וְהָא דְּרַב לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִתְּמַר. דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל הֲווֹ יָתְבִי בְּהָהוּא חָצֵר, נְפַל גּוּדָּא דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי, אֲמַר לְהוּ שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁקוּלוּ גְּלִימָא, נְגִידוּ בַּהּ.

 

The Gemara comments: And this ruling of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference; i.e., it was inferred by his students from another one of his teachings. As once Rav and Shmuel were sitting in a certain courtyard on Shabbat, and the wall between the two courtyards fell. Shmuel said to the people around him: Take a cloak and suspend it on the remnant of the partition.

אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ רַב לְאַפֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ שְׁמוּאֵל: אִי קָפֵיד אַבָּא, שְׁקוּלוּ הֶמְיָינֵיהּ וּקְטַרוּ בָּהּ.

Rav turned his face away, displaying his displeasure with Shmuel’s opinion, as Rav maintained it was prohibited to carry a cloak in this courtyard. Shmuel said to them in a humorous vein: If Abba, Rav, is particular, take his belt and tie it to the cloak, to secure it to the partition

וְרַב, אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דַּאֲסִיר — לֵימָא לֵיהּ! אַתְרֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הֲוָה.

The Gemara asks: And Rav, if he maintains that in this case carrying is prohibited, he should have said so to him explicitly. The Gemara answers: It was Shmuel’s place. Rav did not want to disagree with his colleague in his jurisdiction, as he accepted the opinion of the local authority.

אִי הָכִי, מַאי טַעְמָא אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְאַפֵּיהּ? דְּלָא נֵימְרוּ כִּשְׁמוּאֵל סְבִירָא לֵיהּ (וַהֲדַר בֵּיהּ מִשְּׁמַעְתֵּיהּ).

The Gemara asks: If so, if he accepted the jurisdiction of the local rabbinic authority, why did he turn his face away? The Gemara answers: He acted in this manner so that people would not say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and that he retracted his opinion with regard to this halakha.

This act of Rav turning away to communicate his disagreement is only found once in Shas. Rav Yosef uses this method a few times, but Rav only once.

It is noteworthy that Rav was extremely careful with his speech as evidenced by a tradition of the Geonim quoted by the Rambam (Deos 2:4):

אָמְרוּ עַל רַב תַּלְמִיד רַבֵּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ שֶׁלֹּא שָׂח שִׂיחָה בְּטֵלָה כָּל יָמָיו.

Of Rav, the disciple of our Holy Master, it was said, that he never in his life uttered idle talk

What is then fascinating to note is how in practice Rav interpreted what was considered idle talk. For example, he teaches the following (Chagigah 5b):

אמר רב אפילו שיחה יתירה שבין איש לאשתו מגידים לו לאדם בשעת מיתה

Rav said: Even frivolous speech that is between a man and his wife before engaging in relations is declared to a person at the time of death, and he will have to account for it.

That is to say, even when talking with one's wife who is there close confidant, and who won fear has many many things with, does not get an exemption in terms of idle chatter. One must still be careful and it's held accountable for frivolous speech.

However, the Gemara raises an apparent contradiction from Rav:

איני והא רב כהנא הוה גני תותי פורייה דרב ושמעיה דסח וצחק ועשה צרכיו אמר דמי פומיה דרב כמאן דלא טעים ליה תבשילא אמר ליה כהנא פוק לאו אורח ארעא

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is it prohibited for a man to speak in this manner with his wife? Wasn’t Rav Kahana lying beneath Rav’s bed, and he heard Rav chatting and laughing with his wife, and performing his needs, i.e., having relations with her. Rav Kahana said out loud: The mouth of Rav is like one who has never eaten a cooked dish, i.e., his behavior is lustful. Rav said to him: Kahana, leave, as this is not proper conduct. This shows that Rav himself engaged in frivolous talk before relations.

לא קשיא כאן דצריך לרצויה הא דלא צריך לרצויה

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where this type of speech is permitted, it is referring to a situation where he must appease his wife before relations, and therefore this speech is appropriate. However, this statement, that it is prohibited, is referring to a situation where he doesn’t need to appease her. 

It is noteworthy that the Gemara does not condemn Rav Kahana for his  actions, nor does it laud him either.  I suppose it was left deliberately ambiguous because while it was not particularly the right thing to do, his motivation was pure.

Once again, as we have discussed in other essays, we see how the “Fifth Shulkhan Arukh” applies. Though the literal statement sounds excessively strict, in reality a range of helpful and normal engaging behaviors are not considered idle chatter.

This reminds of a conversation I had with my father Zichrono LiVeracha when I was about seventeen. I was at the age of when a yeshiva Bochur, as part of his adolescent individuation discovers new chumros and Halachos to inflict upon his family members. I asked my father why does he “allow” the family to shmooze at the shabbos table other than divrei Torah, is it not forbidden to speak idle words at the shabbos table? To which my father compassionate;y replied, “What makes you think listening to my family members talk about their life to be idle words?”