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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 29, 2022 | 讻状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘

This month鈥檚 shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Moed Katan 17

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in loving memory of Art鈥檚 father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v鈥橰achel z鈥漧. 鈥淭oday 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.鈥

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 Yehuda鈥檚 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 Nachmani鈥檚 argument, he brought the case of Rebbi鈥檚 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 one鈥檚 nails on the holiday or when in mourning?

转诇诪讬讚 砖谞讬讚讛 诇讻讘讜讚讜 谞讚讜讬讜 谞讬讚讜讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讜讚讛 诇专讘 诪谞讜讚讛 诇转诇诪讬讚 诪谞讜讚讛 诇转诇诪讬讚 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讜讚讛 诇专讘 诇专讘 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪谞讜讚讛 讛讗 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪谞讜讚讛

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.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬 讘诪讬诇讬 讚砖诪讬讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讻讘讜讚 注爪诪讜

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? Doesn鈥檛 the verse state: 鈥淭here is no wisdom or understanding or counsel against the Lord鈥 (Proverbs 21:30)? This means that when a sin is committed and God鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 注讘讬讚 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讛讜讜 住谞讜 砖讜诪注谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 诇砖诪转讬讛 爪专讬讻讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诇砖诪转讬讛 拽讗 诪讬转讞讬诇 砖诪讗 讚砖诪讬讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪讬讚讬 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讘讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 砖驻转讬 讻讛谉 讬砖诪专讜 讚注转 讜转讜专讛 讬讘拽砖讜 诪驻讬讛讜 讻讬 诪诇讗讱 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讛讜讗 讗诐 讚讜诪讛 讛专讘 诇诪诇讗讱 讛壮 讬讘拽砖讜 转讜专讛 诪驻讬讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 讬讘拽砖讜 转讜专讛 诪驻讬讜

Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar bar 岣na: Have you heard anything with regard to this issue? He said to him: Rabbi Yo岣nan said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淔or the priest鈥檚 lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek Torah at his mouth; for he is a messenger [malakh] of the Lord of hosts鈥 (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.

砖诪转讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇住讜祝 讗讬讞诇砖 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗转讜 专讘谞谉 诇砖讬讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讜讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讻讚 讞讝讬讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬讱

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪住转讬讬讱 讚砖诪转讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗诇讗 讗讞讜讻讬 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讱 讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讘讚讬讚讱 诪讞讬讬讻谞讗 讗诇讗 讚讻讬 讗讝诇讬谞讗 诇讛讛讜讗 注诇诪讗 讘讚讬讞讗 讚注转讗讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讙讘专讗 讻讜讜转讱 诇讗 讞谞讬驻讬 诇讬讛

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.

谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗转讗 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖专讜 诇讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讙讘专讗 讚讞砖讬讘 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讬砖专讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讚诇讬砖专讬 诇讱 讗讝诇 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 驻讜拽 注讬讬谉 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇诪讬砖专讗 诇讬讛 砖专讬 诇讬讛

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.

注讬讬谉 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛 住讘专 诇诪讬砖专讗 诇讬讛 注诪讚 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 注诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 讜诪讛 砖驻讞讛 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 诇讗 谞讛讙讜 讞讻诪讬诐 拽诇讜转 专讗砖 讘谞讬讚讜讬讛 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讘讬专讬谞讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

Rabbi Ami examined his case and thought at first to release him from his ostracism. But Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讚拽诪谉 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讗讬 住讘讗 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讚讛讗 讻诪讛 砖谞讬 诇讗 讗转讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇诪讬砖专讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖专讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽 讻讬 拽讗 讘讻讬 讜讗讝讬诇

Rabbi Zeira said: What caused this Elder, Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani, 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.

讗转讗 讝讬讘讜专讗 讜讟专拽讬讛 讗讗诪转讬讛 讜砖讻讬讘 注讬讬诇讜讛讜 诇诪注专转讗 讚讞住讬讚讬 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇讜讛讜 注讬讬诇讜讛讜 诇诪注专转讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讜拽讬讘诇讜讛讜

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 专讜讗讛 讗讚诐 砖讬爪专讜 诪转讙讘专 注诇讬讜 讬诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬诇讘砖 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜讬转注讟祝 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜讬注砖讛 诪讛 砖诇讘讜 讞驻抓 讜讗诇 讬讞诇诇 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 讘驻专讛住讬讗

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 God鈥檚 name, and therefore it was fitting that he be given an honorable burial.

砖驻讞讛 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪转讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讝讬转讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讞讬 诇讘谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘砖诪转讗 讚拽注讘专 诪砖讜诐 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖讜诇 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖讜诇 讘诪讻讛 诇讘谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara asks: What is the story mentioned by Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani involving the maidservant in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It was related that the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 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: 鈥淵ou shall not place a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14), as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not place a stumbling block before the blind,鈥 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 one鈥檚 parent.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讜讛 诪谞讟专 驻专讚讬住讗 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讜拽讗讻讬诇 转讗讬谞讬 专诪讗 讘讬讛 拽诇讗 讜诇讗 讗砖讙讞 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘砖诪转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘砖诪转讗 讗诐 诪诪讜谉 谞转讞讬讬讘转讬 诇讱 谞讬讚讜讬 诪讬 谞转讞讬讬讘转讬 诇讱

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.

讗转讗 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇讜 谞讬讚讜讬 砖诇讱 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜讬

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.

讜诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讚诇讬砖专讬 诇讱 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讚诇讬砖专讬 诇讱 讚转谞讬讗 谞讬讚讜讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪讬 谞讬讚讛讜 讬诇讱 讗爪诇 谞砖讬讗 讜讬转讬专 诇讜 谞讚讜讬讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讗讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖住专讞 讗讬谉 诪谞讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛讻讘讚 讜砖讘 讘讘讬转讱 讞讝专 讜住专讞 诪谞讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪驻谞讬 讞讬诇讜诇 讛砖诐

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 God鈥檚 name. Rather, they say to him the words of the verse: 鈥淜eep your honor and stay at home鈥 (II聽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 God鈥檚 name that would ensue were people to think that he was spared his rightful punishment due to his high position.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖住专讞 讗讬谉 诪谞讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘驻专讛住讬讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻砖诇转 讛讬讜诐 讜讻砖诇 讙诐 谞讘讬讗 注诪讱 诇讬诇讛 讻住讛讜 讻诇讬诇讛

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: 鈥淭herefore, shall you fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with you in the night鈥 (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.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讞住讬讚讗 讻讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 砖诪转讗 讘专讬砖讗 诪砖诪讬转 谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讚专 诪砖诪讬转 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 注讬讬诇 讘讗讜砖驻讬讝讬讛 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讚专 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛

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 other鈥檚 excommunication.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 诪谞讚讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜诪讬驻专 诇注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转讬转讬 诇讬 讚诇讗 砖诪讬转讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诪注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 砖诪转讗 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讻讬 讛讗 讚讘诪注专讘讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗谞讙讬讚讗 讚爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗砖诪转讗

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.

诪讗讬 砖诪转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诐 诪讬转讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖诪诪讛 讬讛讬讛 讜诪讛谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讻讬 讟讬讞讬讗 讘转谞讜专讗

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.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻砖诐 砖谞讻谞住转 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬讘专讬诐 讻讱 讻砖讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪诪讗转讬诐 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬讘专讬诐

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 one鈥檚 body when it is first pronounced, so too when it leaves, it leaves from his two hundred and forty-eight organs.

讻砖讛讬讗 谞讻谞住转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬转讛 讛注讬专 讞专诐 讞专诐 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讛讜讜 讻砖讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘专讜讙讝 专讞诐 转讝讻讜专 专讞诐 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讜

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: 鈥淎nd the city shall be a curse [岣rem]鈥 (Joshua 6:17), and the numerical value [gimatriyya] of the word 岣rem, a concept similar to ostracism, is two hundred and forty-eight. Therefore, the verse alludes to the fact that a decree of ostracism penetrates one鈥檚 two hundred and forty-eight organs. When it leaves, it leaves all the organs, as it is written: 鈥淚n wrath remember mercy [ra岣m]鈥 (Habakkuk 3:2), and the numerical value of the word ra岣m is also two hundred and forty-eight, thereby teaching that when the decree of ostracism is revoked, it disappears entirely.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖讚讬 砖诪转讗 讗讙谞讜讘转讗 讚讻诇讘讗 讜讗讬讛讬 讚讬讚讛 注讘讚讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讻诇讘讗 讚讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇 诪住讗谞讬 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讗 讬讚注讬 诪谞讜 讜砖诪转讜 诇讬讛 讗讬转诇讬 讘讬讛 谞讜专讗 讘讙谞讜讘转讬讛 讜讗讻诇转讬讛

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 dog鈥檚 tail caught fire and got burnt. This shows that excommunication can have a harmful effect even on a dog.

讛讛讜讗 讗诇诪讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 诪爪注专 诇讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诪转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇讬 驻转讬讞讗 注诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽诇讬讛 讗讞转讬讛 讘讻讚讗

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,

讜讗讞转讬讛 讘讬 拽讘专讬 讜拽专讬 讘讬讛 讗诇驻讗 砖驻讜专讬 讘讗专讘注讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讗讝讬诇 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 驻拽注 讻讚讗 讜诪讬转 讗诇诪讗 诪讗讬 砖驻讜专讬 砖谞驻专注讬谉 诪诪谞讜

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 [shenifra鈥檌n] from the excommunicated person.

诪讗讬 转讘专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转讘专讬 讘转讬 专诪讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞转谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 注讬谞讬讛诐 讗讜 诪讬转讛 讗讜 注讜谞讬

The Gemara asks further: What is the reason that broken blasts are sounded on the shofar when the excommunication is pronounced? Rav Yitz岣k, 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.

讜讛谞讝讬专 讜讛诪爪讜专注 诪讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讟讛专转讜 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 驻谞讗讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗祝 讘砖讛讬讛 诇讛诐 驻谞讗讬

搂 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 讘砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 驻谞讗讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 驻谞讗讬 讗住讜专讬诐

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.

谞讝讬专 讜诪爪讜专注 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讛诐 驻谞讗讬 诪讜转专讬诐 砖诇讗 讬砖讛讜 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉

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.鈥

转谞讗 讛讻讛谉 讜讛讗讘诇 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讙讬诇讜讞 讛讗讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讞诇 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇讜 讘注专讘 讛专讙诇 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙诇讜讞讬 讘注专讘 讛专讙诇 讗诇讗 砖讞诇 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 注专讘 讛专讙诇

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.

讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙诇讜讞讬 注专讘 砖讘转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘砖讞诇 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 注专讘 讛专讙诇 砖诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘注专讘 砖讘转

But if this is the case, he should have cut his hair on Friday, for Rav 岣sda 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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讞诇 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 注专讘 讛专讙诇

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.

转谞讗 讘专讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚讗诪专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 讜讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘转 讛讜讬 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

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.

转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 讜讗讻转讬 诇讗 砖诇讬诐 讗讘讬诇讜转 讚砖讘注讛

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.

讛讗讬 讻讛谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖诇讬诐 诪砖诪专转讜 注专讘 讛专讙诇 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙诇讜讞讬 注专讘 讛专讙诇

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚砖诇讬诐 诪砖诪专转讜 讘专讙诇 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚转谞谉 讘砖诇砖讛 驻专拽讬诐 讘砖谞讛 讛讬讜 讻诇 讛诪砖诪专讜转 砖讜讜转 讘讗讬诪讜专讬 讛专讙诇讬诐 讜讘讞讬诇讜拽 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 砖诇讬诐 诪砖诪专转讜 讘专讙诇 讚诪讬 讜转谞讗 讘专讗 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讬讬讱 讘讛谞讱 诪砖诪专讜转 诪砖诪专转讬讛 诪讬讛讗 砖诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇谉

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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗住讜专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讻讗 诪讜转专讬谉 讘砖转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: They are nevertheless prohibited from cutting their hair during the period of their mourning? Rav 岣sda 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.

讗讬 讘砖转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 讚转谞讬讗 转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讻讘住 讻住讜转讜 讘诪讬诐

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 one鈥檚 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.

讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转注专 讜诇讗 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞转专 讜诇讗 讘讗讛诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘转讻讘讜住转

The Gemara answers: But wasn鈥檛 it said with regard to that baraita: Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda said: That is to say that, generally speaking, a mourner is prohibited from laundering his clothes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻砖诐 砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 讻讱 讗住讜专 诇讬讟讜诇 爪驻讜专谞讬诐 讘诪讜注讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专

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

讜讻砖诐 砖讗诪专讜 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜 讻讱 讗住讜专 诇讬讟讜诇 爪驻讜专谞讬诐 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专

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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讘诇 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讜注讚 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专

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 month鈥檚 shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

And by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

转诇诪讬讚 砖谞讬讚讛 诇讻讘讜讚讜 谞讚讜讬讜 谞讬讚讜讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讜讚讛 诇专讘 诪谞讜讚讛 诇转诇诪讬讚 诪谞讜讚讛 诇转诇诪讬讚 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讜讚讛 诇专讘 诇专讘 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪谞讜讚讛 讛讗 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪谞讜讚讛

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.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬 讘诪讬诇讬 讚砖诪讬讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讻讘讜讚 注爪诪讜

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? Doesn鈥檛 the verse state: 鈥淭here is no wisdom or understanding or counsel against the Lord鈥 (Proverbs 21:30)? This means that when a sin is committed and God鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 注讘讬讚 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讛讜讜 住谞讜 砖讜诪注谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 诇砖诪转讬讛 爪专讬讻讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诇砖诪转讬讛 拽讗 诪讬转讞讬诇 砖诪讗 讚砖诪讬讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪讬讚讬 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讘讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 砖驻转讬 讻讛谉 讬砖诪专讜 讚注转 讜转讜专讛 讬讘拽砖讜 诪驻讬讛讜 讻讬 诪诇讗讱 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讛讜讗 讗诐 讚讜诪讛 讛专讘 诇诪诇讗讱 讛壮 讬讘拽砖讜 转讜专讛 诪驻讬讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 讬讘拽砖讜 转讜专讛 诪驻讬讜

Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar bar 岣na: Have you heard anything with regard to this issue? He said to him: Rabbi Yo岣nan said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淔or the priest鈥檚 lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek Torah at his mouth; for he is a messenger [malakh] of the Lord of hosts鈥 (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.

砖诪转讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇住讜祝 讗讬讞诇砖 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗转讜 专讘谞谉 诇砖讬讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讜讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讻讚 讞讝讬讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬讱

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪住转讬讬讱 讚砖诪转讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗诇讗 讗讞讜讻讬 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讱 讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讘讚讬讚讱 诪讞讬讬讻谞讗 讗诇讗 讚讻讬 讗讝诇讬谞讗 诇讛讛讜讗 注诇诪讗 讘讚讬讞讗 讚注转讗讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讙讘专讗 讻讜讜转讱 诇讗 讞谞讬驻讬 诇讬讛

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.

谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗转讗 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖专讜 诇讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讙讘专讗 讚讞砖讬讘 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讬砖专讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讚诇讬砖专讬 诇讱 讗讝诇 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 驻讜拽 注讬讬谉 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇诪讬砖专讗 诇讬讛 砖专讬 诇讬讛

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.

注讬讬谉 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛 住讘专 诇诪讬砖专讗 诇讬讛 注诪讚 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 注诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 讜诪讛 砖驻讞讛 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 诇讗 谞讛讙讜 讞讻诪讬诐 拽诇讜转 专讗砖 讘谞讬讚讜讬讛 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讘讬专讬谞讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

Rabbi Ami examined his case and thought at first to release him from his ostracism. But Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讚拽诪谉 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讗讬 住讘讗 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讚讛讗 讻诪讛 砖谞讬 诇讗 讗转讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇诪讬砖专讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖专讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽 讻讬 拽讗 讘讻讬 讜讗讝讬诇

Rabbi Zeira said: What caused this Elder, Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani, 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.

讗转讗 讝讬讘讜专讗 讜讟专拽讬讛 讗讗诪转讬讛 讜砖讻讬讘 注讬讬诇讜讛讜 诇诪注专转讗 讚讞住讬讚讬 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇讜讛讜 注讬讬诇讜讛讜 诇诪注专转讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讜拽讬讘诇讜讛讜

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 专讜讗讛 讗讚诐 砖讬爪专讜 诪转讙讘专 注诇讬讜 讬诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬诇讘砖 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜讬转注讟祝 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜讬注砖讛 诪讛 砖诇讘讜 讞驻抓 讜讗诇 讬讞诇诇 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 讘驻专讛住讬讗

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 God鈥檚 name, and therefore it was fitting that he be given an honorable burial.

砖驻讞讛 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪转讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讝讬转讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讞讬 诇讘谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘砖诪转讗 讚拽注讘专 诪砖讜诐 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖讜诇 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖讜诇 讘诪讻讛 诇讘谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara asks: What is the story mentioned by Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani involving the maidservant in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It was related that the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 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: 鈥淵ou shall not place a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14), as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not place a stumbling block before the blind,鈥 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 one鈥檚 parent.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讜讛 诪谞讟专 驻专讚讬住讗 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讜拽讗讻讬诇 转讗讬谞讬 专诪讗 讘讬讛 拽诇讗 讜诇讗 讗砖讙讞 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘砖诪转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘砖诪转讗 讗诐 诪诪讜谉 谞转讞讬讬讘转讬 诇讱 谞讬讚讜讬 诪讬 谞转讞讬讬讘转讬 诇讱

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.

讗转讗 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇讜 谞讬讚讜讬 砖诇讱 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜讬

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.

讜诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讚诇讬砖专讬 诇讱 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讚诇讬砖专讬 诇讱 讚转谞讬讗 谞讬讚讜讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪讬 谞讬讚讛讜 讬诇讱 讗爪诇 谞砖讬讗 讜讬转讬专 诇讜 谞讚讜讬讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讗讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖住专讞 讗讬谉 诪谞讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛讻讘讚 讜砖讘 讘讘讬转讱 讞讝专 讜住专讞 诪谞讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪驻谞讬 讞讬诇讜诇 讛砖诐

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 God鈥檚 name. Rather, they say to him the words of the verse: 鈥淜eep your honor and stay at home鈥 (II聽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 God鈥檚 name that would ensue were people to think that he was spared his rightful punishment due to his high position.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖住专讞 讗讬谉 诪谞讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘驻专讛住讬讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻砖诇转 讛讬讜诐 讜讻砖诇 讙诐 谞讘讬讗 注诪讱 诇讬诇讛 讻住讛讜 讻诇讬诇讛

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: 鈥淭herefore, shall you fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with you in the night鈥 (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.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讞住讬讚讗 讻讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 砖诪转讗 讘专讬砖讗 诪砖诪讬转 谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讚专 诪砖诪讬转 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 注讬讬诇 讘讗讜砖驻讬讝讬讛 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讚专 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛

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 other鈥檚 excommunication.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 诪谞讚讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜诪讬驻专 诇注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转讬转讬 诇讬 讚诇讗 砖诪讬转讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诪注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 砖诪转讗 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讻讬 讛讗 讚讘诪注专讘讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗谞讙讬讚讗 讚爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讬诪谞讜 讗砖诪转讗

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.

诪讗讬 砖诪转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诐 诪讬转讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖诪诪讛 讬讛讬讛 讜诪讛谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讻讬 讟讬讞讬讗 讘转谞讜专讗

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.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻砖诐 砖谞讻谞住转 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬讘专讬诐 讻讱 讻砖讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪诪讗转讬诐 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬讘专讬诐

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 one鈥檚 body when it is first pronounced, so too when it leaves, it leaves from his two hundred and forty-eight organs.

讻砖讛讬讗 谞讻谞住转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬转讛 讛注讬专 讞专诐 讞专诐 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讛讜讜 讻砖讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘专讜讙讝 专讞诐 转讝讻讜专 专讞诐 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讜

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: 鈥淎nd the city shall be a curse [岣rem]鈥 (Joshua 6:17), and the numerical value [gimatriyya] of the word 岣rem, a concept similar to ostracism, is two hundred and forty-eight. Therefore, the verse alludes to the fact that a decree of ostracism penetrates one鈥檚 two hundred and forty-eight organs. When it leaves, it leaves all the organs, as it is written: 鈥淚n wrath remember mercy [ra岣m]鈥 (Habakkuk 3:2), and the numerical value of the word ra岣m is also two hundred and forty-eight, thereby teaching that when the decree of ostracism is revoked, it disappears entirely.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖讚讬 砖诪转讗 讗讙谞讜讘转讗 讚讻诇讘讗 讜讗讬讛讬 讚讬讚讛 注讘讚讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讻诇讘讗 讚讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇 诪住讗谞讬 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讗 讬讚注讬 诪谞讜 讜砖诪转讜 诇讬讛 讗讬转诇讬 讘讬讛 谞讜专讗 讘讙谞讜讘转讬讛 讜讗讻诇转讬讛

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 dog鈥檚 tail caught fire and got burnt. This shows that excommunication can have a harmful effect even on a dog.

讛讛讜讗 讗诇诪讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 诪爪注专 诇讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诪转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇讬 驻转讬讞讗 注诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽诇讬讛 讗讞转讬讛 讘讻讚讗

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,

讜讗讞转讬讛 讘讬 拽讘专讬 讜拽专讬 讘讬讛 讗诇驻讗 砖驻讜专讬 讘讗专讘注讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讗讝讬诇 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 驻拽注 讻讚讗 讜诪讬转 讗诇诪讗 诪讗讬 砖驻讜专讬 砖谞驻专注讬谉 诪诪谞讜

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 [shenifra鈥檌n] from the excommunicated person.

诪讗讬 转讘专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转讘专讬 讘转讬 专诪讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞转谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 注讬谞讬讛诐 讗讜 诪讬转讛 讗讜 注讜谞讬

The Gemara asks further: What is the reason that broken blasts are sounded on the shofar when the excommunication is pronounced? Rav Yitz岣k, 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.

讜讛谞讝讬专 讜讛诪爪讜专注 诪讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讟讛专转讜 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 驻谞讗讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗祝 讘砖讛讬讛 诇讛诐 驻谞讗讬

搂 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 讘砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 驻谞讗讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 驻谞讗讬 讗住讜专讬诐

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.

谞讝讬专 讜诪爪讜专注 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讛诐 驻谞讗讬 诪讜转专讬诐 砖诇讗 讬砖讛讜 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉

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.鈥

转谞讗 讛讻讛谉 讜讛讗讘诇 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讙讬诇讜讞 讛讗讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讞诇 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇讜 讘注专讘 讛专讙诇 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙诇讜讞讬 讘注专讘 讛专讙诇 讗诇讗 砖讞诇 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 注专讘 讛专讙诇

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.

讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙诇讜讞讬 注专讘 砖讘转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘砖讞诇 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 注专讘 讛专讙诇 砖诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘注专讘 砖讘转

But if this is the case, he should have cut his hair on Friday, for Rav 岣sda 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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讞诇 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 注专讘 讛专讙诇

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.

转谞讗 讘专讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚讗诪专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 讜讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘转 讛讜讬 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

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.

转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 讜讗讻转讬 诇讗 砖诇讬诐 讗讘讬诇讜转 讚砖讘注讛

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.

讛讗讬 讻讛谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖诇讬诐 诪砖诪专转讜 注专讘 讛专讙诇 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙诇讜讞讬 注专讘 讛专讙诇

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚砖诇讬诐 诪砖诪专转讜 讘专讙诇 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚转谞谉 讘砖诇砖讛 驻专拽讬诐 讘砖谞讛 讛讬讜 讻诇 讛诪砖诪专讜转 砖讜讜转 讘讗讬诪讜专讬 讛专讙诇讬诐 讜讘讞讬诇讜拽 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 砖诇讬诐 诪砖诪专转讜 讘专讙诇 讚诪讬 讜转谞讗 讘专讗 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讬讬讱 讘讛谞讱 诪砖诪专讜转 诪砖诪专转讬讛 诪讬讛讗 砖诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇谉

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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗住讜专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讻讗 诪讜转专讬谉 讘砖转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: They are nevertheless prohibited from cutting their hair during the period of their mourning? Rav 岣sda 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.

讗讬 讘砖转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 讚转谞讬讗 转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讻讘住 讻住讜转讜 讘诪讬诐

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 one鈥檚 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.

讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转注专 讜诇讗 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞转专 讜诇讗 讘讗讛诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘转讻讘讜住转

The Gemara answers: But wasn鈥檛 it said with regard to that baraita: Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda said: That is to say that, generally speaking, a mourner is prohibited from laundering his clothes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻砖诐 砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 讻讱 讗住讜专 诇讬讟讜诇 爪驻讜专谞讬诐 讘诪讜注讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专

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

讜讻砖诐 砖讗诪专讜 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜 讻讱 讗住讜专 诇讬讟讜诇 爪驻讜专谞讬诐 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专

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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讘诇 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讜注讚 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专

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