever had a father would be taken [to Jerusalem], while one who did not have a father would not be taken there.
[Accordingly,] they instituted [the practice of] employing teachers in every region. They would begin study at sixteen or at seventeen. However, if a [student’s] teacher was angry with him, he would scoff at him and leave. [This situation persisted] until Yehoshua ben Gamla came and instituted [the practice of] employing teachers of young children in each and every land, in each and every region, and in each and every village. They would bring [the children to the schools] at the age of six or seven.
This practice was continued in the subsequent generations. Even though the dispersion of the Jewish people and the subjugation to the gentile powers made the management of their communal affairs more difficult, throughout the ages, we find references to the establishment of communal programs of education in both the codes of Jewish law and the chronicles of Jewish history. (See Rama, Choshen Mishpat, 163:3; Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:3.) Originally, it was customary for the community to impose taxes to pay for the education of all the children, whether their parents were rich or poor. However, at present it has become customary for each parent to pay for his own child’s education. However, if he lacks the financial means to do so, the community is obligated to accept this burden.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 5, for a precise definition of this term.

The Rambam’s statements are based on Shabbat 119b. Though our text of that passage differs slightly from the statements here, in the various commentaries and codes (e.g., the She’iltot of Rabbenu Achai Gaon, the Halachot of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi), we find various versions of that passage. Hence, it is possible to assume that the Rambam’s statements are a quote from his text of the Talmud.

For their breath is not tainted by sin (Shabbat, loc. cit.). Based on the latter statement, some authorities require the community to support children’s study only until they reach bar-mitzvah, since afterwards they no longer possess this quality.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 6, and commentary, even before a child reached that age his father would teach him particular verses from the Torah.

Note the passage from Bava Batra quoted in the previous halachah and the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 6.

This would determine when he would be able to begin the long and rigorous study program described in this halachah.

For he will not be able to absorb his studies (Bava Batra, 21a). At present, it is customary to send children to school at much earlier ages. They are not subjected to such a rigorous schedule and much of the time is devoted to activities other than actual study. Nevertheless, their presence in school is important to develop their character and commitment to Jewish values.

The advice that Proverbs 13:24 gives a father: “He that spares the rod, hates his son,” also applies to a teacher. Indeed, Makkot 8a equates a teacher to a father in this respect. Makkot 22b relates that Zechariah 13:6, “What are these wounds?... Those which I was wounded in the house of my beloved,” refers to the beatings administered to school children. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 12 and Chapter 4, Halachah 5.

Note Chapter 4, Halachot 4-5, which recommend restraint and patience on the teacher’s part.

Bava Batra (loc. cit.) relates that Rav instructed Rav Shmuel bar Shilat (a well known teacher of children): When you beat a child, beat him only with a sandal strap. If [it motivates him] to study, then he will study. If he does not study, let him be in the company of the others.
From Rav’s words, we can infer that corporal punishment may be employed to try to motivate a student to be more attentive. However, if it does not prove to be a successful tool, it should not be used further, lest it create a permanent aversion to Torah study.

So that as adults, they will be accustomed to fulfill the obligation to study during the day and during the night, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 8.

I.e., they should study on the mornings of these days, but not in the afternoons. The commentaries have questioned the source for the Rambam’s statements. Some have pointed to Sukkah 28a, which praises Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai for never leaving the house of study except on the eve of Pesach and the eve of Yom Kippur. Similarly, Pesachim 109a applies such praise to Rabbi Akiva. However, it is difficult to say that these are the sources for the Rambam’s statements. Firstly, the passages refer to adults and not to children. Also, the fact that these passages cite the behavior of these Sages as worthy of praise seems to imply that it was exceptional and not the rule followed by most.

For study might disturb a child’s conception of the air of rejoicing and celebration that must accompany the festivals. It must be noted that the Rambam suggests that adults use some of their time on the festivals to study (Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:19).

For grasping it may involve difficulty and strain, which should be avoided on the Sabbath. (See Nedarim 37a.)

For this does not involve tremendous strain.

Shabbat 119b makes this statement in the context of its description of the great merit of the children’s study, as mentioned in the previous halachah. Indeed, this appears to be the Rambam’s logic in the entire halachah. Since children’s study is so important, no unnecessary interruptions should be made. This rigorous schedule of study is not followed today. Among the reasons given are the different goals for Torah study at present from those in the previous generations, as described in the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 12. Alternatively, if today youth were subjected to such a schedule, they might rebel and no advantage would come of it.

Bava Batra 8b relates that Rav once found Rav Shmuel bar Shilat strolling in a garden. He reproved him: “Have you abandoned your faithfulness?” Rav Shmuel answered him: “You haven’t seen me [strolling like this] for thirteen years. Furthermore, even now I am thinking about [the children].”

The commentaries have explained the source for this halachah as follows: The Jerusalem Talmud (D’mai 7:3) relates that Rabbi Yochanan encountered a teacher who looked emaciated. When the Sage enquired about him, his colleagues explained that he fasted. Rabbi Yochanan was very critical: “If a normal hired worker is forbidden to undergo penances lest he not produce as much as desired, how much more so does this apply to someone doing God’s work!” Accordingly, since we find that a person hired to do one job should not perform another at the same time (Tosefta, Bava Metzia 4:7), it can be assumed that a teacher should refrain from doing so.

As is obvious from Hilchot Sechirut 10:7, this includes two elements: a) one who did not instruct the students; or b) one who erred in their instruction.

In his commentary to Halachah 6, the Kessef Mishneh interprets מהיר as one who teaches a large quantity of material. In his commentary to Psalms 45:2, Rav Sa’adiah Gaon translates that word as “expert.”

Bava Batra 21a-b emphasizes the importance of precise study by relating the following story: After Yoav returned from slaying all the males of Edom (II Samuel 11:16), King David asked him to explain his actions. He replied: “Doesn’t Deuteronomy 25:19 state ‘Wipe out all the males (zachor) of Amalek?’
David told him: “You are mistaken; the verse reads ‘Wipe out the memory (zecher) of Amalek.’
Yoav told him: “I learned zachor.” Later, Yoav sought out his teacher and chastised him severely for his carelessness.

However, a married man may teach even if his wife is not living with him at present (Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 22:13). Other authorities, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin 4:11, prohibit a man from teaching children if his wife is not in the same city.

