Moed Katan 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

This is his tenth of an ephah,

which the ordinary priest brings when he comes to be initiated into the Temple service for the first time.

He may bring it only when he is ritually pure, and he may not send his tenth of an ephah when he is ritually impure.

This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says:

This may be derived from the verse in the Book of Ezekiel [chapter 44]:

“When he enters

he shall offer.”

When he is fit to enter,

he

is fit

to offer.

But

when he is not fit to enter,

he is not fit to offer.

And from impurity resulting from the dead, the law is derived with regard to the impurity of a metzora: he may not send his offering while he remains impure with the impurity of a metzora.

Since the Gemara had been discussing the matter of one who was placed under a ban, the Gemara now explains the stages that bring a person to being placed under a ban.

Rava said: From where do we derive that we establish a place

[the Baḥ] for the hearing of the plaintiff's claim, and

send

a messenger

of the court

to the defendant, instructing him to come to court?

As it is written

[Numbers 16]:

“And Moses sent to summon Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab.”

And from where do we derive that we summon

the defendant

to judgment?

As it is written

[Numbers 16]:

“And Moses said to Korah: You and all your congregation.”

Moses was the messenger of the Holy One, blessed be He, to summon Korah and his men to judgment.

And from where do we derive that a court sends a messenger to summon someone to judgment

before

a

great man?

As it is written

[Numbers 16]:

“Before the Lord.”

And from where do we derive that they summon

you and so-and-so,

meaning that two people are summoned to come together?

As it is written:

“You, they, and Aaron.”

And from where do we derive

that we set a date

for the hearing?

As it is written:

“Tomorrow.”

And from where do we derive that we set

one date after another

if the defendant did not come in response to the first summons?

As it is written

[Jeremiah 46]:

“Call there: Pharaoh, king

of Egypt, is a tumult; he has let the appointed time pass.”

And from where do we derive that if he acts insolently,

insulting the defendant and offending

the

honor of

the court's messenger, and the messenger

comes

and says

to the court that the defendant insulted him, it is permissible for the court to accept the messenger's statement, and

it does not appear

that this is

the

acceptance of

slander

by the court?

As it is written

[Numbers 16], for Dathan and Abiram said to Moses' messenger:

“Will you gouge out the eyes of those men?”

And if Moses was not permitted to listen to the messenger, since this was slander, how did Moses know that they had said this?

And from where do we derive that we place under a ban

one who does not come to court or one who does not obey the court's ruling?

As it is written

[Judges 5]:

“Curse Meroz,”

because they did not come when Barak son of Avinoam called them to go to war, and Barak was a judge of Israel.

And from where do we derive that we must tell the person whom we place under shamta that he has been placed under a ban because

this is

the

reasoning of a great man,

meaning that he should be placed under a ban, and we tell him which sage holds that he should be placed under a ban?

As it is written:

“The angel of the Lord said.”

And from where do we derive that we excommunicate

him, proclaiming, “Cursed is he”?

As it is written

regarding Meroz, who did not come to participate in the war:

“C

u

rsed be he.”

And from where do we derive that we also excommunicate one

who eats and drinks with him,

together with the person under the ban,

and stands

who is standing

within his four cubits—

as it is written:

“Cursed is he who

dwells”?

And from where do we derive that we detail his sin,

meaning that we specify and publicize the sin of the person placed under a ban,

in public?

As it is written

[Judges 5]:

“For they did not come to the aid of the Lord.”

And Ulla said: With four hundred shofar blasts

shofars,

Barak placed Meroz under a ban.

Some say:

Meroz was not a city, but

a great man

named “Meroz”

there was.

And some say:

Meroz

was a star,

and it was the star representing Sisera's fortune.

As it is stated

[Judges 5]:

“From heaven the stars fought,”

meaning that there was a battle of stars against the star representing Sisera's fortune, which was called Meroz.

And from where do we derive that we declare his property ownerless

belonging to one who refuses to obey the instruction of the Sages?

As it is written

[Ezra 10]:

“And whoever does not come within three days, according to the counsel of the officers and the elders

shall have all his property proscribed,

and he shall be separated from the congregation of the exiles.”

And from where do we derive that we fight,

meaning that we engage in combat and strike,

and curse,

meaning that we utter curses,

and strike,

meaning that we beat,

and pull out hair,

meaning that we pluck out hair,

and administer an oath,

meaning that we impose the severity of an oath in order to compel a person to obey the instruction of the Sages or the ruling of a court?

As it is written

in the Book of Nehemiah, when Nehemiah struggled with the men who had married foreign women and demanded that they divorce them [chapter 13]:

“And I contended with them, and cursed them.

And I struck some of them, and pulled out their hair, and administered an oath to them.”

And from where do we derive that we bind

his hands and feet,

and tie him,

meaning that we tie him to a pillar in order to flog him,

and carry out

pursuit

[this will be explained below]?

As it is written

[Ezra 7]:

“Whether for death, whether for uprooting, whether for the punishment of property, or for imprisonment.”

What

is “for uprooting”?

Adda Mari said that Nehemiah bar Barukh said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Yehuda said: Pursuit.

What

is “pursuit”?

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav:

He

is placed under a ban

immediately

at once.

And they repeat

the ban upon him

after thirty

days,

and excommunicate

him with the proclamation “Cursed”

after sixty

days, if he persists in his rebellion.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said to him: This is what Rav Ḥisda said: We warn him

to obey the judgment, three times, on

Monday, Thursday, and Monday.

And

these words apply

when he is warned three times

with regard to

the matter of

money,

to pay his debt.

