daf bit: Bava Batra 164

[cellio]

The g'mara at the bottom of yesterday's daf relates two stories about Rabbi and R' Shimon b. Rabbi. In the first episode, R' Shimon presented Rabbi with a deed that has a flaw (according to Rabbi), and when Rabbi showed displeasure R' Shimon said "I didn't write it; R' Yehudah Hayyata wrote it". Rabbi rebuked R' Shimon for tale-bearing. (All he needed to do was disclaim it; he didn't need to call out someone else.) In the second episode, Rabbi has just finished reading a section of psalms and praised the manuscript. R' Shimon said "I didn't write it; R' Yehudah Hayyata wrote it", and again Rabbi rebuked him for tale-bearing. The g'mara then asks: in the first case it's obvious why he would rebuke, as the other person is being called out for something bad, but why is the second case tale-bearing when it's positive? Because R' Dimi brother of R' Safra taught: one should never speak in praise of his friend, because by praising him he brings about blame -- people will examine his other deeds more closely and thus come to see negative things. (164b)

There are people who hold this way (including the Chofetz Chayim, I believe), but this approach conflicts with another strong custom to give credit where it is due. We should always try to teach torah in the name of the person who taught it to us, for example, and you see this throughout the talmud (and later). And in modern times, the dinner or other celebration to honor prominent people in the Jewish community is common (usually as part of a fundraising appeal). I don't know whether there is some further nuance that makes "R' Ploni taught me this torah" and "Ploni has done these things for the community" good and "R' Ploni wrote this manuscript" bad, or if R' Dimi's position (shared by Rabbi) is a minority view, or what.

(Today's daf is 165.)

Comments

[xiphias]

Is the difference that, when you tell something in the name of someone else, you're setting it up in the first place, while, in the second, you're changing what has already be set?

[cellio]

You mean a difference between introduction and after-the-fact mentions? Like, maybe it's ok if you don't yet know how the info will be received or something?

[siderea]

I'm wondering if it's the context of responding to praise. If you are teaching torah in the name of the person who taught you, it's not like someone has first said, "This torah teaching is particularly excellent" and you were responding, "Oh, yes, it's R' Soandso's." If you teach torah and your student comes to the conclusion, "Wow, Monica's teacher, this R' Soandso, is particularly insightful", that's on them.

ETA: Come to think of it, while I'm pretty hard-core in the camp of there being a moral responsibility to give credit, the gross shenanigans I've personally witnessed in SCA order meetings having to do with promoting candidates (miss-attributing the work of others to the candidate, exaggerating the work of the candidate, fawning over their work far in excess of its actual merit, e.g., all of which are ultimately to the detriment of the reputation of the candidate) suggests to me that maybe Rabbi has a point.

There is this behavior I've observed where people try to promote their friends and household members, and do this sort of talking up, which really does do those they do this "favor" harm.

(I'm also thinking of the humiliation a Laurel I knew went through when her work became so promininent it came to the attention of an academic in her field who basically debunked it.)

ETA2: So in other words, maybe Rabbi is just really adamantly against awards campaigning.

Also see "Rumplestiltskin".

All that said, it wouldn't seem (to me, anyway) like "This manuscript is excellent", "Oh, it's not my work. The credit goes to R' Soandso." is an example of campaigning.

[cellio]

I'm wondering if it's the context of responding to praise.

Oh, interesting. If I don't yet know how the person will react, I'm more clearly just providing information rather than trying to influence the person to draw a conclusion.

Come to think of it, while I'm pretty hard-core in the camp of there being a moral responsibility to give credit, the gross shenanigans I've personally witnessed in SCA order meetings having to do with promoting candidates (miss-attributing the work of others to the candidate, exaggerating the work of the candidate, fawning over their work far in excess of its actual merit, e.g., all of which are ultimately to the detriment of the reputation of the candidate) suggests to me that maybe Rabbi has a point.

I'm pretty hard-core about giving credit too, both before and after the question comes up. Isn't the problem with the order shenanigans we've both seen the misrepresentation, though? I've been taking it as a given that in both the talmudic discussion and your and my personal practices, the information is truthful. Sadly, not everything said in order discussions is.

There is this behavior I've observed where people try to promote their friends and household members, and do this sort of talking up, which really does do those they do this "favor" harm.

Yes. Can't people see that they're harming the people they're promoting when they do this? Is that any way to treat a good friend? I would be horrified to find out that I'd received an award not based on my merits but on false information about what turned out not to be my merits. (That almost happened to me once, actually -- not exactly misrepresentation, but somebody was campaigning to get me an award I clearly had not met the criteria for. I got wind of it and wrote to the royalty saying "please don't do that", which was all kinds of awkward because polling discussions are supposed to be secret, but not doing it was worse.)

All that said, it wouldn't seem (to me, anyway) like "This manuscript is excellent", "Oh, it's not my work. The credit goes to R' Soandso." is an example of campaigning.

Yeah. So it's still puzzling me in the end.

I recently learned how to interpret some marginalia pointing to the relevant halacha, and there's a note on this passage, so I hope to decipher that note soon to see where it takes me.

[hudebnik]

one should never speak in praise of his friend, because by praising him he brings about blame -- people will examine his other deeds more closely and thus come to see negative things. (164b)

Is this related to how the FBI normally doesn't deny the existence of an ongoing investigation, because when they subsequently refuse to deny one it will be taken as a confirmation?