KIDUSHIN 32-33 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for thIs Daf for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.

1)

(a)They asked with whose money a son is obligated to honor his parents. Rav Yehudah said with his own money ('mi'Shel Ben' - see Tosfos DH 'Rav'). What did Rav Nasan bar Oshaya say?

(b)With which opinion did the Rabanan indicate to Rav Yirmiyah (or to Rav Yirmiyah's son) that they concur?

(c)In which regard does the Beraisa explain the comparison between honoring one's parents ("Kabeid Es Avicha ... ) and honoring Hash-m ("Kabeid Es Hash-m me'Honach")?

(d)How will Rav Nasan bar Oshaya explain this Beraisa?

1)

(a)They asked with whose money a son is obligated to honor his parents. Rav Yehudah said with his own money ('mi'Shel Ben' see Tosfos DH 'Rav'). Rav Nasan bar Oshaya said with that his of his parents ('mi'Shel Av').

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

(c)The Beraisa explains the comparison between honoring one's parents ("Kabeid Es Avicha ... ) and honoring Hash-m ("Kabeid Es Hash-m me'Honach") with regard to fulfilling the Mitzvah, even if it entails a financial loss.

(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.

2)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa that two brothers, two partners, a father and a son or a Rebbi and his Talmid may feed each other Ma'aser Sheni. What does the Tana mean? Since when is eating Ma'aser Sheni restricted to the owner?

(b)What else does the Tana permit them to feed each other?

(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. Why should he not?

(d)How do we therefore establish the Beraisa according to him?

2)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa that two brothers, two partners, a father and a son or a Rebbi and his Talmid may feed each other Ma'aser Sheni. What the Tana means is (not the actual concession 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).

3)

(a)Seeing as the Tana is speaking about extra meals (which the son is not obligated to provide his parents), why does Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa then add that a son who does this will be cursed?

(b)They asked Rebbi Eliezer the extent of Kibud Av va'Eim. What was his reply?

(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. In that case, what is the Chidush?

3)

(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 this 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 humiliating him (as we learned earlier).

(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 stood to inherit the contents of the purse, and sustains the loss involved.

4)

(a)What did Rav Huna once do in the presence of his son Rabah, to test his Midos?

(b)How did he avoid the problem of ...

1. ... "Lifnei Iver Lo Sitein Michshol" (which forbids one Jew to cause another Jew to sin)?

2. ... 'Bal Tashchis' (the prohibition of destroying something that is useful)?

(c)Then maybe that is why Rabah did not get angry?

4)

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

(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 where the father was Mochel (forewent) his Kavod (see Tosfos DH 'de'Machil').

2. ... 'Bal Tashchis' (the prohibition of destroying something that is useful) by establishing the case where 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').

(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.

5)

(a)Rav Yechezkel taught his son Rav Yehudah (the Talmid of Rav) a Beraisa 'ha'Nisrafin be Niskalin, Rebbi Shimon Omer Yadunu bi'Sekilah ... '. Why is that? Which form of death is more stringent according to Rebbi Shimon?

(b)What problem did Rav Yehudah have with his father's statement?

(c)What did Rav Yehudah say to his father in addressing the problem?

(d)How did he ...

1. ... amend the statement to read?

2. ... explain the Seifa, where the Chachamim state 'Yadunu bi'Sereifah, she'Sekilah Chamurah'? According to Rav Yehudah's version of the Reisha, one can now ask exactly the same Kashya here, that he asked there (The Tana could now have given the reason as the fact that the majority of the animals are 'Nisrafin')?

5)

(a)Rav Yechezkel taught his son Rav Yehudah (the Talmid of Rav) a Beraisa 'ha'Nisrafin be Niskalin, Rebbi Shimon Omer Yadunu bi'Sekilah ... ' because Sereifah is more stringent, as Rebbi Shimon goes on to say.

(b)The problem with his father's statement was the Lashon 'ha'Nisrafin be Niskalin', implying that it was 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 b'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, in that Sereifah is not more stringent (like he maintained), but Sekilah.

6)

(a)Why did Shmuel rebuke his Talmid Rav Yehudah? What did he say wrong?

(b)According to the Beraisa, how does one correct one's father? On what grounds do we reject even the original wording of the Beraisa 'Aba, Kach Kasuv ba'Torah'?

(c)In the same Beraisa, what does Elazar ben Masya say one should do if one's father asks for a drink of water, at a time when there is another Mitzvah waiting to be performed?

(d)Rav Masna however, rules like Isi ben Yehudah there. What does Isi ben Yehudah say?

6)

(a)Shmuel rebuked his Talmid Rav Yehudah for telling his father directly that he had erred.

(b)According to the Beraisa, one corrects 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 must let the other person perform the Mitzvah, whilst he tends to his father's needs.

7)

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

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

1. ... initially object to Rav Yosef's proof?

2. ... later concede that he was right? Which Pasuk in Tehilim did he bring to support it?

7)

(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 Hash-m, and He therefore has the right to forego is honor, the Torah that a Rav learns is not his but Hash-m's, and he does not therefore have the right to forego something that is not his in the first place.

