Chazal’s Limits of Refined Speech

Clean Language

What does the word “Kevastan” mean? It is twice referred to in Shas and nowhere else (if we are to trust the computer).

A, Kiddushin 26b.

B, Sanhedrin 55a.

The “Aruch” by Rabbi Nosson of Rome (Entry קבס) explains –

פירושו מכעיס.

ר”ח ז”ל פירש גנבת דעתינו, כדאמרינן נמצא גנב או קוביוסטוס, והוא בלשון יון מטעה בני אדם בדברי מרמות כגון גנב בעצמו.

פירוש אחר בתשובות, קבסתן בלשון ישמעאל גיתתנו ברפה ולא בדגש, כאדם שמראה את חבירו דבר מטונף והוא אומר הפכת כל האוכלין במעי עד שהגעתני להקיא, ומשל זה אומרים למי שאומר ומדבר דברים רחוקים ודחוקים, כלומר היאך יוכל האדם להערה עצמו. ועיקר לשון זה האדם המרבה במאכל ואוכל אכילה גסה ומצטער ומגיע לו שלשול מלמטה וקיא מלמעלה, נקרא בלשון ארמי קיבסא.

The context and etymology make clear the speaker is accusing his interlocutor of doing evil to him. The only question is what that negative deed is.

The Aruch offers three possible translations of Kevastan:

1. ‘You anger me’
2. ‘You deceive me’
3. ‘You disgust me’

Two problems bother me at this point.

Firstly, if you read the original Aruch in Hebrew (and not just my summary), you will notice certain unmentionable descriptions in his account of #3; descriptions that, ironically, appear to achieve the same deplorable “disgust” being referenced. See Pesachim 3a on the great importance of using clean language in Chazal’s view. How could Rabbi Nosson – a Rishon, no less, express himself in this graphic fashion?

Secondly, assuming his third interpretation is truly correct, how could Chazal speak this way? Again, see Pesachim above. Even without their spelling things out, as the Aruch does, the phrase itself appears dreadful. How is “Kevastan” different than “You make me p***”? To make matters worse, Rashi, as well, (on both the aforementioned Sugyos) agrees with the Aruch’s third commentary.

Indeed sometimes, the words of Torah, themselves, are not “pretty”, see Yalkut Shimoni 5:990 –

ר’ שמואל בר יצחק פתר קריא בפרשיותיה של תורה אף על פי כן שנראות כאלו כעורות ושחורות לאמרם ברבים כגון הלכות זיבה ונגעים אמור הרי הם ערבות לפני, כו’

R’ Shmuel bar Yitzchak interpreted the verse [“Black as a raven (Song of Songs 5:11)”] metaphorically to refer to those portions of Torah which, although they seem too ugly and ‘black’ to be taught in public, such as the laws of discharges and skin diseases [Zivah, Nega’im], say: They are pleasing before G-d etc.

In truth though, there is no connection between Yalkut Shimoni and our discussion. This is not Torah itself, but avoidable expressions by sages in the course of a discussion concerning actual Torah. There is no reason to assume a compelling cause to express thoughts this way.

See also Megillah 25a regarding idol worshippers, an exception that proves the rule.

I am no expert on Aramaic, Greek or Arabic, but using a form of “outside” logic, it would seem either #1 or #2 is correct. I deem it probable Chazal would use a more refined form of speech; ergo that is what the unknown Kevastan means. Is that a logical fallacy…?

However, am I right in assuming this language is improper in the first place?

In his “Orchos Yosher”, Rabbi Chaim Kanievski (in the Chapter entitled “Hadras Panim”) quotes the Chazon Ish using the same terminology (after quoting the letter – Collected Letters of the Chazon Ish 1:198, saying he is “Soled”, or “recoils”, from shaving of the beard) –

ואמר מרן ז”ל שכשנכנס אליו אדם שמוריד זקנו או שמגדל בלורית נהי’ לו כ”כ לא טוב עד שעומד לו להקיא

Our teacher [the Chazon Ish] of blessed memory said that when he meets a man who removes his beard [entirely] or grows a front-lock [?] he feels so ill that he has the urge to vomit.

I wonder: was this first said in Yiddish? If so, what expression might have been used exactly? The above Hebrew quote is very unwieldy.

P. S. The Aramaic-to-Hebrew dictionary by E.T Melamed quotes both the first and third options in the Aruch –

הכעסתני, הגעלתני (גרמת לי להקיא, ערוך)

I assume he has good, scholarly reason for doing so.