Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

In contrast to a ban issued against a common person, which is announced publicly (Chapter 6, Halachah 12).

Mo’ed Kattan 17a relates that a special ordinance was passed to this effect in Usha.

The first king of the ten tribes, who set up idols and led the people away from Torah practice. (See also Hilchot Teshuvah 3:10.)

Mo’ed Kattan (loc. cit.) states that a scholar is given this consideration even if he repeatedly violates the same transgression. The Kessef Mishneh notes that a ban of ostracism was passed against Rabbi Eliezer (see Bava Metzia 59b), despite his being one of the more prominent Sages. Nevertheless, he explains that this measure was taken lest strife and division arise among the Jews. Alternatively, even that ban was carried out in a private manner.

As interpreted by Mo’ed Kattan (loc. cit.).

The phrase is borrowed from II Kings 14:10.

I.e., a scholar of lesser stature than those mentioned in the previous clause (Kessef Mishneh).

Before he would pronounce a ban of ostracism against a fellow Sage, Mar Zutra would pronounce such a ban against himself, so that he would appreciate the suffering his colleague would undergo (Mo’ed Kattan loc. cit.).

Rav Pappa would boast that he never took part in such an activity (ibid.).

The minimum punishment received for violating one of the Torah’s prohibitions.

The punishment received for violating a Rabbinic prohibition or failing to perform a positive commandment (Chulin 14b). Pesachim 52a relates that a Rabbinical student was punished in this manner for traveling beyond the permitted limits on the second day of Shavuot.

I.e., they mention the person’s name.

The commentaries have not found a direct source for this or the other pronouncements quoted in this and the following halachah. Rav Kapach suggests that the Rambam is quoting a tradition conveyed to him verbally by his teachers.
The Rambam uses the Hebrew שמתא, suggesting that its implication is the same as נידוי. The Tur, Yoreh De’ah 334 differs and explains that they represent two different levels of bans. According to the Tur, there are three bans, one more severe than the other: נידוי,שמתא and חרם. The Rambam differs and recognizes only two levels: נידוי and חרם.

A more severe ban, as explained in Halachah 5.

I.e., if a court made such a pronouncement, it would have these implications. (See also Hilchot Sanhedrin 26:3.)

I.e., if the ban is lifted in the person’s presence.

The Mordechai (Mo’ed Kattan 935) quotes a responsum of the Geonim which also mentions forgiveness in the statement nullifying a ban. Note also the similarities between these expressions and those used in the release of oaths; see Hilchot Sh’vuot 6:5 and the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 10:8.

Note Halachah 13, which states that a ban that was issued in a person’s presence must be lifted in his presence.

There is no list of such practices in previous sources. Rather, the Rambam compiled this list himself based on various Talmudic passages.

See Hilchot Eivel 6:2.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that Bava Metzia 59b relates that when Rabbi Eliezer was notified of the ban issued against him, he removed his shoes. He explains that this was also the common practice in Spain for a person placed under a ban of ostracism.

Recited before grace (see Hilchot Berachot 5:2).

I.e., a minyan for communal prayer or the like. See Hilchot Tefilah 8:4-6. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this is an essential element of a ban of ostracism. The purpose of such a punishment is to separate the person from the entire Jewish community. Including such a person as part of a minyan would defeat that purpose. This concept is not explicitly mentioned in our texts of the Talmud. Nevertheless, the Ba’al Halachot Gedolot quotes the following passage from Mo’ed Kattan 16a, which is lacking in our versions of that text:
How do we know that he is separated from the community? [Ezra 10:8] states: “Whoever does
not come... his property will be expropriated and he will be set apart from the community of
exiles.

This is derived from Bava Metzia 59a, which relates that when Rabbi Akiva visited Rabbi Eliezer after the latter was placed under ban, he would keep this distance from him.

To work for other Jews.

I.e., have other Jews to work for him. Mo’ed Kattan raises questions about other restrictions — e.g., may a person who was ostracized be greeted or may he wear tefillin — and leaves them unresolved. The Rambam’s failure to mention them indicates that he takes a lenient view. Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher explicitly adopt the lenient position.
Nedarim 20b states that a person who is ostracized is forbidden to engage in marital intimacy. The Rambam quotes this law in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 21:12.

Eduyot 5:6 relates how the Sages carried out this practice.

The following restrictions are not mentioned explicitly in the Talmud.

I.e., nothing is done in his honor. However, his family may be paid the respects given to other mourners (Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 334).

Indeed, the nature of a חרם is so severe that there are many great sages who would not even utter that word, but would refer to it only by allusions or numerical equivalents.

Because any contact with him and others is discouraged.

For he is still considered a Jew and is obligated in all the mitzvot.

Since he is still considered to be part of the Jewish people, he is granted the possibility of earning a livelihood.

Generally, a ban of ostracism is imposed for this amount of time.

Should the ostracized person repent for his previous behavior and seek to be released, the ban may be lifted even before this time period elapses. Indeed, this is the goal of the ban: to motivate him to alter and improve himself with respect to his previous deeds.

In Hilchot To’en ViNitan 1:5, based on Kiddushin 12b, the Rambam states that if a person does not repent after a ban of ostracism, he is beaten. There are other slight differences between these two halachot.

Avodat HaMelech notes that in Hilchot Sanhedrin 25:11, the Rambam writes that excommunication is imposed after only one thirty-day period of ostracism. However, the difference between these halachot can be resolved, for the latter halachah refers to a case when a warning was issued before the first ban of ostracism was imposed.

From the phraseology used by Sanhedrin 68a, which mentions the release of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurcanus from his ban upon his death, the Rambam learns that releasing a person from a ban of ostracism is comparable to the release of vows. As explained in Hilchot Sh’vuot 6:5, the latter procedure requires three judges.

The Lechem Mishneh notes that the people who release a person from the ban need not be of the same stature as the court who imposed the ban. However, he qualifies that statement, allowing the leniency only after the person has already corrected his behavior. Also, this only applies when the ban was imposed because of improper behavior and not because one spoke arrogantly to a scholar.

“Who has studied both the Written and Oral Law, can appreciate the motivating principles of the law, and compare one case to another” (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 5:1).

In Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:11, the Rambam states that a judge with unique expertise can adjudicate cases requiring a court of three. Nedarim 8b states that such license is granted with regard to releasing a person from a ban of ostracism.

Rav Kapach notes that many ancient manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah do not include these words. He maintains that their addition is a printing error.

The Ra’avad maintains that generally the court that releases a person from a ban must include the same number of judges as the one which imposed the ban. However, he suggests that this might apply only duringt the ban. However, once the thirty-day period of the ban is concluded, even a lesser number of judges may release the ban.

Nedarim 8b explicitly states this leniency.

Our text follows the practice of most printed copies of the Mishneh Torah, which skip the number 8 entirely, and proceed from Halachah 7 to Halachah 9. The Rambam La’am suggests that perhaps this omission is made because the letter ח is the first letter of the word חרם, which means “excommunication.” It is not proper that the chapter that deals with such a severe punishment should contain any allusion to it.

Our text follows the practice of most printed copies of the Mishneh Torah, which skip the number 8 entirely, and proceed from Halachah 7 to Halachah 9. The Rambam La’am suggests that perhaps this omission is made because the letter ח is the first letter of the word חרם, which means “excommunication.” It is not proper that the chapter that deals with such a severe punishment should contain any allusion to it.

To a different place.

Even common people of lesser stature, as mentioned in the previous halachah.

However, if he does not improve his behavior, the ban must be observed by all Jews, even the nasi, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 14.

The commentaries explain that this refers to a person who insulted a Torah scholar. However, when the ban was imposed for other reasons, it can be lifted by others if the person placed under ban improves his behavior, as explained in the previous halachah.

Who, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 13, is not bound by a ban of ostracism imposed to protect the honor of other Sages.

I.e., so and so will be ostracized if he does the following....

This law is derived as follows: Makkot 11b teaches that Judah’s promises to Jacob concerning Benjamin (Genesis 43:9) implied that Judah would be placed in ostracism if he did not bring Benjamin home. Although Judah fulfilled that condition, our Sages explain that he remained in ostracism — even in the spiritual realms — until Moses prayed for him. (See also Rashi, Deuteronomy 33:7.)
Tosafot (Makkot, loc. cit.) explains that this principle applies only when — as in the case of Judah — the person who issued the conditional ban does not have the power to fulfill the condition himself. However, if he can fulfill that condition — e.g., a person who says: “May I be in ostracism if I do not put on tefillin today” — the ban does not take effect if the condition is fulfilled.
[The Ra’avad and other commentaries raise the question: Why didn’t Judah, Jacob, or any other of the brothers lift the abovementioned ban? Furthermore, the narrative in Genesis does not appear to imply that it was observed by Joseph and his brothers. The Tashbetz (Vol. III, Responsum 182) explains that Judah’s words implied only a ban of ostracism in the spiritual world, but not a ban in the simple sense. Therefore, it could not be nullified until it took effect; nor were Judah’s brothers obligated to observe it.]

Our translation is based on two of the Rambam’s responsa, which explain the phrase על דעת in this manner.

The She’iltot D’Rav Achai Gaon (Miketz 329) explains that this applies even when the ban was issued by a minor or a slave.

Nedarim (loc. cit.) concludes: We do not say: “A person who is imprisoned cannot release himself from jail.”

The She’iltot D’Rav Achai Gaon (Miketz 329) explains that this applies even when the ban was issued by a minor or a slave.

I.e., it is not sufficient for him to ask that person to release the ban (Tosafot, Nedarim 7a).

I.e., who study Talmud (Kessef Mishneh).

The circumstances imply that perhaps, the person was banned by a Divine decree. Therefore, such a ban is more severe than a ban imposed by a person on the material plane.

Approximately four kilometers in contemporary measure.

A lesser rung of study.

For the Divine Presence rests among any group of ten Jews, regardless of their level of learning.

As is a normal ban, as mentioned above, Halachah 7. The She’iltot D’Rav Achai Gaon (loc. cit.) explains that even though the three people do not have the effect of ten, they are able to draw down Divine mercy.

Commenting on Nedarim 7b, Rabbenu Asher explains that this gesture is made as a token of respect for the person who was ostracized. Since the shame of ostracism was imposed upon him in his presence, as a courtesy that ban is also lifted in his presence. (Note that Rabbenu Nissim offers a different explanation.) After the fact, when a ban issued in a person’s presence is lifted outside his presence, the person is released from the ban.

There is no preference for either alternative.

Note Halachah 6 which implies that the standard span of a ban of ostracism is 30 days. The Hagahot Maimoniot explains that the latter figure refers to the minimum length of a ban imposed on one who embarrassed a scholar. However, a ban imposed for other reasons can be lifted immediately, as stated in this halachah. Nevertheless, other commentaries note that the Rambam himself does not explicitly make such a differentiation and, hence, they do not accept it.

This latter clause is not mentioned in Nedarim (loc. cit.), the source for this halachah. However, all commentaries agree that it is an explanatory and understandable addition.

Mo’ed Kattan 16a mentions how a ban of ostracism was maintained for three years.

Even if the punishment is not extended to excommunication, as mentioned in Halachah 6.

Without issuing a ban of ostracism beforehand.

Because this person violated the ban of ostracism, an even more serious punishment may be imposed upon him. Nevertheless, there is no requirement that this punishment be imposed for this reason (Mo’ed Kattan 16a).

See the Rambam’s Commentary to Avot 1:1.

As explained in detail in Chapter 6, Halachot 12-14.

The verse continues: “for often, your heart knows that you have also cursed others.” One should realize how a person’s statements are often made in anger without any serious intent.

Yoma 23a states:
Those who are insulted and do not insult [others], who hear their shame and do not respond,
who serve [God] out of love,... concerning them [Judges 5:31] states: “And those that love
Him will be as the sun as it comes out in its might.”
See Hilchot De’ot 2:3 where this quote is explained in detail

Megillah 28a relates that, before retiring at night, Nechunia ben Hakanah and Mar Zutra would forgive anyone who wronged them. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi incorporated a declaration to that effect in his text of Kri’at Shema al HaMitah.

The Jerusalem Talmud, Mo’ed Kattan 3:1, relates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi related that he had never issued a ban of ostracism.

I.e., fewer than ten Jews witnessed or were informed about the incident.

Although Kiddushin 32b states that a Torah scholar is entitled to forgo his honor, this refers only to instances where he releases a person from the obligation to show him tokens of respect. However, he does not have the right to forgive a public display of disrespect towards him. (See Chapter 5, Halachah 11 and our commentary.)

And not his personal honor.

If people see that Torah scholars can be treated with disrespect, they will lose deference for the totality of Torah and mitzvot.

Yoma (loc. cit.) states that “Any scholar who does not seek vengeance and carry enmity like a snake is not a [genuine] scholar.”
The comparison to a snake is significant. Based on Ecclesiastes 10:11, Arichin 15b explains that a snake does not bite for his own benefit, but merely as a messenger of God. When a Torah scholar seeks revenge, he must have a similar intent. He should have no thoughts of his personal honor or pride. Rather, his intent should be the defense of the Torah’s honor (Chanukat HaTorah).

Hilchot Teshuvah 2:10 relates:
It is forbidden for a person to be cruel and refuse to be appeased.... When a person who
wronged him asks for forgiveness, he should forgive him with a complete heart and a willing
spirit. Even if he distressed and wronged him very much, he should not seek revenge or bear a
grudge.