Kiddushin 32
מִשֶּׁל מִי? רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: מִשֶּׁל בֵּן. רַב נָתָן בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: מִשֶּׁל אָב. אוֹרוֹ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב יִרְמְיָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַב יִרְמְיָה, כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשֶּׁל אָב.
From whose funds must one give his father food and drink? Rav Yehuda says: From the money of the son. Rav Natan bar Oshaya said: From the money of the father. The Sages gave this following ruling to Rav Yirmeya, and some say they gave this following ruling to the son of Rav Yirmeya: The halakha is like the one who says it must be paid from the money of the father.
מֵיתִיבִי: נֶאֱמַר: ״כַּבֵּד אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אִמֶּךָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר: ״כַּבֵּד אֶת ה׳ מֵהוֹנֶךָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן בְּחֶסְרוֹן כִּיס, אַף כָּאן בְּחֶסְרוֹן כִּיס. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשֶּׁל אָב, מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? לְבִיטּוּל מְלָאכָה.
The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: It is stated: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), and it is stated: “Honor the Lord with your wealth” (Proverbs 3:9), which teaches the following verbal analogy: Just as there one honors God “with your wealth,” i.e., through monetary loss, so too here one must honor his father through monetary loss. And if you say that one honors him from the money of the father, what difference does it make to the son, i.e., what monetary loss does he suffer? The Gemara answers: It makes a difference to him with regard to the neglect of his work. Although he is not required to spend his own money, the son must leave aside his work to honor his father, which will cause him some financial loss.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנֵי אַחִים, שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין הָאָב וּבְנוֹ, הָרַב וְתַלְמִידוֹ – פּוֹדִין זֶה לָזֶה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, וּמַאֲכִילִין זֶה לָזֶה מַעְשַׂר עָנִי.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Two brothers, or two partners in the ownership of produce, or a father and son, or a rabbi and his student, may redeem the second tithe for each other without adding one-fifth, as one who redeems the tithe of another, including these individuals, is not required to add one-fifth. And they may feed each other the poor man’s tithe. If one of them is poor, the other may give him the poor man’s tithe that he separated from his produce, and it is not considered as though the pauper ate the poor man’s tithe from his own produce.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשֶּׁל בֵּן, נִמְצָא זֶה פּוֹרֵעַ חוֹבוֹ מִשֶּׁל עֲנִיִּים! – לָא צְרִיכָא, לְהַעְדָּפָה.
The Gemara explains the proof from this baraita. And if you say that the obligation to honor one’s father is from the money of the son, one finds that this son repays his obligation from the produce of the poor, as he is taking care of his father with produce that should go to the poor. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where he has covered all of his father’s basic needs with his own money. At this stage, if his father needs surplus money, he may give it to him from the poor man’s tithe.
אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: תָּבֹא מְאֵירָה לְמִי שֶׁמַּאֲכִיל אֶת אָבִיו מַעְשַׂר עָנִי. וְאִי לְהַעְדָּפָה, מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ?! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא.
The Gemara asks: If so, consider that which is taught with regard to this baraita. Rabbi Yehuda says: May a curse come upon one who feeds his father the poor man’s tithe. And if this halakha, that one may feed his father the poor man’s tithe, was said with regard to a surplus, what difference is there? Since the son has fulfilled his obligation and simply adds something so that his father will have more, why is this person cursed? The Gemara answers: Even so, it is a disrespectful matter for one to feed his father with money that has been designated as charity for the poor.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עַד הֵיכָן כִּיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם? אָמַר לָהֶם: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אַרְנָקִי וְיִזְרְקֶנּוּ לַיָּם בְּפָנָיו וְאֵינוֹ מַכְלִימוֹ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשֶּׁל אָב, מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? בְּרָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ.
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear: They asked Rabbi Eliezer how far one must go in honoring his father and mother. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Such that the father takes a purse and throw it into the sea in front of his son, and the son does not embarrass him. And if you say that the son honors him from the money of the father, what difference does it make to the son? Why would the son care if his father throws away his own purse? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a son who is fit to inherit from him. Since the son thinks that the money will eventually belong to him, he has cause for anger.
וְכִי הָא דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. דְּרַב הוּנָא קְרַע שִׁירָאֵי בְּאַנְפֵּי רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ. אָמַר: אֵיזִיל אִיחְזֵי אִי רָתַח אִי לָא רָתַח. וְדִלְמָא רָתַח וְקָעָבַר אַ״לִּפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״! דְּמָחֵיל לֵיהּ לִיקָרֵיהּ.
And this is as reflected in an incident involving Rabba bar Rav Huna, when Rav Huna tore silk garments in front of his son Rabba. Rav Huna had said to himself: I will go and see if he becomes angry or does not become angry, i.e., he wanted to test him and see whether his son Rabba would honor him. The Gemara asks: But perhaps his son would become angry and Rav Huna would thereby violate the prohibition of: “Nor put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as by testing his son Rav Huna would have caused him to sin. The Gemara answers: It was a case where the father had forgone his honor from the outset. Consequently, even if the son grew angry with him, he would not have violated the mitzva.
וְהָא קָעָבַר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תַּשְׁחִית״! דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ בְּפוּמְבְּיָינֵי. וְדִילְמָא מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא רָתַח? דְּעָבֵד לֵיהּ בִּשְׁעַת רִיתְחֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: But by tearing his clothes, he violates the prohibition: Do not destroy (see Deuteronomy 20:19). The Gemara answers that Rav Huna made a tear at the seam, so that the garment could be repaired. The Gemara asks: Perhaps it was due to that reason that the son did not become angry, because he saw that his father caused no actual damage? The Gemara answers: He did this when the son was already angry for some other reason, so that he would not notice this detail.
מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַב יְחֶזְקֵאל לְרָמִי בְּרֵיהּ: הַנִּשְׂרָפִים בַּנִּסְקָלִים, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יִדּוֹנוּ בִּסְקִילָה, שֶׁהַשְּׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.
The Gemara cites another story involving the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother. Rav Yeḥezkel taught his son Rami: If people sentenced to be burned became mingled with those sentenced to be stoned Rabbi Shimon says: All of them are judged with the punishment of stoning, as the punishment of burning is more severe. Since the death penalty of each is uncertain, all of them are treated leniently.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ: אַבָּא, לָא תַּיתְנְיֵיהּ הָכִי. מַאי אִירְיָא שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה, תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּרוּבָּא נִסְקָלִים נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא הָכִי אַיתְנְיֵיהּ: הַנִּסְקָלִים בַּנִּשְׂרָפִים.
Rav Yehuda, who was also Rav Yeḥezkel’s son, said to him: Father, do not teach the mishna this way, as, according to this version, why is this the halakha specifically because burning is more severe than stoning? Let him derive it from the fact that the majority are sentenced to be stoned. The wording of the baraita, which states that those who were supposed to be burned became mixed up with those who were to be stoned, indicates that the people sentenced to stoning are the majority. If so, one should simply follow the majority. Rather, I will teach it this way: If those who are sentenced to be stoned became mixed up with those who are sentenced to be burned, they are all judged with the punishment of stoning even though this is the minority, as they are all treated leniently.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יִדּוֹנוּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, שֶׁהַסְּקִילָה חֲמוּרָה. מַאי אִירְיָא דִּסְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה? תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּרוּבָּא נִשְׂרָפִים נִינְהוּ!
Rav Yeḥezkel said to him: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say that they should be judged with the punishment of burning, as the punishment of stoning is more severe. According to your version, why is this the halakha specifically because stoning is more severe? Let him derive it due to the fact that the majority of people are sentenced to be burned, and one follows the majority.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם רַבָּנַן הוּא דְּקָאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה – לָא, סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.
His son Rav Yehuda said to him: The statement of the Rabbis is not difficult, as there the Rabbis are saying to Rabbi Shimon as follows: That which you said, that burning is more severe, is not the case; rather, stoning is more severe. In other words, the Rabbis were specifically responding to Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning, and therefore they stated the opposite claim and ignored the issue of which group is in the majority.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁינָּנָא, לָא תֵּימָא לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּךְ הָכִי. דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו עוֹבֵר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אַל יֹאמַר לוֹ ״אַבָּא עָבַרְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה״, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אַבָּא כָּךְ כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה״. ״כָּךְ כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה״ – צַעוֹרֵי קָא מְצַעַר לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אַבָּא, מִקְרָא כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה כָּךְ״.
Later, Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Big-toothed one, do not speak to your father like that, as it is disrespectful. As it is taught in a baraita: If one’s father was transgressing a Torah matter, he should not say to him explicitly: Father, you transgressed a Torah matter. Rather, he should say to him: Father, so it is written in the Torah. The Gemara asks: If he says to him directly: This is what is written in the Torah, he will cause him suffering. Rather, he should say to him: Father, this verse is written in the Torah, and he should proceed to quote the verse, from which his father will understand on his own that he has acted improperly.
אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַתְיָא אוֹמֵר: אַבָּא אוֹמֵר: ״הַשְׁקֵינִי מַיִם״, וּמִצְוָה לַעֲשׂוֹת – מַנִּיחַ אֲנִי כְּבוֹד אַבָּא, וְעוֹשֶׂה אֶת הַמִּצְוָה. שֶׁאֲנִי וְאַבָּא חַיָּיבִים בַּמִּצְוָה. אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם אֶפְשָׁר לַמִּצְוָה לֵיעָשׂוֹת עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים – תֵּיעָשֶׂה עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים, וְיֵלֵךְ הוּא בִּכְבוֹד אָבִיו. אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: הֲלָכָה כְּאִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה.
§ Elazar ben Matya says: If my father says: Give me water, and there is a mitzva for me to perform at the same time, I set aside the honor of my father and perform the mitzva, as my father and I are both obligated in the mitzva. Isi ben Yehuda says: If it is possible for this mitzva to be performed by others, let it be performed by others, and he should go and attend to the honor due to his father, as the honor of his father is his obligation alone. Rav Mattana says: The halakha with regard to this matter is in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda.
אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָאָב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל. הָרַב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Sheila says that Rav Mattana says that Rav Ḥisda says: With regard to a father who forgoes his honor, his honor is forgone, and his son does not transgress if he does not treat him in the proper manner. By contrast, with regard to a rabbi who forgoes his honor, his honor is not forgone.
וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הָרַב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַה׳ הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם״. אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עָלְמָא דִּילֵיהּ הוּא, וְתוֹרָה דִּילֵיהּ הִיא – מָחֵיל לֵיהּ לִיקָרֵיהּ,
And Rav Yosef says: Even with regard to a rabbi who forgoes his honor, his honor is forgone, as it is stated: “And the Lord went before them by day” (Exodus 13:21). God Himself, the Teacher of the Jewish people, had forgone the honor due Him and took the trouble to guide the people. Rava said: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, the world is His and the Torah is His, and therefore He can forgo His honor.
הָכָא תּוֹרָה דִּילֵיהּ הִיא?! הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: אִין, תּוֹרָה דִּילֵיהּ הִיא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה״.
By contrast, here, is it his Torah, that the teacher can forgo its honor? Rava then said: Yes, if he studies, it is his Torah, as it is written: “For his delight is the Torah of the Lord, and in his Torah he meditates day and night” (Psalms 1:2). This indicates that at first it is “the Torah of the Lord,” but after he studies, it becomes “his Torah.”
אִינִי?! וְהָא רָבָא מַשְׁקֵי בֵּי הִלּוּלָא דִּבְרֵיהּ וְדַל לֵיהּ כָּסָא לְרַב פָּפָּא וּלְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְקָמוּ מִקַּמֵּיהּ. לְרַב מָרִי וּלְרַב פִּנְחָס בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, וְלָא קָמוּ מִקַּמֵּיהּ. אִיקְּפַד וַאֲמַר: הָנוּ רַבָּנַן רַבָּנַן, וְהָנוּ רַבָּנַן לָאו רַבָּנַן?
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rava served drinks to the guests at his son’s wedding celebration, and he poured a cup for Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and they stood before him when he approached them. When he poured a cup for Rav Mari and for Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ḥisda, they did not stand before him. Rava became angry and said: Are these Sages, i.e., Rav Mari and Rav Pineḥas, Sages, and are those Sages, who stood to honor me, not Sages? Do you think you are so great that you are not required to honor a Sage?
וְתוּ, רַב פָּפָּא הֲוָה מַשְׁקֵי בֵּי הִלּוּלָא דְּאַבָּא מָר בְּרֵיהּ וְדַלִּי לֵיהּ כָּסָא לְרַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה וְלָא קָם מִקַּמֵּיהּ וְאִיקְּפַד! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי – הִידּוּר מֶיעְבַּד לֵיהּ בָּעוּ.
And furthermore, it happened that Rav Pappa was serving drinks to the guests at the wedding celebration [hillula] of Abba Mar, his son, and he poured a cup for Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, and he did not stand before him, and Rav Pappa became angry. These anecdotes indicate that even when a rabbi forgoes the honor due to him by serving drinks to his guests, his honor is not forgone. The Gemara answers: A rabbi can forgo the full measure of honor due to him, but even so, others are required to perform some act of reverence, such as preparing to stand before him.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: הָרַב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, נָשִׂיא שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל. מֵיתִיבִי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי צָדוֹק שֶׁהָיוּ מְסוּבִּין בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְהָיָה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עוֹמֵד וּמַשְׁקֶה עֲלֵיהֶם. נָתַן הַכּוֹס לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְלֹא נְטָלוֹ, נְתָנוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְקִיבְּלוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מָה זֶה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? אָנוּ יוֹשְׁבִין וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרִיבִּי עוֹמֵד וּמַשְׁקֶה עָלֵינוּ?!
Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that if a rabbi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is forgone, if a Nasi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is not forgone. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok, who were reclining at the wedding of Rabban Gamliel’s son. And Rabban Gamliel, who was Nasi of the Sanhedrin at the time, was standing over them and serving them drinks. He gave the cup to Rabbi Eliezer and he would not accept it; he gave it to Rabbi Yehoshua and he accepted it. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua? We sit and the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stands over us and serves us drinks?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָצִינוּ גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ, אַבְרָהָם גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ – וְשִׁמֵּשׁ. אַבְרָהָם גְּדוֹל הַדּוֹר הָיָה, וְכָתוּב בּוֹ: ״וְהוּא עָמַד עֲלֵיהֶם״. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹּאמְרוּ: כְּמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת נִדְמוּ לוֹ – לֹא נִדְמוּ לוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַרְבִיִּים. וְאָנוּ, לֹא יְהֵא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרִיבִּי עוֹמֵד וּמַשְׁקֶה עָלֵינוּ?!
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: We found one greater than him who served his guests, as our forefather Abraham was greater than him and he served his guests. Abraham was the greatest man of his generation and it is written about him: “And he stood over them under the tree, and they ate” (Genesis 18:8). And lest you say: His guests appeared to him as ministering angels, and that is why he honored them, in fact they appeared to him only as Arabs. And if so, should not the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stand over us and serve us drinks?
אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי צָדוֹק: עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם מַנִּיחִים כְּבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם וְאַתֶּם עוֹסְקִים בִּכְבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת? הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵשִׁיב רוּחוֹת, וּמַעֲלֶה נְשִׂיאִים, וּמוֹרִיד מָטָר, וּמַצְמִיחַ אֲדָמָה, וְעוֹרֵךְ שׁוּלְחָן לִפְנֵי כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, וְאָנוּ לֹא יְהֵא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרִיבִּי עוֹמֵד וּמַשְׁקֶה עָלֵינוּ?
Rabbi Tzadok said to them: For how long will you ignore the honor due to the Omnipresent, and deal with the honor of people? You could cite a proof from God Himself. After all, the Holy One, Blessed be He, makes the winds blow, and raises the clouds, and brings the rain, and causes the earth to sprout, and sets a table before each and every creature. And should not the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stand over us and serve us drinks? This discussion indicates that even a Nasi may forgo the honor due him.
אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: נָשִׂיא שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, מֶלֶךְ שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ.
Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that if a Nasi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is forgone, if a king forgoes the honor due him, his honor is not forgone. As it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), which indicates that his fear should be upon you. The people are commanded to fear a king, and therefore it is not permitted for him to forgo the honor due to him.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה תָּקוּם״ – יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ מִפְּנֵי זָקֵן אַשְׁמַאי? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זָקֵן״, וְאֵין זָקֵן אֶלָּא חָכָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: אֵין זָקֵן אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁקָּנָה חׇכְמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״ה׳ קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ״.
§ The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “Before the hoary head you shall stand and you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 19:32): One might have thought that it is obligatory to stand before a simple [ashmai] elder. Therefore, the verse states: “elder,” and an “elder” means nothing other than a wise man, as it is stated: “Gather unto Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel, whom you know to be the Elders of the people” (Numbers 11:16). Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: An “elder [zaken]” means nothing other than one who has acquired wisdom. He interprets the word zaken as a contraction of the phrase zeh kanna, meaning: This one has acquired. Elsewhere the word kanna is used in reference to wisdom, as it is stated that wisdom says: “The Lord acquired me [kanani] at the beginning of His way” (Proverbs 8:22).
יָכוֹל יַעֲמוֹד מִפָּנָיו מִמָּקוֹם רָחוֹק? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ״ – לֹא אָמַרְתִּי קִימָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ הִידּוּר.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that one must stand before an elder as soon as he sees him, even from a distance. Therefore the verse states: “You shall stand and you shall revere” (Leviticus 19:32), which teaches: I said that one is obligated to stand only in a place where there is reverence. If he stands while the elder is still far away, it is not clear that he is doing so in his honor.
יָכוֹל יְהַדְּרֶנּוּ בְּמָמוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ״ – מָה קִימָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס, אַף הִידּוּר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס. יָכוֹל יַעֲמוֹד מִפָּנָיו מִבֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וּמִבֵּית הַמֶּרְחָץ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ״ – לֹא אָמַרְתִּי קִימָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ הִידּוּר.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that he should revere him through money, i.e., that one is required to give an elder money in his honor. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall stand and you shall revere.” Just as standing includes no monetary loss, so too, reverence is referring to an action that includes no monetary loss. One might have thought that one should also stand before him in the lavatory or in the bathhouse. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall stand and you shall revere,” which indicates: I said the mitzva of standing only in a place where there is reverence. It is inappropriate to show respect for someone in places of this kind.
יָכוֹל יַעֲצִים עֵינָיו כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָהוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תָּקוּם… וְיָרֵאתָ״ – דָּבָר הַמָּסוּר לַלֵּב נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ: ״וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ״.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that one may close his eyes like one who does not see the elder. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the hoary head you shall stand and you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 19:32). With regard to any matter given over to the heart, it is stated: “And you shall fear your God.” This phrase is referring to a situation where it is impossible to prove whether one purposefully made it appear as if he were not aware that he was obligated to perform a mitzva, as only that individual and God know the truth.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְזָקֵן שֶׁלֹּא יַטְרִיחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זָקֵן וְיָרֵאתָ״. אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה תָּקוּם״ – אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל שֵׂיבָה בַּמַּשְׁמָע.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where is it derived that an elder should not trouble others to honor him? The verse states: “And you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God.” The phrase “an elder, and you shall fear,” read by itself, without the rest of the verse, indicates that an elder is also commanded to fear God, and not purposefully act in a manner to cause others to have to honor him. In conclusion, the baraita cites another opinion. Isi ben Yehuda says that the verse: “Before the hoary head you shall stand,” indicates that even any person of hoary head is included in this mitzva, not only a Sage.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ יַנִּיק וְחַכִּים. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: יַנִּיק וְחַכִּים – לָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ יַנִּיק וְחַכִּים.
The Gemara analyzes this baraita. Apparently the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is the same as that of the first tanna, as they both say that an elder is a Torah scholar. What does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili add? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to one who is young and wise. The first tanna maintains: One who is young and wise is not considered an elder, as the mitzva applies only to one who is both elderly and wise. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains: It is even a mitzva to honor one who is young and wise. According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the mitzva is not referring to old age at all, but only to wisdom.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי? אָמַר לָךְ: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא – אִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה זָקֵן תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ״, מַאי שְׁנָא דְּפַלְגִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא – לְמֵימַר: דְּהַאי לָאו הַאי, וְהַאי לָאו הַאי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ יַנִּיק וְחַכִּים.
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? He could have said to you that if it enters your mind to explain as the first tanna says, that for the obligation to honor another to be in effect that person must be both elderly and wise, if so, let the Merciful One write: Before the hoary head of an elder you shall stand and you shall revere. What is the difference between the two terms “hoary head” and “elder,” that the Merciful One separates them? This serves to say that this term is not the same as that one, and that term is not the same as this one, i.e., an elder is not required to have a hoary head. Learn from the verse that even one who is young and wise is called an elder.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי לְמִיסְמַךְ ״זָקֵן״ ״וְיָרֵאתָ״. וְתַנָּא קַמָּא מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְקָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – אִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא:
And the first tanna would say that the verse is written this way because the Torah wants to juxtapose “elder” with “and you shall fear,” in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s statement above that an elder should not trouble others to honor him. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the first tanna? Why does he maintain that one is obligated to stand only before an elder, wise man? The Gemara answers: The first tanna maintains that if it enters your mind to explain as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says, let the Merciful One write:
