Kiddushin 32b (לב:) — the Talmud in English

Whereas

here,

with regard to his teacher’s foregoing his honor, is

the Torah his?

Does the Torah that he learned belong to him?! Surely, the honor that one must accord him is due to the Torah within him, which belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He! And how can he waive honor that is not his?

However, ultimately Rava retracted his argument.

Subsequently,

afterward,

Rava said: Indeed,

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 studies day and night.”

Initially, the verse says “the Torah of the Lord,” but 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, he may waive his honor.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so?!

How can one say this?

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

Rava was serving the guests at his son’s wedding,

and he raised a cup

and lifted the cup

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

to honor him, and afterward he raised it

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

And he

was angered,

Rava was upset that they did not rise before him,

and said:

Why, are only

these sages

Rav Mari and Rav Pinhaas

sages

and therefore they did not rise,

but

whereas

these sages

Rav Pappa and Rav Pinhaas

are not sages? That is: Just as Rav Pappa and Rav Huna rose in my honor despite being sages, so too Rav Mari and Rav Pinhaas should have risen in my honor despite being sages.

And if Rava indeed concluded that when a teacher waives his honor, his honor is waived, why was he upset with Rav Mari and Rav Pinhaas? He was serving them drinks, which indicates that he had waived his honor,

and his honor was waived!

Furthermore,

in addition:

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

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

and he raised a cup

and lifted the cup

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

before him,

and Rav Pappa was angered.

But Rav Pappa was serving him. This indicates that he had waived his honor; and if it is said that when a teacher waives his honor, his honor is waived, why was Rav Pappa upset that he did not rise before him?

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

even so, they should have shown him honor;

they should have accorded him this honor—that is, they should at least have moved slightly, as though they wished to rise before him.

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

a contradiction from a beraita:

As it was taught:

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

at the wedding of

Rabban Gamliel’s son, 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?

We are sitting while Rabban Gamliel the Great

the nasi

is standing and serving us,

and you accept it from him?!

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

others. For

Abraham

our forefather

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 curds 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 waive his honor!

And perhaps you will say: They appeared to him as ministering angels

they

appeared

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

That is not so, for

they appeared to him only as Arabs.

Nevertheless, Abraham stood and served them.

And

if so, should

we not have Rabban Gamliel the Great

the nasi

standing and serving them?!

Rabbi Tzadok said to them:

How long will you set aside the honor of the Omnipresent

the Holy One, blessed be He,

and occupy yourselves with the honor of human beings?

The Holy One, blessed be He, causes winds to blow and raises up clouds,

brings down rain and causes the earth to produce,

and sets a table

preparing food

before each and every person, and should we

then

not have Rabban Gamliel the Great

the nasi

standing and serving us?!

This concludes the words of the beraita.

The beraita raises an objection to the statement cited above in the name of Rav Ashi: “Even according to the one who says that when a teacher waives his honor, his honor is waived, when a nasi waives his honor, his honor is not waived.” His wording implies that everyone agrees with this, whereas in this beraita several tannaim maintain that his honor is waived!

On the basis of this objection, the Gemara concludes that Rav Ashi could not have made this statement.

Rather, if it was stated,

if a statement of this kind was indeed said in the name of Rav Ashi, it must be that

this is what was stated,

as follows:

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

As it is stated

[Deuteronomy 17:15]:

“You shall surely set a king over you.”

The verse repeats its wording—“you shall surely set”—in order to warn Israel to place a king over them with great authority. That is, his awe must be upon them; and if the king waives his honor, his awe will not be upon us. (421.) From here we learn that when a king waives his honor, his honor is not waived. ,

Since the Gemara in our discussion is dealing with the honor due to a teacher, it cites additional beraitot concerning this matter.

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 19:32]:

“You shall rise before the aged.”

And I

might

say that one must rise

even before an aged ignoramus,

a wicked and ignorant person.

The verse states,

therefore it says later in 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 from the elders of Israel

whom you know to be the elders of the people and its officers.” That is, you know that they are 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 Yosei the Galilean

says:

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

That is, “elder” is expounded as an acrostic: “this one acquired.” This means that he acquired wisdom.

As it is stated

[Proverbs 8:22]:

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

And since Torah is the first of all acquisitions, it is appropriate to say that this is the acquisition that the elder acquired. ,

The beraita continues and says:

I might say that one must rise before him

even

from a distant place?

The verse states: “Before the aged

you shall rise

and you shall show deference

to the face of the elder.” The words “you shall rise and you shall show deference” are adjacent to one another, teaching 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. When a person stands there, it is evident that he has risen before the sage.

And the beraita continues and says:

I might say that one must show him deference with money,

that a person must spend his own money in order to honor the sage.

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

The verse places them next to one another in order to equate them:

Just as “rising”

involves no financial loss, so too “deference”

mentioned in the verse

involves no financial loss.

I might say that one must rise before him

even

in a lavatory or bathhouse.

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

I said that one must rise only where there is deference,

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

I might say that he may close his eyes as one who did not see him.

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

and

you shall fear

your God.”

Any

matter entrusted to the heart,

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

is referred to with the words, “and you shall fear your God.”

That is: Although you can evade the notice of other people, who will say that you did not see the sage and will not consider you wicked, you must nevertheless fear your God, for all thoughts are revealed before Him, and He knows that you intended to nullify His mitzva.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where

do we know that it is a mitzva

for an elder

that, if he can take another route,

not

to pass through a place where he will

trouble

the public by making them rise before him?

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

the elder,

and you shall fear

your God.”

The words “elder” and “you shall fear” are adjacent to one another, teaching that even an elder is commanded to be feared and not to cause the public inconvenience.

And the tannaim mentioned in the baraita thus far hold that the “elderly” and the “elder” mentioned in the verse mean a Torah scholar.

Isi ben Yehuda

disagrees and

says: “You shall rise before the elderly”—even every elderly person is included.

Even before an ignorant elder.

This concludes the baraita.

The Gemara now proceeds to explain the words of the baraita:

We learned in the baraita: “You shall rise before the elderly.” And “elder” means none other than a Torah scholar. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: “Elder” means none other than one who has acquired wisdom.

And we raise an objection:

The statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is

in fact exactly the statement of

the first tanna!

What difference is there between them?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them

with regard to

a young scholar,

a young person who is wise. As follows:

The first tanna said: “Elder” means none other than a Torah scholar, as it is stated: “Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel.” His statement is to be understood as follows: “Elder” means one who is elderly in the plain sense of the verse and is also a Torah scholar, as is stated with regard to the seventy men whom Moses gathered.

Therefore,

the first tanna holds that a young scholar is not

included in the “elder” mentioned by the verse.

But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili alters the word “elder” from its plain meaning and interprets it in accordance with the expression “this is one who has acquired wisdom”;

he holds

that

even a young scholar

is included in the “elder” mentioned by the verse, since the verse is not speaking of old age at all.

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s position:

And we raise an objection:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?

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

And we answer:

He could say to you,

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili would argue:

If it enters your mind

to interpret “elder” according to its plain meaning,

as the first tanna says,

then the “elder” mentioned in the verse is identical with the “elderly” mentioned earlier, and the verse would thus say: Rise before the “elderly” who is an “elder” [a Torah scholar].

If so,

there is a difficulty:

Let the Merciful One write: “You shall rise and show honor before the elderly elder”!

Why did the Merciful One divide them,

why did the verse distinguish between them and say: [a] “You shall rise before the ‘elderly,’” and [b] “You shall show honor to the face of the ‘elder’”?

Rather, the verse must necessarily intend

to say that this one

is not that one, and that one is not this one. The “elderly” is not the “elder,” and the “elder” is not the “elderly.” Rather, the “elderly” is one advanced in years, while the “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 it that

even a young scholar

must be honored.

Nevertheless, since with regard to “elder” the verse is speaking of one who has acquired wisdom, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili therefore holds that with regard to “elderly” as well, the verse is speaking only of an elderly Torah scholar, but not of an ignorant elder.

And we raise an objection:

And the first tanna,

who holds that “elder” means “elderly,” why does he not say: “You shall rise and show honor before the elderly who is an elder”?

And we answer:

Because he wanted to juxtapose

the word

“elder”

with

“and you shall fear

your God,” teaching us that the elder should not cause the public inconvenience, as cited later in the baraita above.

The Gemara now explains the position of the first tanna. And we raise an objection:

And the first tanna—what is the reason?

Why did the first tanna not state, like Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, that the “elder” and the “elderly” are not the same person?

And we answer: The first tanna would argue:

If it enters your mind

to say

as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says, then

there is a difficulty: