Kiddushin 33a — the Talmud in English

The Merciful One should have written ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the page")

“You shall rise before the aged and show deference, you shall rise and show deference before the elder.”

For Scripture is speaking of two people, and concerning each one it would have had to say rising and showing deference!

And since it did not write thus,

and from the fact that Scripture did not say this,

infer from it that they are one.

For Scripture is speaking of one person: the aged person, who is an elder [a sage].

And the Gemara explains the continuation of the beraita:

The master said

in the beraita:

“One might have thought that he should show him deference with money; the verse says: ‘You shall rise and show deference’—just as rising involves no monetary loss, so too showing deference involves no monetary loss.”

And we ask:

And

for

rising there is not

no

monetary loss?!

Are we not dealing with a case where he is boring a pearl,

for does Scripture not also speak of a person who is boring pearls, whose wages are great, and

in the meantime he stands before him,

and at that time an elder passes by and he must rise before him,

and he is idle from his work

and loses a great deal of money?! It follows that even rising involves monetary loss!

And we resolve:

Rather,

this is how we learn that showing deference involves no monetary loss:

First,

I juxtapose rising with showing deference,

I learn “rising” from “showing deference”:

Just as showing deference,

that is, honoring with words or with money, is something

that involves no neglect

of work, therefore

also

in

rising

Scripture is speaking specifically of

that which involves no neglect

of work.

And

afterward,

I likewise juxtapose showing deference with rising,

I learn “showing deference” from “rising”:

Just as rising

speaks of a case in which he is not idle from his work, as above, and it follows that

it involves no monetary loss,

therefore

also

in

showing deference

it speaks of a case

that involves no monetary loss.

From here they said

the Sages:

Artisans

who engage in the work of others

are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars when they are engaged in their work.

And we ask:

Is that so?!

Are artisans not permitted to do so?!

And

one should not prove from the following Mishna [Bikkurim 3:3] that they are permitted to stand! As follows:

We learned [

there]: When the bringers of the first fruits were passing through Jerusalem,

“all the artisans would stand before them, inquire after their welfare, and say to them: ‘Our brothers, inhabitants of such-and-such a place, may your arrival be in peace.’”

It is therefore explicit in the Mishna that the artisans would rise before the bringers of the first fruits even though they were thereby idle from their work; and how did we say above that artisans are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars? ,

And we resolve:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

specifically

before them,

the bringers of the first fruits, the artisans would

stand

to honor them, so that they would become accustomed to coming, but

before Torah scholars, they do not stand.

And from the words of the Gemara before us we will learn whether this refers specifically to the bringers of the first fruits, or to all those who perform a mitzva while fulfilling it.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: Come and see how beloved,

how much we must cherish

a mitzva in its time,

for before them

the bringers of the first fruits

they stand,

whereas

before Torah scholars, they do not stand.

It follows that Rabbi Yosei bar Avin understood that one must rise before all those who perform a mitzva in its time, and not specifically before the bringers of the first fruits.

And we reject this: it is impossible to prove from the bringers of the first fruits concerning one who performs another mitzva. For

perhaps,

perhaps artisans in fact never rise before other performers of mitzvot, and

that case is different,

the bringers of the first fruits are different from other performers of mitzvot, because

if

you were to say that one should not rise before them,

then you would cause them to stumble in the future,

so that from then on they would not bring first fruits, because they would say: We are despised in the eyes of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. But as for other performers of mitzvot, who fulfill the mitzva in their own city, the local inhabitants recognize their importance. There is no concern that they might refrain from fulfilling the mitzva from then on. ,

And the Gemara explains the continuation of the beraita:

The master said

in the beraita:

“One might have thought that he should stand before him in the lavatory or in the bathhouse;”

the verse says: “You shall rise and show deference”—I said rising only in a place where there is showing deference.

And we ask:

Is that so?!

Is it not necessary to rise before the sage in the bathhouse?!

But

there is proof that one must rise before a sage even in the bathhouse, as follows:

Rabbi Ḥiyya was sitting in the bathhouse,

he was sitting in the bathhouse,

and he passed and was going,

and

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi

passed before him,

and he did not rise

Rabbi Ḥiyya

before him [

before him],

and he became upset

and was particular about the matter.

And he came,

and Rabbi Shimon came to Rabbi, his father, and

said to his father [

to Rabbi]:

“I taught him two fifths in the Book of Psalms,

I taught him the exposition of its aggadot in two fifths of the Book of Psalms

and he did not stand before me!”

And further,

and something similar,

Bar Kappara—and some say,

and some say that it was

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yosei, was sitting in the bathhouse,

he was sitting in the bathhouse,

when

he entered and went

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi

there,

and he did not rise before him

before him,

and he became upset,

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi was particular about the matter.

And he came and said to his father,

and came and said to Rabbi, his father:

“I taught him two-thirds of a third [

two parts of a third of the book]

in Torat Kohanim

and he did not stand before me.”

And he said to him,

Rabbi:

“Perhaps in them,

in those beraitot that you taught him, he was

sitting and contemplating,

and because he was concentrating deeply on them, he did not notice that you were passing before him.

Certainly Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi held that one must rise before the sage even in the bathhouse, for this reason he was upset at those who did not rise before him. And as above.

And there is proof that Rabbi, his father, also held like him:

For

the reason,

Rabbi’s entire reason for judging them favorably was only because

“

perhaps

he was sitting and contemplating in them,”

and it implies:

if not so, then no;

if he had not been sitting and contemplating them, Rabbi would not have judged the matter favorably.

And if so, this is difficult: how did we learn in the beraita above that one need not rise before the sage in the bathhouse?

And we resolve:

It is not difficult. This,

the beraita above, which says that one need not rise before the sage in the bathhouse, is speaking

in the inner rooms,

in the inner rooms of the bathhouse, where people stand naked. And there is no showing of deference when one rises there.

Whereas

this,

the incidents involving Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, took place

in the outer rooms,

in the outer rooms of the bathhouse, where people stand clothed, and when one rises there there is showing of deference in the matter.

And the Gemara proves that the incident involving Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi indeed took place in the outer rooms of the bathhouse.

This too is logically evident,

indeed it is logical that this is how it was,

for

behold

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: “Everywhere it is permitted to contemplate

words of Torah

except in a bathhouse and a lavatory.”

And if you were to say that the incident took place in the inner rooms of the bathhouse, how could Rabbi say to him, “Perhaps he is sitting and contemplating in them”? Is it not forbidden to contemplate there?

Rather, you are compelled to say that the incident took place in the outer rooms of the bathhouse, and since the people standing there are not naked, there is no prohibition against contemplating words of Torah there.

And we reject the proof: It is possible that the incident actually took place in the inner rooms of the bathhouse, and nevertheless Rabbi said, “Perhaps he is sitting and contemplating in them,” and he did not transgress, because

perhaps the case of compulsion is different,

perhaps he had examined the matter before entering the bathhouse, and because he was preoccupied with the matter, he examined it in the bathhouse against his will, and he was compelled, and did not transgress a prohibition in the matter.

We learned in the continuation of the beraita:

“One might have thought that he should close his eyes as though he had not seen him;”

the verse says: “You shall rise and you shall fear.” And so on.

And we ask:

Are we dealing with wicked people,

for are we dealing with wicked people? Why does Scripture need to teach us that he should not close his eyes? It is obvious that one who does this is wicked! And we resolve: it is impossible to explain the beraita according to its plain meaning,

rather

this is how it should be explained:

One might have thought that he should close his eyes before the time when the obligation reaches him,

perhaps we should say that a person is permitted to close his eyes as long as the sage has not yet reached within four cubits of him, because he has not yet become obligated to rise before him, as explained below, and by doing so he causes

that when the time of obligation arrives, he does not see him,

so that when the sage enters within four cubits of him, which is the time of the obligation, he will not see him and the obligation to honor him will not apply to him.

The verse says: “You shall rise and you shall fear.”

It is fitting for you to fear the Creator of man, who knows your thoughts, because you seek stratagems to exempt yourself from His mitzva.

We learned in the beraita: One might have thought that he should stand before him from a distant place; the verse says: “You shall rise and show deference.” I said rising only in a place where there is showing of deference.

And concerning this

a tanna

in another beraita:

“What is rising that involves showing deference?”

You must say that this is

within

four cubits

of the sage.

Abaye said: We said [

we said that the obligation to rise is only within four cubits],

only concerning one’s non-primary teacher; but concerning one’s primary teacher,

he must stand before him

as far as his eyes can see,

from the time he sees him. ,

And the Gemara brings two incidents concerning rising before one’s primary teacher:

1.

Abaye—when he saw the ear of Rav Yosef’s donkey approaching, he would stand.

When Abaye would see the ear of Rav Yosef’s donkey, and understood that Rav Yosef was coming, immediately at that time he would stand [because Rav Yosef was his primary teacher].

2.

Abaye was riding a donkey and proceeding along the bank of the Saguya River;

Abaye was riding on a donkey and was traveling along the bank of the Saguya River.

Rav Mesharsheya and the Sages were sitting on the other side,

Rav Mesharsheya and Abaye’s other students were sitting on the opposite side of the Saguya River, and the river separated them.

And they did not rise before him

before him.

He said to them [

to them]:

And

for

am I not a primary teacher?!

For even when you are farther from me than four cubits, it would have been proper for you to rise!

They said to him: It escaped our attention,

we were preoccupied with another matter and did not remember to stand. We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where is it derived that an elder should not cause trouble?

The verse says: “Elder, and you shall fear.”

Abaye said: We have received,

we have a tradition,

that if he takes a circuitous route, he lives.

For if the sage lengthens his route and goes around the public so as not to trouble them to stand, in this merit he lengthens his days.

Abaye

was

taking a circuitous route

around the public. And likewise

Rabbi Zeira

would

take a circuitous route.

Ravina was sitting before

him,

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti

his master.

A certain man passed before them without covering his head,

a certain man passed before them and was not covering his head in their honor.

He said

Ravina:

How impudent this man is,

how impudent this man is!

He said to him

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti:

Perhaps he is from Mata Meḥasya, for the Sages are familiar to them,

perhaps he is from Mata Meḥasya, where the people of that place are accustomed to seeing Torah scholars. And therefore they are haughty toward them and do not honor them.

We learned in a beraita:

Isi ben Yehuda says: “You shall rise before the aged,” and even every old person is included.

That is, even an ignorant old man.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Isi ben Yehuda.

And even Isi ben Yehuda required rising before an ignorant old man only when he is a Jew; but a gentile old man is not included in the commandment, “You shall rise before the aged.”

Nevertheless,

Rabbi Yoḥanan would stand before the elders of the gentiles,

he would stand before the elders of the gentiles, because

he said: “How many events have passed over these,”

how many events had passed over them, and they had seen many miracles and wonders.

Rava would not stand,

Rava did not stand to his full height before the elders of the gentiles, but

he would show them deference,

he would fulfill toward them an act of deference; that is, he would move slightly toward them and appear as though he wished to stand before them.

Abaye would give his hand to the elders,

Abaye would extend his hand to the elders of the gentiles when they passed before him, so that they could lean upon him.

Rava would send his agents,

he would send agents to extend a hand to them, but he himself did not do so.

And likewise,

Rav Naḥman would send attendants,

he would send his servants to extend a hand to them, but he himself did not do so, because

he said: “Were it not for Torah”

that I had studied,

how many Naḥman bar Abba are there

there are

in the marketplace.

That is, my importance is not because I am Naḥman bar Abba, but because of the Torah that I have studied; and therefore it is not fitting for me to diminish my own honor.

And the Gemara brings a statement concerning the honor of the master, to which they raised an objection from the aforementioned beraita: