Commentary for Kiddushin 66:8
טעמא דאנא רביה הא איהו רבאי קאימנא מקמיה ה"ק אני איני כדי לעמוד מפני בני ואפילו הוא רבאי דהא אנא אבוה אלא משום כבוד בית נשיא
too stood up before him. Then what did he tell him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely Rab Judah should have understood it himself, seeing that even his teacher rose before him.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
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.
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
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.
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy