1)

(a)We mentioned earlier that Kiymah does not involve a loss of pocket. We cannot be speaking about a diamond cutter, in which case standing up for someone might be quite costly because we first compare "Kiymah" to "Hidur", which implies a Kavod that does not involve a work loss (precluding a diamond-cutter from the obligation to stand up for his father), and only then "Hidur to Kiymah", which now implies that there is no loss of pocket at all.

(b)We extrapolate from the fact that one is not obligated to incur any loss when rising for a Talmid-Chacham that an employee is not permitted to stand-up for a Talmid-Chacham, so as not to cause his employer any loss.

2)

(a)The Mishnah in Bikurim describes how, when a group of people would arrive in Yerushalayim with their Bikurim the tradesmen would stand up in their honor, and declare 'Our brethren from such and such a place, come in peace'.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan commented on the Mishnah 'Mipneihem Omdin, Mipnei Talmidei-Chachamim Ein Omdin'; Rebbi Yosi bar Avin commented how we can learn from it the importance of performing a Mitzvah that is performed in its right time.

(c)We reject Rebbi Yosi bar Avin's comment however by pointing out that the Chachamim might have issued such a decree because they were afraid that if the people saw that all their efforts in bringing their Bikurim were not appreciated, they may not bother to bring them the next time round.

3)

(a)Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi once complained to his father about Rebbi Chiya, and on another occasion about bar Kapara (or Rebbi Shmuel bar Rebbi Yosi) because they failed to stand up when he entered the bathhouse.

(b)He based his complaint against Rebbi Chiya on the fact that he had taught him two out of the five Sefarim of Tehilim. And he was upset with bar Kapara, whom he had taught two ninths of Toras Kohanim.

(c)Rebbi's response to his son's accusations was that their failure to acknowledge his entry might have been due to the fact that they were engrossed in their Torah thoughts, and did not notice his entry.

(d)If not for that, Rebbi would have agreed that one is obligated to show respect even in a bath-house because he was speaking about the outer rooms of the bathhouse, where people tend to sit clothed, whereas what we learned earlier, that one is exempt from demonstrating respect in a bathroom or a bathhouse refers to the inner rooms, where one tends to stand naked, and where standing up for a Talmid-Chacham is not considered a Kavod.

4)

(a)We try to prove the distinction between the inner rooms and the outer ones by quoting Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan who said that thinking about words of Torah is permitted anywhere except for in a bathhouse or a bathroom ...

(b)... in which case, the incidents with Rebbi Chiya and bar Kapara must have taken place in the outer rooms.

(c)We refute this however on the basis that Rebbi may have been referring to their having thought about Torah involuntarily (in spite of the Isur, giving them a Din of Ones), because Torah thoughts are sometimes difficult to control.

5)

(a)We learned earlier that ...

1. ... "Takum ... v'Yareisa" comes to negate the notion that one may close one's eyes as if one had not seen the Talmid-Chacham approaching. Of course we do not need a Pasuk to teach us not to be wicked. What the Pasuk is really coming to teach us is that even closing one's eyes before he appears, so that when he does appear, the Talmid does not see him, is prohibited.

2. ... "Takum v'Hadarta" comes to restrict the obligation to arise to where the act will be appreciated. The maximum distance that falls into this category is four Amos.

(b)Abaye qualified this Halachah, confining it to a Talmid rising for a regular Rav, but not for a Rebbi Muvhak (who taught him most of what he knows).

1. A Talmid is obligated to stand up for his Rebbi Muvhak from the moment he sees him.

2. Abaye himself would stand up for Rav Yosef from the moment he saw the ears of his donkey appear on the horizon.

(c)When Abaye rode past on his donkey, Rav Mesharshiya and the Rabanan were on the other side of the river.

(d)They failed to stand up for their Rebbi Muvhak because they were preoccupied with other things and did not realize that he was passing.

6)

(a)We quoted Rebbi Shimon, who learned from "Zaken v'Yareisa" that a Talmid-Chacham should avoid troubling the community by causing them to rise when he enters. Abaye and Rebbi Zeira therefore used to take a circuitous route, so that the community should not see them passing.

(b)The reward for doing this, says Abaye, is (long) life.

(c)When a man walked past with his head uncovered, Rav Yirmeyahu from Difti commented to Ravina that the man was insolent (since this is one of the things that one should not do in the presence of Talmidei-Chachamim).

(d)Ravina replied that perhaps this man resided in Masa Mechasya, where they saw many Talmidei-Chachamim, with whom they had developed a certain familiarity (for which reason it was common practice not to cover their heads in their presence).

7)

(a)We cited earlier the Machlokes whether one is obligated to stand up for a sinful elder (Isi ben Yehudah) or not (the Chachamim). Rebbi Yochanan rules like Isi ben Yehudah.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan would stand up even for an old Nochri on the basis of the latter's many life's experiences.

(c)Rava would not stand up for them but he would acknowledge them by rising slightly from his chair.

8)

(a)Abaye would give a hand to old men. Rava used to send a Shali'ach to help them.

(b)Rav Nachman would send 'Guza'i' one of the servants who were constantly at his service ...

(c)... because as well as being the son-in-law of the Nasi, he was the Av Beis-Din, in which capacity he needed to send people to enforce the law.

(d)When Rav Nachman explained that were it not for Torah, there were many Nachman bar Abas walking around the main street, he meant that he declined to help the old men personally (not because of exalted position, but) but in deference of the Torah that he had learned.

