Nedarim 7b — the Talmud in English

b

says to his fellow:

“I am ostracized from you” —

Rabbi Akiva held:

there is room to doubt whether

it is the language of ostracism

of distancing

itself, and it is possible that it is the language of a vow.

, and it is possible that it is an expression of a vow.

But the Rabbis hold:

certainly

it is the language of excommunication

of ostracism

itself בלבד, and not the language of distancing of a vow.

nothing more, and is not an expression of the distancing of a vow.

And it disagrees

with this statement of Abaye regarding the ruling of

Rav Hisda —

For there was a certain man who said “

I am excommunicated from the property of the son of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba.”

He came before Rav Hisda,

to ask whether “I am excommunicated” is the language of a vow.

He said to him,

Rav Hisda:

There is no one who takes heed of it,

there is no one who is concerned to rule

with regard to this of Rabbi Akiva

who holds that it is possibly the language of a vow; rather, certainly it is not a vow!

And this is what

he held,

Rav Hisda, that

with regard to “I am excommunicated” they disagree,

the first tanna and Rabbi Akiva, and he says that one need not be concerned for the words of Rabbi Akiva.

And this is contrary to Abaye, who said that “I am excommunicated,” even according to Rabbi Akiva, is certainly not the language of a vow.

From here onward, the Gemara deals with the laws of ostracism:

Rabbi Ila said that Rav said:

One who became liable for ostracism, and

the sage ostracized him

the sage

in his presence

of the ostracized person —

they release him

the ostracized person from his ostracism

only in his presence.

But if

they ostracized him not in his presence,

and he was not disgraced by the ostracism in his presence —

they release him

from his ostracism

both in his presence and not in his presence.

Rav Hanin said that Rav said: One who hears the mention of the Name

in vain

from his fellow’s mouth —

must ostracize him.

And if he did not ostracize him —

it is fitting that

he himself should be in ostracism,

since he shows by himself that he is not concerned for the honor of the Name!

And we find that the sin of mentioning the Name in vain is exceedingly grave —

for wherever the mention of the Name

in vain

is prevalent —

there poverty is prevalent.

For the Torah said [Exodus 20]: “In every place where I mention My Name [where My Name will be mentioned for blessing] — I shall come to you, and I shall bless you.”

That is, the blessing of the Name will be in wealth in a place where they honor His Name; and from here you learn that if they do the opposite, disgracing His Name by mentioning it in vain, poverty will be prevalent there.

And poverty —

is considered

like death!

As it is stated [

Exodus 4] concerning Dathan and Abiram, who plotted to kill Moses in Egypt, and Moses fled to Midian; and when the Holy One, blessed be He, sent Moses to redeem the Children of Israel from Egypt, He said to him concerning Dathan and Abiram — “

For all the men have died.”

And yet we find that Dathan and Abiram had not died at that time, for they participated in Korah’s dispute. Necessarily, they had become poor, and through this they were considered as though they had died.

And

an additional proof that poverty is equivalent to death, from that which

was taught: Wherever the Sages directed

their

eyes

toward evil — its end is

either death or poverty.

Rabbi Abba said: I was standing

I stood

before Rav Huna.

Rav Huna heard

Rav Huna

this woman

a certain woman

who had uttered

who had brought forth

the mention of the Name in vain.

He ostracized her,

Rav Huna ostracized her,

and released her immediately in her presence.

And immediately he released her from her ostracism in her presence.

Learn from it

from this incident of Rav Huna

three

three things:

a.

Learn from it: One who hears the mention of the Name from his fellow —

must ostracize him.

b.

And learn from it: If they ostracized him in his presence —

they release him only in his presence.

c.

And learn from it: There is no

need to wait

at all between ostracism and release.

Rabbi Giddel said that Rav said: A Torah scholar ostracizes himself,

himself,

and releases

his ostracism

himself.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious!

And we answer:

It might enter your mind to say “

A prisoner does not free himself from the prison,”

and another would have to release his ostracism;

it teaches us

that he can do this himself.

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances? —

Like that of Mar Zutra the Pious: When a member of the academy became liable for excommunication,

if one of the members of the beit-midrash became liable for ostracism \-

Mar Zutra

would excommunicate himself first,

he would first ostracize himself,

and afterward excommunicate the member of the academy.

And when he entered

Mar Zutra

his house, he would release

the ostracism

for himself.

And afterward,

and thereafter

he would release him,

the student whom he had ostracized.