Moed Katan

if a disciple ‘separates’ someone in [defence of] his personal dignity his ‘separation’ is an [effective] . For it is taught: ‘One who has been "separated" [as under a ban] by the Master is [deemed] "separated" from the disciple; but one who has been "separated" by the disciple is not [deemed] "separated" from the Master’.1 [That means], not ‘separated’ from the Master; but in regard to everybody else he is [‘separated’]. [Now let us see; ‘separated’] for what [offence]? If [it was imposed] for some offence towards Heaven, then there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord!2 Therefore [presumably] it is only so3 [where a disciple had pronounced it] in [defence of] his personal dignity. R. Joseph said that a Collegiate4 may enforce his own rights in a matter where he is perfectly certain [as to the law]. There was once a certain Collegiate whose reputation was objectionable. Said Rab Judah, How is one to act? To put the shammetha on him [we cannot], as the Rabbis have need of him [as an able teacher]. Not to put the shammetha on him [we cannot afford] as the name of Heaven is being profaned. Said he to Rabbah b. Bar Hana, Have you heard alight on that point? He replied: ‘Thus said R. Johanan: What means the text, For the priest's lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts?5 [It means, that] if the Master is like unto a messenger of the Lord of Hosts, they should seek the law at his mouth; but if [he be] not , they should not seek the law at his mouth’. [Thereupon] Rab Judah pronounced the shammetha on him. In the end Rab Judah became indisposed. The Rabbis came to enquire about him and that man came along with them. When Rab Judah beheld him he laughed. Said the man to him: Not enough for him that he put upon that man [me] the shammetha, but he even laughs at me! Replied he [Rab Judah]: I was not laughing at you: but as I am departing to that World [beyond] I am glad to think that even towards such a personage as you I showed no indulgence. Rab Judah's soul came to rest.6 The man [then] came to the College [and] said, ‘Absolve me’. Said the Rabbis to him, There is no man here of the standing of Rab Judah who could absolve you; but go to R. Judah Nesi'ah7 that he may absolve you. He went and presented himself to him. Said he to R. Ammi: ‘Go forth and look into his case; if it be necessary to absolve him, absolve him’. R. Ammi looked into his case and had a mind to absolve him. Then R. Samuel b. Nahmani got up on his feet and said: ‘Why, even a ‘separation" imposed by one of the domestics in Rabbi's house was not lightly treated by the Rabbis for three years; how much more so one imposed by our colleague, Rab Judah!’ Said R. Zera, From the fact that this venerable scholar8 should just now have turned up at this College after not having come here for many years, you must take it that it is not desirable to absolve that man. He [R. Judah Nesi'ah]9 did not absolve him. He went away weeping. A wasp then came and stung him in the privy member and he died. They brought him into ‘The Grotto of the Pious’, but they admitted him not.10 They brought him into ‘The Grotto of the Judges’ and they received him.11 Why was he admitted there? — Because he had acted according to the dictum of R. Il'ai. For R. Il'ai says, If one sees that his [evil] yezer12 is gaining sway over him, let him go away where he is not known; let him put on sordid13 clothes, don a sordid wrap and do the sordid deed that his heart desires rather than profane the name of Heaven openly. 14 What [was the incident] of the domestic in Rabbi's house? It was one of the maidservants in Rabbi's house that had noticed a man beating his grown-up son and said, Let that fellow be under a shammetha! because he sinned against the words [of Holy Writ]: Put not a stumbling-block before the blind.15 For it is taught: ‘And put not a stumbling-block before the blind’, that text applies16 to one who beats his grown-up son.17 Resh Lakish was once guarding an orchard [when] a fellow came and ate [some] figs; he shouted at him, but the fellow heeded him not, [whereupon] he said: ‘Let that fellow be under a shammetha!’ He replied: ‘Rather be that other fellow [Resh Lakish] under a shammetha! Though I have incurred a pecuniary liability towards you, did I incur a "separation"?’ [Resh Lakish] went to the College [and reported it]; they said to him: ‘His "separation" is a [justified]18 "separation", yours was not a [justified] "separation".’ And what is the remedy for it? — ‘Go to him that he [himself] may absolve you’. [But] I know him not! Said they to him [to Resh Lakish]: ‘Go to the Nasi that he absolve you;’ for it is taught: ‘[If] they "separate" him and he knows not who he was that "separated" him, let him go to the Nasi and let him absolve him from his "separation".’ Said R. Huna, At [one of the Synods at] Usha19 they made a regulation that if the Ab Beth din20 committed an offence he was not to be [formally] ‘separated’, but someone was to tell him, Save your dignity and remain at home.21 Should he again offend they ‘separate’ him, because [otherwise there would be] a profanation of the Name [of God]. And this is at variance with Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said: If a scholar-disciple has committed an offensive deed they do not ‘separate’ him publicly, because it is said: Therefore shalt thou stumble’ in the day and the prophet also shall stumble with thee in the night, [that is to say], Keep it dark,22 like night. Mar Zutra, the Pious,23 if ever a Collegiate incurred the shammetha, pronounced the shammetha first on himself24 and then pronounced it on the culprit; as he entered his house he first absolved himself and then absolved the other.25 Said R. Giddal, as citing Rab: ‘A scholar-disciple may Pronounce "separation" on himself and absolve himself’. Said R. Papa, ‘May [good] befall me, for I have never put the shammetha on any Collegiate.’26 But then, when a Collegiate did incur the shammetha, how did he act? — As they do [in the West]; for in the West [Palestine] they appoint a tribunal for chastising a Collegiate but do not appoint a tribunal for pronouncing a shammetha. What is [the etymology of the word] shammetha? — Said Rab, [It is], sham-mitha, ‘death is there’. Samuel said, [It is], shemamah yihye,27 ‘he shall be a desolation’; and its effects adhere to one like grease to the oven. And this is in disagreement with [what] Resh Lakish said. For Resh Lakish said that just as when it [the herem] enters, it penetrates the two hundred and forty eight joints [on one's body],28 so on its withdrawal it departs from the two hundred and forty eight joints. When it enters, as it is written; And the city shall be Herem, [a curse29 [i.e.,] Herem being in its letter value two hundred and forty eight,30 So at its withdrawal, as it is written: In wrath remember Rahem [to have compassion]31 the letter value being the same. R. Joseph said, ‘Cast a shammetha on the dog's tail and it will do its work’. For there was a dog that used to eat the Rabbis’ shoes and they did not know what it was [that did it], so they pronounced a shammetha on the culprit, and the dog's tail caught fire and got burnt. There was a domineering fellow who bullied a certain Collegiate. The latter came before R. Joseph [for advice]. Said he to him: ‘Go and put the shammetha on him’. ‘I am afraid of him’, he replied. Said he to him, ‘Then go and take [out] a Writ32 against him.’ — ‘I am all the more afraid to do that!’ Said R. Joseph to him: ‘Take that Writ, put it into a jar, has not been satisfactorily explained; but it is obviously from an Aramaic form, crm = Hebrew ;rm to be joined, adhere to, the equivalent of the Palestinian term rcj = associate, colleague, Collegiate. Prince’; it is conveniently used to indicate the second Judah (and sometimes the third). a ‘steady’ (formative) urge for good. V. Isa. XXVI, 3 and P.B. p. 7. earlier reference v. Mid. V, 4; 37b. Cf however Hag. 16a.