Monday, October 19, 2009

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
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.

6 comments:

Moses said...

That's funny - I'm trying to think if there's anyone in YU who I would rather that happen to less than Rabbi Carmy.

Maybe rabbi Yitzchak Cohen, but he's the only one I can think of.

Hillel said...

This always bothered me about that sifrei on Shema Yisrael, re the brothers reciting Shema on Yaakov's deathbed to reassure him of their faithfulness to Hashem. The brothers called their father 'Yisrael'? (I understand the aggadic nature of the statement, but it just struck me as odd and in a way antithetical to the message of the medrash.)

Rabbi Joshua Maroof said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rabbi Joshua Maroof said...

I don't find your proof from the incident of the Meturgaman very convincing. After all, in a circumstance where everyone knows who your father is, saying "my father, my teacher" is a reference to a specific individual to whom the Meturgaman then refers as Rav So-and-So. It is unnecessary in such a situation (from a social standpoint, I mean) to mention one's father's name. So the omission of the father's name in that case may not be a function of halakhic concerns but simply a result of the fact that mentioning his father's name would have been superfluous in that context.

However, in a case where the identity of one's father is unknown then prefacing it with an honorific may be sufficient.

Yaaqov said, "Elokei Avi Avraham Ve'elokei Avi Yitschaq." When he blessed Yosef, he said, "haelokim asher halekhu avotai lefanav, Avraham Veyitschaq", and further on he said "v'shem avotai Avraham Veyitschaq".

I think one can infer from this that saying "My father, X" is permitted, since it seems highly plausible to assume - even if one does not believe that the Avot literally observed all the commandments - that they certainly kept the mitzvah of kibbud av v'em, which is regarded as a universal principle of civilized society.

joshwaxman said...

possible, but personally i don't find it plausible.

"It is unnecessary in such a situation (from a social standpoint, I mean) to mention one's father's name.
...
However, in a case where the identity of one's father is unknown then prefacing it with an honorific may be sufficient."

in the discussion with other rabbinic figures, he didn't need to say Yochai Abba either; they knew it.

by the meturgeman case, "So the omission of the father's name in that case may not be a function of halakhic concerns but simply a result of the fact that mentioning his father's name would have been superfluous in that context."
if so, it would be extremely misleading of the gemara. after all, the brayta stated תנו רבנן חכם משנה שם אביו ושם רבו תורגמן אינו משנה לא שם אביו ולא שם רבו, talking about the chacham and the meturgeman, as a sort of obligation. and then with mar bar rav ashi, in precisely this case of a chacham and his meturgeman, י הא דמר בר רב אשי כי הוה דריש בפירקא איהו אמר אבא מרי ואמוריה אמר הכי אמר רב אשי. to say that mar bar rav ashi's conduct was not motivated by halachic concerns but rather social concerns seems mighty strange.

"which is regarded as a universal principle of civilized society."
but while the principle might be universal, the specific social norms in which they manifest that honor can change. in some communities it may be not sitting in one father's seat, but in other not. it could be that in Biblical times "Father, X" was sufficient, but that in the time of Chazal it was not...

kt,
josh

Rabbi Joshua Maroof said...

I don't agree with your take on the Gemara. If memory serves, the Rambam interprets this halakha as a din of Talmud Torah, not of Kibbud Av V'em - it appears in Hilchot Talmud Torah in the Yad.

The essential point of the Gemara is that, despite the fact that the Meturgeman is supposed to serve as the "mouthpiece" of the Rav and is expected to convey his words verbatim, he does not do this with respect to naming the father or Rebbe of the Rav, since the Meturgeman is permitted to say their names.

In other words, the hiddush is that the Meturgeman is not obligated to repeat the words of the Rav verbatim when the Rav's choice of words is a reflection of his personal, subjective circumstances (i.e., his relationships to other individuals whom he is mentioning) and not the objective content of his teachings.

As such, this Barayta is not really concerned with the specific way in which Mar Bar Rav Ashi referred to his father. He might well have called him Abba Ashi, or some variant, but this was not the phraseology he chose, for whatever reason - perhaps because "Abba Mari" was sufficiently clear under the circumstances. The point is that Mar Bar Rav Ashi said something different from what the Meturgeman was supposed to/allowed to say.

And, of course, it is possible that a father's name might be mentioned even when his identity is already understood. It can go either way. I am merely pointing out that inferring from the omission of the father's name in certain cases that it must halakhically be omitted is not a logically airtight move, since this could be attributed to various other causes, including personal preference, the social circumstances, etc.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin