Nedarim 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

b

says to his fellow:

“I am menudeh to you”—

Rabbi Akiva held:

it is uncertain whether

this is an expression of nidui

indicating distancing

or

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

But the Rabbis held:

it is certain that

this is an expression of meshamtana

of nidui

and

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

And this

statement of Abaye disagrees with the ruling of

Rav Ḥisda—

For there was a certain man who said: “

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

He came before Rav Ḥisda

to ask whether “meshamtana” is an expression of a vow.

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda:

No one gives credence to this

; there is no one who is concerned to rule

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva

who holds that it is possibly an expression of a vow; rather, it is certainly not a vow!

That is,

he held

Rav Ḥisda, that

with regard to meshamtana there is a dispute

between the first tanna and Rabbi Akiva, and he said that one need not be concerned for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

This is contrary to Abaye, who said that “meshamtana,” even according to Rabbi Akiva, is certainly not an expression of a vow.

From this point onward, the Gemara discusses the laws of nidui:

Rabbi Ila said that Rav said:

If one became liable to nidui, and

the Sage placed him under nidui

in his presence

of the person placed under nidui—

they may release him

from his nidui

only in his presence.

But if

he placed him under nidui not in his presence

, and he was not humiliated by the nidui in his presence—

they may release him

from his nidui

either in his presence or not in his presence.

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

in vain

from his fellow’s mouth—

must place him under nidui.

And if he did not place him under nidui—

it is fitting that

he himself should be under nidui

, since he demonstrates that he does not care for the honor of God!

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

for wherever the mention of the Name

in vain

is prevalent—

poverty is prevalent there.

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

That is, God’s blessing in the form of wealth will be present in a place where His Name is honored. From here you learn that if people do the opposite, dishonoring 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, after 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.”

But we find that Dathan and Abiram had not died at that time, as they participated in Korah’s dispute. Rather, it is necessarily the case that they had become poor, and through this they were considered as though they had died.

And

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

was taught in a beraita: Wherever the Sages turned

their

eyes

to bring harm, its end is

either death or poverty.

Rabbi Abba said: I was standing

before Rav Huna.

Rav Huna heard

this woman

a certain woman

who had uttered

the mention of the Name in vain.

He placed her under nidui

Rav Huna placed her under nidui,

and immediately released her in her presence.

He immediately released her from her nidui in her presence.

Infer from this

from this incident involving Rav Huna

three

three matters:

a.

Infer from this: One who hears the mention of the Name from his fellow’s mouth—

must place him under nidui.

b.

And infer from this: If he placed him under nidui in his presence—

they may release him only in his presence.

c.

And infer from this: There is no

need to wait

at all between the imposition of nidui and its release.

Rabbi Giddel said that Rav said: A Torah scholar places himself under nidui

, himself,

and releases

himself from his nidui

himself.

And we challenge this:

Is it not obvious?

And we answer:

Lest you say

“A prisoner cannot free himself from the prison”

, and another person would have to release him from his nidui,

it teaches us

that he can do so himself.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?—

As in the case of Mar Zutra the Pious: When a member of the beit-midrash became liable to shamta

, if one of the members of the beit-midrash became liable to nidui— \-

Mar Zutra

would first place himself under shamta

, first placing himself under nidui,

and then place the member of the beit-midrash under shamta.

And when he entered

Mar Zutra

his house, he would release

the nidui

from himself.

And then,

afterward,

he would release him,

the student whom he had placed under nidui.