Kiddushin 33b (לג:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Aibu said that Rabbi Yannai said: !(pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

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

during

the morning and evening

only,

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

for one receives the presence of his Creator only in the morning and evening. Therefore, one who stood before his teacher in the morning is not permitted to stand before him again except in the evening. ,

Meitivי

A contradiction to Rabbi Aibu's statement from the earlier beraita:

We learned in a beraita:

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

The verse states: “You shall rise before an elder, and you shall fear.”

And if you say

that one stands before his teacher only in

the morning and evening, why not?

Why should he not pass through the public thoroughfare in the morning and evening?

Let him cause himself trouble,

is this considered trouble?! After all,

it is an obligation

to rise before the scholar twice a day, and this causes them no additional inconvenience!

Rather, it must be that it applies throughout the entire day.

Necessarily, one must rise all day, whenever the scholar passes by!

And we reject this:

No! Actually,

a Torah scholar is not permitted to stand except in

the morning and evening only.

And even so, whenever it is possible for him

to the teacher,

he should not cause them trouble;

he should not make them fulfill their obligation unnecessarily.

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

As it is stated [Ecclesiastes 8:13]:

Ecclesiastes 8:13]:

“But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he does not fear before God.”

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

‘But it shall not be well with the wicked’—the only true good is Torah, as it is stated” “ For I have given you a good teaching; do not forsake My Torah.” That is, his learning will be forgotten by him. “

‘Neither shall he prolong his days’; rather, he will be ‘as a shadow.’”

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

And

this fear

mentioned here,

I do not know what it is:

How is it manifested that he does not fear God?

When

the verse

says [Leviticus 19:32]: “

You shall rise before the aged,

and you shall fear your God,” it follows that

we have learned that

this fear is rising.

The verse calls one who does not rise before the scholar “wicked”; he will not live long, and his learning will be forgotten.

And we challenge this: Although the matter of rising is associated with the phrase “and you shall fear your God,” there are other places in the Torah where fear is mentioned: [1] Concerning interest [Leviticus 25:36]: “Do not take interest or increase from him,

and you shall fear your God.” [2] Concerning weights, it is stated [Deuteronomy 25:15]: “You shall have a complete and righteous weight,” and afterward it is stated: “Remember what Amalek did to you, when you were weary and exhausted, and he did not fear God.” The Sages expounded from the juxtaposition of the passages that “he did not fear God” means that they did not observe fairness in their weights.

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:

Perhaps

you should say that the fear mentioned here [“because he does not fear before God”] means

the fear associated with interest and the fear associated with weights!

From where do you know that the verse is speaking about rising?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar

derived a gezera shava

from the repeated word “before”;

he derived

the following inference. Here it says: “because he does not fear ‘before’ God.” And with regard to rising it says: “‘Before’ the aged you shall rise, and you shall fear.” Therefore, the fear mentioned here is the fear expressed through rising.

The members of the academy raised a dilemma,

they were uncertain:

If one's son is his teacher,

that is, the son is his father's teacher,

what

is the law regarding

standing before his father?

Come

[and]

hear

a proof that he must rise before his father:

For Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: “Sharp one,

clever one,

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

Rav Yehuda was the teacher of his father, Rav Yehezkel.

And we reject this: It is possible to say that when the son is his father's teacher, he need not rise before him on account of the obligation to honor his father.

But

Rav Yehezkel is different,

he was different,

for he was a man of good deeds,

good deeds

were his hallmark,

and one must stand before him on account of his deeds, not because he was his father.

For

indeed,

even Mar Shmuel,

Rav Yehuda's teacher,

also stood before him;

he too would rise before Rav Yehezkel.

Rather,

according to this, it is difficult:

What did he mean by saying this to him?

Why did Shmuel need to warn Rav Yehuda to rise before his father? After all, even Shmuel himself rose before him on account of his deeds! Rather, we must necessarily say that Shmuel came to teach a general ruling: Every son must honor his father by virtue of the obligation to honor one's father, even when the father is his teacher!

And we answer: Shmuel indeed did not tell Rav Yehuda to honor his father by virtue of the obligation to honor one's father, but because he was a man of good deeds, and

this is what he said to him.

And this is what he intended to say:

Sometimes he comes from behind you,

sometimes, when you are sitting opposite me, as a student sits opposite his teacher, your father, Rav Yehezkel, comes from behind you, and I do not see him; therefore I do not rise before him. By law, you likewise need not rise before Rav Yehezkel in such a case, because one does not accord honor to a student [Rav Yehezkel] in the presence of his 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 about my honor.

In summary: The Gemara does not resolve the question of a son who is his father's teacher: Must the son rise before his father or not?

The members of the academy raised another dilemma,

another question concerning a son who is his father's teacher:

If one's son is his teacher,

that is, the son is his father's teacher,

what

is the law regarding

the father standing before him

by virtue of the mitzva to honor one's teacher?

Come

[and]

hear

a proof that he must rise before him:

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

on account of the honor of the house

of the

Nasi.”

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 his son on account of his son's Torah—for example, when his son is his teacher. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: I am not my son's student. On the contrary, I am his teacher.

The reason

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

that I am his teacher,

I am his teacher, and it follows that

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 meant:

It is possible that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi intended to say as follows:

I am not worthy

of

standing before my son, even

if

he

were

my teacher [my rabbi].

[my rabbi].

For I am his father,

as I am his father, and a father does not rise before his son even when the son is his teacher.

Rather, on account of the honor of the house

of the

Nasi

I rise before him.

In summary: The Gemara did not resolve the question of a son who is his father's teacher: Is the father obligated to rise before his son? The Gemara presents another question concerning the honor due to a teacher:

The members of the academy raised a dilemma,

the members of the academy were uncertain once more:

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

The two sides of the uncertainty are:

Whether

one who is riding is considered like one who is walking,

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

Or not,

whether he is not considered like one who is walking, but rather like one who is sitting, for although the animal is walking, he himself is sitting.

Abaye said: Come

[and]

hear

a proof that one who is riding is considered like one who is walking:

It is stated concerning a leper [Leviticus 13:46]: “He is impure; he shall dwell outside the camp;

his dwelling.” And in the Torat Kohanim [there], they expounded from the word “his dwelling” that the place where the leper sits becomes impure, and anyone standing there becomes impure. And from here the Sages said:

If the impure person

[the leper]

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

there, then the pure person becomes

impure.

For the entire area beneath the tree is considered the leper's “dwelling.”

But if the

impure person

[the leper ]

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

there, he remains

pure.

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

And if the impure person sits,

the

pure person becomes

becomes

impure.

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

And likewise,

just as the dwelling of a person afflicted with leprosy renders impure, so too

with regard to a stone afflicted with leprosy,

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

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

And

with regard to this

Rav Naḥman bar Kohen said:

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

This means that one who is riding is considered like one who is walking.

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

And if so,

learn from this

that even a person riding on an animal is considered to be walking, because of the animal's movement.

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

And the Gemara presents another question concerning the laws of rising and showing honor:

The members of the academy raised a dilemma: What

is the law regarding

standing before a Torah scroll?

Must one stand or not?

Rabbi Helkiah, Rabbi Simon, and Rabbi Elazar said:

One must stand before a Torah scroll, for if

one stands before those who study it

should one not certainly stand before it itself?!

The Gemara now clarifies whether one who is engaged in Torah study must rise before his teacher when he passes by at that time.

Rabbi Ilai and Rabbi Yaakov bar Zavdi were sitting,

they were sitting and engaged in Torah study,

when Rabbi Shimon bar Abba passed and went

by

them

in front of them,

and they rose before him

on his account.

He said to them:

There were two reasons why it was not proper for you to rise before me:

First,

one reason is:

You are sages, and I am merely a colleague.

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

Furthermore,

there is another reason: You are sitting and engaged in Torah study now, and

does Torah stand before those who study it?!

When you rise, it is as though the Torah itself rises before me, since I am one of those who study it!

However, Rabbi Shimon bar Abba's statement is not accepted by everyone.

Rather, he

held in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, for Rabbi Elazar said: A Torah scholar is not permitted to stand before his teacher while he is engaged in Torah study.

But

Abaye pronounced a curse upon this,

Abaye cursed anyone who follows Rabbi Elazar's ruling, because according to Abaye, even while a person is engaged in Torah study, he is obligated to rise before his teacher.

The Gemara now clarifies, with regard to one who rises before his teacher or before the Nasi, when he is permitted to sit down:

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 rose, and they stood, each man at the entrance of his tent,

and they gazed after Moses until he entered the Tent.”

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzhak bar Naḥafa

disagreed over how to interpret the phrase “and they gazed after Moses until he entered the Tent”:

One

of them

said:

The verse should be interpreted

negatively.

That is, the Israelites acted improperly in this matter. This will be explained below.

And one

of them

said:

The verse should be interpreted

positively.

That is, the Israelites acted properly in this matter, as follows:

According to the one who says it is negative,

the negative interpretation is

as it is stated,

as 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 it all comes from us.”

According to the one who says it is positive,

the positive interpretation is explained in the following statement:

Hezekiah said: Hanina, son of Rabbi Abbahu, said to me that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Avdimi of Haifa said:

1. 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 moved away

four cubits

on the other side of the person,

he may sit.

2. One who sees

the head of the court passing by rises before him as long as he can see him,

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

and he may not sit down until he sits

the Nasi

in his place. ,

in his place. ,

As it is stated [

there]:

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

That is: They looked at him and remained standing until they saw him enter the tent, at which point they were permitted to sit. And Moses was a nasi.

From here we learn that one who sees a nasi passing by may not sit until the nasi sits in his place.

This concludes the Gemara’s discussion of honoring one’s teacher and the nasi.

All of this was brought incidentally, since the discussion concerned honoring one’s father and mother, regarding which it was mentioned in our Mishna that both men and women are obligated.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

Any positive mitzva whose performance is time-bound, men are obligated in it and women are exempt from it.

But with regard to any positive mitzva whose performance is not time-bound, both men and women are obligated.

The Gemara cites the beraita that explains the words of the Mishna:

The Sages taught: Which is a positive mitzva whose performance is time-bound?

For example, the mitzvot of

sukka and lulav,

which apply only during Sukkot.

And likewise

shofar,

which applies only on Rosh HaShana.

And

also

tzitzit,

which applies only during the day.