“Lest he be aroused by women” (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, loc. cit.).

Even if she is married (Kessef Mishneh)

Lest they transgress the prohibition against yichud (being alone in a private place with someone of the other sex, Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, loc. cit.). Some authorities maintain that these prohibitions apply only to the classrooms of previous generations, which were often private and quite secluded. In contrast, they maintain that no prohibition exists in today’s large schools. However, it is questionable if that conclusion can be reached in view of the text of Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah.

Note the commentary of the Nimukei Yosef to Bava Batra 21a, which resolves the apparent contradiction between the Rambam’s decision and that passage. Rabbenu Asher interprets that passage differently.

Rashi (Bava Batra, loc. cit.) states that the assistant would listen to the verses read by the teacher, and then lead the children in their repetition.

The class should be divided.

Two conclusions can be derived from these statements:
a) 25 students is the maximum class size desired;
b) this is the minimum service which a community is required to afford its children.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:3) states that the above applies only to instruction in the Written Law. Instruction in the more complicated realms of study requires even smaller classes. However, a parent cannot demand that such instruction be provided from communal funds. As explained in the commentary to Halachot 1:12, 2:2, today the goals of study differ from those of the previous generations. On that basis, some schoolmasters excuse their willingness to exceed the limits on the teacher-student ratio mentioned here. Others state that they would like to establish such a ratio, but financial pressures prevent them from doing so.

Note the commentary to Halachah 4 for a definition of the word מהיר.

In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo mentions the passage from Bava Batra 21a, which questions which is preferable: a teacher who teaches the students at a rapid pace, or one who instructs them more precisely, but at a slower speed. In the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 245:19), he concludes that it is preferable to take the latter teacher. Errors which children learn become permanent elements of their thinking processes as mentioned in the commentary to Halachah 3.

The Lechem Mishneh states that the Rambam derives this concept from Bava Batra (loc. cit.), which states:
From the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Gamla, a child was not transferred from city to city, but he would be transferred from synagogue to synagogue...
The Rambam interprets that statement to mean that once the practice of employing qualified teachers in each community was instituted, there was no longer a need to transfer a child from his home town to another city. However, within his city itself, he could be transferred from one house of study to another if there was adequate reason.

Because of the difficulty involved in the journey.

Because of the danger involved.

In Hilchot Shechenim 6:8, 11, the Rambam mentions certain restrictions which the owners of houses which open to a common alley can impose on each other — e.g., one may not open a tailor shop or leather works, because of the inconvenience and discomfort which might be caused. Though the opening of a schoolroom may also cause discomfort, because the parents will frequently visit and the children may make noise, the study of Torah is important enough to override these considerations.

Though such a practice would not be allowed in any other profession [if the new competitor came from a different country (see Hilchot Shechenim 6:8)], an exception is made regarding teaching Torah.

Bava Batra 21a, the source for this halachah, does not quote this verse, but rather explains: “the envy of the teachers will increase knowledge.” Yad Malachi explains that the Rambam frequently substitutes a different verse or explanation for the one quoted by the Talmud if he feels that his choice is more explanatory. However, the advantage of the verse chosen by the Rambam over the reason given by the Talmud requires explanation. This law has two dimensions: one relevant to the laws governing the consideration neighbors must afford each other and the possibility of competition between them, and one relevant to the laws of Torah study. The Talmudic passage cited above deals primarily with the rights of neighbors. Thus, it explains to a person who might feel that a colleague has overstepped his rights that he, himself, will benefit, because the spirit of competition will motivate him to increase his own Torah knowledge. In contrast, in these halachot, the Rambam deals primarily with the importance of Torah study. Hence, he quotes a verse which emphasizes how important the increase of Torah study is (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. VI, p. 299).

A similar expression is found in Yoma 72b. However, there the Talmud uses the expression: “There are three diadems (זירין).” The expression “three crowns (כתרים)” is found in the Sifri (Korach) and Avot D’Rabbi Natan, Chapter 41. It may be explained that the Rambam chooses to employ this expression because of the significance of the word כתר. That term also means “encompass.” In the three halachot in this chapter in which the Rambam mentions the expression, “the crown of Torah” — Halachot 6, 7, and 13 — the Rambam describes an all-encompassing commitment to Torah study. Hence, he uses the term “crown” to allude to this quality of service (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 27).

The Sifri, loc. cit., states: “Aaron merited and took it.” The Rambam omits the latter term, since priesthood (and, similarly, royalty) are not attributes that can be acquired by human effort, but rather must be conveyed by God.

This includes two aspects: a) that his descendants alone will serve as priests; b) that one will be chosen as the High Priest.”

See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 4:1.

In Hilchot Melachim 1:7, the Rambam writes:
Once David was anointed, he acquired the crown of royalty. Afterwards, the kingship belongs to him and his male descendants, forever.
It must be noted that in the present halachah, the Rambam quotes a different verse from that in Hilchot Melachim and in Avot D’Rabbi Natan.

The Sifri, loc. cit., uses the expression “for all inhabitants of the earth.” Though some manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah read “for all,” rather than “for each Jew,” the printed text can be explained on the basis of Hilchot Melachim 10:9, which states: “A gentile who studies Torah is liable for the death penalty.” Similarly, on the verse from Deuteronomy quoted below, Sanhedrin 59a comments: “It is our inheritance and not theirs.”
[Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the same passage in Sanhedrin also describes the high levels which a gentile can attain by studying the rules of the seven general laws of human behavior given to Noah and his descendants. All Jews are obligated to assist the gentiles in this study. (See Hilchot Melachim 8:10.)]

And thus becomes the property of every Jew as soon as he is born. Because of the fundamental message implied by this verse, the Rambam chooses to quote it, rather than the verse mentioned in Avot D’Rabbi Natan, loc. cit. Similarly, the message conveyed by this verse is so important that it is taught to every Jewish child as soon as he learns to talk (Chapter 1, Halachah 6). Nevertheless, although, as the above verse implies, each Jew has an inherent connection to Torah, effort must be expended in order to reveal and develop that connection. In that vein, Avot 2:15 counsels: “Prepare yourself to study Torah, for it is not an inheritance.”

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 4:17, the Rambam relates the content of this halachah and uses the expression: “Whoever desires to be crowned with the crown of Torah.”

The latter clause is omitted in many manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah.

The Sifri, loc. cit., states: “Who is greater, the one who conveys the crown or the one who is crowned!” Thus, we can appreciate that the crown of Torah surpasses the crown of royalty. Since a king is given greater honor than the High Priest, we can also assume that the crown of Torah is greater than the crown of priesthood (Lechem Mishneh).

Horayot 13a.

A child born from certain incestuous or adulterous sexual relations. See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, Chapter 1.

Though such a phenomenon was undesirable, it often occurred in the Second Temple period, when the High Priests were appointed by the Romans in return for excessive bribes. (See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Yoma 1:3.)

The similarity between the Hebrew for “pearls,” פנינים, and the Hebrew for “inner,” פנים, leads to the following interpretation.

Horayot, loc. cit.

I.e., the Holy of Holies. In the introduction to this text, the Rambam explained that he structured it to be halachot, halachot (law after law), implying that he would include only statements of Torah law. In contrast, other concepts, though ethically or philosophically significant, were not included. Accordingly, this halachah and the others in this chapter which praise Torah study must be understood as behavioral directives applicable with regard to: a) the arrangements of one’s own priorities and goals in life; b) the order in which people must be given honor and respect.

The Kessef Mishneh cites Pe’ah 1:1 as the source for this statement. That Mishnah lists a number of mitzvot whose “benefits are enjoyed in this world, though the principle [reward] remains for the world to come” and concludes “the study of Torah is equivalent to them all.” However, the Lev Shlomo notes that the antecedents of the phrase “them all” are the various mitzvot which are mentioned previously in the mishnah and not “all the mitzvot of the Torah.” Hence, he refers to the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe’ah 1:1), which states: “All the mitzvot of the Torah are not worth one word of the Torah.”

For without study, one will never know how to fulfill the mitzvot properly.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 3, and the commentary to it. Though there is a similarity between the halachah cited above and the present one, the two are not redundant. That halachah deals with the course of action proper for a person whose father has not instructed him in Torah study. The Rambam instructs such a person that rather than ignore Torah study and devote himself to the performance of good deeds alone, he should study.
This chapter centers around the principle that Torah study is the highest rung a person can reach. Accordingly, the advice in this and the following halachah applies to even a person who has established a basis of Torah knowledge. It teaches him to seek personal fulfillment in study rather than in deed. Similarly, it advises us that the most propitious way to use each moment of spare time is to devote these moments to Torah study.

With the exception of the instance mentioned in the following halachah.

And the performance of the mitzvah would cause him to interrupt his studies.

The Kessef Mishneh cites the following narrative from the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 3:7): Rabbi Abahu sent his son to study in Tiberias. When he came to visit him, the local people praised his son for his piety in burying the dead. When he heard this, Rabbi Abahu rebuked his son severely, “Is it because there are no graves in Caesarea that I sent you to Tiberias?”
Mo’ed Katan 9b derives the priority of study over the performance of mitzvot as follows: Proverbs 3:15 states: “None of your desires can be equated to it [the Torah],” implying that “your desires” — i.e., things which man wants — cannot be equated to Torah study, but “God’s desires” — i.e., the mitzvot — can be equated with it. In contrast, Proverbs 8:11 states: “No desire” — seemingly implying even God’s desires, the mitzvot — “can be equated to it.”
How can the two be resolved? When it is possible for the mitzvah to be performed by another individual, nothing takes precedence over Torah study. However, if there is no one else to perform the mitzvah, the performance of the mitzvah is given priority.

If there is no way the mitzvah can be performed by another person — e.g., paying honor to a deceased person or collecting for charity, when one’s position will cause one’s words to have a greater effect than those of other people...

Berachot 17a teaches: “The ultimate of knowledge is Teshuvah and good deeds.” Similarly, the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 1:2) states that it would be preferable for a person who studies without performing the mitzvot never to have been created. Thus, the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 1:2) relates that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who would not interrupt his studies even for prayer, would stop studying to build a sukkah and to bind his lulav.
The rationale behind the above statements can be explained as follows: As explained in the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 3, the ultimate level of fulfillment man can reach is to step beyond his humanity and fulfill God’s will, as revealed in the mitzvot. Nevertheless, priority is given to Torah study, because it possesses a twofold advantage over the other mitzvot: first, it leads to their fulfillment; second, it allows for an internalized connection to be established between the person and God. However, when the person ignores the fulfillment of the mitzvot, both those advantages are lost. Obviously, the study does not lead to deed, and, furthermore, his intellectual activity appears to be a matter of personal interest and not a process of connection to God.

The statement is based on Sanhedrin 7a. Other sources (Shabbat 31a) state that the first question posed to a person in the world to come will be: “Did you deal faithfully in business?”
Tosafot, Sanhedrin loc. cit., offers two possible resolutions to this apparent contradiction: a) A person who never studied at all is judged first regarding Torah study. However, one who studied, but did not establish fixed times for study is judged first regarding his business affairs; b) Even though the first question that the soul is asked centers on his business affairs, the first retribution he will receive will result from his neglect of Torah study.

See Pesachim 50b, Sotah 22b, Sanhedrin 105b.

The Rambam elaborates further on the definition of these concepts in Hilchot Teshuvah 10:4-5:
The Sages of the previous generations declared: Should one say: “I will study Torah in order that I become wealthy, in order that I be called a Rabbi, or in order that I receive reward in the world to come?” The Torah teaches [Deuteronomy 11:13]: “[If you are careful to observe My commandments...] to love God;” [implying] that all that you do should be done only out of love.
The Sages also said: [Psalms 112:1 instructs:] “Desire His commandments greatly.” [Desire His commandments] and not the reward [that comes from] His commandments.... Anyone who occupies himself with the Torah in order to receive reward or in order to protect himself from retribution is considered as one who is not occupied for the sake of God.
[In contrast,] anyone who occupies himself with it, not because of fear, nor to receive a reward, but rather because of his love for the Lord of the entire earth, Who commanded it, is one who occupies himself for the sake of God

Rashi (Berachot 17a) and Tosafot (Ta’anit 7a) note that the Talmud is extremely critical of those who do not occupy themselves with the Torah for the sake of God. Ta’anit 7a declares that whenever a person does not study Torah for the sake of God, the Torah becomes a deadly potion for him. Berachot 17a states that it would have been better for a person who does not study Torah for the sake of God not to have been born. In resolution, the commentaries explain that there are two levels of occupying oneself with Torah that is not for the sake of God:
a) to gain wealth, honor, or other benefits, as implied by the Rambam here;
b) in order to vex a colleague.
Our Sages suggest occupation with Torah study even if it is not intended for the sake of God, if one has the former motives. However, if one’s motives are the latter, then our Sages’ harsh words of criticism apply.

The introduction to Eicha Rabbah (2) quotes God as saying: “Would that Israel abandon Me and keep the Torah... for its light would ultimately return them to the good.” If a Jew frequently occupies himself with Torah, the inner Godly nature of Torah will eventually have an effect upon him and motivate him to serve God with the proper intentions. There is a deeper aspect to this statement: The Hebrew מתוך, translated as “from,” also can be interpreted as “from the inner part.” Every element of a Jew’s life is motivated by his Godly potential. Though he may think he is performing a mitzvah for selfish intent, the inner core of that service, its תוך, is the Jew’s desire to cling to God without any ulterior motive.

There are two aspects of Torah study: a) The obligation to study Torah, which is incumbent on every individual, i.e., the establishment of fixed times for Torah study (Chapter 1, Halachah 8); b) A commitment to devote oneself to Torah study that has no limitations. The first aspect reflects a commitment that takes into consideration man’s perspective, and, hence, is limited in scope. However, when a person views the Torah from God’s perspective and appreciates its infinite nature, he will be inspired to make an unbounded commitment to Torah study and adopt the latter approach.

Note the commentary to Halachah 1.

On Deuteronomy 6:7: “Speak of them,” the Sifri comments: “Speak of them, and not of other matters.”

For it is impossible to devote oneself to two different goals.

This statement and the others in this halachah are a combination of quotes from Avot 6:4, 2:17 and 5:23.

The Rambam does not advocate ascetic penances. (See Hilchot De’ot 3:1.) Nor does he necessarily stipulate that “a life of difficulty” is a prerequisite for complete involvement in Torah study. However, it is often the only path through which one can attain that goal.
Frequently, earning enough to live a life of comfort takes so much time that one will not be able to devote himself to Torah study in a fitting manner. Furthermore, indulgence in comfort often leads a person to preoccupation with his own needs and desires. Suddenly, he becomes faced with an entire host of “necessities,” without which he cannot continue.

If a person contemplates the totality of Torah knowledge which there is to grasp, he may be intimidated and unwilling to begin such an undertaking. Hence, he is counseled that he is not expected to complete its study.

The Mishnah continues to explain that the reward for the righteous will be in the world to come. It is difficult to understand why the Rambam emphasizes the aspect of reward, when in the previous halachah he stressed how one should not study Torah for ulterior motives. Included in the latter is also the reward in the world to come.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam interprets this to mean: “Your reward will be commensurate with the effort invested in Torah study.”

The first clause of this halachah, as the previous halachah, refers to a person who wants to commit himself entirely to Torah study. The second clause — “make your work secondary...” — does not apply only to such individuals, but rather is relevant to every person within the context of his commitment to Torah study.

Note Chapter 1, Halachah 5, which counsels studying Torah before marriage, so the yoke of financial responsibility will not interfere with one’s studies.

The commentaries have offered two reasons why such an individual will never merit “the crown of Torah:”
a) Desire is never satisfied. “Whoever possesses one hundred, desires two hundred; whoever possesses two hundred, desires four hundred” (Kohelet Rabbah 1:34). Once a person has given his material concerns priority over Torah study, it is very difficult for him to reverse his pattern and devote himself completely to Torah study.
b) The time which he lost while involved in business cannot be recovered, and thus, he will never reach the heights of Torah knowledge that he could have attained beforehand.

Berachot 35b relates: The Sages of the previous generations made their Torah study primary and their business affairs secondary, and achieved success in both. We have made our business affairs primary and our Torah study secondary, and have not achieved success in either

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 2:5, the Rambam also associates this statement of Hillel’s with the statement of Shammai quoted previously.

Rav Kapach renders this: “It is written about the Torah,” emphasizing that according to the Rambam, the antecedent of the pronoun “it” in the above verse is Torah study and not Teshuvah, as explained by the Ramban and others.

And self-centered. Such an attitude runs contrary to the spirit of Torah and, ultimately, prevents one from grasping it, as explained in the following halachah.

For business purposes. In contrast, one is advised to travel to study Torah, as Avot relates: “Exile yourself to a place of Torah.”

Avot 2:5

Ibid. 4:12

The Hebrew, לעסוק, is also used in the Ashkenazic text of the blessings recited before Torah study. In most contexts, that word is rendered as “business.” Thus, employing it in the blessing implies that the manner in which a person applies himself to Torah study should resemble the way a businessman applies himself to his business, making it the central matter of his life.

Ta’anit 7a mentions the ideas related by the Rambam as well as other dimensions of the comparison between Torah and water.

Pride prevents one from grasping Torah for two reasons: a) A proud person will be less likely to make the effort necessary to open himself up to the instruction of a master; b) Pride often leads a person to material desire, whose pursuit will take a person away from devotion to Torah study.

The Rambam borrows the phraseology of Avot 1:4. Others render the phrase: “Become dusty [pursuing] the Sages’ feet” — i.e., follow them everywhere out of thirst to learn from them.

See Halachah 12.

Note the narrative from Yoma 35b quoted in the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 8, which describes Hillel’s daily activities.

See Halachah 13.

Since many might reach the conclusion that, if so, it is proper to be involved solely in Torah study with no thought of worldly matters, the Rambam proceeds with the following clarification.

In Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 5, and Hilchot Teshuvah 1:4, the Rambam mentions the severity of the sin of desecrating God’s name.

See the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 7, which quotes the Rambam’s commentary to Avot at length, strongly decrying the deriving of material benefit from one’s Torah knowledge. These convictions are also expressed in Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 10:18, which states:
Even a dignified Sage who becomes poor should work in a profession, even a degrading profession, rather than seek public assistance. It is better to skin the hides of dead animals than to tell the people, “I am a Sage, support me.”
Our greatest Sages were wood-choppers, porters, water-drawers.... They did not ask anything from the public and refused to accept anything that was given to them.
The Kessef Mishneh takes issue with the Rambam’s statements and states that there is no prohibition against a Torah Sage receiving support from others. Though the Rambam quotes many examples of sages who performed simple labors to earn their livelihood, the Kessef Mishneh explains how none of them can be taken to be conclusive proof of the Rambam’s position.
For example, the Rambam quotes Yoma 35b, which relates how Hillel would do simple work to earn his sustenance. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Talmud’s statements about Hillel were made before his greatness was appreciated. There is no proof that he continued working as a common laborer afterwards.
The practice of taking payment for Torah study has its source in Tosafot, Ketubot 106a, which relates that individuals who give up the opportunity to earn their livelihood in other professions so that they can teach Torah or serve as judges are able to receive remuneration, because, in essence, they are not receiving payment for their Torah knowledge, but for their time. The Kessef Mishneh concludes:
It is possible to explain that our master’s intention is that a person should not cast off the yoke of labor in order to receive his livelihood from others in order to study. Rather, first, he should learn a profession with which he can sustain himself. If that is sufficient for him, it is good. If not, he may receive his livelihood from the community.... Even if this is not our master’s intention, as apparent from his Commentary to the Mishnah, whenever one is in doubt about the halachah, one should follow the custom.
We have seen all the Sages of Israel, both before and after our master, accepting their livelihood from the community. Furthermore, even if the halachah followed our master..., it is possible that all the sages of the [previous] generations agreed to do so because... if the livelihood of the scholars and the teachers were not available, they would not be able to labor in Torah as is fitting, and the Torah would be forgotten, Heaven forbid. Since it is available, they are able to study, “and Torah is magnified and becomes stronger.”
These ideas are quoted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch and the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 246:5). It must be noted that even the Rambam (Chapter 6, Halachah 10, Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit., Hilchot De’ot 6:2) allows a person to give a sage money to invest, or to afford him other benefits in commerce and trade.

Avot 4:5.

The Kessef Mishneh quoted above refers to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah. Major portions of the Rambam’s statements are cited in our commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

A source of honor,

I.e., a means of deriving a livelihood. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes: “Without work, it will be difficult for him, and he will steal and cheat. Seeking positions of honor will bring about challenges.”

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes: “Without work, it will be difficult for him, and he will steal and cheat. Seeking positions of honor will bring about challenges.”

Avot 2:2. That mishnah begins: “Torah is beautiful when accompanied by work.”

The commentaries cite Kiddushin 29a: “Whoever does not teach his son a profession is as if he taught him to steal,” as the source for the Rambam’s statements.

And not from charity.

Among the examples of sages who worked as craftsmen mentioned in the Talmud are Rav Huna — a drawer of water (Ketubot 105a), Rabbi Meir — a barber (Eruvin 13a), Rabbi Yehudah — a porter (Nedarim 49b), and Rav Yosef — a miller, Rav Sheshet — a porter (Gittin 67b).

One of the rationales given by many of the Rabbis who permit scholars to derive benefit from their studies is that performing menial work will cheapen the common man’s appreciation of them, and thus minimize the honor given to the Torah. The Rambam (see the Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.) holds the very opposite. The common people will respect a person who honestly earns his livelihood and will look down on a person who derives his income from charity.

I.e., God will grant him blessing and he will be able to earn a respectable income through his efforts. In Hilchot Teshuvah 9:1, the Rambam elaborates how God will grant material blessings to a person who dedicates himself to Torah and mitzvot. These blessings will, in turn, afford him the opportunity of continuing and increasing his service of God.

Though the person will also realize benefit in this world, “the principal remains for the world to come” (Pe’ah 1:1). (See also Hilchot Teshuvah, loc. cit.)

On this verse, the Rabbis commented: “‘the toil of your hands,’ and not ‘the toil of your heads.’” When a person works with his hands, his mind is free to think about Torah. When he returns home, he may be physically tired, but he has no pressures from his business. In contrast, those whose profession involves mental effort have more difficulty diverting their attention from these matters to Torah.

Berachot 8a.

The pursuit of pleasure will prevent him from devoting himself to Torah study. During the time he is enjoying material benefits (how much more so if he has to work to earn the funds to obtain them), he could have been studying Torah.

As mentioned in the commentary to Halachah 6, the Rambam is not alluding to ascetic penances, but rather to the dedication of all one’s energies to the acquisition of Torah knowledge.

Note the following halachah, which describes the advantages of studying at night.

Berachot 63b; Midrash Tanchuma, Noach, sec. 3.

Generally, the verse would be translated: “This is the law [when] a man....” However, the literal translation of the words was quoted to demonstrate the connection to our Sages’ comments more graphically.

Our Sages frequently associated the expression “tents” with houses of study. (See the commentaries on Genesis 25:27 and Deuteronomy 33:18.)

When you minimize your involvement in Torah because of difficulties, then “your strength” — your Torah knowledge — will be “small” — will not remain with you (Lechem Mishneh). Others cite Berachot 63a: “Anyone who applies himself feebly to the words of Torah will not have the strength to stand in a day of adversity.”

The Hebrew word אף can have both meanings — “even” and “anger.”

The commentaries interpret this as a reference to the anger displayed by the teachers during their instruction. (See Matanat Kehunah, Kohelet Rabbah 2:9.) This continues the theme that the dedication to Torah study beyond one’s nature is the key to acquiring Torah as one’s own. In his commentary to Avot 5:19, the Rambam quotes this verse and interpretation, and associates it with the advice he gives teachers in Chapter 4, Halachah 5, to cast fear into the hearts of the students.

Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 5:1

Many manuscripts substitute “in a synagogue,” as is the text in the Jerusalem Talmud.

I.e., the fact that study is carried out in a house of study itself contributes to its retention by the students. Accordingly, our Sages highly recommend that one study in a house of study (or at least in a synagogue) whenever possible. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Talmud Torah 4:10.)

It must be noted that Berachot 63b severely criticizes those who study Torah alone (when they have the opportunity to study with others). Similarly, in the following chapter, when the Rambam discusses the actual process of study, he continually refers to a teacher studying with many students.

The Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 5:1, emphasizes that one should not raise one’s voice overly loud.

II Samuel 23:5 states: “for He has made an everlasting covenant with me, ordered in all and preserved.” Eruvin 54a interprets the “everlasting covenant” as a reference to the Torah, and states: “If it is ordered in all a person’s 248 limbs” — i.e., if his entire body is involved in his study — “it will be preserved.” Tanya, ch. 38, explains that a person who studies out loud and invests his energy in Torah study elevates his body and natural life force. This contributes to the retention of the subject matter.