9)

(a)We reject the explanation that Abaye would hold out his hand for the old men to support him (in his honor) in that the term 'Yahiv Yada ... ' always means that one gives one's hand to support the other person (and not vice-versa) ...

(b)... like we find in Yoma, where Rabah bar bar Chanah once gave a hand to Reish Lakish, when he once found him swimming in the river.

10)

(a)Rebbi Ayvu Amar Rebbi Yanai forbids a Talmid-Chacham to stand up for his Rebbi more twice a day, once in the morning and once in the evening so that one should not display more honor for a Talmid-Chacham than one does for Hash-m, whom one only greets twice daily, when reciting the Shema (see Hagahos Redal).

(b)We try to prove Rebbi Yanai wrong from Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who expects a Talmid-Chacham to try and avoid forcing the community to stand up on the basis that if it is a minimum obligation, why should they try and avoid it.

(c)Nevertheless, we reply even that basic minimum the Talmid-Chacham should try to avoid, if he can avoid it.

11)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Koheles "v'Tov Lo Yiheyeh la'Rasha v'Lo Ya'arich Yamim k'Tzeil Asher Einenu Yarei mi'Lifnei ha'Elokim", that a Talmid-Chacham who fails to stand up for his Rebbi is called 'a Rasha'. The two other penalties that we learn from this Pasuk are that he will not live a long life and that he will forget his learning.

(b)Rebbi Elazar concludes that the Pasuk is referring to this sin from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Pnei" "Pnei" ("mi'Lifnei ha'Elokim" and "Mipnei Seivah Takum"). We reject the initial 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yarei" "Yarei" ("Einenu Yarei" and "v'Yareisa me'Elokecha") on the grounds that it might just as well refer to the sins of Ribis and Mishkalos (taking interest and false weights and measures, where the Torah also uses the term "Yarei").

(c)We ask whether a son who is his father's Rebbi is obligated to rise for his father. We refute the proof from Shmuel, who instructed Rav Yehudah to rise for Rav Yechezkel on the grounds that this was because the latter was an outstanding Ba'al Ma'asim (he excelled in his performance of good deeds), for which reason even Shmuel himself would stand up whenever he entered the room.

(d)The point in his telling Rav Yehudah to stand up for him was to permit him to do so, even if Rav Yechezkel entered the room behind Shmuel, rendering him invisible to Shmuel.

12)

(a)We then ask whether a father is obligated to stand up for his son who is also his Rebbi, and we try to resolve this She'eilah from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Despite the fact that he was both his son's father and his Rebbi, he used to rise for his son because he had married into the family of the Nasi.

(b)We initially understand his statement 'Ani Eini K'dai La'amod Mipnei Beni Ela Mipnei Kavod Beis Nasi' to mean that had his son not been related to the family of the Nasi, he would not stand up for him, because he was his Rebbi, from which we infer that, if he was his Talmid, he would.

(c)We refute this proof too, however, by explaining his statement to mean that he would not stand up for his son because he was his father (irrespective of whether he was his Rebbi or his Talmid).

13)

(a)We ask whether 'Rachuv Ki'Mehalech Dami' or not. The ramifications of this She'eilah are that if a father who is riding is considered as if he is walking, then the son will be obligated to stand, otherwise, not.

(b)Abaye resolves this She'eilah from a Mishnah in Nega'im. The Tana there rules that if ...

1. ... the Metzora was sitting under a tree and the Tahor person was standing still then he becomes Tamei.

2. ... the Metzora was standing and the Tahor person was sitting then he remains Tahor (because the criterion is that the Metzora is sitting).

3. ... in the latter case, the Metzora sat down the Tahor person becomes Tamei.

(c)When the Tana concludes 've'Chen b'Even ha'Menuga'as' he means that there too, it depends on whether the person holding the stone is sitting or standing, and that the moment he sits, the Tahor person becomes Tamei, proving that 'Rachuv Ki'Mehalech' (that we do not go after the stone or the person who is riding, but after the person who is holding the stone and likewise, after the animal on which the rider is sitting).

(d)Rebbi Chilkiyah, Rebbi Simon and Rebbi Elazar resolve the She'eilah whether one is obligated to stand up for a Sefer-Torah with a 'Kal va'Chomer'; that if one stands up for those who study it, then how much more so should one stand up for the Torah itself!

14)

(a)When Rebbi Shimon bar Aba walked past Rebbi Ila'i and Rebbi Yakov bar Zavdi they stood up.

(b)The latter objected on two scores. Firstly because he was only a Chaver whereas they were Chachamim. The basis of his second objection was that, seeing as they were actually studying it at the time, they were considered like a Sefer-Torah, and a Sefer-Torah does not stand up for its students.

15)

(a)The Torah writes "v'Hibitu Acharei Moshe ad Bo'o ha'Ohelah". Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha argue whether this refers to Moshe's praise, or whether it is meant derogatively. If it was meant ...

1. ... derogatively then it refers to the Medrash, which describes how the people ascribed Moshe's healthy looks to his having used their money to pamper himself.

2. ... as a praise then it refers to the forthcoming Halachah, which obligates the people to remain standing until the Nasi arrives at his destination.

(b)This is actually based on a set of rulings by Chizkiyah ... Amar Rebbi Avdimi d'Min Cheifah. According to him, one is obligated to stand up when a Chacham arrives within one's four Amos. For an Av Beis-Din or a Nasi, he is required to stand up already from the moment he comes into sight.

(c)We have already explained that one must remain standing for a Nasi until he arrives at his destination. For a Chacham or an Av Beis-Din one must remain standing until he has left one's four Amos.