But in a case of insolence,

when he denigrates Torah scholars,

he is placed under a ban immediately

without prior warnings.

There was a certain slaughterer,

the owner of a butcher shop,

who acted insolently toward Rav Tovi bar Matana,

disparaging his honor and refusing to obey his ruling that he was liable to pay the person who had sued him.

They deliberated

and

Abaye and Rava placed him under a ban.

Ultimately he went

and

appeased his litigant.

Abaye said,

who was among those who had placed him under the ban:

What should we do?

Should we release him?

We cannot release him, since

the shamta has not yet rested upon him for thirty days,

and a ban does not last for less than thirty days!?

Should we not release him?

The Sages wish to enter

his shop, since they needed to purchase meat from him.

He said to

Abaye

to Rav Idi bar Avin: Is there anything

that

you have heard

about

this

matter of law?

He said to him: This is what Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said in the name of Shmuel: Tot

the shofar with which the ban was proclaimed

prohibited

him,

and tot

that same shofar

releases

him as well. That is, the person who imposed the ban has the authority to release him even if thirty days have not passed.

He said to him

Abaye:

These words apply

when it is possible to release the ban within thirty days, if the ban was imposed with regard

to a monetary matter.

But

a ban

for insolence

cannot be released

until the shamta has rested upon him for thirty days,

and here we imposed the ban upon him because of insolence.

The Gemara infers from the fact that Abaye himself took the trouble to ascertain whether he could release him that only the person who imposed the ban may release him, and not someone else:

Apparently, Abaye holds

that

these three who placed him under a ban—

three others cannot come and release him.

For they raised a dilemma: These three who placed him under a ban,

meaning three who placed a person under a ban—

what is the law regarding three others coming

and whether three others may come

and release him,

releasing him from his ban, or perhaps specifically those original three who placed him under a ban must release him?

Come and hear: One who is ostracized by a rabbi,

who was ostracized because he had affronted the honor of the rabbi, is

ostracized

also

by a student,

meaning that everyone is obligated to treat him as one who is ostracized.

But if he was

ostracized by a student,

because he became liable to ostracism for affronting the student's honor, he

is not ostracized by the rabbi,

as the rabbi is not obligated to treat him as one who is ostracized, and the rabbi is permitted to approach him.

One who is ostracized by his city,

because the residents of his city ostracized him, is completely ostracized, and he is

ostracized

even

by another city.

But one whom the residents of his city did not ostracize, but who was

ostracized by another city—he

is not ostracized by his own city.

One who is ostracized by the nasi,

for affronting his honor, is

ostracized by all Israel.

One who is ostracized by all Israel—he

is not ostracized by the nasi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one of the students who ostracized

someone for his honor, together with other students who ostracized him for affronting their honor,

dies—

his portion

of the deceased student

is not released,

and he must be treated with ostracism.

Learn from it three things:

Learn from it: A student who ostracized someone for his honor—his

ostracism is valid. .

And learn from it: Each and every one

of those who ostracized him must

release his portion .

And learn from it: These three who ostracized him—

three others do not come and release him.

Ameimar said: The halakha is: These three who ostracized him—

three others do come and release him .

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But it was taught in a beraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one of the students who ostracized him dies—

his portion is not released.

Rav Ashi infers:

Is it not—

not released at all!

Meaning, there is no release for him because the one who ostracized him must release him, and now that person is dead.

Ameimar said to him:

No.

Rather, it is not released

until three other men come and release him .

The Sages taught: Ostracism lasts no fewer than thirty days

, and a rebuke lasts no fewer than seven days .

And although there is no proof for the matter—

there is

an indication of the matter, as it is stated

[Numbers 12]:

“And if her father had but spit in her face

[which is similar to a rebuke]—

would she not be ashamed for seven days!””

Rav Hisda said: Our ostracism,

that of the people of Babylonia,

is like their rebuke,

that of the people of Eretz Yisrael. And since it has been established that rebuke lasts seven days, as in the incident of Miriam, it follows that ostracism in Babylonia lasts seven days .

And we challenge this:

And

but

is their rebuke,

that of the people of Eretz Yisrael, only

seven

days and no more,

and nothing else?

But Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi and bar Kappara were sitting and studying, and a matter was difficult for them.

Rabbi Shimon said

the son of Rabbi

to bar Kappara: This matter requires Rabbi.

We need to go to Rabbi [Rabbi Shimon's father] so that he will explain and resolve the difficulty in the sugya for us.

Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Shimon: And what can Rabbi say about this matter!?

Meaning, there is no Rabbi in the world who can explain this matter to us.

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi went

and

said to his father

what bar Kappara had said. He said this innocently, and not as one who engages in talebearing [Rashi] .

Rabbi took offense

at the slight to his honor.

Bar Kappara came to visit him.

Bar Kappara came to visit Rabbi, who was ill.

He said to him,

Rabbi:

“Bar Kappara, I have never known you!”

By this he hinted to him that he was offended and that he did not want him to remain in his presence, but wished him to leave the place .

Bar Kappara knew

Bar Kappara

that Rabbi had taken

Rabbi

the matter to heart,

that he was offended by him in his heart, and therefore

he observed the practices of a rebuke for himself for thirty days.

And

again

an incident occurred involving Rabbi's taking offense, which resulted in a rebuke:

Once, Rabbi decreed that students should not study in the marketplace

in public, but only privately.

What did he expound?

He expounded the verse in Song of Songs [chapter 7]: “

The hidden parts of your thighs—

like jewels.”

Just as a thigh

needs to be found

in concealment,

as it must be covered with a garment,