Pt1 Rav Yehuda vs. Rav Naḥman: A Talmudic Clash Over Speech, Social Status, and Slavery (Kiddushin 70a-b)
This is the first part of a two-part series. The outline is below.1
This passage from tractate Kiddushin 70a-b offers a vivid and layered depiction of the intersection between personal honor, social status, and rabbinic authority in the academies of Neharde’a and Pumbedita. At its heart lies an incident involving a man’s public insult of Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel, a prominent scholar, and the subsequent legal and social fallout. Through a series of confrontations—ranging from the butcher shop to Rav Naḥman’s court—this sugya explores themes of verbal abuse, lineage, and the boundaries of acceptable speech in rabbinic society.
The narrative unfolds as Rav Yehuda grapples not only with personal affront but also with larger questions of justice and leadership: How should one respond to insults against Torah scholars? What are the implications of disparaging others’ lineage, and how does one balance authority with humility? Embedded within these debates is a striking attention to language itself—how words reflect status, knowledge, and, at times, arrogance.
Narrative Structure and Themes
Part 1 offers a blend of legal reasoning, social norms, and interpersonal dynamics. Here's a critical and literary analysis:
The sugya is structured as a series of escalating confrontations, each exposing tensions between rabbinic authority, social etiquette, and linguistic norms. The overarching theme is the interaction of authority—both social and legal—with personal conduct.
Opening Incident: The story begins with a social slight—disrespect shown to Rav Yehuda—and transitions to a legal declaration (excommunication and proclamation of the man’s slave status). This illustrates how personal insult can lead to public, legal consequences.
Courtroom Dynamics: The confrontation between Rav Yehuda and Rav Naḥman shifts the narrative focus from a private insult to broader questions about rabbinic authority and proper behavior.
Language and Social Class: Linguistic choices (e.g., the terms etronga vs. etrog) reflect class distinctions and debates over elitism versus traditional or popular usage.
Characterization
Rav Yehuda: Portrayed as a stringent and principled figure, Rav Yehuda meticulously adheres to the halakhic teachings of Shmuel. He appears unyielding, particularly in his criticism of Rav Naḥman’s linguistic and social conduct. His exacting nature highlights the tension between his commitment to tradition and Rav Naḥman’s more flexible, aristocratic demeanor.
Rav Naḥman: He embodies a more aristocratic (as befits the Exilarch’s son-in-law) and perhaps pragmatic approach, using terms and practices that reflect his social standing. His deference to Rav Yehuda in the end suggests an acknowledgment of Rav Yehuda's superior legal knowledge and moral authority.
Yalta: Though she appears briefly, her sharp intervention underscores her intelligence and awareness of the dynamics at play, highlighting a woman's voice of reason amidst the male-dominated discourse.
Use of Dialogue
The sugya uses dialogue to dramatize the ideological clash between Rav Yehuda and Rav Naḥman. Rav Yehuda’s repeated critiques create a pattern:
Rav Naḥman uses an uncommon term or suggests an action.
Rav Yehuda objects, citing halakhic or linguistic precedent.
Rav Naḥman offers a counterargument, which Rav Yehuda refutes by invoking Shmuel’s teachings.
This repetitive structure reinforces the tension between the two figures while emphasizing Rav Yehuda’s mastery of tradition.
Critical Analysis
From a critical perspective, this passage engages with issues of sociolinguistics, authority, and the interaction between tradition and innovation:
Language as Power: Rav Naḥman’s use of uncommon terms may reflect the power dynamics within rabbinic society. By employing rarified language, he could be asserting his intellectual or social superiority. Rav Yehuda’s responses, however, democratize language, insisting that communication should remain rooted in shared cultural and religious norms.
Cultural Identity: The critique of "snobbery" in using terms like etronga points to the tension between rabbinic culture and external influences. This is particularly salient in the term’s association with the aristocracy, suggesting a discomfort with elitist or foreign affectations within rabbinic discourse.
Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Linguistics: Rav Yehuda’s approach is notably prescriptive, favoring terms that align with either Torah language or the language of the Sages. This underscores a resistance to linguistic evolution or regional variation that might dilute traditional norms. In contrast, Rav Naḥman’s language reflects a more dynamic, evolving approach to rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic.
Linguistic Analysis
From a linguistic standpoint, this passage highlights language variation, register, and the interaction between Hebrew and Aramaic in rabbinic discourse:
Semantic Domains:
Ma’akeh, meḥitza, and gundarita: These terms reflect different registers for the concept of a fence or partition, illustrating how the same object can be described in Torah language (formal), rabbinic language (semi-formal), or colloquial language (informal or foreign-derived).
Safsal, itztava, and karfita: Similarly, these terms for a bench indicate differing social or linguistic contexts, with itztava reflecting common vernacular and karfita a rarified or foreign-sounding term.
Sociolinguistic Prestige: Words like etronga and anbaga illustrate the use of prestige language, possibly derived from Greek or other foreign sources, which were markers of the educated elite. Rav Yehuda’s preference for etrog (Hebrew) or etroga (Aramaic) underscores the tension between linguistic purism and the incorporation of loanwords or high-status language.
Code-Switching: The passage reflects the multilingual environment of the Talmudic sages, where Hebrew (language of the Torah), Aramaic (language of the common people and rabbinic discourse), and loanwords from Greek and Latin all coexisted. Rav Yehuda’s critique highlights an awareness of code-switching and the social contexts in which different registers were appropriate.
Linguistic Conservatism vs. Innovation: Rav Yehuda’s insistence on Torah or rabbinic terms suggests a conservative linguistic ideology aimed at preserving cultural and religious identity. Rav Naḥman’s use of novel or foreign terms, by contrast, reflects linguistic innovation and engagement with broader cultural influences.
Outline
Insult, Excommunication, and the Status of a Slave: A Nehardean's Confrontation in a Pumbedita Butcher Shop and Its Aftermath
A Great Man’s Reluctant Obligation: Rav Yehuda Attends Rav Naḥman’s Summons in Deference to the Exilarch
Rav Yehuda's Seven Critiques of Rav Naḥman in Neharde’a: Manual Labor, Language, and Conduct Regarding Women
Manual Labor
Parapet: Calling it gundarita, instead of ma’akeh (Torah) or meḥitza (Sages)
Bench: Calling it karfita, instead of safsal (Sages) or itzteva (common)
Citron: Calling it etronga, instead of etrog (Sages) or etroga (common)
Asparagus-infused Wine: Calling it anbaga, instead of ispharagos (Sages) or anpak (common)
Rav Naḥman’s Daughter Donag and the Ethics of Women Serving Men
Rav Naḥman’s Wife Yalta and the Ethics of Sending Greetings to Women
Yalta Intervenes: Urging Rav Yehuda to Conclude the Interaction and Preserve His Distinction from the Uneducated
(Interlude: A Lighthearted Experiment – Reimagining Rav Naḥman and Rav Yehuda’s Linguistic Debate in Contemporary English)
The Summons and Rav Yehuda’s Document
Justifying the Excommunication
The Slave Proclamation
The Claim of Hasmonean Descent
Rav Mattana’s Fortuitous Appearance in Neharde’a
The Aftermath in Neharde’a
Appendix - Proclamations of Rav Yehuda, Rava, and Rav Yosef Regarding Flawed Lineage; and the Legacy of Pashḥur ben Immer’s Slaves (Kiddushin 70b, #10-11)
Rav Yehuda’s Proclamations in Pumbedita
Rava’s Proclamations in Meḥoza
Rav Yehuda’s Proclamations on Gova’ai and Dorenunita
Rav Yosef’s Proclamation on Residents of Bei Kuvei in Pumbedita
The Assimilation of the Biblical Pashḥur ben Immer’s Slaves into the Priesthood and Their Legacy in Neharde’a
The Passage
Insult and Subsequent Declarations of Excommunication and Slave Status: A Nehardean's Confrontation in a Pumbedita Butcher Shop and Its Aftermath
A man from Neharde’a enters a butcher shop in Pumbedita and demands meat. The shopkeepers tell him to wait (נטר) until the servant of Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel (c. late 3rd century CE, a Babylonian amora of the 2nd generation) has taken his portion. Angered, the man insults Rav Yehuda: Playing on his patronym, he refers to him derogatorily as "Yehuda bar Sheviske’el."
Upon hearing about this, Rav Yehuda excommunicates (שמתיה) the man for disparaging him (a rabbinic leader) and proclaims him as technically a slave (which has halachic consequences, regarding whom he can marry) after learning he frequently calls others slaves.
ההוא גברא דמנהרדעא, דעל לבי מטבחיא בפומבדיתא.
אמר להו: הבו לי בישרא.
אמרו ליה: נטר עד דשקיל (ל)שמעיה דרב יהודה בר יחזקאל, וניתיב לך.
אמר: מאן יהודה בר שויסקאל דקדים לי, דשקל מן קמאי?!
אזלו אמרו ליה לרב יהודה.
שמתיה.
אמרו: רגיל דקרי אינשי ״עבדי״.
אכריז עליה דעבדא הוא.
The Gemara recounts a related incident:
There was a certain man from Neharde’a who entered a butcher shop in Pumbedita.
He said to them: Give me meat.
They said to him: Wait until the servant of Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel has taken his meat, and then we will give it to you.
The man said to them in anger: Who is this Yehuda bar Sheviske’el, a derogatory name for a glutton for meat, that he should precede me, that he should take before me?
They went and told Rav Yehuda what the man had said.
Rav Yehuda excommunicated him, in accordance with the halakha of one who disparages a Torah scholar.
They also said to him that the same man was in the habit of calling people slaves.
Rav Yehuda proclaimed about him that he is a slave and may not marry a Jew.
A Great Man’s Reluctant Obligation: Rav Yehuda Attends Rav Naḥman’s Summons in Deference to the Exilarch
The excommunicated man summons Rav Yehuda to judgment before Rav Naḥman.
Rav Yehuda shows the summons2 document3 to Rav Huna, who advises him that, as a “great man” (גברא רבה), he is not obligated to attend the judgement. However, out of respect for the house of the Exilarch,4 Rav Yehuda agrees to go.
אזל ההוא אזמניה לדינא לקמיה דרב נחמן.
אייתי פיתקא דהזמנא.
אזל רב יהודה לקמיה דרב הונא.
אמר ליה: איזיל או לא איזיל?
אמר ליה:
מיזל לא מיבעי לך למיזל, משום דגברא רבה את,
אלא משום יקרא דבי נשיאה, קום זיל.
The Gemara continues the story: That man went and summoned Rav Yehuda to judgment before Rav Naḥman, who was a judge in Neharde’a.
When the summons arrived in Pumbedita,
Rav Yehuda went before Rav Huna to seek his counsel.
Rav Yehuda said to him: Should I go or should I not go?
Rav Huna said to him:
As for the obligation to go, you are not required to go, since you are a great man and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of Rav Naḥman’s court.
But due to the honor of the Exilarch’s house, as Rav Naḥman was the son-in-law of the Exilarch, get up and go.
Rav Yehuda's Seven Critiques of Rav Naḥman in Neharde’a: Manual Labor, Language, and Conduct Regarding Women
Rav Yehuda traveled to Neharde’a, where he voiced seven critiques upon his arrival. Four of these critiques targeted Rav Naḥman’s usage of pretentious and unusual words. The final two critiques addressed Rav Naḥman’s permissive attitudes and behaviors concerning women.
Manual Labor: Leadership, Labor, and Public Perception
Upon arriving, he saw Rav Naḥman building a parapet.5
He questioned Rav Naḥman, citing a halakha from Shmuel via Rav Huna bar Idi (רב הונא בר אידי), which states that a community leader (פרנס) is forbidden to perform manual labor (מלאכה) in front of three people (to preserve the dignity of their position).
אתא, אשכחיה דקעביד מעקה.
אמר ליה:
לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר רב הונא בר אידי, אמר שמואל:
כיון שנתמנה אדם פרנס על הצבור
אסור בעשיית מלאכה בפני שלשה?!
Rav Yehuda arrived in Neharde’a and found Rav Naḥman constructing a parapet.
Rav Yehuda said to Rav Naḥman:
Does the Master not hold in accordance with that halakha that Rav Huna bar Idi says that Shmuel says:
Once a person has been appointed a leader of the community,
he is prohibited from performing labor before three people, so that he not belittle the honor of his position?
Parapet: Calling it gundarita, instead of ma’akeh (Torah) or meḥitza (Sages)
Rav Naḥman dismisses this by calling it a "little fence (גונדריתא)”, prompting Rav Yehuda to object to the use of a pretentious term, instead of the biblical Hebrew word "ma’akeh" (מעקה) or the Mishnaic Hebrew word "meḥitza."
אמר ליה: פורתא דגונדריתא הוא דקא עבידנא.
אמר ליה:
מי סניא
״מעקה״ דכתיב באורייתא,
או ״מחיצה״ דאמור רבנן?!
Rav Naḥman said to him: It is merely a little fence [gundarita] that I am constructing.
Rav Yehuda said to him:
Is the term ma’akeh, which is written in the Torah,
or the corresponding term meḥitza, which the Sages said,
distasteful to you? Why do you use a term that is used by neither the Torah nor the Sages?
Bench: Calling it karfita, instead of safsal (Sages) or itzteva (common)
Subsequently, Rav Naḥman continues to use uncommon or aristocratic language, and Rav Yehuda consistently rebukes him for not adhering to the terminology of either the Torah, the rabbis (רבנן), or common people:
"Karfita" (קרפיטא) for a bench, instead of the rabbis’ "safsal"6 or the common "itzteva”.7
אמר ליה: יתיב מר אקרפיטא.
אמר ליה:
ומי סני
״ספסל״ דאמור רבנן,
או ״איצטבא״ דאמרי אינשי?!
During their meeting, Rav Naḥman said to him: Let the Master sit on the bench [karfita].
Rav Yehuda said to him:
Is the term safsal, which the Sages said,
or the word itzteva, which common people say,
distasteful to you? Why are you using uncommon terms?
Citron: Calling it etronga, instead of etrog (Sages) or etroga (common)
Rav Naḥman offers Rav Yehuda a citron (etrog) using the term "etronga" (אתרונגא).
Rav Yehuda responds by quoting Shmuel, who criticized using this term, saying it reflects “one-third of a haughtiness of spirit (רמות רוחא)”.
Rav Yehuda argued one should either use "etrog" (אתרוג), the term used by the Sages, or "etroga" (אתרוגא) the common Aramaic term.
"Etronga," associated with the aristocracy, is seen as pretentious.8
אמר ליה: ליכול מר אתרונגא.
אמר ליה:
הכי אמר שמואל:
כל האומר ״אתרונגא״
תילתא ברמות רוחא
או ״אתרוג״ כדקריוה רבנן,
או ״אתרוגא״ דאמרי אינשי.
Rav Naḥman then said to him: Let the Master eat a citron [etronga].
Rav Yehuda said to him:
This is what Shmuel said:
Anyone who says etronga
demonstrates one-third of a haughtiness of spirit.
Why? He should either say
etrog, as the Sages called it,
or etroga, as common people say in Aramaic.
Saying etronga is a sign of snobbery, as it was employed by the aristocratic class.
Asparagus-infused Wine: Calling it anbaga, instead of ispharagos (Sages) or anpak (common)
"Anbaga" (אנבגא) for a cup of wine, instead of the rabbis’ "ispharagos"9 or the common "anpak” (אנפק).
אמר ליה: לישתי מר אנבגא.
אמר ליה:
מי סני
״איספרגוס״ דקריוה רבנן
או ״אנפק״ דאמרי אינשי?!
He subsequently said to him: Let the Master drink a cup [anbaga] of wine.
Rav Yehuda said to him:
Is
the term ispargus, as the Sages called it,
or anpak, as common people say,
distasteful to you?
Rav Naḥman’s Daughter Donag and the Ethics of Women Serving Men
Rav Naḥman offers that his daughter, Donag,10 should pour them drinks.
Rav Yehuda refuses, quoting Shmuel’s prohibition against using women for service, whether adults (גדולה) or minors (קטנה).
אמר ליה: תיתי דונג תשקינן.
אמר ליה: הכי אמר שמואל: אין משתמשים באשה.
קטנה היא.
בפירוש אמר שמואל: אין משתמשים באשה כלל, בין גדולה בין קטנה.
Later on, Rav Naḥman said to him: Let my daughter Donag come and pour us drinks.
Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not make use of a woman for a service such as this.
Rav Naḥman replied: She is a minor. R
av Yehuda retorted: Shmuel explicitly says: One may not make use of a woman at all, whether she is an adult or a minor.
Rav Naḥman’s Wife Yalta and the Ethics of Sending Greetings to Women
Rav Naḥman suggests that Rav Yehuda send greetings (שלמא - “Shalom”) to his wife, Yalta.
Rav Yehuda refused, citing Shmuel's teaching that a woman's voice is considered immodest (ערוה) and that one should not speak with her.
When Rav Naḥman suggested using a messenger, Rav Yehuda again objected, stating Shmuel's ruling that even indirect greetings are prohibited.
Rav Naḥman countered that sending greetings through the woman's husband is permitted (and he’s Yaltas’s husband), but Rav Yehuda responded that Shmuel prohibits sending greetings to a woman entirely (even via her husband).
נשדר ליה מר שלמא לילתא.
אמר ליה: הכי אמר שמואל: קול באשה ערוה.
אפשר על ידי שליח.
אמר ליה: הכי אמר שמואל: אין שואלין בשלום אשה.
על ידי בעלה!
אמר ליה: הכי אמר שמואל: אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל.
Later on, Rav Naḥman suggested: Let the Master send greetings of peace to my wife Yalta.
Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: A woman’s voice is considered nakedness, and one may not speak with her.
Rav Naḥman responded: It is possible to send your regards with a messenger.
Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman even with a messenger, as this may cause the messenger and the woman to relate to each other inappropriately.
Rav Naḥman countered by suggesting that he send his greetings with her husband, which would remove all concerns.
Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman at all.
Yalta Intervenes: Urging Rav Yehuda to Conclude the Interaction and Preserve His Distinction from the Uneducated
Rav Nahman’s wife Yalta (who was just mentioned), overhearing that Rav Yehuda was prevailing in the debate, sent him a message advising him to quickly resolve (שרי) the matter (תגריה) and release his opponent “so that he won’t make you like every other uneducated commoner (עם הארץ - Am ha'aretz)“.
שלחה ליה דביתהו:
שרי ליה תגריה,
דלא נישוויך כשאר עם הארץ.
Yalta, his wife, who overheard that Rav Yehuda was getting the better of the exchange, sent a message to him:
Release him and conclude your business with him,
so that he not equate you with another ignoramus.
(Interlude: A Lighthearted Experiment – Reimagining Rav Naḥman and Rav Yehuda’s Linguistic Debate in Contemporary English)
As a humorous exercise, I reimagined the conversation between Rav Naḥman and Rav Yehuda in a modern-day setting, using various registers of English. The playful exchange between two professors underscores the tension between linguistic elitism and practical clarity. While Dr. Newman strives for elevated and refined language, Dr. Judah advocates for accessibility and authenticity, reflecting the original Talmudic debate.
Setting:
Two professors, Dr. Newman (an urbane, somewhat pretentious linguist) and Dr. Judah (a practical, no-nonsense historian), meet at a conference. Their conversation reflects varying preferences for different registers of English.
Dr. Newman: Welcome, Professor Judah. May I offer you a seat on this delightful chaise longue?
Dr. Judah: A what? You mean the couch? What’s wrong with just saying couch like normal people—or sofa, if you’re feeling fancy? Why use some outdated French word?
Dr. Newman: Very well, I’ll keep it simple. Could I interest you in a glass of Perrier-Jouët?
Dr. Judah: You mean champagne? Or just bubbly if we’re being casual. Why not call it what it is? Trying to sound posh doesn’t make it taste better.
Dr. Newman: Fair enough, Judah. How about a refreshing appellation pear cider with your meal?
Dr. Judah: Are you serious? It’s just hard cider. Don’t dress it up like you’re writing a restaurant menu. Who are you trying to impress?
Dr. Newman: All right, all right. Would you care for an heirloom apple tart for dessert?
Dr. Judah: You mean apple pie? No need to make it sound like it came straight from a farmer’s market catalog. Pie is pie.
Dr. Newman: Judah, I can’t win with you, can I? Fine. How about we grab some java instead?
Dr. Judah: Now you’re trying too hard to be informal. It’s coffee, Newman. Whether you call it java, joe, or espresso, it’s still coffee.
Dr. Newman: I give up! I’ll stick to simple words from now on. But I must say, Judah, your insistence on pedestrian language deprives our discourse of a certain…je ne sais quoi.
Dr. Judah: And your pretentious words deprive it of any clarity. If you want people to understand you, just speak plainly. Simplicity isn’t a vice, Newman.
In my recent series, I explored an extended sugya from the same Talmudic chapter, also addressing lineage, see “Talmudic Jewish Geography: The Boundaries of Babylonia, Lineage Purity, and the Cities of the Ten Lost Tribes (Kiddushin 71b-72a)“, the final part is here.
For another discussion of Aramaic dialects, refer to my earlier piece on the sugya comparing the clarity of Babylonian Aramaic with the supposedly "confused" nature of Galilean Aramaic: “From Mnemonics to Miscommunication: A Talmudic Comparative Study of Judean and Galilean Aramaic Speech, Torah Study Methods, and Sociolinguistics (Eruvin 53a-b)“, with my extended introduction there.
הזמנא - literally: “invitation”.
נשיאה. Rav Naḥman was the son-in-law of the Exilarch.
מעקה. See Deuteronomy.22.8:
כי תבנה בית חדש
ועשית מעקה לגגך
ולא־תשים דמים בביתך
כי־יפל הנפל ממנו
When you build a new house,
you shall make a parapet for your roof,
so that you do not bring bloodguilt on your house
if anyone should fall from it.
And see Hebrew Wikipedia on this halacha: מעקה (הלכה).
ספסל - from Latin.
איצטבא - from Greek.
From a linguistics persepective, all three of these words are cognates, ultimately from Persian uthruj. The first is more Persian, the second more Hebraized, and the third Aramaicized.
איספרגוס - from Greek.
A Persian name, related to the name Denag, the name of multiple Sasanian Persian queens.