Previous daf

1)

(a) They asked with whose money a son is obligated to honor his parents, with his own or only with his parents'. Rav Yehudah says with his own money ('mi'Shel Ben' see Tosfos DH 'Rav'). Rav Nasan bar Oshaya says - 'mi'Shel Av' (with his parents money, but not with his own).

(b) The Rabbanan indicated to Rav Yirmiyah (or to Rav Yirmiyah's son) - that they concurred with the opinion of Rav Nasan bar Oshaya?

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa explains the comparison between honoring one's parents ("Kabeid es Avicha ... ) and honoring Hashem ("Kabeid es Hashem me'Honach") - with regard to even losing money if necessary, in order to perform the Mizvah.

(d) Rav Nasan bar Oshaya will explain this Beraisa - with regard to losing work in the process of honoring one's parents, but not to actually spend one's own money.

(a) We learned in a Beraisa that two brothers, two partners, a father and a son or a Rebbe and his Talmid may feed each other Ma'aser Sheini. What the Tana means is (not the actual consession to eat it, which is not restricted to the owner anyway, but) - that the recipient may redeem it to take the money to Yerushalayim in lieu of the fruit, without having to add the extra fifth which the owner would have to add (despite the fact that the owner loves him and considers him like himself).

(b) The Tana also permits them to feed each other - Ma'aser Ani.

(c) We ask how, according to Rav Yehudah (who holds 'mi'Shel Ben') the Tana could possibly permit a son to feed his father Ma'aser Ani - seeing as this entails paying off his debts with money belonging to the poor.

(d) We therefore establish the Beraisa according to Rav Yehudah - by 'Ha'adafah' (the extra meal or two, which a son is not obligated to feed his father).

(a) Despite the fact that the Tana is speaking about extra meals (which the son is under no obligation to provide his parents), Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa nevertheless adds that a son who does so will be cursed - because even that is demeaning for a parent, to whom one owes so much.

(b) They asked Rebbi Eliezer the extent of Kibud Av va'Eim. He replied - to the extent that if a father or mother take one's purse and throws it in the sea, and one does not retaliate by shaming him.

(c) According to Rav Huna bar Nasan, who holds 'mi'Shel Av', Rebbi Eliezer must be speaking when the purse belongs to the father or mother. The Chidush will then be - in a case where the son concerned stands to inherit the purse, and sustains the loss involved.

(a) Rav Huna once - tore a silk garment in the presence of his son Rabah, in order to test his Midos.

(b) He avoided the problem of ...

1. ... "Lifnei Iver Lo Sitein Michshol" (which forbids one Jew to cause another Jew to sin) - by establishing the case when the father forewent his Kavod (see Tosfos DH 'de'Machil').
2. ... 'Bal Tashchis' (the prohibition to destroy something that is useful) - by establishing the case when the father tore it by the stitches at the hem of the garment, where the tear does not diminish the garment's value (see Tosfos DH 'de'Machil'). Note, that in light of this, we need to understand why the previous case, where the father threw the purse into the sea, did not entail 'Bal Tashchis'.

(c) That would not however, be sufficient reason for Rabah not to have got angry - because Rav Huna himself, did it in a fit of (simulated) anger.

(a) Rav Yechezkel taught his son Rav Yehudah (the Talmid of Rav) a Beraisa 'ha'Nisrafin be Niskalin, Rebbi Shimon Omer Yadunu bi'Sekilah, she'ha'Sereifah Chamurah'. According to Rebbi Shimon - Sereifah is more stringent than Sekilah.

(b) The problem that Rav Yehudah had with his father's statement was - the Lashon 'ha'Nisrafin be Niskalin', implying that it is a minority of Nisrafin that fell into a majority of Niskalin, in which case, his reason 'she'ha'Sereifah Chamurah' would be superfluous, since we would anyway go after the majority.

(c) In addressing the problem - Rav Yehudah said to his father - 'Father, don't learn like that (learn like this)!'

(d) He ...

1. ... amended the statement to read - 'ha'Niskalin be'Nisrafin'.
2. ... explains the Seifa, where the Chachamim state 'Yadunu bi'S'reifah, she'Sekilah Chamurah' (which, according to Rav Yehudah's version of the Reisha, leaves us with exactly the same Kashya that he asked there [that the Tana could now have given the reason as the fact that the majority of the animals are 'Nisrafin') - by establishing the Chachamim as coming (not to teach us their personal opinion, but) to dispute that of Rebbi Shimon. 'Sereifah is not more stringent (like he says), but Sekilah.

(a) Shmuel rebuked his Talmid Rav Yehudah - for directly telling his father that he was wrong.

(b) According to the Tana of the Beraisa, one correct one's father - by just informing him that there is a Pasuk in the Torah (or a Halachah in Shulchan-Aruch), which one proceeds to read word for word, allowing his father to draw his own conclusions. We reject even the original wording of the Beraisa that the son says 'Aba, Kach Kasuv ba'Torah' - because that is like telling him that he sinned, and it hurts.

(c) In the same Beraisa, Elazar ben Masya says - that should one's father ask for a drink of water, at a time when there is another Mitzvah waiting to be performed - then he performs the other Mitzvah (because his father is obligated to perform Mitzvos no less than he is.

(d) Rav Masna however, rules like Isi ben Yehudah there - who says that this is only if there is nobody else to perform it, but if there is, then he let the other person perform the Mitzvah, whilst he tends to his father's needs.

(a) Rav Chisda is quoted as saying that whereas a father has the right to forego his honor, a Rav does not. Rav Yosef says - that a Rav too, has the right to forego his honor.

(b) Rav Yosef learned this from the Pasuk in Beshalach "va'Hashem Holech Lifneihem Yomam ... ". Rava ...

1. ... initially objected to Rav Yosef's proof - because, whereas the world belongs to Hashem, and He therefore has the right to forego is honor, the Torah that a Rav learns is not his but Hashem's, and he does not therefore have the right to forego something that is not his in the first place.
2. ... later conceded that he was right - because based on the Pasuk in Tehilim "u've'Soraso Yehegeh Yoman va'Laylah", we learn that the Torah that a person learns becomes his own property.

8)

(a) The difference between the reactions of Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua on the one hand and Rav Mari and Rav Pinchas B'rei de'Rav Mari on the other, when Rava served them drinks at his son's wedding was - that the former stood up in the presence of their Rebbe, whereas the latter did not.

(b) The problem that we have with Rava, who became angry at the latter's lack of response, is - that seeing as Rava just concluded that a Talmid-Chacham has the authority to forego his honor, why should he have become angry at their remaining seated, seeing as the fact that he served them was sufficient proof that he had foregone his honor?

(c) We resolve this problem by pointing out - that they should at least have arisen slightly from their seats as a token gesture before him.

(d) Rav Papa - had the same experience as Rava and reacted in the same way, when, at the wedding of Aba Mar his son, his Talmid Rav Yitzchak B'rei de'Rav Yehudah remained seated when Rav Ashi served him.

(a) The distinction that Rav Ashi draws between a Rav who foregoes his honor and a Nasi is - that even those who permit a Rav to forego his honor, forbid a Nasi to forego his.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer was surprised when - Rebbi Yehoshua permitted Raban Gamliel (the Nasi) to pour out his wine for him (after he himself had refused).

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua replied that even Avraham Avinu, who was the leader of his generation and who was far greater than Raban Gamliel, had done likewise.

(d) We know that he did not do that merely because his guests were angels - because Chazal have taught us that he took them to be Arabs, and not angels.

(a) Rebbi Tzadok was surprised at Rebbi Yehoshua's proof from Avraham Avinu, when he could have brought a proof from 'someone' who is greater still - namely Hashem, who serves the world by making the wind blow, the clouds rise, the rain fall and the crops grow. And not only that, but he feeds each and every person according to his needs, from which we see that He foregoes his Kavod.

(b) This Beraisa, which clearly permits a Nasi to forego his honor, forces us to amend Rav Ashi's initial statement.
We now present Rav Ashi's distinction runs - that even those who permit a Nasi to forego his honor, forbid a king to do so (see Agados Maharsha DH 'Amar Lei Rebbi Tzadok').

(c) And we learn this from the Pasuk - "Som Tasim Alecha Melech", which teaches us that each person must designate the king as his ruler (and fear him accordingly).

(a) The Torah writes in Kedoshim "Mipnei Seivah Takum". According to the Tana Kama, the insertion of the word "Zakein" ("ve'Hadarta P'nei Zakein") teaches us that one only needs to stand up for an old man who is wise and worthy (but not for a wicked old man).

(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili interprets "Zakein" to mean - someone who acquired wisdom 'Zeh she'Kanah (Chochmah - because the Pasuk writes in Mishlei "Hashem Kanani Reishis Darko" [referring to Chochmah])'?

(c) The difference between the two opinions is - that, according to the Tana Kama, one only stand up for an old Talmid-Chacham, whereas according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, one must stand up for a young Talmid-Chacham too.

(a) We learn three things from the juxtaposition of "Takum" next to "ve'Hadarta". The last of these is that one only needs to stand up in a place where it is an honor for the person concerned, but not in a bathroom or a bathhouse.
Besides that, we learn about ...

1. ... Kiymah from the word "ve'Hadarta" - that it is not necessary to stand up from a distance, only when he comes close, and will feel honor by the gesture.
2. ... Hidur from the word "Takum" - that it is not necessary to spend money in honoring him (in the same way as rising in one's seat does not cost anything).

(b) The Torah concludes with the words "ve'Yareisa me'Elokecha" - to teach us that one should not think that one may close one's eyes and pretend not to have seen him, but should be afraid of G-d who sees and knows everything.

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar learns from the juxtaposition of "Zakein" to "ve'Yareisa" - that the elder should avoid causing the community to get up for him wherever it can be avoided.

(d) Isi ben Yehudah is more stringent than the Tana Kama. He interprets "Mipnei Seivah Takum"- independently of "Zakein". Consequently, one is obligated to arise in the presence of an old man, even if he is sinful.

(a) We learned earlier that, according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, one is even obligated to stand up for a young Talmid-Chacham. He interprets "ve'Hadarta P'nei Zakein" to refer to a young Talmid-Chacham, and that "Zakein" does not go hand in hand with "Seivah", written earlier in the Pasuk - because if it did, then the Torah should have juxtaposed "ve'Hadarta" next to "Zakein" (and written "Mipnei Seivah Zakein Takum ve'Hadarta".

(b) And in spite of the fact that "Takum ve'Hadarta" is written only once, he interprets the entire Pasuk as if it was written twice, once re. "Seivah", and once re. "Zakein".

(c) The Tana Kama counters Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's proof (stressing that the Torah is not able to place "Seivah" and "Zakein" next to each other) - by reminding us that it needs to place "Zakein" next to "ve'Yareisa" (like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar Darshened earlier).

(d) And the Tana Kama proves that "Zakein" must refer to "Seivah", rather than being an independent word - because the Torah does not write "Takum ve'Hadarta" twice, as Rebbi Yossi Hagelili explains.