Not referring to one's father by name

An interesting post over at Daf Notes, analyzing a gemara (Bava Batra 56b) in which Rabbi Yossi ben Chalafta refers to his father as Abba Chalafta:

מתני' דלא כרבי עקיבא דתניא א"ר יוסי כשהלך אבא חלפתא אצל רבי יוחנן בן נורי ללמוד תורה ואמרי לה ר' יוחנן בן נורי אצל אבא חלפתא ללמוד תורה אמר לו הרי שאכלה שנה ראשונה בפני שנים שניה בפני שנים שלישית בפני שנים מהו אמר לו הרי זו חזקה

As Rashi says, this means Avi = my father, Chalafta.

אבא חלפתא - אבי חלפתא דר' יוסי סתם היינו רבי יוסי בן חלפתא:

But

If so, how was Rabbi Yosi permitted to mention the name of his father? It is explicitly ruled in Shulchan Aruch (Y”D 240:2) that one is forbidden from mentioning his father’s name, during his lifetime and after his death as well!?

He quotes an answer from his son, Reb Shlomo: It emerges from Rashi in Sanhedrin (100a) that if a title of honor precedes the mentioning of one’s father’s name, it is permitted. Since “Abba” is a title of honor, Rabbi Yosi was permitted to say “Abba Chalafta.”

The following is the explanation of the proof: Rabbi Yochanan said: Geichazi was punished for calling Elisha, his Rebbe, by his name. Rashi writes: He did not say, “My teacher, my master, So-and-So.” Evidently, one is permitted to mention his Rebbe’s name if he says, “My teacher, my master” first. Accordingly, Reb Shlomo derived from here that the same would be true regarding one’s father. A son would be permitted to mention his father’s name if he mentions a title of honor before the name. Reb Akiva Eiger agreed to this logic.

And it continues, so check it out there.

I suppose that it being explicitly ruled as such in Shulchan Aruch is mentioned to show that it is a clear-cut halacha. But if that were the only objection, then it strikes me that it would not be an objection at all. On what basis does the Shulchan Aruch state this? If Rav Yosef Karo made it up, well then, one cannot innovate post-Talmudic halacha. Indeed, this is the point the Noda Be-Yehuda made in the face Yehuda HaChassid's assertion that one may not marry someone whose parent shares your name: that we see Chazal did not do this, for Rami, e.g., married the daughter of a Rami. And we would pay no heed to the innovated halacha against Chazal.

But Rav Yosef Karo gets it from Tur, who gets it from Rambam, who gets it from a brayta and the ensuing discussion on Kiddushin 31b, as well as the aforementioned gemara in perek Chelek about Gechazi. That gemara in Kiddushin is:

תנו רבנן חכם משנה שם אביו ושם רבו תורגמן אינו משנה לא שם אביו ולא שם רבו אבוה דמאן אילימא אבוה דמתורגמן אטו תורגמן לאו בר חיובא הוא אלא אמר רבא שם אביו של חכם ושם רבו של חכם כי הא דמר בר רב אשי כי הוה דריש בפירקא איהו אמר אבא מרי ואמוריה אמר הכי אמר רב אשי

To cite the Point By Point Summary, with my own elaborations in {curly braces}.

(b) (Beraisa): A Chacham citing his father or Rebbi should not say their actual names; the one broadcasting the lesson says the actual names.
(c) Question: Whose names does he {Josh: the meturgeman = the broadcaster} say?

1. Suggestion: If this means, the names of his own father or Rebbi - but the broadcaster must also honor his father and Rebbi {Josh: so by saying "the father of X," the meturgeman ends up saying his Rebbe's name, X}!

(d) Answer (Rava): The names of the Chacham's father and Rebbi.

1. When Mar bar Rav Ashi would teach, he would say 'My father, my teacher'; the broadcaster would say 'Rav Ashi'.

The conclusion of the gemara would seem to pose a fairly strong kasha on the answer put forth by Rbbi Shlomo, the son of Rabbi Akiva Eiger. Of course, I haven't seen it inside, so perhaps he addresses this, but while his answer is predicated on a the wording of a particular Rashi in perek Chelek, the basic source in Kiddushin strongly implies that even with an honorific it is not permitted to name one's father! When Mar bar Rav Ashi would teach, he would say Abba Mari. He would not say Rav Ashi, even though Rav is as much an honorific as Abba. Rather, he would say Abba Mari, and the meturgeman would say Rav Ashi!