It is difficult to ignore the contrast between secular study, which is carried out in a silent library, and the study of Torah carried out in a noisy house of study, each person verbalizing the subject matter which he is studying.
Based on Berachot 15b and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 62:3, Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 2:12) states that the study of Torah is comparable to other mitzvot associated with speech. A person cannot fulfill his obligation through mere thought, and must either vocalize the words himself or hear from someone else who reads out loud.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 8.

At night, when a person is removed from his daytime pressures, he is able to concentrate more on these abstract subjects.

See the commentary to Halachah 1 with regard to the latter term.

Hilchot De’ot 4:4 states that a person should sleep eight hours each night. The commentaries have questioned whether here, the Rambam is advising a person to strain himself beyond those limits, or whether the Rambam is merely stating that the nighttime hours a person has available should be devoted to Torah study.

In Hilchot De’ot 5:1, the Rambam counsels: “A Torah Sage should not be a glutton. Rather, he should eat only the foods that are appropriate for his physical health and [even of those], he should not partake excessively. He should not pursue [food] after filling his gut.”

In general, the Rambam advises against excessive speech. Hilchot De’ot 2:4 states: “A person should also remain silent to a great extent, and speak only about words of wisdom or things he requires to maintain his existence.”

Note the commentaries on Deuteronomy 31:9, which describe the Torah as God’s song.

Avodah Zarah 3b comments: “Why does ‘God ordain His kindness during the day’? Because ‘at night, His song (the Torah) is with me.’”

I.e., the nights.

The Torah.

This is the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as quoted in Sanhedrin 99a, and in the Sifri, Sh’lach.

Sanhedrin (loc. cit.) quotes Rabbi Nehorai for this definition of the above verse.

This definition is not mentioned in any of the opinions quoted in Sanhedrin or the Sifri in the definition of the above verse.

The Lechem Mishneh emphasizes that this severe condemnation applies even when a person ignores his study out of laziness and idle tendencies, without any contempt or disrespect for the Torah.

Avot 4:11

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes:
A person who studies Torah in poverty and need, straining himself to study despite these pressures, will ultimately merit to study amidst prosperity without any disturbances to his study.
[Conversely,] a person who neglects Torah study because he is prosperous and, therefore, is busy eating, drinking, and seeking pleasure, will ultimately become poor to the extent that the reason he neglects Torah study will be his pursuit of his daily bread

This interpretation of the verse resembles that of Rashi’s commentary to the Torah. Note the conclusion of Hilchot Lulav, where the Rambam interprets the verse differently, stressing the importance of serving God with joy.

Psalms 50:16 states, “Wicked man, why do you discuss My laws?”

Berachot 28a relates that Rabban Gamliel restricted entry to the house of study to any student “whose inside did not reflect his outside” — i.e., to anyone whose character did not match his external appearance as a Torah scholar.
Rabban Gamliel’s colleagues did not agree with this approach, and when Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed in his place, these restrictions were lifted. That day, hundreds of students streamed into the house of study, and even Rabban Gamliel felt the need to reconsider his approach. (See Lechem Mishneh.)
[The Chiddushei HaRim questioned Rabban Gamliel’s change of heart. Did he not know that when the restrictions were lifted, more students would enter the house of study? However, Rabban Gamliel saw that once the students entered the house of study, the environment had a positive effect on their characters and prompted self-refinement. Therefore, he reconsidered.]

Chullin 133a.

I.e., Mercury, the Roman god of wayfarers. His symbol was three stones positioned in the form of a triangle. He was worshiped by throwing stones at that symbol.

The worship of Mercury.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 4:17 and Kuntres Acharon 4:1) emphasizes that the restriction applies only to the teacher. The student, himself, should endeavor to study, and it is hoped that the Torah will motivate him to improve his behavior. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 5.)
Furthermore, if the student seeks very earnestly to study, even though he has not changed his behavior, he should be instructed, the teacher carefully balancing his reproofs with positive reinforcement. Our Sages (see the uncensored text of Sotah 47a) were highly critical of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Parchiah, who “pushed Yeshu away with two hands,” and thus caused him to forsake Judaism entirely.

Mo’ed Katan 17a relates that there was a Torah sage whose knowledge was needed by his community. However, because of his unsavory behavior, Rav Yehudah placed him under a ban of ostracism.

Mo’ed Katan (ibid.)

The Hebrew מלאך also means angel.

Implied is that, in addition to having knowledge and the ability to communicate it, a teacher must be a paradigm of Torah behavior, fit to be emulated by his students.

Chaggigah 15b questions how Rabbi Meir would study from Acher, a great sage who scorned the observance of mitzvot. It explains that Rabbi Meir followed the instruction of Proverbs 22:17: “Turn your ear, hear the words of the wise, and direct your heart to My intention,” which implies that one can “hear the words of the wise” and, instead of being influenced by them, “direct your heart to My (God’s) intention.”
The Talmud continues, explaining that only a sage of stature who can “suck a pomegranate and discard its shell” may follow such a course of behavior. Most people should refrain from studying under such teachers. Accordingly, the Lechem Mishneh concludes that the Rambam did not quote the passage from Chaggigah because, at present, there are none who are of a stature great enough not to be influenced by a teacher of improper character.
The Sefer Kovetz notes that the Rambam mentions this verse in the beginning of his introduction to the Guide for the Perplexed, alluding to the fact that, in composing that work, he had to follow Rabbi Meir’s example and study under teachers whose behavior he would not desire to emulate. Nevertheless, this did not represent a contradiction to his omission of this teaching in the Mishneh Torah. We find that under extraordinary conditions, it is permitted to follow a minority opinion in the Talmud. Hence, when the Rambam saw the need to compose a text like the Guide for the Perplexed, he felt that under such conditions, he should follow Rabbi Meir’s example.

In a half-circle (see Sanhedrin 36b).

Keritot 6a states: “When you sit before your teacher, look at his face, as [implied by Isaiah 30:20]: ‘And your eyes shall behold your teachers.’”

Mo’ed Katan 16b praises King David for forgoing his royal honor and sitting on the floor to study together with the Rabbis.

Megillah 21a notes that God told Moses (Deuteronomy 5:28): “stand together with me.” Since God neither stands nor sits, the verse obviously refers to the proper approach to instruction, where no distinction is made between the teachers and the students.
Rabbenu Nissim and other commentators cite certain Talmudic passages which appear to contradict this principle. He explains that sometimes the teacher would sit in an upraised position, so that the students could hear his words more easily. Alternatively, when a sage possessed semichah, the distinct Rabbinic ordination conveyed in a line from teacher to teacher, stretching back to Moses, he was granted greater privileges.

The Lechem Mishneh notes that this appears to be a direct contradiction to the principle of equality mentioned beforehand. However, he explains that the teachers were allowed to sit in order to be able to relax and transmit the subject matter more clearly. Hence, adopting that position does not reflect feelings of superiority over their students.

Megillah (loc. cit.) states:
From the time of Moses, our teacher, until Rabban Gamliel, people studied Torah only while standing; after Rabban Gamliel died, sickness descended on the world and they would study Torah while seated.
This refers to Rabban Gamliel the elder. Sotah 9:16 relates that when he died: “The honor of the Torah was nullified.” Commenting on that mishnah, the Rambam associates the nullification of the Torah’s honor with the practice of studying while seated.

Although it was common for Torah Sages to employ the services of a spokesman, there was no obligation to do so.

There is a difference of opinion between the commentaries regarding the function of this individual. Rashi, Yoma 20b, considers him to be a translator, and, indeed, that is the literal meaning of the term מתרגם. In Babylon and even in Eretz Yisrael, the popular spoken language was Aramaic, while many of the Sages preferred to teach in Hebrew. Others maintain that the spokesman was no more than a “human microphone.”
The Ra’avad mentions a third perspective, explaining that the spokesman also communicated the teacher’s words in a manner that could be understood and grasped by the students. Rabbi Shalom Dovber of Lubavitch follows a similar, but not identical, view. In the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, he elaborates on this concept in detail, explaining that the teacher was on too high a level to explain his ideas in a manner which the common people could understand. Therefore, he would employ a spokesman, who, though he was able to comprehend the teacher’s statements, was on a level that his explanations would not be too sophisticated for the people to grasp.

In a hushed tone.

In a manner in which they could hear. (See Sotah 40a, Chullin 15a, from which we can derive a picture of the process of instruction.)

In a hushed tone, as explained.

Out loud, so that others can hear.

The Kessef Mishneh cites Berachot 45a, which quotes the manner in which Moses relayed God’s words at the giving of the Torah (Exodus 19:19) as the source for this concept. Nevertheless, others note that the passage in Berachot refers to a מתורגמן who translates the Torah reading for the people, and is not necessarily relevant to the situation at hand. Rather, they suggest that the descriptions of the use of spokesmen in the passages cited above serve as the source for this idea.

As a mark of respect and deference.

The Rambam’s statements are quoted from the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 4:10. The Ra’avad differs, and quotes a narrative from Yoma 20b, which relates how Rav served as a spokesman for Rav Shilat and altered the connotation of his words. The Ra’avad explains that since Rav’s scholarship was greater than Rav Shilat’s, he was entitled to do so. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam did not mention such a possibility, because it is very improbable that a greater sage would serve as a spokesman for a sage of lesser stature.

Rabbenu Nissim explains that a teacher or father is allowed to serve as a spokesman for his students, since they will not be jealous of the honor afforded him. The Kessef Mishneh relates that the Rambam’s phraseology indicates a situation which is בדעיבד (after the fact), and ideally, neither a father or teacher should serve in this position.

Kiddushin 31b relates that when Rav Ashi’s son lectured, he would tell the spokesman: “This is what my father and teacher said...,” and the spokesman would say: “This is what Rav Ashi said...”

Kiddushin (ibid.) mentions this concept within the context of the laws governing the respect due to one’s father. (See Hilchot Mamrim 6:3.) This concept is also quoted in Chapter 5, Halachah 5, as an expression of the proper respect due a teacher.

In Hilchot De’ot 2:3, the Rambam explains in detail how “anger is a very bad trait, and it is proper for a person to separate himself from it entirely.” He continues (ibid. 2:5) explaining how a teacher should instruct the students “in a composed and pleasant manner, without shouting.” Here, he does not center on the negative aspects of anger in its own right, but rather its impropriety as an educational technique.

Note the Mishnah, Avot 2:5, cited by the Rambam in the following halachah. Sofrim 16:2 states: “One should teach the Talmud with a pleasant countenance and the aggadah with a patient countenance.”

Deuteronomy 31:19 states that Torah must be placed in a student’s mouth. Eruvin 54b interprets this as a charge to teachers, requiring them to review the subject matter with their students until the latter comprehend it fully. The passage continues, praising Rabbi Pereidah for teaching one of his students each point four hundred times.
Though patience is generally required of a teacher, there are times when he should display anger as explained in the following halachah.

Derech Eretz Zuta, ch. 2, states: “If you desire to study, Do not say ‘I have comprehended it,’ when you have not.”

The teacher’s patient devotion to his students must be reflected by them. They must dedicate themselves to understanding their teacher’s words and steadfastly apply themselves to their study until they comprehend.

Megillah 28a relates that Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi gave such a reply to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah after the latter impatiently rebuked him for what seemed an irrelevant question.

And therefore refrain from asking questions.

On the contrary, he should ask that it be repeated, and his colleagues are obligated to show him the courtesy of patiently listening to the repetition.

Berachot 63b teaches: “Any student who humbles himself because of the words of Torah will ultimately be uplifted.” Rashi explains that this refers to a student who asks all the questions that bother him even though his colleagues look down upon him.

Avot 2:5.

The two faults lead to the same difficulty. The teacher will explain the subject matter in a manner which he thinks is correct. However, it will not be grasped by the students.

The directive that a teacher should patiently repeat his words without displaying anger.

In such a situation, further repetition will not help, for the students will not concentrate then, either.

This translation is based on Hilchot De’ot 2:3, which explains that a person may act in an angry matter to cast fear into the hearts of others. However, he, himself, should not be angry.

Since their difficulty stemmed from their lack of concentration, by forcing the students to apply themselves, the teacher will enable them to learn.

Ketubot 103b relates that Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi mentioned this concept in his last will and testament. In particular, this advice was given to his son, Rabban Gamliel, with regard to the manner in which he should conduct himself as a nasi. The Rambam interprets the lesson as more general in nature and applies it to the relationship between every teacher and student.

Similarly, Shabbat 30b states that a student must sit in utter dread of his teacher.

In order to cultivate this aura of respect.

In general, the Rambam advises against frivolous behavior, and favors a reserved, but pleasant and happy approach to others. (See Hilchot De’ot 2:7, 5:2.)

This does not imply that a teacher must demonstrate a totally stern approach. Shabbat (loc. cit.) relates how Rabbah would begin his lectures with a witty statement. His students would laugh and, afterwards, he would sit in awe and begin the lesson.

Lest he be prodded into responding hastily, without thinking out the matter in its entirety.

First, this is proper manners. Second, it is impossible to hear two people simultaneously.

Because he did not know the answer and give an incorrect reply.

Asking about matters which are unrelated, to see whether the students can follow the line of thought.
Berachot 43b relates that Rabbah made certain statements that ran contrary to the Sages’ teachings about the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird. The Talmud explains that he did this in order to check his students’ knowledge. Eruvin 13a relates that Rabbi Akiva also made statements with a similar intent.

E. g., Chullin 43b relates that Rabbah inspected an animal to see whether it was kosher or not in a manner which contradicted his own teachings. Here, too, it is explained that his intention was to test his students.

Bava Metzia 97a relates that a teacher has the right to change the subject matter which the students are studying. However, it does not provide the explanation given by the Rambam here.

To pique their curiosity and stimulate their desire to learn.

The laws mentioned in this halachah, as well as those of previous and the subsequent halachot, are derived from the Tosefta, Sanhedrin, Chapter 7. Nevertheless, the Rambam does not quote these laws in the same order as the Tosefta.

For a person is more composed when seated.

This is not a sign of respect for the teacher.

The Kessef Mishneh notes the apparent redundancy between this statement and a similar one in the previous halachah, and explains that, in the previous halachah, the Rambam meant that when studying the laws of the Sabbath, a student should not ask his teachers about the laws of the festivals. In this halachah, the Rambam teaches that even within the general subject of the Sabbath laws, while studying the laws of one melachah (forbidden act), a student should not inquire regarding another.

Just as the Jews received the Torah on Mount Sinai with fear and awe, similarly, our study of Torah must be charged with similar emotions (Berachot 22a).

For it would be difficult for him to grasp more than three new concepts at a time. Also, it is not courteous to the other students for one person to be asking continuously.

A Torah Sage is obligated to answer all questions posed to him, regardless of who the questioner is or what he asks. Thus, this halachah does not rule out a response being given to a particular questioner, but rather establishes the priorities for those responses to be given.

This translation is based on the commonly published text of the Mishneh Torah. Other texts read בענין, which would be rendered “with regard to the matter (under discussion).” (See Rabbenu Nissim, Megillah.)

Because it will be possible to answer in a direct manner.

Since, as mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 3, the greatness of Torah is that it leads to deed, questions that are directly related to deed are given precedence.

Since questions of Torah law, while not necessarily immediately relevant to actual deed, provide guidelines regarding our future behavior. In contrast, the interpretation of Torah verses is a more abstract realm of study, further removed from our immediate behavior.

I.e., the ethical and metaphysical realm of Torah teachings.

Though they are somewhat removed from being practical guidelines for behavior, the former are still in the category of halachah — the aspect of Torah study that is related to deed and action. Hence, it is given precedence over aggadah, whose lessons are more personal and require a greater effort to internalize.

A קל וחומר, a fortiori reasoning. This is one of the thirteen rules of Biblical exegesis mentioned by Rabbi Yishmael in the introduction to the Sifra. For example, Bava Metzia 3b attempts to derive the following concept using a קל וחומר: Just as a person’s own statements, which do not obligate him to pay a fine [and hence, can be considered a minor premise], obligate him to take an oath, the testimony of witnesses, which does obligate him to pay a fine [and, hence, can be considered a major premise,] should also obligate him to take an oath

As above, though the latter subject matter is somewhat removed from being practical guidelines for behavior, it is still in the category of halachah — the aspect of Torah study that is related to deed and action.

A גזרה שוה. This is also one of the thirteen rules of Biblical exegesis mentioned by Rabbi Yishmael, as cited above. When a common word or phrase is found in two separate verses, an analogy is established between them, and concepts applicable to one can be related to the other. However, it must be emphasized that a גזרה שוה cannot be arrived at independently, but must be received from a teacher, who, in turn, received it from his teacher in a chain extending back to Moses at Mount Sinai.

As mentioned in the next chapter, we are obligated to show Torah Sages respect and honor.

Though a student need not be honored in the same way as a sage, a student’s dedication to Torah study is deserving of a certain measure of respect.

The translation of the latter phrase is based on the commentary of the Kessef Mishneh.

Who relays the questions to the teacher, as mentioned in Halachah 3.

Megillah 28a relates that Rabbi Zeira’s students asked him why he had merited a long life. Among the reasons he gave them was that he had never slept (or even napped) in the house of study.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 151:3) allows one to sleep in a house of study. Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 4:12) explains that this leniency was granted when a person spent his days and nights in the house of study. Therefore, rather than cause him to waste his time going back and forth from his home, he was permitted to sleep in the house of study.

I.e., his memory will become faulty and he will be able to recall only what he has learned at certain times (Rashi, Sanhedrin 71a).

Ibid.

There are two reasons why unnecessary conversation is forbidden in the house of study:
a) to prevent wasting time that could be used for Torah study (see Berachot 53a);
b) as a token of respect for the house of study. According to this rationale, such conversation is forbidden even when it does not involve making an interruption in one’s studies. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Talmud Torah 4:11.)

This was the Talmudic equivalent of Gesundheit or “God bless you.”

Berachot loc. cit. relates that this rule was observed in Rabban Gamliel’s house of study.

Chaggigah 12b adds that a person who discusses other matters in a house of study will be punished by being forced to eat glowing coals.

Note Hilchot Tefillah, ch. 11, where the Rambam discusses the sanctity of houses of study and synagogues in detail, mentioning various restrictions on our behavior that were ordained as a token of respect. (See also Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 151.)The greater sanctity of a house of study is expressed by the law (Hilchot Tefillah 11:14), that a synagogue may be transformed into a house of study. However, a house of study should not be transformed into a synagogue.