THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
KIDUSHIN 32-35 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) HALACHAH: A SON MORE LEARNED THAN HIS FATHER
OPINIONS: The Gemara questions whether a child must stand up for his father
even if he is more learned than his father. Does he stand up for his father,
and does his father stand up for him? The Gemara does not give a conclusive
answer. What is the Halachah in such a case?
2) WHICH IS GREATER: A SEFER TORAH OR A TALMID CHACHAM
(a) RABEINU CHANANEL, cited by the Ran and Ri ha'Zaken, rules that the son
must stand up for the father, even though the son knows more Torah than the
father. This is also the ruling of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Mamrim 6:4).
The RI HA'ZAKEN explains that the reason Rabeinu Chananel rules this way is
because the Gemara cites a proof from Shmuel that the son should *always*
stand up for the father. Even though the Gemara rejects the proof, we remain
with the simple reading of Shmuel's statement and rule that a son must stand
for his father.
However, the Gemara also cites a Beraisa to prove that the son does *not*
stand for the father when the son is more learned.
The RAN explains that Rabeinu Chananel's ruling relies on the description of
Rebbi Tarfon's conduct in honoring his mother. The Gemara relates that Rebbi
Tarfon put his hands under the feet of his mother for her to walk upon them
(see also TOSFOS 31b, DH Rebbi Tarfon). The Yerushalmi concludes that when
Rebbi Tarfon told the Chachamim what he did, they told him that "you have
not even done half of the Kavod that the Torah requires." Rebbi Tarfon was
certainly a Chacham, and yet the Chachamim told him that he needed to do
more than what he did to fulfill the Mitzvah of honoring his parents. If a
child who is more learned that his parent does not have to stand for his
father, then Rebbi Tarfon should not have been required even to do what he
did. Therefore, even though our Gemara does not answer whether the son
should stand for the father, it is clear from the Yerushalmi that the son
should stand for the father, even though the son is a Chacham.
(b) The ROSH here (1:57) rules that the Halachah remains a Safek d'Oraisa,
and therefore both the son and the father should stand up for each other.
The Rosh adds that his Rebbi, the MAHARAM of Rotenburg, after he rose to a
position of great respect, no longer invited his father to come to him nor
went to visit his father, because of the doubt in the Gemara concerning the
obligation for a son who is more learned than his father to stand for his
father. The Maharam might have learned that if the father is supposed to
stand for the son, then it is *prohibited* for the son to stand for the
father. The DARCHEI MOSHE (YD 240:2) asks why the Maharam was not Mochel on
his Kavod, as we know that a Chacham is permitted to be Mochel on his Kavod.
He answers that before his Talmidim, a Chacham should not be Mochel on his
Kavod, since it might lessen his respect in their eyes and they will not
learn well from him. The Maharam was always surrounded by his Talmidim, and
thus he always had to conduct himself in a way which would preserve his
respect in their eyes. Therefore, when in private, the son certainly may
stand for his father who is less learned. The Darchei Moshe adds that if the
father lives in the same town as the son, and all of the Talmidim know that
he is their teacher's father, then it is not disrespectful to the teacher
for him to stand up for his father.
The Gemara learns from a Kal v'Chomer that a person is obligated to stand up
for a Sefer Torah from a Kal v'Chomer. If one must stand up for those who
learn the Torah, then all the more so must one stand up for the Torah
itself. This implies that the respect of the Torah is greater than the
respect of those who learn it.
However, in the Gemara in Makos (22b), Rava said, "How foolish are the
people who stand up before a Sefer Torah and yet they do not stand up before
those who learn it," implying that those who learn the Torah deserve more
respect than the Torah itself!
How are we to reconcile the two Gemaras? (RAN)
(a) The RAN and CHIDUSHIM KADMONIM write that the Gemara in Makos is not
deriving the obligation to stand for Talmidei Chachamim from a Kal v'Chomer.
Rather, it is teaching that since Talmidei Chachamim explain the Torah, they
are deserving of respect just as much as the Torah itself, because without
them, the Torah would not be understood. This is clear from the continuation
of the Gemara there which says that "the Torah says that a person should
receive 40 Malkos, and the Rabanan explained that a person receives only
39." (See also Hakdamah to SHAV SHEMAITSA.)
The Ran might mean that with regard to the Mitzvah in the Torah, Hashem
wants people to stand up for the Torah even more than for those who learn
it, since the Torah is the source of their honor. The Gemara in Makos, on
the other hand, simply means that people on their own should be more
interested and have a greater will to stand for the Talmidei Chachamim,
since the people benefit more from the Talmidei Chachamim who explain and
expound the Torah for them.
(b) The RAN (in the name of TOSFOS), the TOSFOS HA'ROSH, and TOSFOS RID
answer that the Gemara in Makos means that people are foolish for standing
for a Sefer Torah and not standing for Talmidei Chachamim because the source
for standing for a Sefer Torah is from the verse which tells us to stand for
Talmidei Chachamim! If they do not stand for Talmidei Chachamim, then they
have no source for standing for the Sefer Torah either!
The MAHARIT and PNEI YEHOSHUA ask that the wording of the Gemara in Makos
does not seem to conform with this explanation, since the Gemara says that
the reason people should stand for Talmidei Chachamim is because "the Torah
says that a person should receive 40 Malkos, and the Rabanan explained that
a person receives only 39."
(c) The KORBAN NESANEL (#100) answers that our Gemara also maintains that
the Talmidei Chachamim are more deserving of respect than the Sefer Torah.
The Kal v'Chomer of the Gemara is to be understood as follows: The Gemara
thought that one does not have to stand up for a Sefer Torah because it is
always being carried, and it thought that "Rachuv" (something being carried
by something else) is not considered "k'Mehalech," as though it is walking
itself (and therefore the Sefer Torah that is being carried is not
considered to be moving). The Gemara responds that if a Talmid Chacham
riding on a horse is considered Mehalech, as the Gemara previously
concluded, even though he is able to walk on his own, then certainly a Sefer
Torah being carried by a person is considered Mehalech, since it cannot walk
on its own.
(d) the MAHARIT and PNEI YEHOSHUA suggest that sometimes the Talmid Chacham
is more deserving of respect, and sometimes the Sefer Torah is more
deserving of respect. Our Gemara is referring to "Lomdehah," anyone who
learns Torah, even though he is not yet a Chacham. Such a person is not as
deserving of respect as the Sefer Torah itself (since the Torah he has
learned is not yet considered "his own," but is Hashem's Torah; REBBI TZADOK
in Sichos Mal'achei ha'Shares). The Gemara in Makos, on the other hand, is
referring to Talmidei Chachamim who have reached a high level of scholarship
and understanding. Such Talmidei Chachamim are even greater than a Sefer
Torah, which, by itself, does not have the ability, or "Binah" to be "Mevin
Davar Mitoch Davar."