Rabbi Yehuda the Tailor

The other day, on Bava Batra 164b, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was confounded by a certain get mekushar.

הָהוּא מְקוּשָּׁר דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי, וְאָמַר רַבִּי: אֵין זְמַן בָּזֶּה?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי לְרַבִּי: שֶׁמָּא בֵּין קְשָׁרָיו מוּבְלָע? פַּלְיֵיהּ, וְחַזְיֵיהּ. הֲדַר חֲזָא בֵּיהּ רַבִּי בְּבִישׁוּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו אֲנָא כְּתַבְתֵּיהּ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה חַיָּיטָא כַּתְבֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלָךְ מִלָּשׁוֹן הָרָע הַזֶּה.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain tied document that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, not realizing it was a folded document, said: There is no date on this document, so it is not valid. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Perhaps the date is hidden between its tied folds. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi opened it and saw that the date was in fact between the tied folds. Afterward, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi looked at his son disapprovingly, as he held that one should not write a tied document. His son said to him: I did not write it; Rabbi Yehuda Ḥayyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech.

This all fits into my earlier discussion of whether they were familiar with how to conduct a mekushar shtar. But something interesting is that Chayata, especially with a kamatz aleph ending, is Ha-Chayyat. And a Chayyat is a tailor.

So perhaps someone who can sew such fine folds in a folded document, such that the date ends up wedged between the folds, would be a tailor. Or perhaps tailor is then a nickname?

Note also that the above story, and the one which follows, are about Rabbi, who is a last-generation Tanna, and his son and the tailor, who are transitional Tannaim / Amoraim. And the story is told in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. The technical terms are in Hebrew. Rabbi and his son speak at first in Hebrew. But the descriptions of the events and his son’s pointing of fingers are in Aramaic. Then, it reverts to Hebrew when he tells him to avoid the lashon hara.

The next story also (and this is my innovation, that it is also) involves precision in the work.

זִימְנִין הֲוָה יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ, וְקָא פָסֵיק סִידְרָא בְּסֵפֶר תְּהִלִּים; אָמַר רַבִּי: כַּמָּה מְיוּשָּׁר כְּתָב זֶה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו אֲנָא כְּתַבְתֵּיהּ, יְהוּדָה חַיָּיטָא כַּתְבֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלָךְ מִלָּשׁוֹן הָרָע הַזֶּה.

Another time, Rabbi Shimon was sitting before his father and reciting a section of the book of Psalms. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: How straight and neat is this writing in this book from which you are reading. Rabbi Shimon said to him: I did not write it; Yehuda Ḥayyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech.

Also, in the second story, we don’t have Rabbi Yehuda Chayata, just Yehuda Chayata. This is not really a change from the above. Rather, all manuscripts I’ve seen omit the honorific in the first story as well. It is just something that the printed texts somehow added.

At any rate, we see that Yehuda Chayata is a skilled scribe, and writes sefarim and writes and and sews legal documents.

The Talmudic Narrator wonders at the lashon hara, and the gemara explains how positive speech can be or lead to negative speech.

The next segment is free association, how everyone ends up committing lashon hara.

אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַב: שָׁלֹשׁ עֲבֵירוֹת אֵין אָדָם נִיצּוֹל מֵהֶן בְּכׇל יוֹם – הִרְהוּר עֲבֵירָה, וְעִיּוּן תְּפִלָּה, וְלָשׁוֹן הָרָע. לָשׁוֹן הָרָע סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?!

Rav Amram says that Rav says: There are three sins from which a person is not spared each day. They are: Having sinful thoughts, and committing sins concerning deliberation in prayer, and uttering malicious speech. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that a person cannot go through the day without uttering malicious speech?

אֶלָּא אֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרַע.

The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav was referring to uttering a hint, i.e., words with a bare trace, of malicious speech.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: רוֹב בְּגָזֵל, וּמִיעוּט בַּעֲרָיוֹת, וְהַכֹּל בְּלָשׁוֹן הָרָע. בְּלָשׁוֹן הָרָע סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרָע.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The majority of people suc-cumb to sin with regard to robbery, and a minority of people succumb to sin with regard to sexual matters, and everyone succumbs to sin with regard to malicious speech. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that all people sin with regard to malicious speech? The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav was referring to uttering a hint of malicious speech.

It is funny how Rashbam gives an example of avak lashon hara

אבק לשון הרע - כגון דאמרי נורא בי פלניא בערכין (דף טו:):

and Artscroll notes that in a footnote in sefer Chafetz Chaim, that example is real leshon hara!

What strikes me here is a progression across time about attitudes towards lashon hara. That is, Rav Amram, quoting Rav, made a bold statement that no one is spared from uttering lashon hara each day. The Talmudic Narrator cannot believe this, that this could be literally true. Therefore, he reinterprets the statement, plausibly correctly, that it is not talking about actual lashon hara, but just avak lashon hara, which nonetheless one should be careful not to partake in.

Meanwhile, the impression I get from sefer Chafetz Chaim is that everyone is regularly nichshal in it, especially if they haven’t studied the halachot in detail. For instance,

ואחשבה לדעת מדוע לאו זה נעשה הפקר לכל כך הרבה בני אדם.
והתבוננתי שזה בגלל כמה סיבות. להמון מצד אחד, וללומדים מצד שני.
ההמון אינם יודעים שאסור לשון הרע הוא גם על אמת. ולבעלי תורה, למרות שיודעים שלשון הרע הוא גם על אמת, יש מהם שהיצר הרע מטעה אותם. אחד, שמי שמספרים עליו את הלשון הרע נחשב לחונף שמותר לספר עליו לשון הרע, כי מצווה לפרסם החנפים והרשעים.
ופעמים אומר לו: הלא פלוני הוא בעל מחלוקת ומותר לספר לשון הרע עליו.
ולפעמים מפתהו בהיתר דאפי תלתא (לפני שלושה אנשים).
ופעמים בהיתר דאפי מרא (בפני המדובר). שמסכים בעצמו בעת הסיפור שהיה אומר לו בפניו. ומגלה לו היצר הרע את כל המאמרים השיייכים להיתרים האלה.
ופעמים הוא משכנע אותו שעצם מה שמספר לא נחשב לשון הרע, כגון שמספר שאינו חכם.

Also relevant is this blogpost at Daat Torah: Lashon Hara:Did Chofetz Chaim transform a moral issue into a legal one?; linking to this article by Dr. Benjamin Brown, From Principles to Rules and from Musar to Halakhah: The Hafetz Hayim’s Rulings on Libel and Gossip. The essential point is that this was the legalization of ethics.

As rabbinic literature gets systematically mined to produce sources for legally prohibited acts, more and more actions get encompassed in the prohibition, on the most severe level. And only someone who knows all those sources could possibly intuit that a specific speech act is actually forbidden, so that otherwise, of course one stumbles.