The Gemara answers: This teaches us that even in a place where one takes payment for teaching, for teaching Bible it is permitted to take payment, but for teaching midrash it is not permitted to take payment.

The Gemara asks: In what way is midrash different from Bible, that one may not take payment for teaching it? Based on that which is written, which Moses said to the people: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and laws” (Deuteronomy 4:14), and also that which is written: “Behold, I have taught you statutes and laws, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do so in the midst of the land where you go in to possess it” (Deuteronomy 4:5), God said: Just as I teach you for free, without payment, so too you also shall teach for free. There should be no difference between Bible and midrash, and Bible too, like midrash, should be taught for free.

Rav said: As Bible is typically taught to children, one who teaches Bible takes payment for watching the children. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He takes payment for teaching punctuation of the text with cantillation notes.

We learned in the mishna that one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by a vow, that other person may not teach him Bible. Granted, according to the one who says that the payment is for teaching punctuation of the text with cantillation notes, this is the reason that he shall not teach him Bible, as teaching punctuation is a component of teaching the biblical text. However, according to the one who says it is payment for watching the students, is an adult one who requires watching, and would payment be taken for doing so? Since the teacher typically does not receive payment for teaching adults, there is no benefit when he teaches for free the one for whom benefit is forbidden; why, then, is it prohibited? The Gemara answers: The mishna is teaching about the case of a minor who requires watching and who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the teacher.

The Gemara asks: If it is the case of a minor, say the latter clause of the mishna: However, he may teach his sons Bible. Is a minor one who is capable of bearing sons? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: He may not teach him Bible, in the case of a minor. If the student is an adult, he may teach him and his sons Bible. He may teach him because he does not require watching, and he may teach his son because the payment is for watching his son.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Children may not read a passage in the Bible for the first time on Shabbat; however, they may review a passage that they already learned once. Granted, according to the one who says that payment for teaching Bible is for teaching punctuation of the text with cantillation notes, this is the reason that children may not read a passage in the Bible for the first time on Shabbat, as it would be necessary to pay the teacher. However, according to the one who says it is payment for watching the children, why may children not read a passage in the Bible for the first time on Shabbat? And why may children review a passage that they already learned once? Isn’t there payment for watching the children on Shabbat in both cases?

The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, is receiving payment for teaching punctuation prohibited on Shabbat? It is a case of incorporation of the payment for teaching on Shabbat into the teacher’s weekly salary, and incorporation is permitted, as it is taught in a baraita: One who hires a day laborer to watch a child, to watch a cow, or to guard seeds does not give him payment for Shabbat. Therefore,