One could say that was personal conduct, and just the particular maaseh shehaya. But this seems unlikely, if "Rav Ashi" in the first place would have been entirely fine. I would try some other answers.

We could simply posit that Rabbi Yossi was a tanna, and he argued with that brayta, even if we end up paskening against him.

We can posit that Rabbi Yossi did not say Abba Chalafta, but rather Abba Mari. But that the one who quoted him is the equivalent of the meturgeman, and so substituted Abba Chalafta in its place.

We can posit that Abba Chalafta was not the father of Rabbi Yossi ben Chalafta. Rashi's assertion was that in Abba Chalafta, Abba meant "my father", and since stam Rabbi Yossi is Rabbi Yossi ben Chalafta, he was referring to his father Chalafta.

אבא חלפתא - אבי חלפתא דר' יוסי סתם היינו רבי יוסי בן חלפתא:

Before adopting this, we should do a search throughout Bavli, Yerushalmi, and Tosefta to ascertain if the one calling him Abba Chalafta is always a son.

It occurs 7 times in Bavli, some of which are repeats. We have Sota 34a:

אמר רבי יהודה אבא חלפתא ורבי אליעזר בן מתיא וחנניא בן חכינאי עמדו על אותן אבנים ושיערום כל אחת ואחת שקולה כארבעים סאה

Rabbi Yehuda was not a son of Chalafta, and yet he calls him Abba Chalafta.

And we have a brayta in Bava Metzia 94a, also not necessarily stated by a son, about Abba Chalafta Ish Kefar Chanania, who I would guess is someone else.

דתניא אבא חלפתא איש כפר חנניא אמר משום ר"מ תנאי קודם למעשה הרי זה תנאי מעשה קודם לתנאי אינו תנאי

We also have two+ instances in which Rabbi Yossi refers to Abba Chalafta, in Sanhedrin 80a,

אמר ר' יוסי אפילו אבא חלפתא ביניהן

and Bechorot 26a:

אמר רבי יוסי מודה אבא חלפתא בזה

However, the final instances shows us conclusively that Rashi is correct, and Abba Chalafta is Rabbi Yossi's father. In Meila 17b,

ואחריו מי ילך ר"א בר ר' יוסי
אמר להם רבי יוסי ואילו היה אבא חלפתא קיים יכולין אתם לומר לו תן בנך להריגה
אמר להם ר' שמעון אילו היה יוחאי אבא קיים יכולין אתם לומר לו תן בנך להריגה

To use the Point by Point Summary for easy translation:

1. R. Yosi: If my father was alive, you could not tell him to endanger his son! [Likewise, how can you tell me to endanger my son and let him go?]
2. R. Shimon: If my father was alive, you could not tell him to endanger his son! [Nevertheless, I agree to go; likewise, R. Elazar should go!]

Except of course in the gemara, it does not say only "my father" each time. Rather, Rabbi Yossi says "Abba Chalafta" and Rabbi Shimon says "Yochai Abba", or "Yochai, my father". This is a stronger gemara for Rabbi Akiva Eiger to ask the question from.

The answer might be that Abba serves as an honorific, and indeed, others appear to have called him Abba Chalafta, which makes it surely an honorific. But Yochai Abba is not the same as Abba Yochai! And we see that Mar bar Rav Ashi did not even say Rav Ashi! Perhaps we can say that this was inserted by the gemara / composer of the brayta in the role of meturgeman to make it clearer.

Recently, I had a nice post about whether the "Rabbi Yitzchak" cited in the first Rashi on Chumash was Rashi's father, who was (according to this theory) an am haaretz. And I showed why it was not so. But I wonder if this recommendation / injunction of calling one's father by name carries over from speech to text. (I haven't studied this topic sufficiently, but just glanced briefly at the Tur.) For otherwise, one could ask according to this theory, how could Rashi have cited his father as Rabbi Yitzchak rather that Abba Mari?

The Rambam similarly requires one to change the name of others when speaking to them, if they happen to have the same name as one's father. Though the Tur is astounded by this, and restricts it to where it is a unique name, but not something common like Avraham. (If this extended to text, Rashi referring to Rabbi Yitzchak even if it is a Tanna or Amora would be relevant, and a good counter-example of either the requirement in text, the need to change the names of others, or an example of how an honorific makes it acceptable.)

I recall several years ago, in the elevator of the YU Library, that there was a fellow telling over an incident which had just occurred. He was greatly embarrassed, because he say his friend Carmi standing a bit away and called out "hey Carmi!" And Rabbi Carmy, who happened to be in proximity, looked up and thought that he was referring to him.