Ten Minutes of Talmud #163: Absorbing Criticism—Rabbi Amy Scheinerman

R. Chiyya went out and taught his two nephews, Rav and Rabba bar bar Chana, in the marketplace. Rabbi [Yehudah ha-Nasi] heard [that R. Chiyya did this] and became angry. R. Chiyya came to visit him. [Rabbi] said to him, “Iyya, who is calling you outside?” [R. Chiyya] understood that [Rabbi] had taken the matter to heart. He conducted himself as one rebuked for thirty days. On the thirtieth day, [Rabbi] sent him a message: “Come.” After this, he sent [another message]: “Do not come.” What was his initial reasoning, and what was his reasoning in the end? Initially, [Rabbi] held that part of the day is like the entire day, but in the end he held that we do not say that part of the day is like an entire day. In the end, [R. Chiyya] came [on the thirtieth day]. [Rabbi] asked him, “Why have you come?” [He said,] “Because Master sent me [a message, saying] I should come.” [Rabbi said,] “But I sent you [a message] that you should not come.” [R. Chiyya] said to him, “I saw this but I did not see that.” [Rabbi] applied to [R. Chiyya] the verse, When a person’s ways find favor with Adonai, even their enemies make peace with them (Proverbs 16:7). (BT Mo'ed Katan 16b)

INTRODUCTION

When someone over whom you have authority ignores your instructions or violates your rules, how should you respond? If you come to learn that you have offended someone in authority, or violated one of their strictures, how should you respond? The world of the Rabbis was filled with such incidents, testifying to a strict hierarchy and a deeply felt concern for maintaining order, and perhaps (in some cases) fragile egos. 

In this story, R. Chiyya transgresses the rule of his teacher, R. Yehudah ha-Nasi (in the Talmud, he is usually referred to as “Rabbi”), forbidding sages from teaching Torah in the marketplace. We can only speculate on Rabbi’s reason. It does not appear to derive from concern for Roman reprisal. More likely, Rabbi is concerned with appearance. Torah study is not an activity suitable to the noisy, dirty, base, and undignified environment of the public marketplace, where crassness abounds.

COMMENTARY

When Rabbi hears “through the grapevine” that R. Chiyya has violated his rule concerning teaching Torah in the marketplace, he conveys his anger first by addressing R. Chiyya as “Iyya,” a version of “Chiyya” intended not as an endearing nickname, but rather as a disparaging epithet. When Rabbi asks, “Who is calling you outside?,” R. Chiyya comprehends he provoked his teacher’s ire by what he did. He therefore considers himself nezifah, which means “rebuked” or “admonished.” One who has been sternly rebuked by a superior—as R. Chiyya considers himself to be by Rabbi—was expected to remain home, ostracized for the duration of the ban, avoiding social interactions except to make clear his remorse for his behavior. 

In Babylonia, nezifah lasted one day and itself constituted an apology. In Eretz Yisrael, however, where R. Chiyya and Rabbi live, we see that R. Chiyya must endure ostracism from Rabbi for thirty days. On the last day, Rabbi sends R. Chiyya a message signaling the end of the ban, but then sends a subsequent message that very same day conveying the opposite message. The Gemara asks what this is about and explains that there are two ways to count time: Initially Rabbi thinks that even part of the thirtieth day counts as a full day; hence R. Chiyya’s ban is over any time on the thirtieth day. But then Rabbi decides that, with regard to nezifah, partial days do not count as full days. Hence R. Chiyya should not appear before him until the following day. (The first method applies to the rituals of bereavement: the day of burial, even if late in the day, counts as a full day of shiva.)

R. Chiyya, responding to the first note, appears before Rabbi on the thirtieth day. Surprised to see him—after all, he sent a second note, “Don’t come”—Rabbi asks why he is there. R. Chiyya responds that he received a note instructing him to come. Rabbi points out that R. Chiyya also received a subsequent note countermanding the first. R. Chiyya explains he saw only the first note. The verse from Proverbs tells us that, in Rabbi’s mind, God approves of R. Chiyya and has therefore helped facilitate reconciliation and a peaceful resolution of  the conflict. 

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Rabbi’s first missive to R. Chiyya, upon learning that he had taught Torah in the marketplace, might come across as sarcastic and indirect. Alternatively, perhaps Rabbi didn’t want to directly reprimand R. Chiyya, but rather allow him to realize his mistake and take responsibility for it. Which do you think is happening here? What are the pros and cons of Rabbi’s approach to confronting R. Chiyya’s disobedience? 
2. In Babylonia, nezifah was one day; in Eretz Yisrael, it could be thirty days. How do you think length and severity of one’s ostracism is likely to shape their future behavior? Do you agree or disagree with Rambam (see box at right)?
3. When R. Chiyya visits Rabbi on the thirtieth day, Rabbi might have chosen to believe that R. Chiyya saw the second note but decides to ignore it. Instead, he believes R. Chiyya and perhaps imagines that R. Chiyya is so elated to be invited back that he came immediately and therefore was not home when the second message arrived. He gives R. Chiyya the benefit of the doubt. How does giving another person the benefit of the doubt contribute to reconciliation and resolution of conflicts?