(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Kidushin 33

KIDUSHIN 32-35 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) We mentioned earlier that Kiymah does not involve a loss of pocket. We cannot be speaking about a diamond cutter, in which case standing up for someone might be quite an expensive business - because we first compare "Kiymah" to "Hidur", which does not incorporate a work loss, and only then "Hidur" to Kiymah", which now implies that there is no loss of pocket at all.

(b) We extrapolate from the fact that one is not obligated to incur any loss when rising for a Talmid-Chacham - that an employee is not permitted to stand-up for a Talmid-Chacham, so as not to cause his employer any loss.

(a) When a group of people would arrive in Yerushalayim with their Bikurim - the tradesmen would stand up in their honor, and say 'Our brethren from such and such a place, come in peace'.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan says simply 'Mipneihem Omdin, Mipnei Talmidei-Chachamim Ein Omdin', which Rebbi Yossi bar Avin ascribes - to the importance of acknowledging a Mitzvah that is performed in its time.

(c) We reject Rebbi Yossi bar Avin's reason however - pointing out that the Chachamim might have issued such a decree because they were afraid that if the people saw that all their efforts in bringing their Bikurim were not appreciated, they may not bother to bring them the next time round.

(a) Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi complained to his father once about Rebbi Chiya, and on another occasion about bar Kapara (or Rebbi Shmuel bar Rebbi Yossi) - because they failed to stand up when he entered the bathhouse.

(b) He based his complaint against Rebbi Chiya on the fact that he had taught him two out of the five Sefarim of Tehilim. And he was upset with bar Kapara due to the fact that he had taught him two thirds of a third of Toras Kohanim.

(c) Rebbi's response to his son's accusations was - that their failure to acknowledge his entry might have been due to the fact that they were engrossed in their Torah thoughts, and did not notice his entry.

(d) If not for that, Rebbi would have agreed that one is obligated to show respect even in a bath-house, because he is speaking in the outer rooms of the bathhouse, where people tend to sit clothed, whereas what we learned earlier, that one is exempt from demonstrating respect in a bathroom or a bathhouse - refers to the inner rooms, where one tends to stand naked, and that is where there is no honor in standing up for a Talmid-Chacham.

(a) We try and prove the distinction between the inner rooms and the outer ones by quoting Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan who said - that thinking about words of Torah is permitted anywhere except for in a bathhouse or a bathroom.

(b) We initially attempt to prove our point from Rebbi, who suggested that perhaps Rebbi Chiya and bar Kapara were involved in thinking Torah, which is why they did not notice him and failed to rise when he entered. Bearing in mind Rebbi Yochanan's statement, the incident with Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi must then have taken place in the outer rooms (proving the distinction between the inner and the outer rooms).

(c) We refute this proof however - on the basis that Rebbi may have been referring to their having thought about Torah involuntarily (in spite of the Isur, giving them a Din O'nes), because thoughts are hard to control.

(a) We learned earlier that ...
1. ... "Takum ... ve'Yareisa" comes to preclude from the notion that one may close one's eyes as if one had not seen the Talmid-Chacham approaching. Of course we do not need a Pasuk to teach us not to be wicked. What the Pasuk is really coming to teach us is - that even closing one's eyes before he appears, so that when he does appear, the Talmid genuinely does not see him, is prohibited.
2. ... "Takum ve'Hadarta" comes to restrict the obligation to arise to where the act will be appreciated. The maximum distance that falls into this category is - four Amos.
(b) Abaye qualified this Halachah, confining it to a Talmid rising for a regular Rav, but not for a Rebbe Muvhak (who taught him most of what he knows).
1. A Talmid is obligated to stand up for his Rebbe Muvhak - from the moment he sees him.
2. Abaye himself would stand up for Rav Yosef - from the moment he saw the ears of his donkey.
(c) When Abaye rode past on his donkey, Rav Mesharshaya and the Rabbanan were - on the other side of the river.

(d) They failed to stand up for their Rebbi Muvhak - because they were preoccupied with other things and did not realize that he was passing.

(a) We quoted Rebbi Shimon, who learned from "Zakein ve'Yareisa" that a Talmid-Chacham should avoid troubling the community to make them stand. Both Abaye and Rebbi Zeira therefore - used to go a long way round, so that the community should not see them.

(b) The reward for doing this, says Abaye, is - life.

(c) When a man walked past with his head uncovered, Rav Yirmiyah from Difti commented to Ravina - about the man's insolence (because this is one of the things that one should not do in the presence of Talmidei-Chachamim).

(d) Ravina replied - that perhaps this man resided in Masa Mechsaya, where saw many Talmidei-Chachamim, with whom they had developed a certain familiarity.

(a) We cited earlier the Machlokes whether one is obligated to stand up for a sinful elder (Isi ben Yehudah) or not (the Chachamim). Rebbi Yochanan ru les - like Isi ben Yehudah.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan would stand up even for an old Nochri - on the basis of his many life's experiences.

(c) Rava would not stand up for them - but he would acknowledge them by rising slightly from his chair.

(d) Rava would give a hand to old men. Abaye and Rav Nachman - would send their Sheli'ach to do this. The latter, who on account of his being the son-in-law of the Nasi and the Av Beis-Din, was always surrounded by servants, stated that were it not for Torah, there were many Nachman bar Abas walking around the main street (meaning that he was honoring, not his inherent greatness, but the Torah that he had learned).




(a) Rebbi Ayvu Amar Rebbi Yanai forbid a Talmid-Chacham to stand up for his Rebbe more twice a day, once in the morning and once in the evening - so that one should not display more honor for a Talmid-Chacham than one does for Hashem, whom one only greets twice daily, when reciting the Sh'ma (see Hagahos Redal).

(b) We try and prove Rebbi Yanai wrong from Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who expects a Talmid-Chacham to try and avoid forcing the community to stand up - on the basis that if it is a minimum obligation, why should they try and avoid it.

(c) Nevertheless, we reply - the Talmid-Chacham should avoid forcing the community to arise even that basic minimum, if he can avoid it.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Koheles "ve'Tov Lo Yihyeh la'Rasha ve'Lo Ya'arich Yamim ke'Tzeil Asher Einenu Yarei mi'Lifnei ha'Elokim", that a Talmid-Chacham who fails to stand up for his Rebbe is called 'a Rasha'. The two other penalties emerge from this Pasuk are - that he will not live a long life and that he will forget his learning.

(b) Rebbi Elazar concludes that the Pasuk is referring to this sin from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "P'nei" "P'nei" ("mi'Lifnei ha'Elokim" and "Mipnei Seivah Takum"). We reject the initial 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yarei" "Yarei" ("Einenu Yarei" and "ve'Yareisa me'Elokecha") on the grounds - that it might then refer to the sins of Ribis and Mishkalos (taking interest and false weights and measures, where the Torah also uses the term "Yarei").

(c) We ask whether a son who is his father's Rebbe is obligated to rise for his father. We refute the proof from Shmuel, who instructed Rav Yehudah to rise for Rav Yechezkel - on the grounds that that was because he was an outstanding Ba'al Ma'asim (he excelled in his performance of good deeds), for which reason even Shmuel himself would stand up whenever he entered the room.

(d) The point in his telling Rav Yehudah that - was to inform him that he was permitting him to stand up for his father, even if Rav Yechezkel entered the room behind Shmuel, rendering him invisible to Shmuel.

(a) We then ask whether a father is obligated to stand up for his son who is also his Rebbe, and we try to resolve this She'eilah from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Despite the fact that he was both his son's father and his Rebbe, he used to rise for his son - because he had married into the family of the Nasi.

(b) We initially understand his statement 'Ani Eini K'dai La'amod Mipnei B'ni Ela Mipnei Kavod Beis Nasi' to mean - that had his son not been related to the family of the Nasi, he would not stand up for him, because he was his Rebbe, from which we infer that, if he was his Talmid, he would.

(c) We refute this proof however, by explaining his statement to mean - that he would not stand up for his son because he was his father (irrespective of whether he was his Rebbe or his Talmid).

(d) We ask whether 'Rachuv ki'Mehalech Dami' or not. The ramifications of this She'eilah are - that if a father who is riding is considered as if he was walking, then the son would be obligated to stand, otherwise, not.

(a) Abaye resolves this She'eilah from a Mishnah in Nega'im. The Tana says - that if ...
1. ... the Metzora was sitting under a tree and the Tahor person was standing still - then he becomes Tamei.
2. ... the Metzora was standing and the Tahor person was sitting - then he remains Tahor (because the criterion is that the Metzora is sitting).
3. ... in the latter case, the Metzora sat down - the Tahor person becomes Tamei.
(b) When the Tana concludes 've'Chein be'Even ha'Menuga'as' - he means that there too, it depends on whether the person holding the stone is sitting or standing, and that the moment he sits, the Tahor person becomes Tamei, proving that 'Rachuv ki'Mehalech' (that we do not go after the stone or the person who is riding, but after the person who is holding the stone and the animal on which the rider is sitting).

(c) Rebbi Chilkiyah, Rebbi Si'mon and Rebbi Elazar resolve the She'eilah whether one is obligated to stand up for a Sefer-Torah - with a 'Kal va'Chomer'; that if one stands up for those who study it, then how much more so should one stand up for the Torah itself!

(a) When Rebbi Shimon bar Aba walked past Rebbi Ila'i and Rebbi Ya'akov bar Zavdi - they stood up.

(b) The latter objected on two scores. Firstly because he was only a Chaver whereas they were Chachamim. The basis of his second objection was - that, seeing as they were learning, they were considered like a Sefer-Torah, and a Sefer-Torah does not need to stand up for its students.

(a) The Torah writes "ve'Hibitu Acharei Moshe ad Bo'o ha'Ohelah". Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha argue whether this refers to Moshe's praise, or whether it is meant derogatively. If it was meant ...
1. ... derogatively - then it refers to the Medrash Tanchuma, which describes how the people ascribed Moshe's healthy looks to his having used their money.
2. ... praiseworthy - then it refers to the forthcoming Halachah, which obligates the people to remain standing until the Nasi arrives at his destination.
(b) This is actually based on a set of rulings by Chizkiyah ... Amar Rebbi Avdimi de'Min Cheifah. According to him, one is obligated to stand up when a Chacham arrives within one's four Amos. For an Av Beis-Din or a Nasi, he is required to stand up - already from the moment he comes into sight.

(c) We have already explained that one must remain standing for a Nasi until he arrives at his destination. For a Chacham or an Av Beis-Din one must remain standing - until he has left one's four Amos.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,