Name-calling: a call for respect

The very first word of the first mishnah of the first chapter of Pirkei Avot is a name: Moshe (“Moses”). This seemingly innocent mention of a name elicits a question from R’ Ovadyah Hedaya (Seh leBet Avot). How could R’ Yehudah HaNasi, when compiling this tractate, refer to Moshe as Moshe? Is there not a well-established principle of Jewish law that a talmid, a pupil, does not call his teacher by his personal name—even after his death?  (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 240:2 and 242:15). Moshe is the teacher of us all, which is why he alone of all our leaders in the Jewish bible, is given the epithet “Rabbenu” (“our teacher”). Is it not then disrespectful for the anonymous author of this mishnah to call this great man “Moshe”, and for R’ Yehudah HaNasi, when redacting it, to leave it unamended?

R’ Hedaya offers an answer. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi is entitled to refer to the humblest of all men as “Moshe” because it is not his real name. Following his birth he would have received a name from his parents, and it is only once Pharaoh’s daughter has found and claimed him that he is given the name Moshe with the explanation Ki min hamayim mishisihu (“For I drew him from the water”: Shemot 2:10).

Although the Torah refers to him as Moshe throughout the rest of the Torah, this is out of respect for the noble life-saving action of his rescuer. In essence, however, it is only a substitute for the name that it would be disrespectful for us, his talmidim to call him. And what was his birthname? The Torah does not record it, but midrash puts forward no fewer than 10 of them. R’ Hedaya suggests Tov (per R’ Meir at Sotah 12a) or Tuvyah (per R’ Yehudah, ibidem).

Notions as to what constitutes respect clearly vary in time and space and as between the generations. When I attended school in London back in the 1950s and later in the more permissive age of the “Swinging 60s”, no child would dare to call a teacher by their first name to their face, though we all did behind their backs. Now in Israel I note that practices are very different, depending on the school, and its religious orientation.

Slightly changing the subject, I’d like to invite further exploration of the way we refer to one another.

Later in Avot we learn that one should not embarrass another person in public (Avot 3:15). Though it may not be immediately apparent, this has a good deal to do with names. Within the Jewish community there are many people who prefer to use their Hebrew name because their “English name”, which appears on their birth certificates and in their passports, causes them embarrassment. To call them by the name their parents chose for them may not only embarrass them but can cause considerable offence.

This same applies not only to Jews but to everyone, regardless of religion, race and nationality. Over the years I have had numerous friends who have sought to bury their awkward or unloved forenames or middle names, and I expect that I am far from alone in witnessing people being teased for having names that caused them grief.  

The use of an embarrassing if genuine name is not always intended to be hurtful. Often the offenders are parents who chose a child’s name with a very good reason and who, having always used that name, find it difficult or upsetting to switch to another.

Ultimately, it seems to me, our objective should be to avoid upsetting or annoying others. We should give them their due respect, however apparently trivial their feelings may seem to us.  This is part and parcel of R’ Chanina ben Dosa’s advice (Avot 3:13) that, if we want our actions to be pleasing to God, we should act in such a way as to make them pleasing to our fellow humans too.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook click here.

A rabbi by any other title?

Shortly before the end of this year’s festive season our friend and greatly appreciated commentator Claude Tusk sent Avot Today this devar Torah for Simchat Torah, the celebration of both the conclusion of our Torah readings and their immediate recommencement. This short, timely and well-delivered devar Torah is based on Pirkei Avot, in particular on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s much-debated contention that it is not the study of Torah which is the main thing, but the performance of its precepts (Avot 1:17).

This devar Torah first cites the opinion of R’ Kalonymus Kalman Shapira that a person who learns Torah but does not implement it is like a bookshelf: he holds much knowledge but is judged to be no more than a piece of wood. R’ Nosson Tzvi Finkel is also quoted: he explains that the value of Torah is inseparable from its active implementation since the role of Torah is to enable one to transform oneself into a different, improved person—and it is only by putting one’s Torah learning into action that one properly internalises it.

Aside from the content of the devar Torah, the issue I want to discuss, one on which I suspect many readers may wish to comment, is that its author, one Rabbi Avi Strausberg, turns out to be a woman.

As a traditional orthodox Jew I am most comfortable with the position that “rabbi” is a title and a status that is conferred upon the male of the species. On the other hand I am happy to attend shiurim given by women; I buy and read works of Jewish scholarship written by women and have greatly benefited from their learning. I respect them both as fellow human beings and as Jewish leaders and scholars in their own right—but for me, on a personal basis, the title “rabbi” refers to a man.

Can I, should I, refer to Avi Strausberg as “Rabbi” in this post? What guidance does Avot give me?

I actually first encountered this issue when I was Registrar of the London Beth Din. I had to write a letter to a (male) minister of a provincial English community who styled himself “rabbi”, even though he did not hold semichah from any recognised authority. I was asked to write to him, with the full authority of the Beth Din, to inform him that he was not recognised as a rabbi and must not refer to himself as such. I asked Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu, who was Rosh Beth Din at the time and someone whose orthodox credentials were beyond challenge, how I should address the letter and the envelope in which the letter was to be delivered to him.

The Dayan’s answer came instantly and without equivocation. I was to address this person as “Rabbi” both in my letter and on the envelope containing it. He explained: as a matter of kavod, of the respect that any human is required to show to another, one should always give a person the title that he (or she) uses for him- or herself. To do otherwise would be frankly rude and certainly not in keeping with the need to show kavod to others. The source for this is Ben Zoma’s teaching at Avot 4:1: “Who is respected? The person who respects others…”.  I have followed this guidance ever since.

One might add that a letter to someone who calls themselves “Rabbi” which is addressed to “Mr”, “Miss”, “Mrs”, “Ms” or whatever might generate personal embarrassment if that letter is seen and read by others—and embarrassing others in public should also be avoided (see R’ Elazar HaModa’i at Avot 3:15).

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.