Kiddushin 32b — the Talmud in English

Whereas

here,

it concerns the forgiveness of his teacher, and

is the Torah his?!

Does the Torah that he learned belong to him?! Surely, the honor with which he must be honored is on account of the Torah within him, which belongs to the Holy One, blessed is He! And how can he forgive an honor that is not his?

However, ultimately Rava withdrew his argument.

He reconsidered,

afterwards

Rava said: Indeed,

yes, the

Torah

that the teacher learned

is his,

it belongs to him,

as it is written [Psalms 1:2]: “Rather, his desire is in the Torah of the Lord,”

and “in his Torah he meditates day and night.”

At first the verse says “the Torah of the Lord,” and once he has learned it, it is called “his Torah.”

At first, the verse says “the Torah of the Lord,” but once he has learned it, it is called “his Torah.”

And since the Torah that he learned is considered his Torah, it is in his power to forgive his honor.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

I cannot accept this!

How is it possible to say so?

But Rava was serving drinks at the wedding feast of his son,

Rava was serving the guests drinks at the wedding of his son,

and he raised a cup

and lifted the cup

for Rav Pappa and for Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and they rose before him

to honor him, and afterwards he lifted

it for Rav Mari and Rav Pinhas, son of Rav Ḥisda, and they did not rise before him.

And he

was offended,

Rava was offended that they did not rise before him,

and said:

Were only

these sages

the scholars [Rav Mari and Rav Pinhas]

sages

and therefore did they not rise,

but

these

these sages [Rav Pappa and Rav Pinhas]

are

not sages

? That is: Just as Rav Pappa and Rav Huna rose in my honor despite the fact that they are sages, so too it was fitting for you, Rav Mari and Rav Pinhas, to rise in my honor despite the fact that you are sages.

And if indeed Rava concluded that when a teacher forgives his honor, his honor is forgiven, then why was he offended at Rav Mari and Rav Pinhas? Surely he was serving them drinks, and from this it follows that he had forgiven his honor, and his honor was forgiven!

And further,

and additionally:

Rav Pappa was serving drinks at the wedding feast of his son Abba Mar,

Rav Pappa was serving the guests drinks at the wedding of his son Abba Mar,

and he raised a cup

and lifted the cup

for Rabbi Isaac, son of Rav Yehuda, and he did not rise before him

before him,

and he was offended.

But Rav Pappa was serving him drinks. And from this it follows that he had forgiven his honor; and if we say that when a teacher forgives his honor, his honor is forgiven, why was Rav Pappa offended that they did not rise before him?

And we answer: Indeed, Rava and Rav Pappa forgave their honor and served the guests, but

even so, they were required to show him honor,

it was fitting for them to perform an act of honor for him, that is, to move slightly as though they wished to rise before him.

Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says, “When a teacher forgives his honor, his honor is forgiven,” when a nasi forgives his honor, his honor is not forgiven.

The meitivi,

a contradiction from a beraita:

For it was taught:

There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Tzadok, who were reclining at a drinking feast

at the wedding of

the son of Rabban Gamliel, and Rabban Gamliel was

the nasi

standing and serving them drinks.

He gave

Rabban Gamliel

the cup to Rabbi Eliezer, but he did not take it,

because he did not wish to make use of the service of the nasi.

He gave it

Rabban Gamliel

to Rabbi Yehoshua, and he accepted it.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him

to Rabbi Yehoshua:

What is this, Yehoshua?

Are we sitting while Rabban Gamliel the Great

the nasi

is standing and serving us drinks,

and you take it from him?!

He said to him: We have found one greater than he who served

others. For

Abraham

our father

was the greatest of his generation,

and it is written concerning him [Genesis 18:2],

“And behold, three men were standing over him, and he took cream and milk,

and he was standing over them

to serve them] beneath the tree, and they ate.” And all the more so Rabban Gamliel may forgive his honor!

And lest you say: They appeared to him like ministering angels

they

appeared

to him, and therefore this was not a diminution of his honor,

this is not so, for

they appeared to him only as Arabs.

And nevertheless Abraham stood and served them.

And

if so, can it be that

we will not have Rabban Gamliel the Great

the nasi

standing and serving them drinks?!

Rabbi Tzadok said to them

“Until when will you leave aside the honor of the Omnipresent

the Holy One, blessed is He,

and engage in the honor of human beings?”

The Holy One, blessed is He, sends forth winds and raises up clouds,

and lowers rain and causes the earth to sprout,

and sets a table

preparing food

before each and every person, and we—

can it be that

Rabban Gamliel the Great

the nasi

will not stand and serve us drinks?!

This concludes the words of the beraita.

And from this beraita one may raise an objection against the statement brought above in the name of Rav Ashi: “Even according to the one who says that when a teacher forgives his honor, his honor is forgiven, when a nasi forgives his honor, his honor is not forgiven.” His wording implies that everyone agrees with this, whereas in this beraita several tannaim hold that his honor is forgiven!

And on the basis of this question the Gemara concludes that it is impossible that Rav Ashi said this statement.

Rather, if it was stated,

if a statement of this kind was indeed said in the name of Rav Ashi, necessarily

this is what was stated

it was said:

Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that when a nasi forgives his honor, his honor is forgiven, when a king forgives his honor, his honor is not forgiven.

As it is stated

[Deuteronomy 17:15]:

“You shall surely set over yourself a king.”

The verse repeated its wording [“you shall surely set”] in order to warn Israel that they should set a king over them in many ways of setting. That is, his fear should be upon them; and if the king forgives his honor, his fear will not be upon us. (421.) And from here we learn: When a king forgives his honor, his honor is not forgiven. ,

And incidentally, since the Gemara in our passage is discussing the honor of a teacher, the Gemara brings additional beraitot concerning this matter.

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 19:32]:

“You shall rise before the aged.”

And I

could

say that one must rise

even before an aged ignoramus,

a wicked person and an unlearned person.

The verse says,

therefore it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “And you shall show deference to the face of

the elder.” And “elder” means none other than a sage.

As it is stated [Numbers 11:16]:

“Gather for Me seventy men of the elders of Israel

whom you know to be the elders of the people and its officers.” That is, whom you know to be great and wise. And just as the “elders of Israel” mentioned here are the sages of Israel, so too “and you shall show deference to the face of the elder” means the face of a sage.

Rabbi Yose the Galilean

says:

“Elder” means none other than one who has acquired wisdom.

That is: “elder” is expounded by notarikon [initial letters] as “this one acquired.” That is, he acquired wisdom.

As it is stated

[Proverbs 8:22]:

“The Lord acquired me as the beginning of His way.”

And since the Torah is the beginning of acquisitions, it is fitting to say that this is the acquisition that the elder acquired. ,

The beraita continues and says:

I could say that he must rise before him

even

from a distant place?

The verse says: “Before the aged

you shall

rise and show deference

to the face of the elder.” The words “you shall rise and show deference” are adjacent to one another, to tell you:

I said

the mitzva of

“rising” only where there is

in that rising

an act of deference

to the elder—that is, within four cubits of the elder. For when a person stands there, it is recognizable that he is rising before the sage.

And the beraita continues and says:

I could say that he should show him honor with money,

that a person must pay from his money in order to honor the sage.

The verse says: “You shall rise and show deference.”

The verse placed them adjacent to one another in order to equate them:

Just as “rising

does not entail financial loss, so too the “act of deference” that

is mentioned in the verse

does not entail financial loss.

I could say that he must rise before him

even

from a lavatory or from a bathhouse.

The verse says: “You shall rise and show deference.”

I said “rising” only where there is an act of deference,

and rising in a lavatory or bathhouse does not constitute an act of deference.

I could say that he should close his eyes as one who did not see him.

The verse says: “You shall rise before the aged,

and

you shall fear

your God.”

Every

matter entrusted to the heart,

which is not recognizable to other people but exists only in the heart and thought of the person performing it,

the phrase “and you shall fear your God” is stated concerning it.

That is: Although you can evade the eyes of people, so that they will say that you did not see the sage and will not regard you as wicked, nevertheless you must fear your God, for all thoughts are revealed before Him, and He knows that you wished to nullify His commandment.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where

is it derived that it is a mitzva

for an elder

that, if he can go by another path,

not

to pass in a place where he will

cause

the public to go to the trouble of rising before him?

The verse says: “And you shall show deference to the face of

the

elder, and you shall fear

your God.”

The words “zaken and ‘you shall fear’” are adjacent to one another, to teach that even the elder is commanded to fear God and not cause trouble to the public.

And the tannaim mentioned in the beraita up to this point hold that “gray hair” and “elder” mentioned in the verse mean a sage.

Issi ben Yehuda

disagrees and

says: “You shall rise before gray hair”—even every gray-haired person is included in its meaning.

And even before an ignorant elder.

This concludes the words of the beraita.

And the Gemara proceeds to explain the words of the beraita:

We learned in a beraita: “You shall rise before gray hair.” And “elder” means only a sage. Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: “Elder” means only one who has acquired wisdom.

And we challenge: The words of

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean are

are literally the words of

the first tanna!

And what is the difference between them?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them

there is a difference between them concerning

a young person who is wise,

a young wise person. As follows:

The first tanna said: “Elder” means only a sage, as it is stated: “Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel”; and this is how his words are to be explained: “Elder” means only when he is an elder according to the plain meaning of the verse, and also a sage, as was said concerning the seventy men whom Moses gathered.

Therefore,

the first tanna holds: a young person who is wise is not

included in the “elder” of whom the verse spoke.

But Rabbi Yosei the Galilean changes the word “elder” from its plain meaning and expounds it from the expression “this is one who acquired wisdom,”

holds

that

even a young person who is wise

is included in the “elder” of whom the verse spoke. For the verse is not speaking of old age at all.

And the Gemara explains the opinion of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean:

And we challenge:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean?

Why does Rabbi Yosei the Galilean remove the verse entirely from its plain meaning?

And we answer:

He can say to you,

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean would argue:

If it enters your mind

that you should interpret “elder” according to its plain meaning,

as the first tanna says,

it follows that the “elder” mentioned in the verse is the “gray hair” mentioned earlier, and thus the verse said: “You shall rise before ‘gray hair’ that is an ‘elder’ [a sage], and

if so

there is a difficulty:

Let the Merciful One write: “You shall rise before gray hair, an elder, and show honor!”

What is different that the Merciful One divided them,

why did the verse divide them and say [a] “You shall rise before ‘gray hair,’” [b] “and show honor to the face of an ‘elder’”?

Rather, necessarily, the intention of the verse is

to say that this

is not this, and this is not this. “Gray hair” is not “elder,” and “elder” is not “gray hair.” Rather, “gray hair” is one advanced in days, and “elder” is one who has acquired wisdom, even if he is young.

“Gray hair” does not mean “elder,” and “elder” does not mean “gray hair.” Rather, “gray hair” means one advanced in years, while “elder” means one who has acquired wisdom, even if he is young.

And if so,

infer from this

learn from this that

even a young person who is wise

must be honored.

Nevertheless, since concerning “elder” the verse speaks of one who has acquired wisdom, Rabbi Yosei the Galilean therefore holds that also concerning “gray hair” the verse speaks only of a wise elder, but not of an ignorant elder.

And we challenge:

But the first tanna,

who holds that “elder” means gray hair, why, according to his opinion, was it not said: “You shall rise before gray hair [which is] an elder and show honor”?

And we answer:

Because he wanted to juxtapose,

because the verse wanted to juxtapose the word

“elder”

with

“and you shall fear

your God,” to teach us that the elder should not trouble the public, as is brought later in the beraita above.

And now the Gemara explains the opinion of the first tanna: And we challenge:

But the first tanna—what is the reason?

Why did the first tanna not say like Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, that “elder” and “gray hair” are not the same person?

And we answer: The first tanna would argue:

If it enters your mind,

if it enters your mind to say

as Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says, if so

there is a difficulty: