Honor your Elders
Verse: מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן
Command: Honor and Respect your Elders
Vayikra 19:32
Type: Positive
SMG Mitzva # 13
Cross-Ref: {link}
SMG
Defining an Elder
From before the elder/senior you shall rise [α], and you shall honor the face of the elder/senior[i]. מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן.
In the Gemara[ii] [β] Isi ben Yehuda stated, the verse implies all elders [γ]. And Rabbi Yoĉanan stated that the Halaĉa follows Isi ben Yehuda, and not the Tana Kama, who qualified the term in the verse to mean exclusively both old and wise, and not Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili, who qualified the term in the verse to mean wiser, regardless of whether this is a child [lit. nursing infant] or a senior – but, Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili also admonishes the wise youngster to honor the mature elders.
One cannot explain the Gemara by stating that Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili admits the Halaĉa follows Isi ben Yehuda concerning a senior who is not wise, because then the opinions [of Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili and Isi ben Yehuda] are equivalent. Furthermore, the Gemara itself determines that the difference between the two opinions relates only to the wise child, and not a senior.
Abaya[1] would rise [even] before an old gentile [the legend in the Gemara is that he would actually offer his arm for the old man to lean on] and Rava would bestow honor but would not actually rise[2].
[However, these stories are not necessarily definitive, because] from Rava’s actions we might deduce that although the requirement to honor applies to all seniors, the requirement is not to the same degree when the senior lacks wisdom – because if so, Rava should have acted as Abaya did. As for Abaya; perhaps he only arose to assist the seniors to maintain peaceful relations with the gentiles.
[Notwithstanding the lack of concrete resolution from the stories, the SMG issues a definitive ruling:] the requirement to honor the elderly applies to any Jew who is not assumed to be evil: ([However if there is an elderly Jew who is] assumed to be evil, the following verse[iii] applies to him שאת פני רשע לא טוב) as Rabbi Yoĉanan concluded that the law follows Isi. [Furthermore] since the Rabbi Yoĉanan [continues and quotes Isi ben Yehuda] that “All elders are meant [by the inclusive terminology in the Ĉumash]” it implies that the Halaĉa follows Isi ben Yehuda and the Halaĉa follows any other opinion which adds to Isi ben Yehuda – like Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili who expands the term Elder to mean anyone with wisdom, but not the Tana Kama who limits the term to mean older and wiser.
How to Honor an Elder
The Gemara explains there [based on the connecting letter Vav] תקום והדרת – means the type of arising which has הידור – which is within four (4) Amos distance, when it would appear that it is for the Elder that one is rising. And once the Elder passes him, he should sit [back down] immediately[3].
For the head-of-Base Din, one stands when he is in sight and once he passes four (4) Amos, one can sit down immediately. There is another order explained elsewhere in Gemara[iv] on which Rabeinu Yitzĉok explained that there it is talking about within the Base Hamidrash, while our Gemara is referring to [an Elder walking] in public.
The Gemara Horayos provides the following procedure:
We learnt in a Beraissa, when the Nasi enters, everyone stands and does not sit until he bids them to ‘sit down’. When the Av Base Din enters, the people form a standing aisle for him to walk through until he himself sits down. When one of the wise enters, one by one the people stand and sit [as he passes by] until he sits in his place. [The students] the sons of the wise, and the Talmiday Ĉoĉomim when they serve the public, they may jump over people in order to reach their places [since their education serves the public, they may do what is necessary to reach their places] If a sage needed to leave temporarily, he may return and sit in his place, without concern that doing so will disturb the public.
The children of a Talmud Ĉoĉom, whose parent has been appointed to a public position, when they are capable of understanding, enter with their father and sit at his feet, with their back to the people. But if they are incapable of understanding, they sit facing the people. Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok extends this even [outside the study hall e.g., in the] house of parties, the children are accoutrements [and should sit with their father].
Rabbi Yoĉanan said, it was in the days of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel that this Mishna was taught, when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was the Nasi, Rabbi Meir was the sage, and Rabbi Nosson was the Av Base Din. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel entered, everyone rose out of respect. The same happened when Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nosson entered. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel noticed this, and stated, shouldn’t there be a difference [based on the office held]? And accordingly, they enacted this Mishna. [When they enacted the Mishna] Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nosson were not present that day. The next day when they came, they noticed people were not rising as was normal. They asked what happened and were informed that this was the ordinance passed by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
[Displeased at the unilateral decree] Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Nosson, ‘I’m the sage, and you are the Av Base Din; let’s establish something on our own. What should we do? Let us demand he discuss [the מסכת] עוקצין, which he doesn’t know[4] and once he will be shown not to have learnt that sufficiently, we will quote the verse[v] מי ימלל גבורות ה’ ישמיע כל תהלתו – who is worthy of expressing the Might of Hashem, one who can make known all his praises. Then we can remove him, and I will be Av Base Din, and you [Rabbi Nosson] will be the Nasi.’
Rabbi Yaakov ben Karshi overheard them and said [to himself] ‘Ĉas v‘Sholom! That would be humiliating!’ [But he didn’t want to speak out against Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nosson, so] he went to the second level behind Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and began reviewing [עוקצין] again and again.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel [could hear him reviewing this מסכת] and wondered to himself, ‘What is going on? Maybe something has transpired in the study hall, Ĉas v’Sholom…’ so he paid attention [to Rabbi Yaakov ben Karshi] and learnt it. The next day, [Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nosson] asked [Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel] ‘let the master teach עוקצין.’ So, he did. After he finished, he said to them ‘If I had not studied this, you would have humiliated me’ and he had them expelled from the study hall for disrespect.
Being evicted, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nosson would write questions to review and answers to problems on parchment and throw the parchments[5] in through the windows into the study hall. [seeing the ridiculousness of the situation,] Rabbi Yosi said, ‘the Torah is outside, but we are inside.’ Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agreed, and said, ‘let them in, but we will penalize them, and when they are quoted, they are not quoted by name. For Rabbi Meir he will be termed “אחרים”[6], and for Rabbi Nosson he will be termed “יש אומרים”.
[With Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ready to conditionally forgive them], the sages were told in a dream to go and appease Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Meir did not go, because he said, ‘dreams neither impel, nor dissuade.’ When Rabbi Nosson went, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to him, ‘it’s true that the belt [of office] of your father helped you become the Av Base Din, but will it also help you become Nasi as well?’
Abaya qualified [the statement concerning a regular sage, that one need only stand within four (4) Amos of him] that applies only to a regular sage, but to his רבו מובהק – which Tosefos explains[7] to be the person from whom most of his wisdom comes – one must stand within sight of his teacher. This was the technical point made by Rabbi Eliezer from Mitz, who ruled that one is only obligated to stand before the sage if he is his teacher. That is what is meant in the Mishna[vi] where we learnt one who learns from his friend one chapter, or one Halaĉa, or one saying must treat him with honor. This is what was said in Gemara[vii] [Ula said] the Babylonian students would stand for each other since they learnt from each other[8].
The Gemara which was discussing the need to prioritize the returning of lost objects to one’s teacher vs one’s father continues: they [the Babylonian students] also rend their garments in mourning when one of them pass away. But with regard to lost objects, they only [prioritize] the returning of such objects to one’s main teacher.
Rav Ĉisda raised the following question to Rav Huna [who was his study partner / teacher] ‘What if there was a student whom his teacher needed [meaning the student was needed by the teacher to explain something], what is the Halaĉa as to treating him as his teacher.’
Rav Huna answered, ‘Ĉisda, Ĉisda! I don’t need you; you need me until you complete forty (40) years[9] of study with me.’
[For a while] they became angry with each other over the perceived insults until eventually each one fasted forty (40) fasts for having insulted the other.
And in Gemara[viii] we learnt [the case of Rabbi Ĉiya who was sitting in the bath house, and Rabbi Shimon bar Rebbe past by him – without acknowledging respect for Rabbi Ĉiya, who went and complained to Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi] ‘two (2) fifths [δ] of Sefer Tehillim I taught him, and he didn’t stand up for me.’
The Gemara adds Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s answer, ‘perhaps he was sitting and contemplating about what you taught him, and didn’t see you come in.’
Nevertheless, our sages have rules that one must stand before every Talmud Ĉoĉom even if it is not his teacher, as we learnt from the Gemara[ix] which said ‘how foolish are these people who stand out of respect for the Sefer Torah, but do not stand for the great people. The Sefer Torah says[x] ארבעים יכנו, but the sages have come[xi] and removed one [of the lashes from the forty (40) – maximum lashes punishable by the Torah is limited to thirty-nine (39) see positive Mitzvah 105]’ [ε]. The commentaries explain that the sages’ power is greater [than that of the Torah], since without them we would not know what the Torah means. But nevertheless, the Torah is actually greater than the sages, because we learnt in the Gemara[xii] the Torah does not stand up for those who learn it [but the opposite holds – those who learn it stand up for the Torah[10].] [ζ]
Additional anecdotes from that Gemara include; Rav Papa served drinks at his son’s wedding celebration, and when he poured drinks to Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, the latter rose in respect. But when he poured for Rav Mari and Rav Pinchas son of Rav Ĉisda, they didn’t rise, and Rav Papa became upset.
Another time he was pouring drinks at the wedding celebration of his [other] son, Abba Mar. He poured the drink for Rabbi Yitzĉok the son of Rav Yehuda who did not rise, and Rav Papa became upset.
This indicates that even when an elder forgoes his own honor [as Rav Papa did to pour drinks], we are still required to honor him.
How to Walk with one’s Rabbi
We learnt in the Gemara[xiii] Rav Yehudah said, one who walks to the right of his Rabbi is a boor[11] [η], on which the Gemara asks based on a Beraissa if there are three (3) walking together, the Rav walks in the middle, the next greatest to his right, and the next to his left. The Gemara answers not actually to his right, but rather [a step or so] behind, and [similarly] the one on the left is [actually a step or so] behind – so that [from the rear] the Rabbi is covered.
The Gemara also offers another example, when the three (3) angels came to visit Avraham Aveinu[xiv], Miĉa-el was in the center, Gavri-el was to his right, and Rafa-el was to his left.[12]
The Gemara offers another Beraissa – one who walks corresponding to his Rabbi is a boor (corresponding means on the side of) and one who walks behind his Rabbi is haughty [which would seem to contradict the previous statement that people should be walking to the right and left of one’s teacher]. The Gemara answers, the students should walk not quite to the side and not directly behind.
In the Gemara[xv] we learned when taking leave of one’s Rabbi, do not turn around and leave.
As to what he should do when taking his leave; the Gemara states he should turn his face sideways (keeping his teacher in view) and leave that way. As we find with Rabbi Elazar and [his teacher] Rabbi Yoĉanan. When Rabbi Yoĉanan would leave, Rabbi Elazar would stand with head bowed until Rabbi Yoĉanan was not visible, and when Rabbi Elazar had to leave, he would walk backward until he could no longer be seen by Rabbi Yoĉanan and then he would turn to walk normally.
Similarly, we find with Rava and [his teacher] Rav Yosef, when Rava would leave, he would walk backwards, often bumping into furniture and scratching his legs to the point where the threshold of Rav Yosef’s house was bloodied from Rava’s constant wounds. When they told Rav Yosef[13] what Rava was doing, he responded ‘May it be G‑d Almighty’s will that he be elevated above the entire city.’
Other ways to show Respect
[Similarly], we learned elsewhere in Gemara[xvi] [another sign of disrespect that one must not do in front of his Rabbi] a Talmud may not rule on Halaĉa in front of his Rabbi unless he finds himself at a distance of three (3) Parsas. Rabeinu Yitzĉok explained[xvii] [the prohibition against ruling in front of his Rabbi within the three (3) Parsa distance applies] even when he has permission from his Rabbi, because without permission, even outside that range is forbidden – as is implied from the Gemara[xviii].
In the Gemara[xix] we’ve said that it is forbidden to greet your Rabbi, and as Rabeinu Shlomo explained, this means to say שלום עליך without adding [an honorific title like] רבי. The Yerushalmi[xx] says, the custom is the young do not greet based on the verse[xxi] quoted by Rabba ראוני נערים ונחבאו.
The Yerushalmi relates as follows: Rabbi Yoĉanan (who was an old man) was leaning on Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi. Rabbi Elazar saw them and hid from them. [as to the reason why he did this,] he (Rabbi Yoĉanan) said, ‘this Babylonian (Rabbi Elazar) is doing two things, one that he didn’t greet me, and the other that he doesn’t quote in my name.’ He was answered (it is unclear as to who answered – but presumably it was Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi who answered Rabbi Yoĉanan), ‘This is the custom here; Zaira did not ask after Rabba’s welfare[14], based on the verse ראוני נערים ונחבאו.
As they were walking, they saw a study hall, and he (Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi) said to him (Rabbi Yoĉanan who was still leaning on Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi) ‘here is where Rabbi Meir would sit and teach, and he related the oral tradition in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, but he didn’t relate an oral tradition from Rabbi Akiva’. He (Rabbi Yoĉanan) answered ‘everyone knows that Rabbi Meir was the student of Rabbi Akiva.’ To which he (Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi) answered, ‘everyone knows that Rabbi Elazar is the student of Rabbi Yoĉanan.’ [Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi then proceeded to ask an obvious question] ‘May one pass by a cursed[15] statue?’ Rabbi Yoĉanan answered, ‘What? [is the reason why you want to pass before it, is it because] you want to honor it?! Pass before it and blind its eyes!’ Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi responded, ‘It is a good thing Rabbi Elazar did not pass in front of you.’ To which Rabbi Yoĉanan said, ‘Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi, you know how to pacify.’[16]
In the Gemara[xxii] we learnt [the verse states] תקום והדרת, you might think this can be accomplished with money[17] that’s what the [juxtaposition of] תקום והדרת teaches us, just like getting up does not cost anything, so too והדרת should not cost anything. And the reverse is true, just like הידור does not involve work-stoppage, so too getting up [should only be done if there] will not be work-stoppage. This is the source for what we say that people working do not have permission (רשאין) to rise before a Talmud Ĉoĉom while they are working [θ]. [the SMG clarifies], ‘Do not have permission’ (רשאין) means they are not obliged to, as we find[xxiii] with the word נושה is translated as permitted (רשיא)[18]. We find something similar elsewhere in Gemara[xxiv] regarding one who donates an assessment, where he says, ‘this ox (that should be offered as a sacrifice) shall be consecrated.’ Even though he’s not permitted to do so [since the ox, having been designated as a sacrifice – is no longer his to donate, he is still assessed the value that someone [ι] would pay in order to be the one who brings that ox as a sacrifice] – that type of ‘not being permitted’ is like not being obligated [in that he is not obligated to replace the ox, which has now been consecrated, with another ox to be used as a sacrifice].
The Gemara [further] teaches us, you might think that one should stand before the Elder in the bathhouse or the bathroom, which is why the verse [juxtaposed] the terms תקום והדרת, one should only get up when doing so provides honor. You might think you can shut your eyes before the Elder gets within four (4) Amos [and then you wouldn’t be obligated to rise since you haven’t seen the Elder within the required space], that is why the verse continues with ויראת – [every time the Torah talks about] something which only a person knows in his heart, it says ויראת [meaning one can’t trick G‑d Almighty, and one needs to do the right thing without trickery.]. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said, how do you know an Elder shouldn’t trouble the public, from the [juxtaposition] of זקן ויראת – [by troubling the public, he means] to [or not to] go by shortcut, which would trouble the public.[19]
Also, there [in the Gemara, we learnt] [κ] a Talmud Ĉoĉom is not ‘permitted – רשאי’ to stand in front of his Rabbi, [more than once each] morning and evening, so that the honor giving to the Rabbi is not more than the honor given to heaven. The meaning of ‘permitted – רשאי’ here is obligated [λ].
Who takes Precedence
We have to say that the term תקום והדרת applies to the word before, שיבה – which means all seniors, and it also applies to the word after, זקן. And that is why it was written between both words, and the Torah didn’t order the verse like it could have, e.g., תקום מפני שיבה, ופני זקן תהדר. Accordingly, we find that Hashem has commanded both, קימה & הידור to apply to both [Elders]. Which though comes first? In the Gemara[xxv] it was determined that with regard to the study hall (as in matters related to the teaching of Torah) one follows whichever is wiser[20], but with regard to meals (as in matters related to public celebrations and similar activities) age comes first. Rav Ashi said, only if there is a significant difference in either wisdom or age [between the two Elders]. Rabeinu Shmuel wrote there[xxvi] if there isn’t someone wondrously wise or old, then wisdom always takes precedence over age.
In the Tosefta[xxvii] we learnt, how is it known that one who teaches a single chapter to his friend, it is as if he formed him, soul and body, and brought him into this world – as it says[xxviii] ואם תוציא יקר מזולל כפי תהיה – meaning[21] like that same mouth that threw (blew) [22] a soul into Adam Ha’Rishon, so too he who brings each creature (one) at a time under the wings of the Sheĉina, the Torah considers him as if he formed him, body and soul, and brought them into the world.
Our Rabbis have said[xxix] (to the future Rabbi’s) ‘One should hold the honor of your students as dear on you as your own honor’, and ‘Students increase wisdom in the teacher’, as we say in the Gemara[xxx] ‘I have learnt much Torah from my Rabbis, and more from my friends, and from my students – I learnt more than from all of them.’ And we conclude elsewhere in Gemara[xxxi] the Halaĉa is, we honor a student even in the place of the Rav, when the Rav himself honors the student.
[1] Possibly out of all the sages, the SMG chose the stories of Abaya to prove his point, because Abaya was a descendant of Ayli the Kohen, whose offspring was cursed to die young [around forty (40)]. Actually, due to his exceptional character, Abaya lived longer. So most likely, the stories occurred while he was still a younger man.
[2] Rava was wealthy and was able to assign servants to act on his behalf.
[3] A spectator watching an Elder pass through a group of people, would see the people performing a slow wave [without the hand/arm motions] like fans do in a sports stadium when they are trying to counter the tedium of watching a game.
[4] In the order of Taharah (which is the most difficult order), the tractate עוקצין which deals with the application of the rules of Taharah to stems of various fruits is widely regarded as the most difficult tractate. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the Nasi who was not a farmer, and who was presiding in a time when the rules of Taharah had been rendered theoretical with the destruction of the Base Hamikdash, was doubly handicapped, and would have been publicly embarrassed.
It should be noted that this is only one example (the most famous example was when he ordered Rabbi Yehoshua to show up in the study hall with leather shoes, carrying his staff and purse on the date that Rabbi Yehoshua had calculated based on astronomy which would have been Yom Kippur – while the Base Din had accepted testimony rendering Yom Kippur a day later) of the decisive and authoritarian like actions taken unilaterally by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel at the time to stamp out any possibility of divisiveness among the Pharisees and in order to move from the extremely destructive fractured society the Jewish people had previously lived in – which had directly led to the destruction of the Base Hamikdash and the Roman cruelties – to one of unity and led by the rules of Torah without the possibility for a cult of personality to arise and further fracture the nation.
[5] Presumably they made paper airplanes, and wrote their words of Torah on the wings, since crumpling up words of Torah that they had just written would hardly have been respectful, and, considering the nature of the ink and parchment used then, would have smudged the letters beyond legibility. This of course suggests familiarity with origami to a degree that was hardly common knowledge in those days.
To suggest they tied the parchments to rocks and threw those in is also unlikely, since throwing rocks in through the window would probably have resulted in injuries.
[6] Probably a reference to Rabbi Meir’s teacher, Elisha ben Avuya, who was known as אחר because he abandoned the Torah for much of his life, and people couldn’t believe he was who he said he was – and they thought he must be someone else.
[7] The term מובהק is a reference to the phenomenon of בהק in the rules of Tza’ra’as. Vayikra 13:39 describes a case where various bright spots appear all over the skin, בהק הוא פרח בעור טהור הוא. Rashi notes the term בהק is like the white freckles that appears on red-skilled people, which (presumably the people) are called רושו, like a freckled person who between the freckles there are spots of pure white breaking through – מבהיק. Thus, the usage of this term is a reference to standing out and clarity – as in it is patently obvious that this person is one’s Rabbi.
[8] The style of learning there being more like the חברותה style from current Yeshivos as compared to the old style of lecture halls filled with people listening to the sages reviewing the Oral Torah.
[9] A reference to the dictum that ‘one does not understand his teacher’s intent until after forty (40) years of study.’ This is based on the verse [Devarim 29:3] ולא נתן ה’ לכם לב לדעת ועינים לראות ואזנים לשמע, עד היום הזה – which was said by Moshe Rabeinu to the Jewish people only after forty (40) years in the wilderness.
[10] Based on which, the practice of the Rabbi giving his speech while the Torah sits and waits there should be discontinued. The counter argument being the Torah’s presence ensures greater attendance and attention during the speech – which only honors the words of Torah spoken.
[11] Interestingly, this is one of the words adopted by English from the Hebrew. The origin is perhaps a reference to והבור רק אין בו מים the Midrashic saying regarding the pit that Yosef was thrown into by his brothers, the pit was empty and there was no water (which is compared to Torah). When his brothers threw him into the pit, Yosef was either too traumatized to learn or was prohibited due to the condition of the physical environment.
[12] The Ben Yehoyada notes that the Gemara offers this as proof since in any other instance, one might think the reason people walk on either side of the teacher is to assist him, as teachers are generally older than the students. We can’t say that though with angels, and the only reason the angels would walk this way is due to the honor and respect accorded to their positions of greatness.
The Gemara and the commentaries seem to take it for granted that the angel’s hierarchy is as presented in the Gemara and offer no explanation or source as to why one or the other would be greater than the other. We could easily argue that the order of the angels was based on the priority of their missions: Notification of the birth of Yitzchok by Miĉa-el, followed by the blinding of the people of S’dom by Gavri-el, and then saving Lot and his daughters by Rafa-el. (Perhaps the healing of Avraham doesn’t count, either because that was done by Rafa-el before they were observed standing before Avraham, or it was performed by Hashem – as the Midrash notes that Hashem ‘removed the sun from its’ sheath in order to heal Avraham.) However, Rashi on the Gemara discounts this possibility as he notes they would not all have been considered נצבים עליו if they were standing in a line – one in front of the other. How then was the proper order of priority determined?
As the Gemara is speaking of angelic beings, a certain level of Kabbalistic discussion will need to be reviewed in order to understand the Gemara. This order of priority is found in the Chariot of Yeĉezkel [Yeĉezkel 1:10] where the face of the lion, Miĉa-el, is to the right, the face of the ox, Gavri-el, to the left, and the face of the eagle, Rafa-el. As they are in that vision accompanying the face of the man [Yeĉezkel 1:5] that is why the face of the lion is to the right as opposed to being the center. While this provides proof of the order of priority for the angels, which supports the Gemara’s proof that the most important is in the center, followed by his right and then his left, it doesn’t explain why these angels were at the level they were at.
My teacher, Rabbi Gurary, taught me that the order is defined by how close they can get to G‑d Almighty. As with all things, holiness is defined by closeness with G‑d Almighty, and evil is the opposite. The angel Miĉa-el is the leader of the cohort of kindness. Kindness is quintessentially associated with G‑d Almighty’s nature, and thus he is the greatest of angels, as his camp is closest to G‑d Almighty. The angel Gavri-el is the leader of the cohort of strength, and this ability is also close to the creator as only the creator has the power of creation. However, this is only a power of the creator, and not his nature, and thus they are more removed from the cohort of kindness. The angel Rafa-el is the leader of the cohort of mercy, which is only active when the attributes of kindness and strength are applicable. And while mercy has the ability to moderate both kindness and strength – and is therefore greater than both – it is still further away from being close to G‑d Almighty as it must by its nature take into account that which G‑d Almighty is being merciful to.
[13] It is interesting that in both cases, the Gemara chooses a sage who didn’t have the ability to see his student leaving. Rabbi Yoĉanan was known [Gem. Bava Kama 117a] to have eyebrows that were so long that he couldn’t properly see. Which means that Rabbi Yoĉanan wouldn’t have seen Rabbi Elazar had the latter turned his back and walked out normally. And Rav Yosef was known to be blind [Gem. Kiddushin 31a].
[14] The Gemara can be taken literally, as Rabbi Ze’ira was a student of Rabba. But it could also be taken euphemistically since their names mean ‘young’ and ‘great’ respectively – which would render the statement as ‘the young do not ask after the welfare of the great.’
[15] In the version of the Yerushalmi we have, the word here is אהדורי, which means returned. The commentaries note that this is different than the similar times this is mentioned in Gemara Yerushalmi; Shekalim 2:6 and Moed Kattan 3:2 – where the term used is ארורי, which means cursed. They therefore suggest this version is a scrivener’s error, and the meaning should be ‘cursed’, not ‘returned’.
I would respectfully note that the version need not be changed, and that the term ‘returned’ is appropriate here, for two reasons: 1) to invalidate an idol, the worshipers must repudiate it. Cursing the idol would certainly be one means of accomplishing it, but ‘returning it’ might be a similar euphemism which would be like if one purchased something defective and returned it to the manufacturer. Accordingly, ‘cursed idol’ and ‘returned idol’ could very well be the same thing. 2) Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi was in the process of pacifying Rabbi Yoĉanan and would have avoided using words that could give rise to anything negative, including the word cursed – even if meant changing the text of the question slightly so as to lead Rabbi Yoĉanan away from any thoughts of cursing Rabbi Elazar.
We can take this a step further and imply that this was actually Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi’s intent, to demonstrate that there were two ways of dealing with the ‘idol’ – the wrongness in behavior of Rabbi Elazar – there was the ‘cursed’ way, and there was the ‘returned’ way, the way of reconciliation. Which is what Rabbi Yoĉanan agreed to.
Out of deference to the great commentators, notwithstanding what I believe is a viable (and possibly better) interpretation of the Gemara, I have left the translation as they have suggested, since they are the commentators, and I am me.
[16] Gemara Yevamos 96b records a similar situation.
[17] without specifying what type of הידור to provide for the Elder, the verse leaves its application open to interpretation. In this context, הידור can be taken to mean more valuable, as we find people commonly feel that if they spend more money on the performance of a Mitzva, that equates to a ‘better’ Mitzva.
[18] The verse speaks of a lender which is usually a מלוה, but here he is called a נושה – someone who has permission to take what is not theirs, i.e., a lender. However, because the verse is talking about lending between Jewish brethren, that is why interest is forbidden, as no one would think to charge interest to a family member, even if otherwise the borrower would give permission.
[19] The comment of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar could be taken to mean the Elder would like to take a shortcut to arrive at his destination quicker, but doing so might trouble the people who are there – who would be suddenly expected to drop what they are doing to treat the Elder with respect. Alternatively, the statement from Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar could be taken to mean, should the Elder move quickly through the public spaces so as to not trouble the public for long time periods, or should he move more sedately, even if it means people have to stand in his presence for longer. Either way, consideration needs to be given to the public, and the Elder should do what he can to diminish his public appearance impact, and if he is truly an Elder, figuring that out should not be difficult for him.
[20] This is based on the two times the Torah lists out the daughters of Tzelafĉad. The first time, when speaking of their intelligent demand of Moshe to grant them inheritance in the land of Israel, the verse [Bamidbar 27:1] orders them according to their wisdom; Maĉla, Noa, Ĉagla, Milka and Tirtza. But the second time, when Hashem informs them that they should marry within the tribe to protect the integrity of tribal land rights (since they were now inheritors of the land), the verse [Bamidbar 36:11] orders them according to age; Maĉla, Tirtza, Ĉagla, Milka and Noa – since the custom is that the oldest should marry first. [see Beraishis 29:26]
This explains why meals would be different, since in the Blessings after the meal we thank G‑d Almighty for the land he has given us, and for its produce from which we have eaten.
[21] Rashi explains this to refer to a person who causes someone to turn away from a bad path – he brings forth something precious from something cheap. Such a person shall have the power to decree, just like G‑d Almighty. [meaning G‑d Almighty had placed the person in a situation where he gradually became wicked. But then along comes the righteous and extricates this person from the bad influences – making the righteous on par with G‑d Almighty so to speak.]
[22] As it says in the verse [Beraishis 2:7] ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים.
[i] Vayikra 19:32
[ii] Gem. Kiddushin 32b
[iii] Mishley 18:5
[iv] Gem. Horayos 13b
[v] Tehillim 106:2
[vi] Pirkey Avos 6:3
[vii] Gem. Bava Metzia 33a
[viii] Gem. Kiddushin 33a
[ix] Gem. Bava Metzia 33a
[x] Devarim 25:3
[xi] Gem. Makkos 22b
[xii] Gem. Kiddushin 32b
[xiii] Gem. Yoma 37a
[xiv] Beraishis 18:2
[xv] Gem. Yoma 53a
[xvi] Gem. Sanhedrin 5b
[xvii] Tosefos אלא
[xviii] Gem. Eiruvin 63a
[xix] Gem. Beraĉos 27b
[xx] Yer. Beraĉos 2:1
[xxi] Iyov 29:8
[xxii] Gem. Kiddushin 32b – 33a
[xxiii] Shemos 22:24
[xxiv] Gem. Eraĉin 28b
[xxv] Gem. Bava Basra 120a
[xxvi] Tosefos והוא
[xxvii] Horayos 2:7
[xxviii] Yirmiyahu 15:19
[xxix] Pirkey Avos 4:12
[xxx] Gem. Ta’anis 7a
[xxxi] Gem. Bava Basra 119b
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] the SMK and the Ashiri quantify the elderly as those being seventy (70) years old or older.
[β] This is the language of the Gemara:
Based on the verse מפני שיבה תקום you might think this includes an ignorant[1] old person, which is why the Torah also uses the term זקן, which is only used for a wise person, as we know from the verse אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל. Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili says the term זקן is only applied to a person who has acquired wisdom as it says ה’ קנני ראשית דרכו. Isi ben Yehudah says [the verse states] מפני שיבה תקום which implies any Senior [meaning the determination that a Senior must be wise is only derived from the second half of the verse, the first half was written without the term זקן which, in following Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili’s logic must mean it applies to any senior.] Which means there is no difference of opinion between Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili and the original author of the Beraissa. The Gemara answers there could be a difference of opinion with regard to a young person who is also wise, the original author of the Beraissa, [whose opinion is the second half of the verse is explaining the first half] would hold that such a person is not included in the obligation to honor an Elder, while Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili, who based his opinion on[2] the verse ה’ קנני, would hold that such a person is included in the obligations of the verse.
So what then is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili [that leads him to dispute with the original author of the Beraissa and include young wise people in the obligation to respect Elders]; he would say if the original author of the Beraissa is correct that the obligation is only to respect the old, then the verse should have stated מפני שיבה תקום והדרת, and that’s it, but now that the Torah divides the verse into two clauses, then each must be referring to something different, this teaches us that even a young person who is wise [is included], and this is how the verse would read מפני שיבה תקום והדרת – one must rise and treat with respect – פני זקן – a person who has acquired wisdom, even while young.
RASHI explains that since the verse depends on whether wisdom is acquired, this excludes an ignorant senior – because we can’t say that Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili also argues that even an ignorant senior is included, because then his opinion would be indistinguishable from Isi ben Yehudah.
TOSEFOS adds in the name of the RY that Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili could indeed argue with both Isi ben Yehudah, and the original author of the Beraissa, if we extend Isi ben Yehudah’s opinion to include elderly gentiles. However, this is not possible since we have not found anywhere an obligation to venerate elderly gentiles – at least not from the Torah. As we find further in the Gemara where Rabbi Yoĉanan would rise for the elderly Arameans out of respect for their vast life experiences – and he did not say he does this because he holds like Isi ben Yehudah.
One might ask according to Rashi who explains Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili as stating that only wise people are included, whether they be young or old – if so, why does the Torah use the term שיבה (which applies to old people) altogether? Since the determining factor is wisdom, then surely if one is obligated to respect a young person who is wise, one is also obligated to respect an Elder.
It seems to the RY that when we find someone young who is also wise, that is a rare phenomenon, and one might not apply logic to assume that a regular Elder, who has acquired wisdom over the course of his long life, should be equally treated [or perhaps even more treated] with respect as the young prodigy.
According to this way of thinking by the RY – if we find an Elder and a young prodigy of equal wisdom, the prodigy must respect the Elder and give way before him, since the prodigy must be exceptional, while the Elder need not be.
[The resulting understanding of the argument in the Gemara is:
- The original author’s opinion: only Elders are included.
- Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili’s opinion: only the wise are included regardless of age.
- Isi ben Yehudah’s opinion: Jewish seniors are included [whether wise or not], and the young prodigies are included as well.]
Accordingly, in the opinion of Isi ben Yehudah, who holds that all seniors are included in the obligation to be respected but does not exclude the young prodigy either… the young prodigy need not show respect to the Elder, since the advantage of wisdom has not been made dependent on age… which is extremely problematic.
The Ashiri writes: Since the opinion of Isi ben Yehudah includes all seniors, then [in order to also include a young prodigy in the obligation from the verse,] he must hold that the term in the verse זקן must mean ‘one who has acquired wisdom’ – which aligns with the opinion of Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili who also includes the young prodigy, because if not, then what is learnt from the verse והדרת פני זקן since [Isi ben Yehudah] holds that a regular old Jew is included – which in fact is the Halaĉa.
As for what the ROSH asks in his commentary as follows: From where did Isi [ben Yehudah] determine that a young prodigy is included? Perhaps both clauses in the verse refer to the elderly – the first clause for a regular senior, and the second clause to teach us that seniors must respect Elders as the RY established?’
This though is a mistake, since he understood that the RY learnt the purpose of the verse is to admonish the young wise person to respect the Elder – which is not so. The verse does not talk about that. Rather, the explanation [of the RY] is as Tosefos wrote that [to qualify as a person included in the verse], the young wise person must be a prodigy. And then, we would automatically determine that since the [application of the] verse depends on the state of wisdom – then when both are in equal wisdom, [the young and the elderly,] the young must respect the elderly. But that is a case derived from the verse, which is not explicitly talking about this – and accordingly there are no questions. Sort of.
[γ] ‘all elders’ implies even a complete boor, so long as he’s not an evil person for whom one may turn one’s face away.
[δ] meaning reading the two fifths of a Sefer Torah. And the commentaries note that the Tehillim is also divided into five (5) books, like the Torah.[3]
[ε] as for why this example is the one mentioned out of all the other examples is to teach you that a Talmud Ĉoĉom has performed a kindness [even for people deserving of punishment], for the Torah states explicitly that the perpetrator gets forty (40) lashes, but the sages reduced that by [at least] one (1). Therefore, it is easy to understand that it is worthy to stand in their honor.
[ζ] When the person is studying and is before the Torah itself [he need not stand out of respect for the Elder]. But then the Gemara brings Abaya’s argument thereafter[4] – so one can ask if one is truly exempt when studying. Based on the story, even while studying Torah, one is required to stand up. That is also the ruling of the Tur explicitly. So too the Rif and the Rambam, and there are no compilers [of Halaĉa] who rule mention [that one may sit while learning].
Also, the phrase [used by the SMG] “But nevertheless, the Torah is actually greater than the sages” is not sitting well. Therefore, it seems [to Maharshal] that from the proof brought by the book [the SMG] that we conclude there [with a fortiori argument of] ‘from its learners we stand, from the Sefer Torah we certainly do’. The book [of the SMG] only quoted from the Gemara and nothing further, and he [the author] depended on the quote as being self-understood. But there must have been a student somewhere who edited it mistakenly. So too the RAN asks on this.
Here the fortiori argument is brought, which implies the opposite – that obviously respect for the Sefer Torah is better, but were it not for those who study it, the Sefer Torah would be wrapped and placed [unused in the ark.] It must be as I have explained.
Discussion
There seems to be an implication from the SMG, when he notes that the Torah is greater than the sages – based on which, one might conclude that one might not need to show respect to the sage, if one is currently learning. Maharshal comes to dispute that and notes that even when Rav Mesharshya was learning on the other side of the river, Abaya took them to task for failing to stand up in respect. Maharshal therefore concludes that the fortiori argument is meant to convey the opposite intention, that since one is obligated to stand up for the Torah, certainly one is obligated to stand up for those who teach it, even while they themselves are learning. Maharshal furthermore implies that this was the SMG’s intention all along, based on the introduction phrase to the fortiori ‘ומכל מקום’ which implies that what is about to be presented qualifies previous statements.
[η] to the right of his teacher, he is a boor. Rashi explains that he is no expert even on polite manners [which is why he is termed a boor].
[θ] While working, [the SMG states they are not obligated to stand up] – that is only when conducting one’s own work. But when working for others, then they have no permission to stand up [and interrupt their work][5]. See Tosefos and the Rosh.
[ι] Meaning we estimate the amount that the person who made this declaration would be willing to pay to be the one to bring this ox as a free will burnt offering, even though he has no obligation to bring a sacrifice. This is talking about a person who consecrated all his possessions, including animals which had been designated as burnt offerings, and now wants to redeem them [by paying their value instead to the Base Hamikdash]. How would he go about redeeming those burnt offerings – we evaluate how much a person would be willing to pay for this ox to bring it as a no-obligation burnt offering, which is not that expensive like the value assigned to a person who had an obligation to bring such an offering. This is easy to understand.
[κ] The Rosh wrote that the Rif did not quote this [Gemara], which means the Halaĉa does not follow this. [Meaning the obligation to stand applies regardless of whether the student had previously stood up that day or not.]
[λ] Maharshal wonders; since the reasoning as to why a student has no obligation to stand more than by morning and evening; so that he will not be according more honor to his teacher than he does to heaven [by standing during the Amida] – then it would seem that here, the term אינו ראשי should not mean ‘he is not obligated to’, as the SMG says, but rather it should mean ‘he has no permission to’ [because if the student does do so, even though he isn’t obligated, then that would accord more honor to the teacher than to heaven].
None of the commentaries mention this, and even the Rambam does not write this [that one has no obligation to rise more than twice]. Rather [he writes] they have no permission to do so. However, previously, regarding workers, the SMG wrote אין חייבין – that they are not obligated, which means the usage of the phrase here אינו ראשי – is exact and means ‘he is not able to’.
Tosefos writes, this applies specifically to students who live[6] in the house of their teacher – but others, they are obligated to stand even a hundred times [a day]. And even those students [who live in the house of their teacher], if the circumstances change [meaning if the teacher comes at unusual times, or does something unusual which people would normally stand up for], they too would have to stand [even if they had already risen more than twice that day.] The Ritz wrote this [exception] only applies within the study hall, but outdoors, the students must rise each time so that they will not appear to be lax [in honoring their teacher].
[1] The term used by the Gemara is זקן אשמאי – a guilty senior. In this case, given his age, if the person remains ignorant, he must have some level of guilt in that over the course of all his long years he did not acquire any חכמה.
[2] In which case, it is possible to state Rabbi Yosi Ha’Glili’s opinion is that the word זקן is actually an acronym of זה שקנה חכמה.
[3] The Book of Tehillim is divided into five (5) books corresponding to the five (5) books of the Torah.
- Psalm 1 – 42; Book One Beraishis.
- Psalm 43 – 72; Book Two Shemos.
- Psalm 73 – 89; Book Three Vayikra.
- Psalm 90 – 106; Book Four Bamidbar.
- Psalm 107 – 150; Book Five Devarim.
Just like the Ĉumash is the mainstay of the written Torah, Tehillim is the mainstay of prayer. A discussion on how these correspond is far beyond the scope of this work.
[4] Presumably Maharshal is referencing the story from further on in Gem. Kiddushin 33a. Abya would stand as soon as he saw the ear of the donkey of [his teacher] Rav Yosef. One time, Abaya was riding on a donkey on the banks of the סגיא river [unsure if that is a real river, or a reference to studying a bloc of Gemara], and he saw a group of sages sitting on the other side with Rav Mesharshya [Abaya’s student. Presumably they were studying and did not arise when he came into view]. He said to them, ‘am I not your primary teacher’ to which they responded, ‘we didn’t think of that.’ To which the commentaries explain they meant that they didn’t see him. Implying that to honor a sage, one must rise even in the midst of studying Torah.
[5] That a worker may not interrupt his work, even for important matters, is derived from Yaakov’s statement upon meeting the shepherds gathered around the well – השקו הצאן ולכו רעו. [Beraishis 29:7]
[6] There were a few months when I was studying for Semicha when I was homeless and had to sleep at 770 Eastern Parkway. Thank G‑d Almighty I was able to sleep in a dark corner of the women’s section without being bothered while at night. Accordingly, this section could have applied to me.
RASHI
The Torah in Vayikra uses two words for elder / senior שיבה and זקן: Rashi comments that the term זקן is added to the verse to exclude a “guilty” old person. [As Rabbi Yoĉanan stated,] the second term for an elder / senior is added to the verse in Vayikra to expand the set of who should be honored to include all the wise, regardless of if they are elderly. All those who have ‘acquired wisdom’ are included.
However, on the verse in Mishley, Rashi comments: “As our sages have explained: It is not good for the wicked that they are honored in this world and repaid [for their evil] in the world to come.”
Discussion by SMS
Rashi’s commentary [unlike the thrust of the other commentaries] on Mishley implies that were it not for the detrimental effect on the evil senior, we would be honor-bound to honor even the “guilty” elderly… However, this is not a contradictory opinion to his commentary on Vayikra.
The Elder to whom honor is required includes even evil elderly people… but the obligation to honor them is held in abeyance for the evil elderly person’s own sake – which is the greatest honor that can be accorded them; acting in their best interest by not honoring them, in order that they be spared additional punishment in the world-to-come, even to your detriment [by forgoing the observance of the commandment to honor the elderly]. This is quite extraordinary circular logic! Honor the wicked elderly by not showing them honor!
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
Supplemental
The Gemara[i] provides the following lists in terms of priority honorific treatment:
- A sage takes precedence over a king, since any Jew can be crowned king, but sages are irreplaceable.
- A king takes precedence over a Kohen Gadol, based on the verse[ii] where Dovid instructs the Kohen Gadol to take Shlomo to crown him as king.
- A Kohen Gadol takes precedence over a prophet, since in the verse where Shlomo was instructed to be crowned, Tzadok the Kohen [Gadol] was mentioned before Nassan the prophet.
- A Kohen Gadol who was anointed takes precedence over one who took office by donning the vestments, but a Kohen Gadol who took office by donning the vestments takes precedence over one anointed if he was removed from his post for having a seminal discharge. And a Kohen Gadol who was removed from his post for having a seminal discharge takes precedence over one who was removed due to a physical defect which developed.
- A Kohen Gadol takes precedence over the Kohen anointed for war.
- The Kohen anointed for war takes precedence over the vice Kohen Gadol.
- The vice Kohen Gadol takes precedence over the Amarkal [a term meaning אמר כל] – the Chief of Staff (in charge of the entire Base Hamikdash)
- The Amarkal takes precedence over the treasurer.
- The treasurer takes precedence over the head of the Kohanic watch.
- The head of the watch takes precedence over the head of the Kohanic House.
- The head of the house takes precedence over the regular Kohen.
- A Kohen takes precedence over a Levi.
- A Levi takes precedence over a Yisroel.
- A regular Jew takes precedence over a Bastard.
- A bastard takes precedence over a Nassin – the descendants of the Givonites (one of the original peoples who lived in Israel who were not eradicated and were never accepted into Jewish society due to their natural cruelty), since a bastard was born from kosher people.
- A Nassin takes precedence over a non-Jewish settler, since the Nassin grew up among Jews.
- A non-Jewish settler takes precedence over a freed Cana’anite slave, since the settler is not descendent from the cursed nation of Cana’an.
But all this is only when they are otherwise equal. If, however, one is a sage while the other is ignorant – then even a bastard Talmud Ĉoĉom takes precedence over a Kohen Gadol. This is based on[iii] the famous story about the sages Sh’maya and Avtalyon (who were converts descended from the evil Assyrian king Sanĉeirev). Once, when the Yom Kippur service was concluded, the Kohen Gadol left as was normal to go and make a thanksgiving feast for having survived entrance into the Kodesh Kadshim. The people thronged to follow him home, but when they saw Sh’maya and Avtalyon, they flocked to the sages and left the Kohen Gadol.
The sages eventually extricated themselves from the crowd, and went to pay their respects to the Kohen Gadol, who insulted them passively by greeting them with ‘May the descendants of gentiles come in peace.’ They responded, ‘Let the descendants of gentiles come in peace – who perform the acts of Aharon (who was known as the pursuer of peace), rather than letting the descendent of Aharon come in peace who does not follow Aharon’s ways.’
[i] Gem. Horayos 13a
[ii] Melaĉim I 1:33
[iii] Gem. Yoma 71b
Discourse from Lekutei Torah – והדרת פני זקן
This verse[i] [והדרת פני זקן] refers to one who has ‘acquired wisdom’[1] שקנה. The term ‘acquired’ is similar to[2] the verse[ii] ותפשי התורה, i.e.,[3] anyone who grasps [the Torah] in his mind-of-memory, and who has engraved on the tablets[4] of his heart constantly – as the sages say[5] “who is a תלמיד חכם? One to whom a question of Halaĉa can be asked etc.”
Then it is a Mitzvah to stand before him [out of respect], even when he is not engaged in Torah study, because Hashem dwells continuously within him, even when busy with mundane matters: since the Torah is engraved in the {mind of} memory in his soul; in his heart. And the Torah and Hashem are all one[iii].
Therefore, every heartfelt person whose heart moves him[6] and his soul yearns to link to Hashem constantly[iv] and [who wishes to] have Hashem dwell continuously within him without any lapse or separation forever even for a single moment – should acquire Torah in his {mind of} memory. Then, even when dealing with the needs of the body, the Torah is present [within him] like the hidden worlds[7] in his soul; the light of the letter Yud from the name of Hashem[8] shines within him. This is why in the Parsha[v] of קדש לי, the term for Tefillin is ולזיכרון [instead of טוטפת] as is known[9].
This illustrates what is stated in the laws of Studying Torah in the name of the Sifri, that it is a Mitzvah for all to know the entire Torah – meaning the six hundred and thirteen (613) commandments and its details etc. That is; to draw the light of Hashem onto all six hundred and thirteen (613) powers[10] of the G‑dly soul in specificity. As it says[11] כלך יפה רעיתי ומום אין בך specifically. Therefore, at the source, this [light of Hashem] in the upper realm includes all six hundred and thirteen (613) [as one]. And it is called Adam[12] – like “on the likeness of the throne was the likeness of a man”[vi] etc.
However, due to the pressure of the times, and limitations of the spirit of those who understand, and the depth of the material[13]; at least one should endeavor to receive power and strength to acquire and engrave in the mind of memory in his soul the five (5) books of the Torah of Moshe[14], dictated by Hashem, which is the source of all the written Torah and oral Torah – all of it. As is known[vii] that Rabbi Akiva was able to derive from each crown (or thorn) of the letters[15], baskets and baskets of Laws. But they are extremely hidden. And from the oral Torah [one should endeavor to engrave in the mind of memory] at least one should acquire and engrave the entire Order of קדשים, which is called [the Order of] Wisdom[16] by the words of our sages[viii] and provides atonement for the sins of a person as written by the Arizal.
[1] See Rashi in the discussion on Vayikra 19:32 – positive Mitzva 13.
[2] Unlike the literal translation which would render it one who is able to tangibly acquire. Meaning it is possible to purchase intellect – for example, by paying tuition, or by purchasing intellectual property rights. However, here those ideas are rejected in favor of a more literal translation as in the tangible acquiring of moveable property.
[3] As Rashi comments, the verse refers to the Sanhedrin, who were the embodiment of those who acquired wisdom.
