Rav Moshe Feinstein writes explicitly that one who rules according to this Rambam nowadays is acting foolishly. So I think that at the very least one could argue that there is a doubt as to whether one can support themselves through receiving money through learning.

With all due respect to kavodh harav Feinstein z"l (and I mean that - I regularly learn Iggroth Mosheh and it occupies a central place on my shelf next to the Arukh HaShulhhan), he has no right uproot commandments of Hazal. And if I remember correctly, Reb Mosheh was specifically referring to Hil. T.T. 3:10, but we see that this is a wide ranging principle that touches many areas of halakhah.

Further, and it may get me in trouble, I think it is a little ironic that his whole life - by his own admission - Reb Mosheh lived in contradiction to this halakhah. This does not diminish the greatness of what he accomplished, but it doesn't excuse him from having had the obligation to support himself. So, would Reb Mosheh also then overturn the crash on Tehillim, the invalidation of edim, or the idea that it is "avaq gezel"? I just don't think even he could do such a thing.

After the war, many European authorities thought that due to the decimation it was time to sin for the sake of the Torah and encourage learning full time while being supported by ssedaqah. And I believe that this is the context of Reb Mosheh's statement. But in the end it was just that: A sin.

@Salmononius2 I'm with Maimonist on this. "Kavodo bmakomo munach" R' Moshe was mistaken in this point. However for a Rav (and certainly a Rav like him) to be somach on the Rema in Hilchos Talmud Torah that the community should support him or give him money, then that is completely reasonable. So to for the Rav of any kehilla. However not "stam" people that want to sit and learn and be supported.

@Yehoshua There is the 'famous' story told of three Satmar Chasiddim who wanted to argue with a ruling that R' Moshe said, and asked the Satmar Rebbe for a blessing. He responded 'You can argue with R' Moshe, but what will you do if he argues back in Torah?'. You're fully entitled to argue with R' Moshe, just be aware that it's R' Moshe you're arguing with, one of the undisputed Torah Giants of the past century. Your question is looking for opinions about whether you can receive money for learning, and I daresay R' Moshe's opinion is a perfectly valid one, albeit maybe not the one you want.

@Maimonist Like I just mentioned in the previous comment, using such strong language as "there is no doubt that, YES, there is a halakhic imperative for a person to make a living to support himself" is a bit extreme in light of the fact that R' Moshe says otherwise. To claim that R' Moshe was sinning by not following this specific Rambam, when he himself claims that it doesn't apply in our circumstances, I think is a bit too brash of a claim. While you might disagree with R' Moshe's conclusion, the fact remains that his conclusion is a valid one.

@Salmononuis2 The derech of the great Torah scholars before us was always to "argue" and bring points and proofs perhaps against what others. There has been no one in the last 100 years (and perhaps in the history of klal yisrael) that is immune to this. Even R' Moshe, and many other gedolim didn't always agree with his rulings. In any case the context of what he wrote certainly wouldn't apply to the avreichim of our time and how they learn.

@Salmononius2 Agreed that perhaps Maimonist took his words a bit too far. I don't think R' Moshe "sinned". If we break this down to Shulchan Aruch then there would be room to say that with a Rav of a kehilla and certainly R' Moshe there would be a great mitzvah in supporting them for they do for the community and klal yisrael and the fact that they need to be free from the time work would take from their learning. This is not the case with every avreich who is not on such a level of learning or in such a position. That's why what R' Moshe said wouldn't necessarily apply.

Notice that I never said that he himself "sinned." Read carefully, I said that the decision to contradict the clear directive of Hazal and promote learning on the public dime was a "sin for the sake of the Torah" (eth laasoth lashem). All I said was that Reb Mosheh was not excused from his obligation.

And I further did not say that the was a sinner for not following the Rambam specifically. Rather, I said that he lived his entire life not working for a living and thus in contradiction to the halakhah that one must work rather than take charity. And these are not "Rambams", they are direct quotes from Hazal. I would never come out and say "Reb Mosheh" was a sinner." He was a righteous talmidh hakhamim of a unique stature. However, for the sake of being truthful I must say that even in his greatness he was never excused from commandments of the Torah or the instruction of Hazal.

@Yehoshua I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before, but I completely agree that one can argue with R' Moshe. You can argue with him, disagree with what he says, and even be correct with your opinion (although I think you're mistaken. Could you tell? :P ), but that doesn't invalidate the other opinion (part of the whole Eilu V'Eilu Divrei Elokim Chayim/Shivim Panim Latorah idea). Additionally, arguing that the ruling might not apply in every circumstance (as I believe you might be) is also a valid method of arguing, and may be true in many cases too.

@Yehoshua I also wholeheartedly agree that, undoubtedly, there are several 'avrechim' who are taking advantage of a culture of learning full time when they personally should enter the workforce and learn only part time. I hope you'll also agree that there are unfortunately also people who have decided to enter the workforce when they (seemingly, you can never know internally what a person is like) are the type of person who should learn full time. Whenever there is any system in place, there will always be people who will take advantage of clauses that weren't intended for them.

And I want to apologize if what I'm typing seems strong. It's arguably difficult (impossible?) to convey the right tone over the written word. If what I'm writing comes out sounding harsh and argumentative, that's only because I'm trying to sound harsh and argumentative. :-p

chafetz chaim disagrees with your interpretation of the rambam

@Ray what does he say?

@Yehoshua the Chofetz Chaim rules that even the Rambam would agree that nowadays one may learn full-time., since it is so difficult for someone to simultaneously devote himself to a livelihood and also master the Torah. ohr.edu/ask/ask003.htm

@ray - I would be interested in seeing that Hafess Hayyim, but I that is presumptuous and false since the Rambam says "afilu im hu baal mishpahah" that one is nevertheless obligated to learn Torah. There is no exemption to being an honest upstanding person.

The problem of "avek gezel" only seems to be going on someone who is אוכל מן הוקביא but wouldn't extend to someone else who simply doesn't work at all and takes money from others or tzedeka.

So, what you're saying is that somebody who makes a living from doing SOMETHING is committing "avaq gezel" but someone who does NOTHING is exempt from such a charge? Remember that Hazal say that someone who refuses to work and only learns Torah סופם מלסטים את הבריות. "Listim" are bandits, thieves, robbers - take your pick. That's not "avaq gezel," that's considered by Hazal to be tantamount to gezel mammash. Kol tuv.