Commentary for Kiddushin 66:9
איבעיא להו רכוב כמהלך דמי או לא אמר אביי ת"ש טמא יושב תחת האילן וטהור עומד טמא
- He said thus to him: Sometimes he may come behind me;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M.: Sometimes I may come behind him.]');"><sup>10</sup></span> then do you stand up before him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though you have already risen once for me.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
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