[4] Possibly a description of the forming of the לוחות but is more likely a reference to Yirmiyahu 17:1 describing that generations obsession with idolatry. The term used there is חרוש, not חקוק. Rashi explains that the word means engraved, like one who plows deeply. If it means to engrave, why does Rashi provide an example of plowing, rather than the example of the word חרוש being used explicitly in the Torah, Shemos 31:5 where it means to carve wood and stone?!
The difference between plowing and engraving is: plowing is a temporary furrow in which a seed will be planted, and the scar in the earth covered over. Engraving is like writing, only far more so. When one writes, the ink and parchment are two separate entities, and the ink over lays the material it is being written on. The parchment remains unchanged. But engraving is another matter entirely. The engraver takes the very material he is writing on and turns it into letters.
The Jews at the time wanted to pretend their actions were not of the permanent type as engraving. They wanted to pretend that it was just like ploughing a furrow in the dirt, quickly covered up with no lasting effects, but the intent was that it was engraved in their heart – even when not visible the seed of idolatry was putting forth its putrid and corrupt flowers.
[5] Gemara Shabbos quotes Rabbi Yoĉanan and provides a list of advantages that a תלמיד חכם would enjoy; such as being able to claim a lost object by recognition – and the criteria necessary to achieve that title of which is one to whom a question can be asked from any place in Gemara, and he would know it, even from מסכת כלה.
On the other hand, Gemara Kiddushin deals with a man who conditionally marries a lady, with the stipulation that he is a תלמיד חכם. Such a person is considered married, provided one can query him about anything he had learnt, even if it isn’t something which was learnt in depth, such as from מסכת כלה.
Neither source provides the same exact terminology used by the Alter Rebbe suggesting perhaps that the Alter Rebbe is drawing a conclusion from both Gemaras in that the sufficiency of being able to recall anything of what was learnt is the underlying principle in the determination as to the status of the תלמיד חכם.
[6] Possibly a play on words in ref to the description of those who constructed the Mishkan (Shemos chapter 32 etc.) see further in the Ma’amar where the Alter Rebbe takes the idiom further and terms this person as one within whom Hashem dwells.
[7] As Eliyahu stated לבושין תקינת לון דמיניהו פרחין נשמתין לבני נשא. Souls come from the heavenly realms, and even when present in this world, retain their intrinsic connection to their source.
[8] [Gem. Menachos 29b] Based on the verse in Yeshayahu 26:4, Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi I’la’I stated that the two letters of Hashem’s name created both the heavens and the physical universe. He was unclear which letter until he realized from the verse in Beraishis 2:4 that the letter Hey created the physical universe, and therefore the letter Yud created the spiritual worlds.
Presumably, Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi I’la’I is referring to the letters of the tetragrammaton, and the letter Hey referenced is the final letter Hey. It is also possible he is referring to the two-letter name of G‑d Almighty; Yud and Hey.
[9] The SMG derived a different lesson – see his Public Address included in positive Mitzva 3. Perhaps this is like the meaning of the verse ונפקדת כי יפקד מושביך – it is only when there is a lack of consciousness that memory is needed and comes into play. When instead the mind is actively learning, memory only functions in the background.
I once asked one of my teachers, Rabbi Hirschprung, something similar. I was in charge of caring for the books in the library, and I came across a fragment of a page, containing perhaps ten (10) words. Rabbi Hirschprung’s memory was legendary, so I decided to ask which page it was from so I could tape the fragment back into the book it had come from. Without hesitation, he answered with his Polish accent ‘Kesuvoyce page 22b’. That seemed incredible to me, so I asked, ‘How is it that you know this Gemara?’ to which he answered ‘איך האב נאך געלערנט – I just learned it’.
[10] Each Mitzva corresponds to a particular component of the person. Each Mitzva represents a different way the person can connect to Hashem (for example, connecting with the right-hand vs left hand, or by being kind or strict) – which is the purpose of the Mitzvos, to provide us with the means of connecting with our Creator.
[11] Shir HaShirim 4:7 Possibly a reference to the Zohar (Parshas Tzav?) 27b “If there is anything missing [if something remains unknown] from the Mishna…” In which the Zohar seems to indicate a requirement to know the entire Torah as a single item – and that should only pieces be known, that provides a skewed picture which can lead to misunderstandings and questions.
[12] As opposed to the Heavenly angels which can be described using other imagery. Adam was named such for various reasons: most commonly because it means אדמה לעליון, people strive to emulate their creator. It also can be a combination of the letter א and the word דם – that G‑dliness inherent in the letter א from the term אאלפך (related to teaching and studying) is infused into the life force of the person. In short, the Alter Rebbe is saying when the person learns, he takes the א and adds it to his life force, the דם and becomes the person who emulates he who sits on the heavenly throne – אדמה לעליון.
[13] The Alter Rebbe does not continue this thought, because Torah is infinite as it is G‑d Almighty’s wisdom. Accordingly, it is not bound by the limitations described – which means that the Sifri’s goal of learning the entire Torah is eminently possible, as the verse says כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאוד.
[14] There are sources which indicate that memorizing the written Torah is forbidden. Those are written incorrectly. Quoting by memory from the written Torah was prohibited, but as the Gemara notes, that prohibition was broken because of עת לעשות לה’ הפרו תורתיך.
[15] See Exordium.
[16] The Gemara quotes the verse from Yeshaya 33:6 “והיה אמונת עתיך חוסן ישועות חכמת ודעת” in which each of the terms in the verse is used to describe one of the Orders of the Mishna:
- אמונת – the Order of planting; Rashi; ‘we depend on the faith of the farmer to tithe’
- עתיך – the Order of holidays
- חוסן – the Order of marriage; Rashi; ‘the word חוסן is linked to heirs – born by women’
- ישועות – the Order of damages; Rashi; ‘the redeemer admonishes to prevent damage and become obligated financially’
- חכמת – the Order of sanctity
- ודעת – the Order of טהרות; Rashi; ‘better than wisdom’
Gemara Shabbos 31a also quotes Rava who provides a different analysis of the verse as being a reference to the six (6) questions demanded of the soul when it ascends to heaven after living:
- אמונת – נשאת ונתת באמונה have you conducted business in good faith?
- עתיך – קבעת עתים לתורה did you set aside regular times for Torah study?
- חוסן – עסקת בפריה ורביה did you engage in building a family?
- ישועות – צפית לישועה did you eagerly await the [Messianic] salvation?
- חכמת – פלפלת בחכמה have you became sharper in (Torah) wisdom?
- ודעת – הבנת דבר מתוך דבר did you derive one lesson from another?
[i] Vayikra 19:32
[ii] Yirmiyahu 2:8
[iii] Zohar Kedoshim 87b
[iv] Gem. Shabbos 114a and Kiddushin 49b
[v] Shemos 13:9
[vi] Yeĉezkel 1:15
[vii] Gem. Menaĉos 29b
[viii] Gem. Shabbos 31a