Commentary for Kiddushin 63:15
א"ר יצחק בר שילא א"ר מתנה אמר רב חסדא האב שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול הרב שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול
For, why state the reason because burning is severer? This follows from the fact that the majority are for stoning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, 'if criminals condemned to be burnt become mixed up with others sentenced to be stoned,' implies that the latter are in the majority, as the smaller number is lost (i.e., mixed up) in the larger.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
All rabbis agree that a parent can forgo his rights to his honor. But they argue about whether a rabbi can. R. Yitzchak argues that he cannot. A sage’s honor is due him because of the Torah he has learned—this Torah is not his and therefore he cannot forgo his honor.
R. Joseph argues through an analogy with God that a sage can forgo his honor. If God humbled God’s self by leading the people through the wilderness, then a sage too should be allowed to forgo his honor.
But Rava pushes back—God can forgo God’s honor because the world belongs to God. But the Torah does not belong to the sage. The sage cannot forgo the honor due him because the honor is not really due him—it is due to his Torah learning, which is not really his.
R. Joseph argues through an analogy with God that a sage can forgo his honor. If God humbled God’s self by leading the people through the wilderness, then a sage too should be allowed to forgo his honor.
But Rava pushes back—God can forgo God’s honor because the world belongs to God. But the Torah does not belong to the sage. The sage cannot forgo the honor due him because the honor is not really due him—it is due to his Torah learning, which is not really his.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy