ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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
(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,
(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
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.
1. A Talmid is obligated to stand up for his Rebbe Muvhak - from the moment
he sees him.
(c) When Abaye rode past on his donkey, Rav Mesharshaya and the Rabbanan
were - on the other side of the river.
2. Abaye himself would stand up for Rav Yosef - from the moment he saw the
ears of his donkey.
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(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).
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
(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
(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.
2. ... praiseworthy - then it refers to the forthcoming Halachah, which
obligates the people to remain standing until the Nasi arrives at his
(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.