2. ... later conceded that his Rebbi 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 subsequently becomes his own.

32b----------------------------------------32b

8)

(a)What was the difference between the reactions of Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua on the one hand, and Rav Mari and Rav Pinchas Brei d'Rav Mari on the other, when Rava served them drinks at his son's wedding?

(b)What problem do we have with Rava, who became angry at the latter's lack of response?

(c)How do we resolve this problem?

(d)Who else had the same experience as Rava and reacted in the same way?

8)

(a)The difference between the reactions of Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua on the one hand, and Rav Mari and Rav Pinchas Brei d'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 Rebbi, whereas the latter did not.

(b)The problem 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 having remained seated, seeing as the fact that he served them was sufficient proof that he had been Mochel 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 Brei d'Rav Yehudah remained seated when Rav Ashi served him.

9)

(a)What distinction does Rav Ashi draw between a Rav who foregoes his honor and a Nasi?

(b)What did Rebbi Yehoshua do that surprised Rebbi Eliezer at the wedding feast of Raban Gamliel's son?

(c)What did Rebbi Yehoshua reply? Who was the person who was even greater than Raban Gamliel who had done likewise?

(d)How do we know that he did not do that merely because his guests were angels?

9)

(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.

10)

(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. Who is that?

(b)This Beraisa, which clearly permits a Nasi to be Mochel his honor, forces us to amend Rav Ashi's initial statement. How do we now present Rav Ashi's distinction?

(c)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Som Tasim Alecha Melech"?

10)

(a)Rebbi Tzadok was surprised at Rebbi Yehoshua's proof from Avraham Avinu, when he could have brought a proof from Hash-m 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 is Mochel His Kavod.

(b)This Beraisa, which clearly permits a Nasi to be Mochel his honor, forces us to amend Rav Ashi's initial statement, which now reads 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).

11)

(a)The Torah writes in Kedoshim "Mipnei Seivah Takum". What does the insertion of the word "Zaken" ("v'Hadarta Pnei Zaken") teach us, according to the Tana Kama?

(b)How does Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili interpret "Zaken"? What is its acronym?

(c)What is the difference between the two opinions?

11)

(a)The Torah writes in Kedoshim "Mipnei Seivah Takum". According to the Tana Kama, the insertion of the word "Zaken" ("v'Hadarta Pnei Zaken") 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 Yosi ha'Glili interprets "Zaken" to mean someone who acquired wisdom 'Zeh she'Kanah (Chochmah since the Pasuk writes in Mishlei "Hash-m 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 Yosi ha'Glili, one must stand up for a young Talmid-Chacham too.

12)

(a)We learn three things from the juxtaposition of "Takum" next to "v'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, what do we learn about ...

1. ... Kiymah from the word "v'Hadarta"?

2. ... Hidur from the word "Takum"?

(b)Why does the Torah conclude with the words "v'Yareisa me'Elokecha"?

(c)What does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar learn from the juxtaposition of "Zaken" to "v'Yareisa"?

(d)Isi ben Yehudah is more stringent than the Tana Kama. How does he interpret "Mipnei Seivah Takum"? To what sort of Seivah is the Pasuk referring?

12)

(a)We learn three things from the juxtaposition of "Takum" next to "v'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 from ...

1. ... the word "v'Hadarta" that it is not necessary to stand up from a distance, only when he comes close, and will feel honored by the gesture.

2. ... 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 "v'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 "Zaken" to "v'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 "Zaken". Consequently, one is obligated to arise in the presence of an old man, even if he is sinful.

13)

(a)We learned earlier that, according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, one is even obligated to stand up for a young Talmid-Chacham. On what grounds does he interpret "v'Hadarta Pnei Zaken" with reference to a young Talmid-Chacham, and that "Zaken" does not go hand in hand with "Seivah", written earlier in the Pasuk?

(b)So how does he interpret the entire Pasuk, bearing in mind that "Takum v'Hadarta" is only written once?

(c)How does the Tana Kama counter Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili's proof? Why does the Torah not place "Seivah" and "Zaken" next to each other?

(d)And how does he prove that "Zaken" must refer to "Seivah", rather than being an independent word?

13)

(a)We learned earlier that, according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, one is even obligated to stand up for a young Talmid-Chacham. He interprets "v'Hadarta Pnei Zaken" with reference to a young Talmid-Chacham, and that "Zaken" does not go hand in hand with "Seivah", written earlier in the Pasuk because if it did, then the Torah should have juxtaposed "v'Hadarta" next to "Zaken" (and written "Mipnei Seivah Zaken Takum v'Hadarta".

(b)And in spite of the fact that "Takum v'Hadarta" is written only once, he interprets the entire Pasuk as if it was written twice, once with regard to "Seivah", and once with regard to "Zaken".

(c)The Tana Kama counters Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili's proof (stressing that the Torah is not able to place "Seivah" and "Zaken" next to each other) by reminding us that it needs to place "Zaken" next to "v'Yareisa" (like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar Darshened earlier).

(d)And he proves that "Zaken" must refer to "Seivah", rather than being an independent word because the Torah only write "Takum v'Hadarta" once (and not twice, as Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili explains).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF