Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 33

33b

OPINIONS: The Gemara questions whether a child must stand up for his father even if he is more learned than his father. Does he stand up for his father, and does his father stand up for him? The Gemara does not give a conclusive answer. What is the Halachah in such a case?

(a) RABEINU CHANANEL, cited by the Ran and Ri ha'Zaken, rules that the son must stand up for the father, even though the son knows more Torah than the father. This is also the ruling of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Mamrim 6:4).

The RI HA'ZAKEN explains that the reason Rabeinu Chananel rules this way is because the Gemara cites a proof from Shmuel that the son should *always* stand up for the father. Even though the Gemara rejects the proof, we remain with the simple reading of Shmuel's statement and rule that a son must stand for his father.

However, the Gemara also cites a Beraisa to prove that the son does *not* stand for the father when the son is more learned.

The RAN explains that Rabeinu Chananel's ruling relies on the description of Rebbi Tarfon's conduct in honoring his mother. The Gemara relates that Rebbi Tarfon put his hands under the feet of his mother for her to walk upon them (see also TOSFOS 31b, DH Rebbi Tarfon). The Yerushalmi concludes that when Rebbi Tarfon told the Chachamim what he did, they told him that "you have not even done half of the Kavod that the Torah requires." Rebbi Tarfon was certainly a Chacham, and yet the Chachamim told him that he needed to do more than what he did to fulfill the Mitzvah of honoring his parents. If a child who is more learned that his parent does not have to stand for his father, then Rebbi Tarfon should not have been required even to do what he did. Therefore, even though our Gemara does not answer whether the son should stand for the father, it is clear from the Yerushalmi that the son should stand for the father, even though the son is a Chacham.

(b) The ROSH here (1:57) rules that the Halachah remains a Safek d'Oraisa, and therefore both the son and the father should stand up for each other.

The Rosh adds that his Rebbi, the MAHARAM of Rotenburg, after he rose to a position of great respect, no longer invited his father to come to him nor went to visit his father, because of the doubt in the Gemara concerning the obligation for a son who is more learned than his father to stand for his father. The Maharam might have learned that if the father is supposed to stand for the son, then it is *prohibited* for the son to stand for the father. The DARCHEI MOSHE (YD 240:2) asks why the Maharam was not Mochel on his Kavod, as we know that a Chacham is permitted to be Mochel on his Kavod. He answers that before his Talmidim, a Chacham should not be Mochel on his Kavod, since it might lessen his respect in their eyes and they will not learn well from him. The Maharam was always surrounded by his Talmidim, and thus he always had to conduct himself in a way which would preserve his respect in their eyes. Therefore, when in private, the son certainly may stand for his father who is less learned. The Darchei Moshe adds that if the father lives in the same town as the son, and all of the Talmidim know that he is their teacher's father, then it is not disrespectful to the teacher for him to stand up for his father.

The Gemara learns from a Kal v'Chomer that a person is obligated to stand up for a Sefer Torah from a Kal v'Chomer. If one must stand up for those who learn the Torah, then all the more so must one stand up for the Torah itself. This implies that the respect of the Torah is greater than the respect of those who learn it.

However, in the Gemara in Makos (22b), Rava said, "How foolish are the people who stand up before a Sefer Torah and yet they do not stand up before those who learn it," implying that those who learn the Torah deserve more respect than the Torah itself!

How are we to reconcile the two Gemaras? (RAN)

ANSWERS:

(a) The RAN and CHIDUSHIM KADMONIM write that the Gemara in Makos is not deriving the obligation to stand for Talmidei Chachamim from a Kal v'Chomer. Rather, it is teaching that since Talmidei Chachamim explain the Torah, they are deserving of respect just as much as the Torah itself, because without them, the Torah would not be understood. This is clear from the continuation of the Gemara there which says that "the Torah says that a person should receive 40 Malkos, and the Rabanan explained that a person receives only 39." (See also Hakdamah to SHAV SHEMAITSA.)

The Ran might mean that with regard to the Mitzvah in the Torah, Hashem wants people to stand up for the Torah even more than for those who learn it, since the Torah is the source of their honor. The Gemara in Makos, on the other hand, simply means that people on their own should be more interested and have a greater will to stand for the Talmidei Chachamim, since the people benefit more from the Talmidei Chachamim who explain and expound the Torah for them.

(b) The RAN (in the name of TOSFOS), the TOSFOS HA'ROSH, and TOSFOS RID answer that the Gemara in Makos means that people are foolish for standing for a Sefer Torah and not standing for Talmidei Chachamim because the source for standing for a Sefer Torah is from the verse which tells us to stand for Talmidei Chachamim! If they do not stand for Talmidei Chachamim, then they have no source for standing for the Sefer Torah either!

The MAHARIT and PNEI YEHOSHUA ask that the wording of the Gemara in Makos does not seem to conform with this explanation, since the Gemara says that the reason people should stand for Talmidei Chachamim is because "the Torah says that a person should receive 40 Malkos, and the Rabanan explained that a person receives only 39."

(c) The KORBAN NESANEL (#100) answers that our Gemara also maintains that the Talmidei Chachamim are more deserving of respect than the Sefer Torah. The Kal v'Chomer of the Gemara is to be understood as follows: The Gemara thought that one does not have to stand up for a Sefer Torah because it is always being carried, and it thought that "Rachuv" (something being carried by something else) is not considered "k'Mehalech," as though it is walking itself (and therefore the Sefer Torah that is being carried is not considered to be moving). The Gemara responds that if a Talmid Chacham riding on a horse is considered Mehalech, as the Gemara previously concluded, even though he is able to walk on his own, then certainly a Sefer Torah being carried by a person is considered Mehalech, since it cannot walk on its own.

(d) the MAHARIT and PNEI YEHOSHUA suggest that sometimes the Talmid Chacham is more deserving of respect, and sometimes the Sefer Torah is more deserving of respect. Our Gemara is referring to "Lomdehah," anyone who learns Torah, even though he is not yet a Chacham. Such a person is not as deserving of respect as the Sefer Torah itself (since the Torah he has learned is not yet considered "his own," but is Hashem's Torah; REBBI TZADOK in Sichos Mal'achei ha'Shares). The Gemara in Makos, on the other hand, is referring to Talmidei Chachamim who have reached a high level of scholarship and understanding. Such Talmidei Chachamim are even greater than a Sefer Torah, which, by itself, does not have the ability, or "Binah" to be "Mevin Davar Mitoch Davar."