Kiddushin, Daf Lammed Gimmel, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s section asks a series of questions about the liability to rise.

 

איבעיא להו בנו והוא רבו מהו לעמוד מפני אביו

 

They asked the question: What if his son is his teacher? Must he rise before his father?

 

If the son is the father s teacher, does the son still have to rise before his father? In other words, if one relationship has been turned on its head, the norm being that the older person is the teacher, is the other relationship, father-son, overturned as well?

 

ת"ש דאמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא קום מקמי אבוך שאני רב יחזקאל דבעל מעשים הוה דאפילו מר שמואל נמי קאים מקמיה

אלא מאי קאמר ליה הכי קאמר ליה זימנין דאתי מאחורי קום את מקמיה ולא תיחוש ליקרא דידי

Come and hear: For Shmuel said to Rav Judah: Toothy one! Rise before your father!

R. Yehezkel was different, because he had [many] good deeds to his credit, for even Mar Shmuel too stood up before him.

Then what did he tell him? He said thus to him: Sometimes he may come behind me; then you should stand up before him, and do not fear for my honor.

 

This story seems to prove that a son should always stand before his father, for Shmuel instructs R. Judah to stand in front of his father, even though his father was his son s student.

The Talmud rejects this argument R. Judah was not told to stand in front of his father because of his father s scholarly characteristics. It was his father good deeds that caused Shmuel to rebuke R. Judah for not standing, and even other sages stood in front of him.

What Shmuel was telling him was not just to honor his father. He was telling him to honor his father even at Shmuel s expense.

 

איבעיא להו בנו והוא רבו מהו שיעמוד אביו מפניו

ת"ש דאמר ר’ יהושע בן לוי אני איני כדי לעמוד מפני בני אלא משום כבוד בית נשיא

טעמא דאנא רביה הא איהו רבאי קאימנא מקמיה

 

They asked the question: What if his son is his teacher; must his father stand up before him? Come and hear: For R. Joshua h. Levi said: As for me, It is not appropriate that I should stand up before my son, but rather due to the honor of the Nasi’s house. Thus the reason is that I am his teacher: but if he were my teacher, I would rise before him.

 

Above we said that the son who is a scholar need not stand in front of his father. But should the father stand in front of him.

R. Joshua ben Levi says that the only reason he stands before his son is that his son is part of the Nasi s (the political leader s) household. But, the Talmud reasons out, that the reason the father says he should not stand in front of his son is that the father is the teacher. But if the son were the teacher, the father would stand in front of him.

 

ה"ק אני איני כדי לעמוד מפני בני ואפילו הוא רבאי דהא אנא אבוה אלא משום כבוד בית נשיא

 

[No]. He meant thus: As for me, it is not appropriate that I should stand up before my son, even if he were my teacher, for I am his father, but [I do stand in front of him] because of the honor of the Nasi s house.

 

The Talmud adjusts the meaning of what R. Joshua ben Levi said. R. Joshua b. Levi thinks it is always inappropriate for a father to stand in front of his son, even if the son is the teacher.

איבעיא להו רכוב כמהלך דמי או לא

אמר אביי ת"ש טמא יושב תחת האילן וטהור עומד טמא טמא עומד תחת האילן וטהור יושב טהור ואם ישב הטמא הטהור טמא וכן באבן המנוגעת

ואמר רב נחמן בר כהן זאת אומרת רכוב כמהלך דמי ש"מ

The question was asked: Is riding the same as walking, or not?

Abaye said: Come and hear: If an impure person sits under a tree and a pure person stands, he is defiled; if the impure person stands under the tree and the pure person sits, he remains clean; but if the impure person sat down, the clean one is defiled.

And the same applies to a leprous stone.

And R. Nahman b. Cohen said: This proves that riding is the same as walking. Learn from this.

 

The question is whether one must stand in front of one s teacher if the teacher is riding by on a horse. Is he considered to be sitting, in which case one must rise, or do we consider him walking, in which case one need not rise?

Abaye derives the answer from a mishnah about purity. The issue is how impurity is conveyed in a tent the branches of the tree overshadow both the impure person and the pure person.

If the impure person is sitting, he conveys impurity.

If the impure person is standing, he does not convey impurity.

If a person is carrying an impure stone, and he sits down, the stone conveys impurity. But if he is standing, the stone does not convey impurity.

From this line, R. Nahman b. Cohen proves that riding is the same as walking. The impure stone is riding on the person, but is considered to be walking, and therefore does not convey impurity.