QUESTION: The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Meir who says that "one should always teach his son a clean and pleasant trade (Umnus Nekiyah v'Kalah)." What trades are included in the category of "Umnus Nekiyah v'Kalah"?

ANSWER: The CHOVOS HA'LEVAVOS (Sha'ar ha'Bitachon, end of chapter 3) writes that a person should choose the type of vocation in which he is naturally inclined and interested. He draws an analogy from the animal kingdom. Different species of animals eat and survive on different types of food. Some animals eat vegetation, some eat insects, and others prey on other animals. Those that prey on other animals are equipped with the tools they need (such as claws and sharp teeth), while those that eat plants do not have those tools. The Chovos ha'Levavos explains that these animals are not carnivorous because they have claws and sharp teeth, but rather Hash-m equipped them with claws and sharp teeth because their nature is to enjoy meat.

Similarly, Hash-m gives a person a natural inclination and desire for a certain activity, and He also equips the person with the necessary tools for the activity towards which he is inclined. Therefore, a person should pursue the activities which interest him and assume that Hash-m has given him the necessary talents to succeed.

QUESTION: In the Mishnah, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar states, "Did you ever see a beast and fowl that have a trade? And yet they receive sustenance with no trouble! And yet they were created only to serve me (man), and I was created to serve my Creator, so certainly I should receive sustenance with no trouble! Rather, I made my actions evil and I ruined my [entitlement to] sustenance."

Why does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar mention only "Chayah" and "Of" (beast and fowl) as examples of animals that have no trouble with their sustenance? Why does he not mention "Behemah" as well?

ANSWER: The IYUN YAKOV explains that most types of Behemah are domesticated, while most types of Chayah and Of are wild, roaming freely in the wilderness. Domesticated animals receive their sustenance from their owners, while those that live in the wilderness receive their sustenance directly from Hash-m.

Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar chose to make his Kal va'Chomer from the "Chayah" and "Of" in order to show that not only is a person assured to receive a Parnasah, but that his Parnasah will be given to him directly from Hash-m without any intermediary.

QUESTION: The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Aba Gurya who says that "the best of the doctors [will go] to Gehinom, and the most fit of the slaughterers are the partners of Amalek."

Why does the Tana use the word "best" ("Tov") when he refers to doctors, and the word "fit" ("Kasher") when he refers to slaughterers? (See RASHI, whose text indeed reads "best" ("Tov") in both cases.)

ANSWER: "Kasher" means upstanding. "Tov" means good. "Kasher" refers to a person's character traits, and not to the way he performs his job. The primary concern of a slaughterer is the temptation to say that a non-kosher piece of meat is kosher in order to avoid a monetary loss. This concern involves a deficiency in one's character traits and not in the way he does his job.

"Tov," in contrast, does not refer to a person's nature or character traits. Rather, it describes how well a person performs his profession. There is nothing intrinsically problematic with being a doctor. The choice of that profession shows no unsavory element of character. On the contrary, the choice of that profession may show that a person excels in the trait of Chesed, for he seeks to serve his community. The primary concern of a doctor is an occupational hazard; a doctor, because of his important role, may tend to become arrogant and conceited and begin to believe that his opinions are truth and that he is perfect and makes no mistakes. Consequently, he might perform treatments which are unnecessary, misdiagnose a patient, or treat him with contraindicative medication. He might feel that he does not have to consult others, or that he does not have to commit the necessary time and thoughtfulness to each patient's condition, due to his years of experience and professionalism. If a doctor views himself with such self-importance, he will cease to be a source of Chesed and, on the contrary, endanger the lives of others. It is the "best" ("Tov") of the doctors -- the ones who are the most successful at their jobs -- who must be the most cautious in order to avoid falling into such a mindset. (See ETZ YOSEF.)

QUESTION: The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Nehora'i who says, "I leave all trades and I do not teach my son anything other than Torah."

How is Rebbi Nehora'i's statement to be understood in light of the Mishnah in Avos (2:2) which states that "any [study of] Torah that is not accompanied with Melachah (work) will in the end become annulled?"

ANSWER: The SEFER HA'MIKNAH explains that both statements apply, but they depend on a person's level of Bitachon. If a person has a high level of trust in Hash-m, he may depend on Hash-m to supply him with all of his needs while he immerses himself totally in the study of Torah. Not everyone, though, is on that level of Bitachon. One who is not on that level must put forth the necessary efforts to earn a living as well.

Perhaps the intention of Rebbi Nehora'i when he says, "I do not teach my son anything other than Torah," is that he does not teach his son anything other than Torah and the Emunah and Bitachon necessary for living a life dedicated exclusively to Torah learning. The CHAZON ISH (Igros Chazon Ish) writes that if one wants to rely entirely on Hash-m for his sustenance, he must be extremely honest with himself and not fool himself into thinking that his Bitachon is more than what it really is. Hash-m provides a person with his needs in accordance with that person's true reliance on Hash-m. If a person claims to have Bitachon but his trust in Hash-m is superficial and not genuine, he cannot expect Hash-m to provide his needs directly.

QUESTION: The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Meir who says that "one should always teach his son a clean and pleasant trade (Umnus Nekiyah v'Kalah)." The Mishnah later quotes Rebbi Nehora'i who says, "I leave all trades and I do not teach my son anything other than Torah."

Rebbi Nehora'i and Rebbi Meir apparently disagree about whether one must teach his son a trade.

The Gemara earlier (29a) quotes a Beraisa which states that "a father is obligated to circumcise his son, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, to marry him off, and to teach him a trade.... Rebbi Yehudah says that anyone who does not teach his son a trade... is considered as though he taught him robbery." The Gemara there (30b) says that the difference between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan is whether a father may teach his son commerce (Rabanan) or he must teach him a skilled trade (Rebbi Yehudah). Chizkiyah says that the source for the obligation to teach one's son a trade is the verse, "Re'eh Chayim Im Ishah..." (Koheles 9:9).

Apparently, all of the Tana'im earlier follow the view of Rebbi Meir, who says that one must teach his son a trade.

The RAMBAM apparently rules like Rebbi Nehora'i, because he makes no mention of the obligation to teach one's son a trade. (See also IGROS MOSHE OC 2:111, who writes that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Nehora'i.)

However, the Rambam in Hilchos Shabbos (24:5) writes that one is permitted to teach a trade to a child on Shabbos "because it is a Mitzvah." This ruling is based on the Gemara in Shabbos (150a) which permits one to discuss matters of Shiduchim on Shabbos and to arrange with a teacher the details of teaching his child a trade. Such discussion is not included in the prohibition against speaking about mundane matters on Shabbos (Yeshayah 58:13). Rashi there explains that one is permitted to discuss arrangements for teaching one's child a trade because teaching a trade to a child is a Mitzvah. Rashi proves that it is a Mitzvah from the Gemara in Kidushin (29a and 30b). Since the Tana'im cited by the Gemara there follow the view of Rebbi Meir, Rashi implies that according to Rebbi Nehora'i one is not permitted to discuss, on Shabbos, arrangements for teaching a trade, since Rebbi Nehora'i maintains that there is no Mitzvah to teach a child a trade.

If the Rambam maintains that there is no Mitzvah to teach one's child a trade, why does he rule that one is permitted to discuss teaching a trade on Shabbos?

ANSWER: The DIVREI SHALOM answers this question based on the words of the ME'IRI (Kidushin 30b, DH Kevar Bi'arnu). The Me'iri explains that the reason why a father must teach his son a trade is so that when his son grows up he will be drawn to do what he has become trained and accustomed to do. If he was never trained to do anything he will be drawn to robbery. The Me'iri adds, however, that "nevertheless, one who teaches his son Torah does not need to teach his son any other trade, because once he has Torah, he has 'flour,' and [when the Beraisa lists the obligations of] teaching Torah to one's son and teaching a trade to one's son, it means that one may teach either one [but not that one must teach both, for either one will save one's son from becoming a robber]."

According to the Me'iri's explanation, the Beraisa earlier (29a) means that one must teach his son a trade only if he does not teach him Torah. The Divrei Shalom points out that Rebbi Meir argues with that Beraisa when he says that "one should always teach his son" a trade. Rebbi Meir apparently maintains that one must be concerned for the possibility that one's son will not be drawn towards Torah learning, and therefore one must always teach his son a trade to ensure that his son will not become a robber.

Rebbi Nehora'i, however, argues with Rebbi Meir and agrees with the Beraisa. He maintains that although one must teach his son a trade if he does not teach him Torah, "I leave all trades and I do not teach my son anything other than Torah." Rebbi Nehora'i maintains that Torah learning alone will prevent the son from becoming a robber, and that one need not be concerned that his son will not be drawn after Torah learning.

Based on this understanding of the Beraisa and of the statements of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Nehora'i, the ruling of the Rambam is understood. The Rambam rules that one is not obligated to teach his son a trade if he teaches him Torah, but one who does not teach his son Torah is obligated to teach him a trade. Since there is no obligation to teach one's son a trade when he teaches him Torah, the Rambam makes no mention of the obligation. Since, however, it nevertheless is a Mitzvah to teach one's son a trade when one does not teach him Torah, the Rambam rules that one is permitted to discuss, on Shabbos, arrangements for teaching one's son a trade.