Explanation: It seems to me that it means as follows. According to letter of the law, he may take wages for Mikra (written Torah), but not for Midrash, like it proceeds to explain;

However, in some places they are stringent not to take wages even for Mikra, lest people come to take for Midrash. In those places, he may teach him even Mikra;

Since they are stringent [not to take wages for] a Mitzvah, they may not take wages, and Mikra is [permitted there] like Midrash in all places.

However, our Mishnah is established in a place where they take wages for Mikra, i.e. they are not stringent;

Even in that place, they may take wages only for Mikra. Therefore, he may not teach him, for since they take wages, if he teaches him for free, it turns out that he benefits him;

However, for Midrash, he may not take wages, for letter of the law it is forbidden, like the Gemara explains. Therefore, when he teaches him Midrash for free, he does not benefit him at all, for he is not obligated to pay wages, and learning itself is not Hana'ah, for Mitzvos Lav Lehanos Nitnu (fulfillment of Mitzvos is not considered benefit).

Halachah: Regarding the Halachah.

Ruling: We hold that for Midrash, he may not take. However, this is only wages for teaching, but he may take Sechar Betelah (wages that he lost while he was teaching, and neglected his job).

Source: So it says in the Yerushalmi. It says 'perhaps this is so even for Mikra and Targum! It says "Chukim u'Mishpatim" - you teach Chukim and Mishpatim for free, but you need not teach Mikra and Targum for free.

Question: We see that people who teach Mishnah and Gemara to children take wages!

Answer (R. Yudan b'R. Yishmael): They take Sechar Betelah.

Gemara: Why is Medrash different, that one may not [take wages] - for it says "Hash-m commanded me at that time."

Explanation: This verse is brought to teach that Moshe was commanded to teach Torah to Yisrael.

Explanation: Like He commanded me to teach for free. If not, to what does "Ka'asher Tzivani" apply?

You cannot say that it is for wages. Did He command him so?! Would it not suffice [that he teach us] without taking wages?!

Also, you cannot say that "like He commanded me" teaches that He commanded me to teach you, and I do not say so on my own. Yisrael had no doubt about this - "they will believe in you forever"!

Rather, surely it means "like He commanded me to teach for free."

Gemara: Also Mikra for free.

Explanation: We learn from this verse itself.

Gemara: Rav said, wages for guarding [young Talmidim].

Explanation: Presumably, those who learn Mikra are minors, and they must be guarded. Therefore, granted that wages for teaching are forbidden, wages for guarding are permitted.

Explanation: They teach them Ta'amim (musical notes for reading the verses), which are not mid'Oraisa. They are not included in "Chukim u'Mishpatim."

Rav and R. Yochanan argue about teaching Mikra to an adult, who need not be guarded. Rav forbids, for he holds that the Ta'amim are mid'Oraisa;

R. Yochanan permits, for [one may take] wages for [teaching] Ta'amim.

Ruling: Therefore, since we hold that when Rav and R. Yochanan argue, the Halachah follows R. Yochanan, we hold that even for an adult, one may take wages for Mikra. The Rambam says so in Perek 6 of Hilchos Nedarim.

Gemara: The Mishnah says, he may not teach to him Mikra... However, according to the opinion that it is wages for guarding, must an adult be guarded?!

Explanation: [An adult] guards himself!

Gemara: A minor.

Explanation: The Mudar is a minor.

Implied question: If a minor eats Neveilos [or does other Isurim], Beis Din need not stop him. (Why are we concerned if he transgresses the Neder?)

Answer: Even though [Beis Din need not stop him], we do not [cause him to do any Aveirah, e.g.] feed him [Neveilos]. When he teaches him, he benefits him.

Gemara: If he was an adult, he may teach Mikra to him and his children.

Explanation: [He may teach] him, for he need not be guarded;

[He may teach] his sons - even though they need to be guarded, it is not forbidden more than feeding his sons and daughters.

Gemara - Question (Beraisa): Children do not read [Mikra] for the first time on Shabbos.

Explanation: This is what they never read before. However, they may repeat for the first time, if they read it the first time before Shabbos. They may repeat it on Shabbos, even though it is the first repetition.

Gemara: This is fine for the opinion that one may take wages for the Ta'amim. (Therefore, only the first time is forbidden, for then the Rebbi is paid.)

Explanation: The primary wage is only for the first reading, for it is a great toil (to teach the Ta'amim). And this is why we do not read for the first time on Shabbos, for wages for [work on] Shabbos are forbidden;

However, we may review the first time, because one does not take wages for review.

Gemara: However, according to the one who says that the wages are for guarding, why do we not read...?

Explanation: I.e. what is the difference between the first time and the second? The wages are only for guarding! Just like there is guarding the first time, there is also guarding when they review!

Gemara: It is Havla'ah.

Explanation: He includes the wage for Shabbos amidst the wage for the other days.

Gemara: To guard a child [for Hekdesh].

Explanation: They used to raise children in Chatzeros built over rock, due to Kever ha'Tehom (an unknown grave below the ground; there is no concern for such Tum'ah under virgin rock), in order that the children will fill [a Kli] with spring water, to be Mekadesh ashes of the Parah Adumah.

Gemara: To guard the cow.

Explanation: This is the Parah Adumah.

Gemara: [To guard] Zera'im.

Explanation: This is for the need of the Omer. They guard it before bringing the Omer. So Rashi explained in Bava Metzi'a (58a).

Gemara: Therefore, if they were lost, he has no responsibility.

Explanation: If they were lost on Shabbos [he is exempt]. Since he does not receive wages for Shabbos, he is a Shomer Chinam.

Gemara: If he was Sechir Shabbos.

Explanation: [He was hired] for one week.

Gemara: If he was Sechir Shavu'ah.

Explanation: [He was hired] for one Shemitah cycle.

Gemara: He gives to him wages for Shabbos

Explanation: [It is permitted] since they did not mention explicitly [wages for Shabbos], rather, it was included amidst the other days.

Gemara: Therefore.

Explanation: Since he is a Shomer Sachar, if they were lost on Shabbos he is liable.

Gemara: So the fathers of the children will have time for the Mitzvah of Shabbos.

Explanation: The fathers of the children will have time for the Mitzvos of Shabbos and delight with their children. If the children will read the first time, [the fathers] will be concerned for [the children] being idle [from learning].

Gemara: They are sluggish.

Explanation: The children are sluggish, because they ate more than they normally eat on a weekday. Their limbs are heavy on them, and they cannot learn for the first time, which needs great investigation.

Version #1: This is said in astonishment. This is the text in some Seforim, and it is fine. It means that our Stam Mishnah, which taught that he may not teach him Mikra, refers to an adult, since the Seifa teaches 'but he may teach his sons';

What we answered above that the Mishnah is abbreviated is a poor answer. Rather, surely it discusses an adult. Does an adult need to be guarded?!

Version #2: Some texts say "do daughters need to be guarded?!" We ask that surely, whenever the Tana teaches one who is Mudar Hana'ah from his friend, this implies that that it can be a man or a woman;

How did the Tana teach uniformly "he may not teach him Mikra"? Granted, we establish it to discuss a minor. However, this is only for boys, who need to be guarded;

However, daughters, even minors, need not be guarded, for they do not normally go outside!

Gemara: He holds that the Ta'amim is mid'Oraisa.

Explanation: And one may not receive wages for teaching them. Since they are mid'Oraisa, they are like Chukim and Mishpatim.

Gemara: "Mefurash" refers to the translation.

Explanation: It is Mefares (explains) the verse.

Gemara: "V'Sum Sechel" are the verses.

Explanation: They are the dots that separate between one verse and another. They are called Sum Sechel, for via them one understands the break between one verse and another.

Gemara: "V'Yavinu ba'Mikra" are Pisuk Ta'amim.

Explanation: Via them one understands the verse according to the fluctuation of the Ta'amim (some end the matter, and some lead into the following word);

This is like it says in Chagigah (6b), this affects Pesukei Ta'amei.

Gemara: The traditions.

Explanation: What was given over via tradition.

Gemara: R. Yitzchak said, Mikra Sofrim.

Explanation: This is the pronunciation that the Rishonim, who are called Sofrim, handed over to us.

Gemara: And Itur Sofrim.

Explanation: These are extra words that were written to beauty the expression. They are called Itur, for they crown the wording.

Gemara: Read and not written.

Explanation: They are words that are pronounced, but they are not written.

Gemara: Written but not read.

Explanation: They are words that are written, but they are not pronounced.

Gemara: Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.

Explanation: So Moshe received on Sinai, and handed over to Yisrael.

Gemara: Mikra Sofrim - Eretz Aretz.

Explanation: When ["Eretz"] has the Ta'am Asnachta, it is pronounced "Aretz" with a Kamatz.

Gemara: Shamayim, Mitzrayim.

Explanation: Even though there is no Aleph in them, we read ("Shamayim", "Mitzrayim"), as if there was an Aleph (before the Yud. We do not read them 'Shamim, Mitzrim',)

Gemara: Itur Sofrim - "afterwards you will pass", "afterwards she will go", "afterwards she will be gathered", "the singers were first, after them Nognim (people playing instruments)."

Explanation: All of these are extra. They are only to beautify the expression. It should have said 'you will sustain your hearts and pass', 'she will be quarantined for seven days and gathered', 'singers preceded the Nognim.' Rather, they were written to beautify the expression. (In the next Dibur, the Ran gives another Perush of Itur Sofrim.)

Explanation #1 - Implied question: It should have said 'Tzidkascha Harerei Kel' (without a "Chaf" before Harerei), like it says (the next words in the verse) "Mishpatecha Tehom Rabah", to say that the high mountains, i.e. the angels, need the Tzedakah of Hash-m!

Answer: Rather, it wrote "k'Harerei Kel" to beautify the expression.

Explanation #2 (my Rebbi): Itur Sofrim is a Ta'am (musical note) that interrupts (stops);

Regarding "Acher", it is so it will connote "afterwards, she will go", "afterwards, you will pass", "afterwards, you will die", "singers were first, and afterwards the Nognim." (Rashash - the Ran himself (DH Itur) explained that "Te'asef" refers to Miryam (Bamidbar 12:14). According to his Rebbi, it refers to Moshe (ibid., 31:2).)

In "Tzidkascha k'Harerei", the Ta'am on k'Harerei interrupts from the word "Kel", to teach that the word "Kel" is out of place, as if it were at the beginning of the verse. It means 'Kel, You revealed Your virtue like mountains, which are exposed.'

If not for the interruption, the verses would connote "after that you will go", "after that you will pass", "after that you will die", "the singers were first after the Nognim", for the Nognim were before them, and "Your virtue is like mountains of Kel."

It is called Itur Sofrim because it crowns the matter with the Ta'am how to read it.

Gemara: [Words that are] read but not written - "Peras" of "b'Lechto".

Explanation: The verse is in Shmuel II, 8:3 - "Lehashiv Yado bi'Nhar Pras." Pras is pronounced, but not written.

Gemara: "Ish" in "Ka'asher Yish'al."

Explanation: Also this is in Shmuel II, 16:23, regarding Achitofel - "Ka'asher Yish'al Ish bi'Dvar Elokim." Ish is pronounced, but not written.

Gemara: "Ba'im" of "v'Nivnesah".

Explanation: This is in Yirmeyah (31:37) - "Hinei Yamim Ba'im Ne'um Hash-m v'Nivnesah." Ba'im is pronounced, but not written.

Gemara: "Lah" of "Pleitah".

Explanation: It is near the end of Yirmeyah (50:29), in the Nevu'ah about Bavel - "Al Yehi Lah Pleitah." Lah is pronounced, but not written.

Gemara: "Es" of "Huged Hugad."

Explanation: It is in Rus (2:11), "va'Ya'an Bo'az va'Yomer Lah Huged Hugad Li Kol Asher Asisa Es Chamosech." Es is pronounced, but not written.

Remark: However, in our Seforim it is written and pronounce. Also the Mesorah does not mention it among the other words that are pronounced, but not written.

Gemara: "Elai" of "ha'Goren"

Explanation: Also this is in Rus (3:5) - ""va'Tomer Eleha Kol Asher Tomri Elai E'eseh." The next verse says "va'Tered ha'Goren..."

Remark: It is called "Elai" of "ha'Goren", even though ha'Goren is not in that verse, since it is in the next verse. (There was no word in the verse itself to uniquely identify the verse. - PF)

Gemara: "Elai" of "ha'Se'orim".

Explanation: Also this is in Rus (3:17) - "va'Tomer Shesh ha'Se'orim ha'Eleh Nasan Li Ki Amar Elai." Elai is pronounced, but not written.

Gemara: [Words that are] written but not read - "Na" of "Yislach".

Explanation: This is in Melachim II, 5:18 - "b'Hishtachavayasi Beis Rimon Yislach Na Hash-m l'Avdecha"- Na is written, but it is not pronounced.