Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 29, 2022 | ื›ืดื– ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Moed Katan 17

 

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in loving memory of Artโ€™s father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai vโ€™Rachel zโ€l. โ€œToday is his 23nd yahrtzeit. Joe was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. After WWII he worked for the INS welcoming immigrants to membership in America. I miss him and wish we had had more time together.โ€

Pictures

The Gemara discusses excommunication of one who did not treat a Torah scholar with respect. What should the course of action be for Torah scholar for whom there were rumors spread of inappropriate behavior. Rav Yehuda deliberated and was advised to excommunicate him. Upon Rav Yehudaโ€™s death, the Torah scholar asked the rabbis to repeal the excommunication. After looking into the issue, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia wanted to remove it, but Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani argued against him and convinced him not to. When the Torah scholar left the beit midrash, he got stung in his private parts by a hornet and died. Even in burial, they were unable to bury him with the pious people but did bury him with the judges. Why? In Rav Shmuel bar Nachmaniโ€™s argument, he brought the case of Rebbiโ€™s maidservant who excommunicated someone for beating his older child, as it is modeling for him violent behavior. There is a debate regarding Torah scholars who sin, whether or not they should receive a public excommunication. Rav Papa would administer lashes to a Torah scholar instead of excommunicated him. Is excommunication something that permanently leaves a stain on a person or once it is removed, it is totally gone? A Torah scholar was bullied by someone but was to scared to excommunicate him as he was worried he would beat him up. What did he do instead? A leper can shave on chol hamoed – in what circumstances? A braita states that a kohen and a mourner can shave during the holiday – in what situation are each of these cases referring to? Can one cut oneโ€™s nails on the holiday or when in mourning?

ืชืœืžื™ื“ ืฉื ื™ื“ื” ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ื ื“ื•ื™ื• ื ื™ื“ื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ ืžื ื•ื“ื” ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ืžื ื•ื“ื” ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ืื™ื ื• ืžื ื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื ื• ืžื ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžื ื•ื“ื”

If a student ostracized someone else due to an insult to his dignity, and not because the ostracized person was guilty of some transgression, his decree of ostracism is valid, as it is taught in a baraita: One who is ostracized by the teacher is considered ostracized with regard to the student. However, one who is ostracized by the student is not considered ostracized with regard to the teacher. The Gemara attempts to draw an inference from a careful reading of this baraita: He is not considered ostracized with regard to the teacher, which implies that he is considered ostracized with regard to everyone else.

ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ื‘ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืฉืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืชื‘ื•ื ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขืฆื” ืœื ื’ื“ ื”ืณ ืืœื ืœืื• ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืขืฆืžื•

The Gemara clarifies the case: For what reason was he ostracized? If it was for a matter relating to Heaven, i.e., because he sinned, then why, if he was ostracized by the student, should he not be considered ostracized with regard to the teacher? Doesnโ€™t the verse state: โ€œThere is no wisdom or understanding or counsel against the Lordโ€ (Proverbs 21:30)? This means that when a sin is committed and Godโ€™s name is desecrated, all other considerations are ignored, even the eminence and knowledge of the teacher, and therefore he too must treat the offender as ostracized. Rather, is it not that the Gemara is referring to a case where the student ostracized the other person due to an insult to his own dignity? Therefore, it is apparent that his decree of ostracism is valid and binding upon all, with the exception of his teacher.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื“ื™ื ื ืœื ืคืฉื™ื” ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื”

Rav Yosef said: A Torah scholar may execute judgment for himself with regard to a matter about which he is certain, and he is not required to first go to court and have the case decided for him. The same applies when another person behaves in a disrespectful manner toward him; he is permitted to go ahead on his own and ostracize him.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื”ื•ื• ืกื ื• ืฉื•ืžืขื ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืœื™ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœืฉืžืชื™ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ืœืฉืžืชื™ื” ืงื ืžื™ืชื—ื™ืœ ืฉืžื ื“ืฉืžื™ื

There was a certain Torah scholar who gained a bad reputation due to rumors about his conduct. Rav Yehuda said: What should be done? To excommunicate him is not an option. The Sages need him, as he is a great Torah authority. Not to excommunicate him is also not an option, as then the name of Heaven would be desecrated.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ื‘ื”ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืฉืคืชื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื™ืฉืžืจื• ื“ืขืช ื•ืชื•ืจื” ื™ื‘ืงืฉื• ืžืคื™ื”ื• ื›ื™ ืžืœืืš ื”ืณ ืฆื‘ืื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืื ื“ื•ืžื” ื”ืจื‘ ืœืžืœืืš ื”ืณ ื™ื‘ืงืฉื• ืชื•ืจื” ืžืคื™ื• ื•ืื ืœืื• ืืœ ื™ื‘ืงืฉื• ืชื•ืจื” ืžืคื™ื•

Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar bar แธคana: Have you heard anything with regard to this issue? He said to him: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œFor the priestโ€™s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek Torah at his mouth; for he is a messenger [malakh] of the Lord of hostsโ€ (Malachi 2:7)? This verse teaches: If the teacher is similar to an angel [malakh] of the Lord, then seek Torah from his mouth, but if he is not pure and upright, then do not seek Torah from his mouth; even if he is knowledgeable about Torah, do not learn from him.

ืฉืžืชื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืกื•ืฃ ืื™ื—ืœืฉ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืชื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืฉื™ื•ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืื™ื”ื• ื ืžื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ื“ ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื—ื™ื™ืš

Based on this statement, Rav Yehuda ostracized that Torah scholar. In the end, after some time had passed, Rav Yehuda took ill and was on the verge of death. The Sages came to inquire about his well-being, and the ostracized scholar came along with them as well. When Rav Yehuda saw him, that scholar, he laughed.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืžืกืชื™ื™ืš ื“ืฉืžืชื™ื” ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืืœื ืื—ื•ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ื™ื™ืš ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ื‘ื“ื™ื“ืš ืžื—ื™ื™ื›ื ื ืืœื ื“ื›ื™ ืื–ืœื™ื ื ืœื”ื”ื•ื ืขืœืžื ื‘ื“ื™ื—ื ื“ืขืชืื™ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื’ื‘ืจื ื›ื•ื•ืชืš ืœื ื—ื ื™ืคื™ ืœื™ื”

The ostracized scholar said to him: Was it not enough that you excommunicated that man, i.e., me, but now you even laugh at me? Rav Yehuda said to him: I was not laughing at you; rather, I am happy as I go to that other world that I did not flatter even a great man like you, but instead I treated you fairly in accordance with the halakha.

ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืชื ืœื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืฉืจื• ืœื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ื›ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื™ื›ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืœื™ืฉืจื™ ืœืš ืืœื ื–ื™ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืฉื™ืื” ื“ืœื™ืฉืจื™ ืœืš ืื–ืœ ืœืงืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืคื•ืง ืขื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืฉืจื ืœื™ื” ืฉืจื™ ืœื™ื”

Rav Yehuda died. The ostracized scholar came to the study hall and said to the Sages: Release me from the decree of ostracism. The Sages said to him: There is no man here as eminent as Rav Yehuda who can release you from the ostracism. Rather, go to Rabbi Yehuda Nesia in Eretz Yisrael, as only he can release you. That scholar came before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Ami: Go and examine his case. If it is necessary to release him from his decree of ostracism, release him on my behalf.

ืขื™ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœืžื™ืฉืจื ืœื™ื” ืขืžื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืขืœ ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื•ืืžืจ ื•ืžื” ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืœื ื ื”ื’ื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืงืœื•ืช ืจืืฉ ื‘ื ื™ื“ื•ื™ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื™ื ื• ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื”

Rabbi Ami examined his case and thought at first to release him from his ostracism. But Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani rose up on his feet and said: If the maidservant in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once ostracized another person, and the Sages did not relate frivolously to her decree of ostracism and did not revoke it until three years had passed, all the more so, with regard to a decree of ostracism placed by Yehuda our colleague, we must take it seriously and not release this scholar.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžืื™ ื“ืงืžืŸ ื“ืืชื ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ื”ืื™ ืกื‘ื ื‘ื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ื“ื”ื ื›ืžื” ืฉื ื™ ืœื ืืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืฉืจื ืœื™ื” ืœื ืฉืจื ืœื™ื” ื ืคืง ื›ื™ ืงื ื‘ื›ื™ ื•ืื–ื™ืœ

Rabbi Zeira said: What caused this Elder, Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani, to come before us in the study hall today though for many years he did not come, and now he comes precisely during this discussion. Learn from this that it is not necessary to release him from his decree of ostracism, as this combination of events is certainly not a coincidence. Rather, it should be viewed as an instructive sign from Heaven. Consequently, Rabbi Ami did not release him from the ostracism, and the ostracized scholar left in tears.

ืืชื ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื ื•ื˜ืจืงื™ื” ืืืžืชื™ื” ื•ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืขื™ื™ืœื•ื”ื• ืœืžืขืจืชื ื“ื—ืกื™ื“ื™ ื•ืœื ืงื™ื‘ืœื•ื”ื• ืขื™ื™ืœื•ื”ื• ืœืžืขืจืชื ื“ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ ื•ืงื™ื‘ืœื•ื”ื•

A wasp came and stung the ostracized scholar on his penis and he died. Because he was a great Torah scholar, they took him into the caves in which the pious are interred in order to bury him there, but the caves did not accept him. A snake stood at the entrance of the caves and did not let them pass. They then took him into the caves of the judges, and they accepted him.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืจื•ืื” ืื“ื ืฉื™ืฆืจื• ืžืชื’ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื™ืœืš ืœืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ื™ืœื‘ืฉ ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ื ื•ื™ืชืขื˜ืฃ ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ื ื•ื™ืขืฉื” ืžื” ืฉืœื‘ื• ื—ืคืฅ ื•ืืœ ื™ื—ืœืœ ืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ืคืจื”ืกื™ื

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he was accepted there? The Gemara answers: Even though he sinned, he still acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ilai says: If a person sees that his evil inclination is gaining control over him and he cannot overcome it, then he should go to a place where he is not known. He should wear black, and he should wrap his head in black, as if he were a mourner. Perhaps these changes will influence him, so that he not sin. Even if these actions do not help, he should at least do as his heart desires in private and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public. Although this person had sinned, he did so in private and in a manner that did not publicly desecrate Godโ€™s name, and therefore it was fitting that he be given an honorable burial.

ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื–ื™ืชื™ื” ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžื—ื™ ืœื‘ื ื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื‘ืฉืžืชื ื“ืงืขื‘ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื•ืœืคื ื™ ืขื•ืจ ืœื ืชืชืŸ ืžื›ืฉื•ืœ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืœืคื ื™ ืขื•ืจ ืœื ืชืชืŸ ืžื›ืฉื•ืœ ื‘ืžื›ื” ืœื‘ื ื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ

The Gemara asks: What is the story mentioned by Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani involving the maidservant in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It was related that the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโ€™s house saw a certain man who was striking his adult son. She said: Let that man be excommunicated, due to the fact that he has transgressed the injunction: โ€œYou shall not place a stumbling block before the blindโ€ (Leviticus 19:14), as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: โ€œYou shall not place a stumbling block before the blind,โ€ and the verse speaks here of one who strikes his adult son, as the son is likely to become angry and strike his father back, thereby transgressing the severe prohibition against hitting oneโ€™s parent.

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื” ืžื ื˜ืจ ืคืจื“ื™ืกื ืืชื ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื•ืงืื›ื™ืœ ืชืื™ื ื™ ืจืžื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืœื ื•ืœื ืืฉื’ื— ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื‘ืฉืžืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื‘ืฉืžืชื ืื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ืชื™ ืœืš ื ื™ื“ื•ื™ ืžื™ ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ืชื™ ืœืš

Similarly, it was related that Reish Lakish was guarding an orchard for payment when a certain man came and ate some figs that were growing there. Reish Lakish raised his voice and yelled at him, but this man paid no attention to him and kept eating. Reish Lakish said: Let that man be in a state of excommunication. The man eating the figs said to him: On the contrary, let that man, i.e., Reish Lakish, be in a state of excommunication, for even if I have become liable to you for payment, as I have eaten of the figs without permission, have I become liable to you for excommuncation? With that statement, the man left.

ืืชื ืœื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืœื• ื ื™ื“ื•ื™ ืฉืœืš ืื™ื ื• ื ื™ื“ื•ื™

Reish Lakish went to the study hall to inquire about the halakha with regard to this man. The other Sages said to him: His decree of ostracism is valid, but your decree of ostracism is not. In other words, that man was correct and Reish Lakish should not have ostracized him in response to his actions.

ื•ืžืื™ ืชืงื ืชื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืœื™ืฉืจื™ ืœืš ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ืื” ื“ืœื™ืฉืจื™ ืœืš ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ื™ื“ื•ื”ื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžื™ ื ื™ื“ื”ื• ื™ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ืชื™ืจ ืœื• ื ื“ื•ื™ื•

Reish Lakish then asked: If so, what is the remedy for this decree of ostracism? The Sages answered him: Go to him so that he may release you from it. Reish Lakish replied: I do not know him. They said to him: Go then to the Nasi, so that he may release you from the ban, as it is taught in a baraita: If one was ostracized, but he does not know who ostracized him, he should go to the Nasi, and the Nasi may release him from his decree of ostracism.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืื•ืฉื ื”ืชืงื™ื ื• ืื‘ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืกืจื— ืื™ืŸ ืžื ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืืœื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ืฉื‘ ื‘ื‘ื™ืชืš ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืกืจื— ืžื ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ื—ื™ืœื•ืœ ื”ืฉื

The Gemara continues: Rav Huna said that in Usha it was enacted: If the president of the court sinned, he is not ostracized. Although this would be the appropriate punishment, he is not ostracized, so as not to cause a desecration of Godโ€™s name. Rather, they say to him the words of the verse: โ€œKeep your honor and stay at homeโ€ (IIย Kings 14:10). That is to say, to preserve your dignity, it would be best if you were to stay at home, resign your position, and refrain from further public appearances. If he sins again, he is ostracized, due to the desecration of Godโ€™s name that would ensue were people to think that he was spared his rightful punishment due to his high position.

ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ืฉืกืจื— ืื™ืŸ ืžื ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืคืจื”ืกื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ืฉืœืช ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืฉืœ ื’ื ื ื‘ื™ื ืขืžืš ืœื™ืœื” ื›ืกื”ื• ื›ืœื™ืœื”

The Gemara comments: This opinion disagrees with that of Reish Lakish, for Reish Lakish said: If a Torah scholar sins, he is not ostracized at all in public, as it is stated: โ€œTherefore, shall you fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with you in the nightโ€ (Hosea 4:5). This is explained to mean: If a prophet or any other important person sins, his offense should be concealed like the night and not punished in public.

ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื—ืกื™ื“ื ื›ื™ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉืžืชื ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ืžืฉืžื™ืช ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืžืฉืžื™ืช ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขื™ื™ืœ ื‘ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื™ื” ืฉืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืคืฉื™ื” ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืฉืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

With regard to this issue, it was related that when a Torah scholar would become liable to be punished with excommunication before Mar Zutra the Pious, Mar Zutra would first excommunicate himself as a mark of respect for the Torah scholar, and afterward he would ostracize the Torah scholar. This self-imposed excommunication was meant only as a show of honor to the other Torah scholar, and therefore when Mar Zutra would enter his house of lodging, he would release his own excommunication, and afterward he would release the otherโ€™s excommunication.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ื™ื“ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ืžื ื“ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžื™ืคืจ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืชื™ืชื™ ืœื™ ื“ืœื ืฉืžื™ืชื™ ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืขื•ืœื ืืœื ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉืžืชื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืžื™ืžื ื• ืื ื’ื™ื“ื ื“ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžื™ืžื ื• ืืฉืžืชื

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: A Torah scholar may ostracize himself, and he may similarly release himself from self-imposed ostracism. Rav Pappa said: I have good coming to me, for I am praiseworthy, as I have never ostracized a Torah scholar. The Gemara asks about this: If so, when a Torah scholar was liable to be ostracized, what would he do? The Gemara answers: He did as they do in the West, Eretz Yisrael, where they appoint a court to give a Torah scholar lashes, but they do not appoint a court to ostracize him. That is to say, lashes were preferred over ostracism.

ืžืื™ ืฉืžืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื ืžื™ืชื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืฉืžืžื” ื™ื”ื™ื” ื•ืžื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื˜ื™ื—ื™ื ื‘ืชื ื•ืจื

The Gemara proceeds with a discussion that explains the severity of the punishment of excommunication: What is the meaning of the word excommunication [shamta]? Rav said: This word is a contraction of the expression there is death [sham mita], alluding to the deathly aspect of excommunication. And Shmuel said: Shamta means that he will be a desolation [shemama yiheyeh], and it is effective upon him like fat smeared on an oven. Just as some of the fat will always remain absorbed in the walls of the oven, so too some aspect of the curse contained in the excommunication will continue to adhere to him even after the excommunication has been nullified.

ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ืฉื ืฉื ื›ื ืกืช ื‘ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืื™ื‘ืจื™ื ื›ืš ื›ืฉื”ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืื™ื‘ืจื™ื

The Gemara comments: And this opinion disagrees with the opinion of Reish Lakish, for Reish Lakish said: Just as ostracism enters the two hundred and forty-eight organs of oneโ€™s body when it is first pronounced, so too when it leaves, it leaves from his two hundred and forty-eight organs.

ื›ืฉื”ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ื”ืขื™ืจ ื—ืจื ื—ืจื ื‘ื’ื™ืžื˜ืจื™ื ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื• ื›ืฉื”ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื•ื’ื– ืจื—ื ืชื–ื›ื•ืจ ืจื—ื ื‘ื’ื™ืžื˜ืจื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื•

The following allusion is offered in support of the opinion of Reish Lakish: When it enters, it enters all the organs, as it is written: โ€œAnd the city shall be a curse [แธฅerem]โ€ (Joshua 6:17), and the numerical value [gimatriyya] of the word แธฅerem, a concept similar to ostracism, is two hundred and forty-eight. Therefore, the verse alludes to the fact that a decree of ostracism penetrates oneโ€™s two hundred and forty-eight organs. When it leaves, it leaves all the organs, as it is written: โ€œIn wrath remember mercy [raแธฅem]โ€ (Habakkuk 3:2), and the numerical value of the word raแธฅem is also two hundred and forty-eight, thereby teaching that when the decree of ostracism is revoked, it disappears entirely.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืฉื“ื™ ืฉืžืชื ืื’ื ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ื›ืœื‘ื ื•ืื™ื”ื™ ื“ื™ื“ื” ืขื‘ื“ื” ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ื›ืœื‘ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืื›ื™ืœ ืžืกืื ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืงื ื™ื“ืขื™ ืžื ื• ื•ืฉืžืชื• ืœื™ื” ืื™ืชืœื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื ื•ืจื ื‘ื’ื ื•ื‘ืชื™ื” ื•ืื›ืœืชื™ื”

The Gemara continues discussing the power of a ban. Rav Yosef said: Cast an excommunication on the tail of a dog and it, the excommunication, will do its work and harm the dog. It was related that there was a certain dog that would eat the shoes of the Sages, and they did not know who it was causing this damage. They thought that it was a person, and so they excommunicated whoever was doing it. Soon thereafter, the dogโ€™s tail caught fire and got burnt. This shows that excommunication can have a harmful effect even on a dog.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืืœืžื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืžืฆืขืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื”ื•ื ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ืฉืžืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืกืชืคื™ื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื”

It was further related that there was a violent person who caused suffering to a certain Torah scholar. This Torah scholar came before Rav Yosef to ask what he should do. Rav Yosef said to him: Go and ostracize him. This Torah scholar said to him: I am afraid of him, that he will harass me even more.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืงื™ืœื™ ืคืชื™ื—ื ืขืœื™ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืžืกืชืคื™ื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืงืœื™ื” ืื—ืชื™ื” ื‘ื›ื“ื

Rav Yosef said to him: Take out, i.e., publish a written ostracism against him. The Torah scholar said to him: All the more so I am fearful of him, for if I publicize the matter he will certainly come after me. Rav Yosef said to him to do as follows: Take the written ostracism and place it in a jug,

ื•ืื—ืชื™ื” ื‘ื™ ืงื‘ืจื™ ื•ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืืœืคื ืฉืคื•ืจื™ ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืื–ื™ืœ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื›ื™ ืคืงืข ื›ื“ื ื•ืžื™ืช ืืœืžื ืžืื™ ืฉืคื•ืจื™ ืฉื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื•

and set it down in a cemetery, where nobody is found, and sound a thousand, i.e., many, shofar blasts over the course of forty days. That man went and did this. The jug burst and the violent man died. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that shofarot are sounded when a decree of ostracism is pronounced? The shofarot allude to the fact that they extract punishment [shenifraโ€™in] from the excommunicated person.

ืžืื™ ืชื‘ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืชื‘ืจื™ ื‘ืชื™ ืจืžื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืชื ื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืขื™ื ื™ื”ื ืื• ืžื™ืชื” ืื• ืขื•ื ื™

The Gemara asks further: What is the reason that broken blasts are sounded on the shofar when the excommunication is pronounced? Rav Yitzแธฅak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: It breaks tall buildings, i.e., a decree of ostracism can harm and break even the high and mighty, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Wherever it says that the Sages set their eyes in anger upon a particular person, it causes either death or poverty.

ื•ื”ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื”ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืžื˜ื•ืžืืชื• ืœื˜ื”ืจืชื• ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื‘ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ืœื”ื ืคื ืื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืฃ ื‘ืฉื”ื™ื” ืœื”ื ืคื ืื™

ยง It is taught in the mishna: And the nazirite whose term of naziriteship ended on the intermediate days of a Festival, and the leper who needs to purify himself on the intermediate days and must shave his entire body in order to leave his state of ritual impurity and regain his ritual purity, these people are permitted to cut their hair on the intermediate days of the Festival because they were not able to do so on the eve of the Festival. Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question before Rabbi Zeira: Is this allowance limited to the case where they did not have the time to cut their hair before the Festival, as it was prohibited for them to do so beforehand? Or perhaps they may cut their hair even in a case where they had the time to do so beforehand.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืฉืืžืจื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื‘ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ืœื”ื ืคื ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื” ืœื”ื ืคื ืื™ ืืกื•ืจื™ื

He said to him: We already learned this in a baraita: With regard to all those about whom the Sages said that they are permitted to cut their hair on the intermediate days of a Festival, they may do so only if they did not have time to cut their hair before the Festival. But if they had time before the Festival began, then they are prohibited from doing so.

ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืœื”ื ืคื ืื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ืฉืœื ื™ืฉื”ื• ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ

However, a nazirite and a leper, even if they had the time to do so before the Festival, they are permitted to cut their hair. Why are they granted this special allowance? So that they will not delay bringing their offerings. Both a nazirite and a leper must cut their hair before sacrificing their offerings in completion of their purification process. Therefore, if they are not permitted to cut their hair, they will not be able to sacrifice their offerings at the proper time.โ€

ืชื ื ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืื‘ืœ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ื™ืœื•ื— ื”ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืฉื—ืœ ืฉืžื™ื ื™ ืฉืœื• ื‘ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื’ืœื•ื—ื™ ื‘ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืืœื ืฉื—ืœ ืฉืžื™ื ื™ ืฉืœื• ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ

In was taught in a baraita: A priest and a mourner are permitted to cut their hair during the intermediate days of a Festival. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances when the mourner is permitted to do so? If we say that the eighth day of his mourning occurred on the eve of the Festival, then he should have cut his hair on the eve of the Festival, as the more stringent restrictions of his mourning no longer applied. Rather, it must be that we are dealing with a case where the eighth day of his mourning occurred on a Shabbat that was the eve of the Festival, and so he could not have cut his hair on the Festival eve.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื’ืœื•ื—ื™ ืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืœื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ืฉื—ืœ ืฉืžื™ื ื™ ืฉืœื• ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืฉืžื•ืชืจ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช

But if this is the case, he should have cut his hair on Friday, for Rav แธคisda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. If the deceased was buried seven days before the Festival, then not only has the mourner completed the seven-day mourning period, but he is even regarded as having begun the thirty-day mourning period, and so the Festival cancels this thirty-day period of mourning. And the Rabbis concede to the opinion of Abba Shaul when the eighth day of his mourning occurs on a Shabbat that is the eve of the Festival, and they maintain that he is permitted to cut his hair on Friday. Since he is unavoidably prevented from cutting his hair on the eighth day, the Rabbis allowed him to cut it already on the seventh day.

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืฉื—ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ ืฉืœื• ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ

The Gemara answers: No, the ruling of the baraita is necessary in the case where the seventh day of his mourning occurs on a Shabbat that is the eve of the Festival. In that case, he certainly cannot cut his hair on Friday because it is only the sixth day of his mourning, and so he is permitted to cut his hair on the intermediate days of the Festival.

ืชื ื ื‘ืจื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื™ื•ื ื›ื›ื•ืœื• ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ ืขื•ืœื” ืœื• ืœื›ืืŸ ื•ืœื›ืืŸ ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ื™ ืื ื•ืก ื”ื•ื

The Gemara comments: The tanna of the baraita, who permits a mourner to cut his hair during the intermediate days of the Festival, holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who said: The legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, and therefore the seventh day counts as both the final day of the seven-day mourning period and the first day of the thirty-day mourning period. From the perspective of the halakhot of mourning, one would be permitted to cut his hair; however since this day is Shabbat, he is unavoidably prevented from doing so, and therefore he is permitted to cut his hair during the intermediate days of the Festival.

ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื™ื•ื ื›ื›ื•ืœื• ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ืฉืœื™ื ืื‘ื™ืœื•ืช ื“ืฉื‘ืขื”

The tanna of our mishna, on the other hand, who does not mention that a mourner is permitted to cut his hair on the intermediate days of a Festival, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: We do not say that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day for a mourner. Therefore, he has not yet completed his seven-day period of mourning, and consequently he will not be permitted to cut his hair even after the Festival, until the completion of the thirty-day mourning period.

ื”ืื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืฉืœื™ื ืžืฉืžืจืชื• ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื’ืœื•ื—ื™ ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ

The Gemara continues and asks: The case of this priest, who is permitted to cut his hair during the intermediate days of a Festival, what are the circumstances? If we say that he completed his watch on the eve of the Festival, then he should have cut his hair on the eve of the Festival.

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืฉืœื™ื ืžืฉืžืจืชื• ื‘ืจื’ืœ ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืคืจืงื™ื ื‘ืฉื ื” ื”ื™ื• ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉืžืจื•ืช ืฉื•ื•ืช ื‘ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ื—ื™ืœื•ืง ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ืฉืœื™ื ืžืฉืžืจืชื• ื‘ืจื’ืœ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืชื ื ื‘ืจื ืกื‘ืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืฉื™ื™ืš ื‘ื”ื ืš ืžืฉืžืจื•ืช ืžืฉืžืจืชื™ื” ืžื™ื”ื ืฉืœื™ืžื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara answers: No, the ruling of the baraita is necessary in the case where one completed his watch during the Festival week itself. The tanna of our mishna holds that since we learned in a mishna (Sukka 55b): At the year, i.e., the three pilgrimage Festivals, all of the priestly watches share equally in the Festival offerings and in the division of the shewbread among the priests on Shabbat that occurs on the Festival, therefore, he is considered like one whose watch was not completed during the Festival, and he may not cut his hair until after the Festival. And the tanna of the baraita holds that although he belongs also to those other watches serving during the Festival, nevertheless, his own watch was completed before the Festival, and so he is permitted to cut his hair.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืฉืืžืจื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœืŸ

ยง The Sages taught the following baraita: All those about whom it was said that they are permitted to cut their hair on the intermediate days of a Festival because they were unable to do so beforehand, they may similarly cut their hair during the period of their mourning if they had been unable to do so beforehand.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืœื ื›ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื”ื›ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืชื›ืคื•ื”ื• ืื‘ืœื™ื•

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it taught in another baraita: They are nevertheless prohibited from cutting their hair during the period of their mourning? Rav แธคisda said that Rav Sheila said: When it is taught in the baraita that they are permitted to cut their hair, it is referring to one for whom two periods of mourning applied in succession. In other words, this person was required to practice one period of mourning immediately following another period of mourning, and he is unable to endure the prescribed restrictions for such an extended period.

ืื™ ื‘ืฉืชื›ืคื•ื”ื• ืื‘ืœื™ื• ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืฉืืžืจื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื ืžื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืชื›ืคื•ื”ื• ืื‘ืœื™ื• ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ื”ื›ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืขืจื• ืžื™ืงืœ ื‘ืชืขืจ ื•ืžื›ื‘ืก ื›ืกื•ืชื• ื‘ืžื™ื

The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a case where his mourning applied in succession, then why specifically does the baraita discuss all those about whom it was said that they may cut their hair? The allowance should apply even to everyone, not only to those who had been unavoidably prevented from cutting their hair in the preceding period, as it is taught in a baraita: If oneโ€™s mourning periods applied in succession, one after the other, and his hair grew long and became heavy, he may lighten it by cutting his hair with a razor, and he may wash his garment in water, so that he does not suffer for such a long time without cutting his hair or washing his clothes.

ื”ื ืืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื‘ืชืขืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ืžืกืคืจื™ื ื‘ืžื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื ืชืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ืื”ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืื‘ืœ ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืชื›ื‘ื•ืกืช

The Gemara answers: But wasnโ€™t it said with regard to that baraita: Rav แธคisda said: When it states that one may cut his hair, it means that he may do so with a razor, but not with scissors? Similarly, when it states that one may wash his clothes, it means that he may launder them with water, but not with neter or soap. Therefore, the baraita teaches that if one had been unavoidably prevented from performing these actions beforehand and then had to observe a double mourning period, he may cut his hair in an ordinary manner, without performing these actions in an altered way. Rav แธคisda said: That is to say that, generally speaking, a mourner is prohibited from laundering his clothes.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืฉื ืฉืืžืจื• ืืกื•ืจ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื›ืš ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืฆืคื•ืจื ื™ื ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืชื™ืจ

The Sages taught the following baraita: Just as the Sages said that it is prohibited to cut oneโ€™s hair during the intermediate days of a Festival, so too it is prohibited to cut oneโ€™s nails during the intermediate days of a Festival; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas Rabbi Yosei permits cutting nails.

