Kiddushin 33b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Aibu said that Rabbi Yannai said:

Exact page location")

A Torah scholar is not permitted to stand before his teacher except

in

the morning and the evening

only,

so that his honor should not be greater than the honor of Heaven,

for behold, before his Creator he presents himself only in the morning and the evening. Therefore, one who stood before his teacher in the morning is not permitted to stand before him except in the evening. ,

The Meytivi

a contradiction to the words of Rabbi Aibu from the preceding beraita:

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: “An elder, and you shall fear.”

And if you say

that one does not stand before his teacher except in

the morning and the evening only, why not,

why should he not pass through the community in the morning and the evening?

Let him cause trouble,

is this trouble?! Is it not that

it is an obligation

to rise twice a day before a scholar, and he causes them no additional trouble at all!

Rather, it is the entire day.

Necessarily, one must rise all day, at every time that the scholar passes by!

And we reject this:

No! In fact,

a Torah scholar is not permitted to stand except in

his morning and evening only.

And even so, whenever it is possible for him

the teacher,

let him not cause trouble,

let him not cause them to fulfill their obligation.

Rabbi Elazar said: Any Torah scholar who does not stand before his teacher is called wicked; he does not have long days, and his learning is forgotten.

As it is stated

Ecclesiastes 8:13]:

“And it shall not be good for the wicked, and he shall not prolong his days, like a shadow, because he does not fear before God.”

And this is how the verse is to be explained: “

‘And it shall not be good for the wicked’—good means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated” “‘ For I have given you a good teaching, My Torah.’” That is to say: his learning will be forgotten from him. “

‘And he shall not prolong his days,’ but he shall be ‘like a shadow.’”

And why? “‘[Because] he does not fear before God.’”

And

this fear

mentioned here,

I do not know what it is:

in what is it expressed that he does not fear God?

When he,

when the verse

says [

Leviticus 19:32]: “And you shall honor the face of an elder

and you shall fear your God,” behold,

we have learned that

this fear is rising.

And the verse calls one who does not rise before the scholar “wicked”; he does not have long days, and his learning is forgotten.

And we raise an objection: Indeed, with regard to rising, “and you shall fear your God” is stated; but there are other places in which fear is mentioned in the Torah: [

a] With regard to interest [Leviticus 25:36]: “You shall not take from him interest or increase, and you shall fear your God.” [

b] With regard to weights it is stated [Deuteronomy 25:15]: “A complete and righteous stone shall you have,” and afterward it is stated: “Remember what Amalek did to you, and you were weary and exhausted, and he did not fear God.” And the Sages expounded from the juxtaposition of the passages: “and he did not fear God” means that they did not observe fairness in weights.

And if so, this is difficult:

And say

that the fear mentioned here [“who does not fear before God”] is

fear of interest and fear concerning weights!

And from where do you know that the verse is speaking with regard to rising?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar

performed a gzera shava,

“face, face,”

and learned

the meaning. It is stated here: “who does not fear ‘before’ God.” And it is stated concerning rising: “‘Before’ an elder you shall rise, and you shall fear.” Therefore, the fear stated here is the fear of rising.

It was asked of them,

the members of the academy were uncertain:

His son, and he is his teacher,

a son who is his father's teacher,

what

is his law concerning

standing before his father?

Come [

come]

and hear

a proof that one must rise before his father:

For Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Sharp one,

clever one,

! Rise before your father,

rise before your father! And Rav Yehuda was the teacher of his father, Rav Yehezkel.

And we reject this: In fact, it is possible to say that when the son is his father's teacher, he does not need to rise before him on account of honoring the father.

But

Rav Yehezkel is different,

he is different,

for he was a man of deeds,

good deeds,

he was,

and one had to stand before him because of his deeds and not because he was his father.

For

behold,

even Mar Shmuel,

Rav Yehuda's teacher,

also stood before him

he too would stand before Rav Yehezkel.

Rather,

according to this it is difficult:

What did he say to him?

Why did Shmuel need to warn Rav Yehuda to rise before his father? Did he himself not also stand before him because of his deeds? Rather, necessarily, we must say that Shmuel came to teach a general ruling: every son must honor his father by virtue of honoring the father, even though he is his teacher!

And we answer: Indeed, Shmuel did not tell Rav Yehuda to honor his father by virtue of honoring the father, but because he was a man of deeds, and

this is what he said to him.

And this is what he intended to say to him:

Sometimes he comes from behind,

sometimes, when you are sitting opposite me, in the manner of a student who sits before his teacher, your father Rav Yehezkel comes from behind, and I do not see him, and therefore I do not rise before him. And according to the law, you do not need to rise before Rav Yehezkel in such a case, because honor is not accorded to a student [Rav Yehezkel] in the place of the teacher [Shmuel], unless the teacher himself also accords him honor.

Nevertheless, I waive my honor, and

rise before him, and do not be concerned for my honor,

stand before him, and do not be concerned for my own honor.

In summary: The Gemara does not resolve the question concerning a son who is his father's teacher—whether the son must rise before his father or not.

It was asked of them,

they had another uncertainty, concerning a son who is his father's teacher:

His son, and he is his teacher,

a son who is his father's teacher,

what

is the law concerning

his father standing before him

by virtue of the mitzva of honoring one's teacher?

Come [

come]

and hear

a proof that one must rise before him:

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: I am not worthy [

fit]

of standing before my son, except

because my son married the daughter of the nasi, and therefore I must rise before him,

because of the honor of the house

of the

nasi.

And since Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, “I am not worthy of standing before my son,” it follows that there can be a situation in which a father is worthy of standing before the Torah of his son, such as when his son is his teacher. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: I am not my son's student. Rather, on the contrary, I am his teacher.

The reason

and the entire reason that I am not worthy of rising before him is because

I am his teacher,

I am his teacher, and it follows:

if he were my teacher, I would stand before him.

If he were my teacher, I would rise before him, despite the fact that he is my son and I am his father.

And we reject this:

This is what he said:

it is possible that this is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi intended to say:

I am not worthy

fit

to stand before my son, even

if

he

were

my teacher [

my rabbi].

For I am his father,

for I am his father, and a father does not stand before his son even when he is his teacher.

Rather, because of the honor of the house

of the

nasi

I rise before him.

In summary: The Gemara did not resolve the question concerning a son who is his father's teacher—whether the father is obligated to rise before his son. And the Gemara brings another problem concerning honoring one's teacher:

It was asked of them,

the members of the academy had another uncertainty:

If his teacher was riding on an animal, must one rise before him or not?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Whether

one riding is considered like one walking,

since the animal beneath him is walking, it is as though he himself is walking.

Or not,

is he not like one walking, but rather like one sitting? For although the animal is walking, he himself is sitting.

Abaye said: Come [

come]

and hear

a proof that one riding is like one walking:

It is stated concerning a leper [Leviticus 13:46]: “He is impure; outside the camp is his ‘dwelling.’”

And in Torat Kohanim [there] they expounded from the word “dwelling” that the place of the leper's dwelling is impure, and every person who stands there becomes impure. And from here the Sages said: If the

impure person [

the leper]

was sitting beneath a tree, and a pure person was standing

there, then the pure person becomes

impure.

Because the entire place beneath the tree is considered the leper's “dwelling.”

But if the

impure person [

the leper ]

was standing beneath the tree, and a pure person was sitting

there, he remains

pure.

For since the leper is not sitting there, this is not called “his dwelling.”

And if the impure person sat,

the

pure person becomes

becomes

impure.

Because the place is called the leper's “dwelling.”

And likewise,

just as the dwelling of a person who has a leprous affliction renders impure, so too

with a stone afflicted with a leprous affliction,

if a person carries it beneath the tree and a pure person is sitting there, the pure person does not become impure until the person carrying the stone sits. And if the person carrying the stone sits, then the pure person becomes impure even if he is standing.

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

And

concerning this

Rav Naḥman bar Kohen

said: Since we learned in the beraita, “And likewise, with a stone afflicted with a leprous affliction” [if the person carrying it was standing, the pure person does not become impure]:

This teaches that one riding is considered like one walking.

For the stone itself is sitting [resting] in the person's hand. And the person carrying it is the one who is walking, and because of his walking the stone too is considered to be walking. Therefore, it does not render [the other] impure.

And if so,

learn from it

that also a person riding upon an animal is considered to be walking, because of the animal's walking.

Therefore, if the teacher was riding upon an animal, the student is obligated to rise before him, because he is considered like one walking.

And the Gemara brings another problem concerning the laws of rising and showing honor:

It was asked of them: What

is the law concerning

standing before a Torah scroll?

Must one stand or not?

Rabbi Helkiyah, Rabbi Simon, and Rabbi Elazar said:

One must stand before a Torah scroll, for if

before those who study it

one stands, before it is that not all the more so?!

And now the Gemara clarifies whether a person who is occupied with Torah must rise before his teacher who passes by at that time.

Rabbi Ila'i and Rabbi Yaakov bar Zavdi were sitting

they were sitting and occupied with Torah,

he passed and went

he passed and went

Rabbi Shimon bar Abba

before them,

and they rose before him

before him.

He said to them:

For two reasons it was not proper for you to rise before me:

One,

one reason:

because you are sages, and I am a colleague.

You are sages, whereas I am only a “colleague,” and I am not your teacher.

And furthermore,

another reason: Behold, you are now sitting and occupied with Torah, and

does Torah stand before those who study it?!

Are you not, when you rise, making it as though the Torah itself rises before me, for I am one of those who study it?!

However, Rabbi Shimon bar Abba's words are not agreed upon by everyone.

Rather, he

held like Rabbi Elazar, for Rabbi Elazar said: A Torah scholar is not permitted to stand before his teacher while he is occupied with Torah.

But

Abaye cursed concerning it,

Abaye cursed one who fulfills the words of Rabbi Elazar, because according to Abaye, even while a person is occupied with Torah he is obligated to rise before his teacher.

And now the Gemara clarifies, concerning a person who rises before his teacher or before the nasi, when he is permitted to sit:

Concerning Moses our teacher it is stated [Exodus 33:8]: “And it came to pass, when Moses went out to the tent, all the people would rise, and each man would stand at the entrance of his tent,

and they would look after Moses until he came into the tent.”

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzhak bar Nappaḥa

disagreed concerning how to expound “and they would look after Moses until he came into the tent”:

One

one of them

said:

The verse should be expounded

to censure.

That is to say: the Israelites acted improperly in this matter. And it will be explained below.

And one

one of them

said:

The verse should be expounded

to praise.

That is to say: the Israelites acted properly in this matter. As follows:

The one who says: to censure,

that censure is

as it is stated,

as it is explained in the Midrash Tanhuma there; and because the matter is disgraceful, the Shas did not wish to publicize it. [

That is, they said: “See how thick his thighs are, how fat his neck is—and all of it is from us.”]

The one who says: to praise,

the praise in the matter is explained in the statement before us:

Ḥizkiyah said: Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Abbahu, said to me; Rabbi Abbahu said; Rabbi Avdimi of Haifa said:

a. One who sees

a scholar passing by rises before him

from the time the scholar enters within

four cubits

of him. And once

the

scholar

has passed

and has gone beyond

four cubits

further, on his other side from the person,

he sits.

b. One who sees

the head of the court passing by rises before him for the full range of his sight

from the moment he sees him, even from a distance,

and he does not sit until he sits

the

nasi

in his place. ,

As it is stated [

there]:

“And they looked after Moses until he came into the tent.”

That is to say: they looked at him and remained standing until they saw him coming into the tent, at which point they were permitted to sit. And Moses was a prince.

And from here it follows that one who sees a prince passing by is not permitted to sit until the prince sits in his place.

Up to here, the Gemara discussed the matter of honoring the teacher and the prince.

And all this was brought here incidentally, since they discussed the matter of honoring father and mother, concerning which it was mentioned in our Mishna that both men and women are obligated.

And now the Gemara returns to explain the continuation of our Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

With regard to every positive commandment whose performance is time-dependent, men are obligated and women are exempt.

And with regard to every positive commandment whose performance is not time-dependent, both men and women are obligated.

And the Gemara brings the beraita that explains the words of the Mishna:

The Sages taught: Which is a positive commandment whose performance is time-dependent?

For example: the commandments of

sukka and lulav,

which are practiced only during the time of Sukkot.

And likewise

shofar,

which is practiced only on Rosh Hashanah.

And

And likewise

tzitzit,

which is practiced only during the day.