Moed Katan 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

A Torah scholar who excommunicated someone for his own honor -

his excommunication is valid,

as will be explained below:

As it was taught:

One who is

excommunicated by his rabbi -

he is

excommunicated

also

by the student.

However, one who is

excommunicated by a student -

is not excommunicated by his rabbi,

as the rabbi need not distance himself from him.

And the Gemara infers: One excommunicated by a student is only

not excommunicated by his rabbi; but with regard to everyone else -

he is excommunicated.

The Gemara asks:

For what?

For what reason for excommunication is one excommunicated by a student with regard to everyone except his rabbi?

If

he excommunicated him

for

the reason of

matters of Heaven,

because he committed a transgression warranting excommunication, and therefore the student excommunicated him, why is he not also excommunicated with regard to the rabbi? Didn’t Scripture already say [Proverbs 21:30]: “There is no wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel against the Lord”?

And the teacher, too, must distance himself from one whom the student ostracized.

The rabbi, too, must distance himself from one whom the student excommunicated.

Rather, is it not

that the beraita is speaking of a student who excommunicated someone

for his own honor.

Rav Yosef said: A Torah scholar may enforce the law on his own behalf,

in monetary claims that he has against others,

when the matter is certain to him,

as he has no doubt that he is in the right.

There was a certain Torah scholar whose reputation was bad,

as evil reports had circulated concerning his conduct.

Rav Yehuda said: What should he do?

Should he excommunicate him -

the Sages need him

in his place, since he was their rabbi.

Should he not excommunicate him - the Name of Heaven will be profaned,

as his conduct is already beginning to profane the Name of Heaven,

through his behavior.

He said to Rabba bar bar Ḥana:

Have you

heard anything concerning this matter?

He said to him: This is what Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written [Malachi 2:7]:

“

For the lips of a priest should safeguard knowledge, and Torah should be sought from his mouth, for he is an angel of the Lord of Hosts.”

If the rabbi resembles an angel of the Lord -

let them seek Torah from his mouth.

But if not -

let them not seek Torah from his mouth.

And indeed,

Since this rabbi's reputation was bad, it was better that they not seek Torah from him, and the reason that they needed to learn from him no longer applied.

Indeed,

Rav Yehuda excommunicated

that rabbi.

Ultimately he became weak

and fell ill,

Rav Yehuda.

The Sages came to inquire after him,

to visit him and ask about his welfare,

and he also came,

the one whom Rav Yehuda had excommunicated,

with them.

When Rav Yehuda saw him,

when Rabbi Yehuda saw the excommunicated man,

he smiled,

Rabbi Yehuda.

The excommunicated man understood that Rav Yehuda was smiling at him in order to mock him.

He said to him,

the excommunicated man to Rav Yehuda:

Is it not enough

for you

that you excommunicated that man,

the one whom you excommunicated [he was referring to himself, but expressed himself euphemistically],

but you also laugh at me?

You are also mocking me by smiling at me.

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

I am not smiling at you,

my smile is not directed at you in order to mock you.

Rather,

this is a smile of my own joy,

for when I go to that World,

I will go as one who is

in a cheerful frame of mind,

joyful and merry, knowing

that even a man like you,

who is a Torah scholar, nevertheless

I did not flatter him,

but excommunicated him.

When

Rav Yehuda's soul departed, he came

the excommunicated man

to the study hall.

He said to them,

the excommunicated man:

Release me!

Release the excommunication that Rav Yehuda imposed upon me.

The Sages said to him: There is no man here as distinguished as Rav Yehuda -

who could release you.

Only one as distinguished as the one who excommunicated him could release the excommunication.

Rather, go to Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, so that he may release you. He went before him.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia

to Rabbi Ami:

Go out

and

examine his case.

And

if it is possible

to

release him -

release him,

release him from the excommunication Rav Yehuda imposed upon him!

Rabbi Ami examined his case,

and

considered releasing him.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani happened to come to the study hall at the time Rabbi Ami wished to release the man's excommunication, after having not come to the study hall for several years.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani stood on his feet and said: If the maidservant of the House of Rabbi—when the Sages did not treat lightly the excommunication she imposed

when she excommunicated a person who had not acted properly, and they did not release that excommunicated man from the excommunication imposed upon him by her for

three years, .

came to the house of study, to our house of study? For, after all,

Yehuda,

who was

our colleague -

all the more so

should we not treat lightly the excommunication he imposed, by releasing it shortly before his death.

Rabbi Zeira said: What do we see here,

what does the fact before us indicate,

that he came now,

that he came specifically at this time,

this elder,

Rabbi Shmuel ben Nahmani,

to the study hall,

to our study hall?

For

indeed,

he had not come for several years,

he had not come here.

Infer from this

that the fact that he appeared now and stated his opinion indicates that

it is not necessary to release him.

Indeed,

he did not release him,

Rabbi Ami did not release the excommunication imposed upon the man by Rav Yehuda.

He went out,

the excommunicated man went out of the study hall.

As he was crying and walking,

as he walked along weeping,

a wasp came

and

struck him

and stung him

on his forearm,

on his forearm,

and he died,

he died from this sting.

They brought him up to bury him

to the cave

of burial

of the pious -

but it did not accept him,

a snake came and stood around the entrance, preventing his burial in the cave of the pious.

They brought him to the cave of the judges,

where the heads of the court were buried, and which was of a lower rank than that of the pious -

and it accepted him.

What is the reason the judges accepted him?

“The maidservant of the house of Rabbi”— who was she? It was the maidservant of Rabbi’s household. She saw a certain man who was striking his adult son. She said: Let that man be ostracized, because he transgresses [Leviticus 19] “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.” For his adult son might strike his father in return; thus the father causes his son to stumble when he strikes him. For it was taught in a beraita: “ You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind”— the verse is speaking of one who strikes his adult son.

Because

he acted in accordance with Rabbi Ilai,

who repented of his evil reputation and acted according to Rabbi Ilai's instruction concerning the path of repentance.

As it was taught: Rabbi Ilai says: If a person sees that his inclination is overcoming him -

let him go to a place where he is unknown, and dress in black and wrap himself in black, and do what his heart desires, but let him not profane the Name of Heaven publicly.

The Gemara explains Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani's statement: The maidservant of the House of Rabbi -

let him go to a place where they do not know him, and let him wear black garments and wrap himself in black garments, and let him do what his heart desires, but let him not profane the Divine Name publicly .

what is it?

It was the maidservant of Rabbi's household who saw a certain man striking

a blow to

his son,

the

older

son.

She said: Let that man be excommunicated,

because

he transgresses [Leviticus 19:14]

“Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.”

Since his older son might strike his father, the father would thereby cause his son to stumble by striking him.

As it was taught: “ Do not place a stumbling block before the blind” - the verse is speaking of one who strikes his older son. Resh Lakish was guarding an orchard.

Reish Lakish said:

Let that man be ostracized.

He said to him,

that man said to Reish Lakish: On the contrary, let that man, Reish Lakish, be ostracized! Because

if I became liable to you for money

when I ate the figs—

for what ostracism did I become liable to you!? Since you ostracized me unlawfully, you are liable to be ostracized for having ostracized me improperly. He came, Reish Lakish to the house of study, and asked what his status now was. They said to him: The ostracism he imposed, by which he ostracized you, is valid, since he ostracized you properly for having ostracized him improperly, when he was not liable to ostracism.

a keeper

A certain man came and ate figs

from the orchard.

He raised his voice at him,

Resh Lakish shouted at him,

but he paid no attention to him.

He said,

Resh Lakish:

Let that man be excommunicated.

He said to him,

that man to Resh Lakish:

On the contrary, let that man

Resh Lakish

be excommunicated!

Since

I became liable to you only for money

when I ate the figs -

for what excommunication did I become liable to you!?

Since you excommunicated me unlawfully, you are liable for excommunication because you excommunicated me contrary to halakha.

He came, Resh Lakish, to the study hall, and asked what his status now was.

release for you

the ostracism imposed by others.

They said to him:

The excommunication

of his,

which he imposed upon you, is

an excommunication,

since he excommunicated you properly, because you excommunicated him improperly, as he was not liable for excommunication.

But the excommunication of you, which you imposed upon him, is not an excommunication, since it was not imposed properly.

The verse teaches:

Cover him as the night,

just as people cannot see in the darkness of night.

Resh Lakish asked:

And what is his remedy?

They said to him:

Go to him,

go to him,

so that he may release you,

so that he will release you from his excommunication.

Resh Lakish said:

I do not know him.

I do not know him, so how can he release me from his excommunication!?

They said to him: Go to the Nasi, for he has the power to

release you

from the excommunication of others.

release you

from the ostracism of others.

For it was taught: They ostracized him, and he does not know who ostracized him -

he should go to the Prince, and he will release his ostracism.

As it was taught: If they excommunicated him and he does not know who excommunicated him -

he should go to the Nasi, and he will release his excommunication.

Rav Huna said: In Usha they instituted: If the head of the court has sinned - they do not excommunicate him; rather, they say to him [II Kings 14:10], “ Show honor and remain in your home.” But if he

sins again

afterward -

they excommunicate him, because of the desecration of God's Name.

And this disagrees with Resh Lakish,

who holds that he is never excommunicated.

For Resh Lakish said: If a Torah scholar has sinned -

they do not excommunicate him publicly, as it is stated [Hosea 4:5],

“

You shall stumble by day, and the prophet shall also stumble with you by night.”

The verse teaches:

Cover him as the night,

just as nothing can be seen in the darkness of night.

You shall stumble by day, and the prophet too shall stumble with you by night,”

Scripture teaches:

Cover him as the night,

just as in the darkness of night one does not see.

And the reason for this is so that he would not be disgraced in public.

And every nidui entails public disgrace, since it is necessary to proclaim that he is under a ban, so that people will not approach him.

When a Torah scholar is liable for shamata —

at first

he would first

place under a ban

himself,

himself, out of regard for the honor of the one whom he was about to place under a ban,

and afterward,

and only then, while he himself was under a ban,

he would place him under a ban,

the Torah scholar.

And this was a ban for a short period, until he returned home.

When he entered his lodgings,

when Mar Zutra the Pious would enter his home,

he would release himself,

he would release his own ban,

and afterward release him,

the Torah scholar whom he had placed under a ban.

Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: A Torah scholar places himself under a ban and annuls it for himself.

Rav Pappa said: May good come to me,

may good come to me, because

I have never placed a Torah scholar under a ban.

And the Gemara explains:

Rather, when a Torah scholar is liable for shamata —

what would

Rav Pappa

do?

In Eretz Yisrael,

they would convene

the Sages would convene to decide

on angida

on flogging

a Torah scholar,

to flog a Torah scholar because he had acted improperly and not conducted himself correctly,

but they would not convene to impose ashmta,

they would not convene to place him under a ban, because the ban was more severe in their eyes than flogging, and they preferred to flog him.

And the Gemara explains:

What

is the meaning of the expression

“shamata”?

Rav said: A name of death.

And Shmuel said: Desolation will befall him.

And it takes effect upon him

the blow of shamata enters the one under the ban and leaves an impression upon him forever, even after the ban has been released,

like plaster on an oven,

like oil smeared onto an oven, whose oily moisture remains there forever.

And this disagrees

with this view concerning the blow of shamata, that it never departs, with the view of

Reish Lakish,

who held that it departs completely.

For Reish Lakish said: Just as it enters

the shamata

the two hundred forty-eight limbs

of a person,

so, when it departs —

it

departs from two hundred forty-eight limbs.

When it enters —

as it is written [Joshua 6] “

the city shall be herem.” “

Herem”

: “

And the city shall be under the ban.” “

by gematria —

equals two hundred forty-eight.

When it departs —

as it is written [Habakkuk 3] “

In wrath, remember mercy.” “

Mercy”

by gematria equals this

: “

In wrath, remember compassion.” “

[four hundred forty-eight].

Rav Yosef said: Cast

throw

a shamata

even

on a dog’s tail

on the dog’s tail —

and it

the shamata,

will do its work,

it will accomplish its purpose.

That is to say, one may impose shamata even on the tail of an unspecified dog, and it will carry out its function.

There was a certain dog that would eat

the footwear

of the Sages, and they did not know

the Sages

which one,

which dog it was.

And they placed it under a ban

the dog.

Fire caught

fire caught

his tail,

the dog’s tail,

and consumed it,

and it burned the dog.

That man

a man

was a violent man

violent

who was causing distress to a certain Torah scholar.

He came

the Torah scholar

before Rav Yosef,

to seek his advice.

He said to him: Go and place him under a ban.

He said to him: I am afraid of him.

I am afraid of him.

He said to him:

go to the court, and

take

from them

a petiha

a writ of shamata

against him.

He said to him:

All the more so am I afraid of him,

since I have even more reason to fear him, for in his eyes obtaining a writ of shamata from the court is more severe.

He said to him:

go to the court,

take it

from them a writ of shamata, and afterward

put it into a jar,

insert the shamata blast into a jar, so that people would not hear.

and obtain a writ of ban from them, and afterward

put it into a jar,

insert the ban document into a jar, so that people will not hear.