ื•ื›ืฉื ืฉืืžืจื• ืื‘ืœ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœื• ื›ืš ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืฆืคื•ืจื ื™ื ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืชื™ืจ

And just as the Sages said that a mourner is prohibited from cutting his hair during the period of his mourning, so too he is prohibited from cutting his nails during the period of his mourning; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas Rabbi Yosei permits a mourner to cut his nails.

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืื‘ืœ ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ

Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to mourning, but the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the intermediate days of the Festival. Shmuel said:

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Moed Katan 17: Excommunicated for Life (and then some)

[Who's Who: R. Yehuda bar Yehezkel.] How should the sages handles an excommunicated Torah scholar who was out of line...

Moed Katan 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Moed Katan 17

ืชืœืžื™ื“ ืฉื ื™ื“ื” ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ื ื“ื•ื™ื• ื ื™ื“ื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ ืžื ื•ื“ื” ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ืžื ื•ื“ื” ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ืื™ื ื• ืžื ื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื ื• ืžื ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžื ื•ื“ื”

If a student ostracized someone else due to an insult to his dignity, and not because the ostracized person was guilty of some transgression, his decree of ostracism is valid, as it is taught in a baraita: One who is ostracized by the teacher is considered ostracized with regard to the student. However, one who is ostracized by the student is not considered ostracized with regard to the teacher. The Gemara attempts to draw an inference from a careful reading of this baraita: He is not considered ostracized with regard to the teacher, which implies that he is considered ostracized with regard to everyone else.

ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ื‘ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืฉืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืชื‘ื•ื ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขืฆื” ืœื ื’ื“ ื”ืณ ืืœื ืœืื• ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืขืฆืžื•

The Gemara clarifies the case: For what reason was he ostracized? If it was for a matter relating to Heaven, i.e., because he sinned, then why, if he was ostracized by the student, should he not be considered ostracized with regard to the teacher? Doesnโ€™t the verse state: โ€œThere is no wisdom or understanding or counsel against the Lordโ€ (Proverbs 21:30)? This means that when a sin is committed and Godโ€™s name is desecrated, all other considerations are ignored, even the eminence and knowledge of the teacher, and therefore he too must treat the offender as ostracized. Rather, is it not that the Gemara is referring to a case where the student ostracized the other person due to an insult to his own dignity? Therefore, it is apparent that his decree of ostracism is valid and binding upon all, with the exception of his teacher.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื“ื™ื ื ืœื ืคืฉื™ื” ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื”

Rav Yosef said: A Torah scholar may execute judgment for himself with regard to a matter about which he is certain, and he is not required to first go to court and have the case decided for him. The same applies when another person behaves in a disrespectful manner toward him; he is permitted to go ahead on his own and ostracize him.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื”ื•ื• ืกื ื• ืฉื•ืžืขื ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืœื™ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœืฉืžืชื™ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ืœืฉืžืชื™ื” ืงื ืžื™ืชื—ื™ืœ ืฉืžื ื“ืฉืžื™ื

There was a certain Torah scholar who gained a bad reputation due to rumors about his conduct. Rav Yehuda said: What should be done? To excommunicate him is not an option. The Sages need him, as he is a great Torah authority. Not to excommunicate him is also not an option, as then the name of Heaven would be desecrated.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ื‘ื”ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืฉืคืชื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื™ืฉืžืจื• ื“ืขืช ื•ืชื•ืจื” ื™ื‘ืงืฉื• ืžืคื™ื”ื• ื›ื™ ืžืœืืš ื”ืณ ืฆื‘ืื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืื ื“ื•ืžื” ื”ืจื‘ ืœืžืœืืš ื”ืณ ื™ื‘ืงืฉื• ืชื•ืจื” ืžืคื™ื• ื•ืื ืœืื• ืืœ ื™ื‘ืงืฉื• ืชื•ืจื” ืžืคื™ื•

Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar bar แธคana: Have you heard anything with regard to this issue? He said to him: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œFor the priestโ€™s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek Torah at his mouth; for he is a messenger [malakh] of the Lord of hostsโ€ (Malachi 2:7)? This verse teaches: If the teacher is similar to an angel [malakh] of the Lord, then seek Torah from his mouth, but if he is not pure and upright, then do not seek Torah from his mouth; even if he is knowledgeable about Torah, do not learn from him.

ืฉืžืชื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืกื•ืฃ ืื™ื—ืœืฉ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืชื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืฉื™ื•ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืื™ื”ื• ื ืžื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ื“ ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื—ื™ื™ืš

Based on this statement, Rav Yehuda ostracized that Torah scholar. In the end, after some time had passed, Rav Yehuda took ill and was on the verge of death. The Sages came to inquire about his well-being, and the ostracized scholar came along with them as well. When Rav Yehuda saw him, that scholar, he laughed.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืžืกืชื™ื™ืš ื“ืฉืžืชื™ื” ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืืœื ืื—ื•ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ื™ื™ืš ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ื‘ื“ื™ื“ืš ืžื—ื™ื™ื›ื ื ืืœื ื“ื›ื™ ืื–ืœื™ื ื ืœื”ื”ื•ื ืขืœืžื ื‘ื“ื™ื—ื ื“ืขืชืื™ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื’ื‘ืจื ื›ื•ื•ืชืš ืœื ื—ื ื™ืคื™ ืœื™ื”

The ostracized scholar said to him: Was it not enough that you excommunicated that man, i.e., me, but now you even laugh at me? Rav Yehuda said to him: I was not laughing at you; rather, I am happy as I go to that other world that I did not flatter even a great man like you, but instead I treated you fairly in accordance with the halakha.

ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืชื ืœื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืฉืจื• ืœื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ื›ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื™ื›ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืœื™ืฉืจื™ ืœืš ืืœื ื–ื™ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืฉื™ืื” ื“ืœื™ืฉืจื™ ืœืš ืื–ืœ ืœืงืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืคื•ืง ืขื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืฉืจื ืœื™ื” ืฉืจื™ ืœื™ื”

Rav Yehuda died. The ostracized scholar came to the study hall and said to the Sages: Release me from the decree of ostracism. The Sages said to him: There is no man here as eminent as Rav Yehuda who can release you from the ostracism. Rather, go to Rabbi Yehuda Nesia in Eretz Yisrael, as only he can release you. That scholar came before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Ami: Go and examine his case. If it is necessary to release him from his decree of ostracism, release him on my behalf.

ืขื™ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœืžื™ืฉืจื ืœื™ื” ืขืžื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืขืœ ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื•ืืžืจ ื•ืžื” ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืœื ื ื”ื’ื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืงืœื•ืช ืจืืฉ ื‘ื ื™ื“ื•ื™ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื™ื ื• ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื”

Rabbi Ami examined his case and thought at first to release him from his ostracism. But Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani rose up on his feet and said: If the maidservant in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once ostracized another person, and the Sages did not relate frivolously to her decree of ostracism and did not revoke it until three years had passed, all the more so, with regard to a decree of ostracism placed by Yehuda our colleague, we must take it seriously and not release this scholar.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžืื™ ื“ืงืžืŸ ื“ืืชื ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ื”ืื™ ืกื‘ื ื‘ื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ื“ื”ื ื›ืžื” ืฉื ื™ ืœื ืืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืฉืจื ืœื™ื” ืœื ืฉืจื ืœื™ื” ื ืคืง ื›ื™ ืงื ื‘ื›ื™ ื•ืื–ื™ืœ

Rabbi Zeira said: What caused this Elder, Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani, to come before us in the study hall today though for many years he did not come, and now he comes precisely during this discussion. Learn from this that it is not necessary to release him from his decree of ostracism, as this combination of events is certainly not a coincidence. Rather, it should be viewed as an instructive sign from Heaven. Consequently, Rabbi Ami did not release him from the ostracism, and the ostracized scholar left in tears.

ืืชื ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื ื•ื˜ืจืงื™ื” ืืืžืชื™ื” ื•ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืขื™ื™ืœื•ื”ื• ืœืžืขืจืชื ื“ื—ืกื™ื“ื™ ื•ืœื ืงื™ื‘ืœื•ื”ื• ืขื™ื™ืœื•ื”ื• ืœืžืขืจืชื ื“ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ ื•ืงื™ื‘ืœื•ื”ื•

A wasp came and stung the ostracized scholar on his penis and he died. Because he was a great Torah scholar, they took him into the caves in which the pious are interred in order to bury him there, but the caves did not accept him. A snake stood at the entrance of the caves and did not let them pass. They then took him into the caves of the judges, and they accepted him.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืจื•ืื” ืื“ื ืฉื™ืฆืจื• ืžืชื’ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื™ืœืš ืœืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ื™ืœื‘ืฉ ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ื ื•ื™ืชืขื˜ืฃ ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ื ื•ื™ืขืฉื” ืžื” ืฉืœื‘ื• ื—ืคืฅ ื•ืืœ ื™ื—ืœืœ ืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ืคืจื”ืกื™ื

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he was accepted there? The Gemara answers: Even though he sinned, he still acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ilai says: If a person sees that his evil inclination is gaining control over him and he cannot overcome it, then he should go to a place where he is not known. He should wear black, and he should wrap his head in black, as if he were a mourner. Perhaps these changes will influence him, so that he not sin. Even if these actions do not help, he should at least do as his heart desires in private and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public. Although this person had sinned, he did so in private and in a manner that did not publicly desecrate Godโ€™s name, and therefore it was fitting that he be given an honorable burial.

ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื–ื™ืชื™ื” ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžื—ื™ ืœื‘ื ื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื‘ืฉืžืชื ื“ืงืขื‘ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื•ืœืคื ื™ ืขื•ืจ ืœื ืชืชืŸ ืžื›ืฉื•ืœ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืœืคื ื™ ืขื•ืจ ืœื ืชืชืŸ ืžื›ืฉื•ืœ ื‘ืžื›ื” ืœื‘ื ื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ

The Gemara asks: What is the story mentioned by Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani involving the maidservant in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It was related that the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโ€™s house saw a certain man who was striking his adult son. She said: Let that man be excommunicated, due to the fact that he has transgressed the injunction: โ€œYou shall not place a stumbling block before the blindโ€ (Leviticus 19:14), as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: โ€œYou shall not place a stumbling block before the blind,โ€ and the verse speaks here of one who strikes his adult son, as the son is likely to become angry and strike his father back, thereby transgressing the severe prohibition against hitting oneโ€™s parent.

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื” ืžื ื˜ืจ ืคืจื“ื™ืกื ืืชื ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื•ืงืื›ื™ืœ ืชืื™ื ื™ ืจืžื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืœื ื•ืœื ืืฉื’ื— ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื‘ืฉืžืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื‘ืฉืžืชื ืื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ืชื™ ืœืš ื ื™ื“ื•ื™ ืžื™ ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ืชื™ ืœืš

Similarly, it was related that Reish Lakish was guarding an orchard for payment when a certain man came and ate some figs that were growing there. Reish Lakish raised his voice and yelled at him, but this man paid no attention to him and kept eating. Reish Lakish said: Let that man be in a state of excommunication. The man eating the figs said to him: On the contrary, let that man, i.e., Reish Lakish, be in a state of excommunication, for even if I have become liable to you for payment, as I have eaten of the figs without permission, have I become liable to you for excommuncation? With that statement, the man left.

ืืชื ืœื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืœื• ื ื™ื“ื•ื™ ืฉืœืš ืื™ื ื• ื ื™ื“ื•ื™

Reish Lakish went to the study hall to inquire about the halakha with regard to this man. The other Sages said to him: His decree of ostracism is valid, but your decree of ostracism is not. In other words, that man was correct and Reish Lakish should not have ostracized him in response to his actions.

ื•ืžืื™ ืชืงื ืชื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืœื™ืฉืจื™ ืœืš ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ืื” ื“ืœื™ืฉืจื™ ืœืš ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ื™ื“ื•ื”ื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžื™ ื ื™ื“ื”ื• ื™ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ืชื™ืจ ืœื• ื ื“ื•ื™ื•

Reish Lakish then asked: If so, what is the remedy for this decree of ostracism? The Sages answered him: Go to him so that he may release you from it. Reish Lakish replied: I do not know him. They said to him: Go then to the Nasi, so that he may release you from the ban, as it is taught in a baraita: If one was ostracized, but he does not know who ostracized him, he should go to the Nasi, and the Nasi may release him from his decree of ostracism.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืื•ืฉื ื”ืชืงื™ื ื• ืื‘ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืกืจื— ืื™ืŸ ืžื ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืืœื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ืฉื‘ ื‘ื‘ื™ืชืš ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืกืจื— ืžื ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ื—ื™ืœื•ืœ ื”ืฉื

The Gemara continues: Rav Huna said that in Usha it was enacted: If the president of the court sinned, he is not ostracized. Although this would be the appropriate punishment, he is not ostracized, so as not to cause a desecration of Godโ€™s name. Rather, they say to him the words of the verse: โ€œKeep your honor and stay at homeโ€ (IIย Kings 14:10). That is to say, to preserve your dignity, it would be best if you were to stay at home, resign your position, and refrain from further public appearances. If he sins again, he is ostracized, due to the desecration of Godโ€™s name that would ensue were people to think that he was spared his rightful punishment due to his high position.

ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ืฉืกืจื— ืื™ืŸ ืžื ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืคืจื”ืกื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ืฉืœืช ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืฉืœ ื’ื ื ื‘ื™ื ืขืžืš ืœื™ืœื” ื›ืกื”ื• ื›ืœื™ืœื”

The Gemara comments: This opinion disagrees with that of Reish Lakish, for Reish Lakish said: If a Torah scholar sins, he is not ostracized at all in public, as it is stated: โ€œTherefore, shall you fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with you in the nightโ€ (Hosea 4:5). This is explained to mean: If a prophet or any other important person sins, his offense should be concealed like the night and not punished in public.

ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื—ืกื™ื“ื ื›ื™ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉืžืชื ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ืžืฉืžื™ืช ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืžืฉืžื™ืช ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขื™ื™ืœ ื‘ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื™ื” ืฉืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืคืฉื™ื” ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืฉืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

With regard to this issue, it was related that when a Torah scholar would become liable to be punished with excommunication before Mar Zutra the Pious, Mar Zutra would first excommunicate himself as a mark of respect for the Torah scholar, and afterward he would ostracize the Torah scholar. This self-imposed excommunication was meant only as a show of honor to the other Torah scholar, and therefore when Mar Zutra would enter his house of lodging, he would release his own excommunication, and afterward he would release the otherโ€™s excommunication.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ื™ื“ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ืžื ื“ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžื™ืคืจ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืชื™ืชื™ ืœื™ ื“ืœื ืฉืžื™ืชื™ ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืขื•ืœื ืืœื ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉืžืชื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืžื™ืžื ื• ืื ื’ื™ื“ื ื“ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžื™ืžื ื• ืืฉืžืชื

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: A Torah scholar may ostracize himself, and he may similarly release himself from self-imposed ostracism. Rav Pappa said: I have good coming to me, for I am praiseworthy, as I have never ostracized a Torah scholar. The Gemara asks about this: If so, when a Torah scholar was liable to be ostracized, what would he do? The Gemara answers: He did as they do in the West, Eretz Yisrael, where they appoint a court to give a Torah scholar lashes, but they do not appoint a court to ostracize him. That is to say, lashes were preferred over ostracism.

ืžืื™ ืฉืžืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื ืžื™ืชื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืฉืžืžื” ื™ื”ื™ื” ื•ืžื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื˜ื™ื—ื™ื ื‘ืชื ื•ืจื

The Gemara proceeds with a discussion that explains the severity of the punishment of excommunication: What is the meaning of the word excommunication [shamta]? Rav said: This word is a contraction of the expression there is death [sham mita], alluding to the deathly aspect of excommunication. And Shmuel said: Shamta means that he will be a desolation [shemama yiheyeh], and it is effective upon him like fat smeared on an oven. Just as some of the fat will always remain absorbed in the walls of the oven, so too some aspect of the curse contained in the excommunication will continue to adhere to him even after the excommunication has been nullified.

ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ืฉื ืฉื ื›ื ืกืช ื‘ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืื™ื‘ืจื™ื ื›ืš ื›ืฉื”ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืื™ื‘ืจื™ื

The Gemara comments: And this opinion disagrees with the opinion of Reish Lakish, for Reish Lakish said: Just as ostracism enters the two hundred and forty-eight organs of oneโ€™s body when it is first pronounced, so too when it leaves, it leaves from his two hundred and forty-eight organs.

ื›ืฉื”ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ื”ืขื™ืจ ื—ืจื ื—ืจื ื‘ื’ื™ืžื˜ืจื™ื ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื• ื›ืฉื”ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื•ื’ื– ืจื—ื ืชื–ื›ื•ืจ ืจื—ื ื‘ื’ื™ืžื˜ืจื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื•

The following allusion is offered in support of the opinion of Reish Lakish: When it enters, it enters all the organs, as it is written: โ€œAnd the city shall be a curse [แธฅerem]โ€ (Joshua 6:17), and the numerical value [gimatriyya] of the word แธฅerem, a concept similar to ostracism, is two hundred and forty-eight. Therefore, the verse alludes to the fact that a decree of ostracism penetrates oneโ€™s two hundred and forty-eight organs. When it leaves, it leaves all the organs, as it is written: โ€œIn wrath remember mercy [raแธฅem]โ€ (Habakkuk 3:2), and the numerical value of the word raแธฅem is also two hundred and forty-eight, thereby teaching that when the decree of ostracism is revoked, it disappears entirely.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืฉื“ื™ ืฉืžืชื ืื’ื ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ื›ืœื‘ื ื•ืื™ื”ื™ ื“ื™ื“ื” ืขื‘ื“ื” ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ื›ืœื‘ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืื›ื™ืœ ืžืกืื ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืงื ื™ื“ืขื™ ืžื ื• ื•ืฉืžืชื• ืœื™ื” ืื™ืชืœื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื ื•ืจื ื‘ื’ื ื•ื‘ืชื™ื” ื•ืื›ืœืชื™ื”

The Gemara continues discussing the power of a ban. Rav Yosef said: Cast an excommunication on the tail of a dog and it, the excommunication, will do its work and harm the dog. It was related that there was a certain dog that would eat the shoes of the Sages, and they did not know who it was causing this damage. They thought that it was a person, and so they excommunicated whoever was doing it. Soon thereafter, the dogโ€™s tail caught fire and got burnt. This shows that excommunication can have a harmful effect even on a dog.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืืœืžื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืžืฆืขืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื”ื•ื ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ืฉืžืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืกืชืคื™ื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื”

It was further related that there was a violent person who caused suffering to a certain Torah scholar. This Torah scholar came before Rav Yosef to ask what he should do. Rav Yosef said to him: Go and ostracize him. This Torah scholar said to him: I am afraid of him, that he will harass me even more.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืงื™ืœื™ ืคืชื™ื—ื ืขืœื™ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืžืกืชืคื™ื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืงืœื™ื” ืื—ืชื™ื” ื‘ื›ื“ื

Rav Yosef said to him: Take out, i.e., publish a written ostracism against him. The Torah scholar said to him: All the more so I am fearful of him, for if I publicize the matter he will certainly come after me. Rav Yosef said to him to do as follows: Take the written ostracism and place it in a jug,

ื•ืื—ืชื™ื” ื‘ื™ ืงื‘ืจื™ ื•ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืืœืคื ืฉืคื•ืจื™ ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืื–ื™ืœ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื›ื™ ืคืงืข ื›ื“ื ื•ืžื™ืช ืืœืžื ืžืื™ ืฉืคื•ืจื™ ืฉื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื•

and set it down in a cemetery, where nobody is found, and sound a thousand, i.e., many, shofar blasts over the course of forty days. That man went and did this. The jug burst and the violent man died. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that shofarot are sounded when a decree of ostracism is pronounced? The shofarot allude to the fact that they extract punishment [shenifraโ€™in] from the excommunicated person.

ืžืื™ ืชื‘ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืชื‘ืจื™ ื‘ืชื™ ืจืžื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืชื ื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืขื™ื ื™ื”ื ืื• ืžื™ืชื” ืื• ืขื•ื ื™

The Gemara asks further: What is the reason that broken blasts are sounded on the shofar when the excommunication is pronounced? Rav Yitzแธฅak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: It breaks tall buildings, i.e., a decree of ostracism can harm and break even the high and mighty, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Wherever it says that the Sages set their eyes in anger upon a particular person, it causes either death or poverty.

ื•ื”ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื”ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืžื˜ื•ืžืืชื• ืœื˜ื”ืจืชื• ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื‘ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ืœื”ื ืคื ืื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืฃ ื‘ืฉื”ื™ื” ืœื”ื ืคื ืื™

ยง It is taught in the mishna: And the nazirite whose term of naziriteship ended on the intermediate days of a Festival, and the leper who needs to purify himself on the intermediate days and must shave his entire body in order to leave his state of ritual impurity and regain his ritual purity, these people are permitted to cut their hair on the intermediate days of the Festival because they were not able to do so on the eve of the Festival. Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question before Rabbi Zeira: Is this allowance limited to the case where they did not have the time to cut their hair before the Festival, as it was prohibited for them to do so beforehand? Or perhaps they may cut their hair even in a case where they had the time to do so beforehand.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืฉืืžืจื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื‘ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ืœื”ื ืคื ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื” ืœื”ื ืคื ืื™ ืืกื•ืจื™ื

He said to him: We already learned this in a baraita: With regard to all those about whom the Sages said that they are permitted to cut their hair on the intermediate days of a Festival, they may do so only if they did not have time to cut their hair before the Festival. But if they had time before the Festival began, then they are prohibited from doing so.

ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืœื”ื ืคื ืื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ืฉืœื ื™ืฉื”ื• ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ

However, a nazirite and a leper, even if they had the time to do so before the Festival, they are permitted to cut their hair. Why are they granted this special allowance? So that they will not delay bringing their offerings. Both a nazirite and a leper must cut their hair before sacrificing their offerings in completion of their purification process. Therefore, if they are not permitted to cut their hair, they will not be able to sacrifice their offerings at the proper time.โ€

ืชื ื ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืื‘ืœ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ื™ืœื•ื— ื”ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืฉื—ืœ ืฉืžื™ื ื™ ืฉืœื• ื‘ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื’ืœื•ื—ื™ ื‘ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืืœื ืฉื—ืœ ืฉืžื™ื ื™ ืฉืœื• ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ

In was taught in a baraita: A priest and a mourner are permitted to cut their hair during the intermediate days of a Festival. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances when the mourner is permitted to do so? If we say that the eighth day of his mourning occurred on the eve of the Festival, then he should have cut his hair on the eve of the Festival, as the more stringent restrictions of his mourning no longer applied. Rather, it must be that we are dealing with a case where the eighth day of his mourning occurred on a Shabbat that was the eve of the Festival, and so he could not have cut his hair on the Festival eve.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื’ืœื•ื—ื™ ืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืœื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ืฉื—ืœ ืฉืžื™ื ื™ ืฉืœื• ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืฉืžื•ืชืจ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช

But if this is the case, he should have cut his hair on Friday, for Rav แธคisda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. If the deceased was buried seven days before the Festival, then not only has the mourner completed the seven-day mourning period, but he is even regarded as having begun the thirty-day mourning period, and so the Festival cancels this thirty-day period of mourning. And the Rabbis concede to the opinion of Abba Shaul when the eighth day of his mourning occurs on a Shabbat that is the eve of the Festival, and they maintain that he is permitted to cut his hair on Friday. Since he is unavoidably prevented from cutting his hair on the eighth day, the Rabbis allowed him to cut it already on the seventh day.

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืฉื—ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ ืฉืœื• ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ

The Gemara answers: No, the ruling of the baraita is necessary in the case where the seventh day of his mourning occurs on a Shabbat that is the eve of the Festival. In that case, he certainly cannot cut his hair on Friday because it is only the sixth day of his mourning, and so he is permitted to cut his hair on the intermediate days of the Festival.

ืชื ื ื‘ืจื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื™ื•ื ื›ื›ื•ืœื• ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ ืขื•ืœื” ืœื• ืœื›ืืŸ ื•ืœื›ืืŸ ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ื™ ืื ื•ืก ื”ื•ื

The Gemara comments: The tanna of the baraita, who permits a mourner to cut his hair during the intermediate days of the Festival, holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who said: The legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, and therefore the seventh day counts as both the final day of the seven-day mourning period and the first day of the thirty-day mourning period. From the perspective of the halakhot of mourning, one would be permitted to cut his hair; however since this day is Shabbat, he is unavoidably prevented from doing so, and therefore he is permitted to cut his hair during the intermediate days of the Festival.

ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื™ื•ื ื›ื›ื•ืœื• ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ืฉืœื™ื ืื‘ื™ืœื•ืช ื“ืฉื‘ืขื”

The tanna of our mishna, on the other hand, who does not mention that a mourner is permitted to cut his hair on the intermediate days of a Festival, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: We do not say that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day for a mourner. Therefore, he has not yet completed his seven-day period of mourning, and consequently he will not be permitted to cut his hair even after the Festival, until the completion of the thirty-day mourning period.

ื”ืื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืฉืœื™ื ืžืฉืžืจืชื• ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื’ืœื•ื—ื™ ืขืจื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ

The Gemara continues and asks: The case of this priest, who is permitted to cut his hair during the intermediate days of a Festival, what are the circumstances? If we say that he completed his watch on the eve of the Festival, then he should have cut his hair on the eve of the Festival.

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืฉืœื™ื ืžืฉืžืจืชื• ื‘ืจื’ืœ ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืคืจืงื™ื ื‘ืฉื ื” ื”ื™ื• ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉืžืจื•ืช ืฉื•ื•ืช ื‘ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ื—ื™ืœื•ืง ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ืฉืœื™ื ืžืฉืžืจืชื• ื‘ืจื’ืœ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืชื ื ื‘ืจื ืกื‘ืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืฉื™ื™ืš ื‘ื”ื ืš ืžืฉืžืจื•ืช ืžืฉืžืจืชื™ื” ืžื™ื”ื ืฉืœื™ืžื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara answers: No, the ruling of the baraita is necessary in the case where one completed his watch during the Festival week itself. The tanna of our mishna holds that since we learned in a mishna (Sukka 55b): At the year, i.e., the three pilgrimage Festivals, all of the priestly watches share equally in the Festival offerings and in the division of the shewbread among the priests on Shabbat that occurs on the Festival, therefore, he is considered like one whose watch was not completed during the Festival, and he may not cut his hair until after the Festival. And the tanna of the baraita holds that although he belongs also to those other watches serving during the Festival, nevertheless, his own watch was completed before the Festival, and so he is permitted to cut his hair.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืฉืืžืจื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœืŸ

ยง The Sages taught the following baraita: All those about whom it was said that they are permitted to cut their hair on the intermediate days of a Festival because they were unable to do so beforehand, they may similarly cut their hair during the period of their mourning if they had been unable to do so beforehand.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืœื ื›ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื”ื›ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืชื›ืคื•ื”ื• ืื‘ืœื™ื•

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it taught in another baraita: They are nevertheless prohibited from cutting their hair during the period of their mourning? Rav แธคisda said that Rav Sheila said: When it is taught in the baraita that they are permitted to cut their hair, it is referring to one for whom two periods of mourning applied in succession. In other words, this person was required to practice one period of mourning immediately following another period of mourning, and he is unable to endure the prescribed restrictions for such an extended period.

ืื™ ื‘ืฉืชื›ืคื•ื”ื• ืื‘ืœื™ื• ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืฉืืžืจื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื ืžื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืชื›ืคื•ื”ื• ืื‘ืœื™ื• ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ื”ื›ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืขืจื• ืžื™ืงืœ ื‘ืชืขืจ ื•ืžื›ื‘ืก ื›ืกื•ืชื• ื‘ืžื™ื

The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a case where his mourning applied in succession, then why specifically does the baraita discuss all those about whom it was said that they may cut their hair? The allowance should apply even to everyone, not only to those who had been unavoidably prevented from cutting their hair in the preceding period, as it is taught in a baraita: If oneโ€™s mourning periods applied in succession, one after the other, and his hair grew long and became heavy, he may lighten it by cutting his hair with a razor, and he may wash his garment in water, so that he does not suffer for such a long time without cutting his hair or washing his clothes.

ื”ื ืืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื‘ืชืขืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ืžืกืคืจื™ื ื‘ืžื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื ืชืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ืื”ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืื‘ืœ ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืชื›ื‘ื•ืกืช

The Gemara answers: But wasnโ€™t it said with regard to that baraita: Rav แธคisda said: When it states that one may cut his hair, it means that he may do so with a razor, but not with scissors? Similarly, when it states that one may wash his clothes, it means that he may launder them with water, but not with neter or soap. Therefore, the baraita teaches that if one had been unavoidably prevented from performing these actions beforehand and then had to observe a double mourning period, he may cut his hair in an ordinary manner, without performing these actions in an altered way. Rav แธคisda said: That is to say that, generally speaking, a mourner is prohibited from laundering his clothes.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืฉื ืฉืืžืจื• ืืกื•ืจ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื›ืš ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืฆืคื•ืจื ื™ื ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืชื™ืจ

The Sages taught the following baraita: Just as the Sages said that it is prohibited to cut oneโ€™s hair during the intermediate days of a Festival, so too it is prohibited to cut oneโ€™s nails during the intermediate days of a Festival; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas Rabbi Yosei permits cutting nails.

ื•ื›ืฉื ืฉืืžืจื• ืื‘ืœ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื’ืœื— ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœื• ื›ืš ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืฆืคื•ืจื ื™ื ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืชื™ืจ

And just as the Sages said that a mourner is prohibited from cutting his hair during the period of his mourning, so too he is prohibited from cutting his nails during the period of his mourning; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas Rabbi Yosei permits a mourner to cut his nails.

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืื‘ืœ ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ

Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to mourning, but the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the intermediate days of the Festival. Shmuel said:

Scroll To Top