From Admonishment to Excommunication: The Talmudic Laws of Ostracism (Moed Katan 16a-b) - Pt.2
Pt.2 - Story #1 - “a certain Butcher” disrespecting Rav Tuvi bar Mattana; Story #2 - Bar Kappara; Rebbi; and R’ Shimon bar Rebbi; Story #3 - R’ Yehuda Hanasi and R’ Ḥiyya - teaching in a public place
This the second part of a three-part series. The first part is here.
The Talmudic passage
Story #1: Moed Katan 16a (sections #13-14); Story #2: ibid, sections #21-22; Story #3: ibid, 16a (section #23) - 16b (section #6).
Story #1 - “a certain Butcher” disrespecting Rav Tuvi bar Mattana
The Talmudic story recounts a situation involving an unnamed butcher who disrespected Rav Tuvi bar Mattana (a 3rd generation Babylonian amora). As a result, Abaye and Rava, acting as judges, decided to ostracize (shamta - שמתא) the butcher. After some time, the butcher sought to make amends with Rav Tuvi, prompting a legal and ethical dilemma regarding the lifting of his ostracism.
Abaye, uncertain about whether to release the butcher from ostracism before the typical thirty-day period was up, consulted with Rav Idi bar Avin. Rav Idi recalled a teaching from Shmuel, which stated that a shofar blast, used both to initiate and dissolve an ostracism, could end the ostracism early. This seemed like a potential solution to enable the Sages to access the butcher's shop for meat, which they desired.
However, Abaye pointed out a distinction: while Shmuel’s teaching applied to cases involving ignored monetary judgments, it did not apply to cases of disrespect, like that involving the butcher. Therefore, Abaye concluded that despite the reconciliation attempt and the inconvenience to the Sages, the decree of ostracism should not be lifted until the full thirty days had elapsed, emphasizing the seriousness of respectful conduct towards rabbis.
ההוא טבחא דאיתפקר ברב טובי בר מתנה,
אימנו עליה אביי ורבא ושמתוהו,
לסוף אזל פייסיה לבעל דיניה.
אמר אביי: היכי ליעביד?
לישרי ליה — לא חל שמתא עליה תלתין יומין.
לא לישרי ליה — קא בעו רבנן למיעל.
אמר ליה לרב אידי בר אבין: מידי שמיע לך בהא?
אמר ליה: הכי אמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי אמר שמואל: טוט אסר וטוט שרי.
אמר ליה: הני מילי לממונא, אבל לאפקירותא — עד דחיילא שמתא עליה תלתין יומין.
The Gemara relates that a certain butcher behaved disrespectfully toward Rav Tuvi bar Mattana.
Abaye and Rava were appointed to the case and ostracized him.
In the end the butcher went and appeased his disputant, Rav Tuvi. Abaye said: What should we do in this case?
Shall he be released from his decree of ostracism? His decree of ostracism has not yet been in effect for the usual thirty days.
On the other hand, shall he not be released from ostracism? But the Sages wish to enter his shop and purchase meat, and they are presently unable to do so. What, then, is the most appropriate course of action?
He said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Have you heard anything with regard to such a case?
Rav Idi bar Avin said to Abaye: Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said as follows: A shofar blast (toot - טוט) at the time of the ostracism makes it binding, and a shofar blast releases it. In other words, the shofar should be sounded now, as it had been sounded when the decree of ostracism was pronounced, and it should be canceled, although thirty days have not passed.
Abaye said to him: This applies in a case where one ignores a monetary judgment that was issued against him; but in a case where one behaves disrespectfully, there must be no release until the decree of ostracism has been in effect for thirty days.
Story #2 - Bar Kappara; Rebbi; and R’ Shimon bar Rebbi
In this Talmudic story, R’ Shimon, the son of R’ Yehuda HaNasi, and bar Kappara were engaged in a study session when they encountered a difficult halakhic question. Rabbi Shimon suggested that they needed the expertise of his father, R’ Yehuda HaNasi, to resolve the issue. Bar Kappara, somewhat mockingly, questioned what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could possibly contribute to their discussion.
R’ Shimon relayed bar Kappara's dismissive remarks to his father, which caused Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to become upset. When bar Kappara later visited Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the latter expressed his displeasure by feigning ignorance of bar Kappara, implying that he no longer recognized him due to the offense. Recognizing that he had insulted Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, bar Kappara took it upon himself to behave as if he had been officially admonished, imposing on himself a thirty-day period of penance. This self-punishment reflects his acknowledgment of the gravity of his disrespect and his attempt to rectify his behavior.
רבי שמעון בר רבי ובר קפרא הוו יתבי וקא גרסי,
קשיא להו שמעתא,
אמר ליה רבי שמעון לבר קפרא: דבר זה צריך רבי.
אמר ליה בר קפרא לרבי שמעון: ומה רבי אומר בדבר זה?
אזל אמר ליה לאבוה, איקפד.
אתא בר קפרא לאיתחזויי ליה,
אמר ליה: בר קפרא, איני מכירך מעולם!
ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה,
נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה תלתין יומין.
Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and bar Kappara were sitting and studying,
and they posed a difficulty with a certain halakha.
Rabbi Shimon said to bar Kappara: This issue requires my father, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, to explain it.
Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Shimon, somewhat mockingly: And what can your father, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, say about this issue? What can he add and teach us about it?
Rabbi Shimon went and told his father, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what bar Kappara had said, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi became angry with him.
When bar Kappara came at some later point to visit, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Bar Kappara, I do not know you at all (איני מכירך מעולם).1
Bar Kappara understood that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had taken his statement to heart, i.e., was insulted.
He subsequently behaved as if he had been admonished, as a self-imposed punishment, for thirty days.
Story #3 - R’ Yehuda Hanasi and R’ Ḥiyya - dispute re teaching in a public place
In this Talmudic narrative, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi issued a decree that Torah should only be taught in study halls, not in public marketplaces, citing a specific verse as the basis for this rule. Despite this decree, Rabbi Ḥiyya chose to teach his two nephews, Rav and Rabba bar Ḥana, in the marketplace. (See my recent piece on the Talmudic discussion of the exact relationship between R’ Hiyya and his afore-mentioned nephews.)
Upon learning of Rabbi Ḥiyya's actions, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was angered and expressed his displeasure when Rabbi Ḥiyya later visited him. He mockingly suggested that Rabbi Ḥiyya should leave (playing on his name, calling him “Iyya” - עייא), indicating that he was unwelcome. Understanding that he had offended Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Ḥiyya imposed a self-punishment of thirty days of conduct as if admonished.
At the conclusion of these thirty days, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent a message to Rabbi Ḥiyya inviting him to visit, but then reversed his decision and sent another message telling him not to come. Rabbi Ḥiyya, having seen only the first message, arrived at Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's residence. When questioned why he came despite the second message, Rabbi Ḥiyya explained that he had not received it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then quoted from Proverbs, acknowledging that divine favor was evident in Rabbi Ḥiyya's actions.
The discussion then returned to the initial disagreement. Rabbi Ḥiyya defended his actions by quoting Proverbs 1:20, which suggests that wisdom (Torah) should be proclaimed publicly, in the streets. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi countered this interpretation, suggesting that Rabbi Ḥiyya had not understood the verse in its deeper context and implied that his understanding was superficial.
This story highlights the tension between secrecy and elitism, vs. the desire to make Torah accessible, as well as the challenges in correctly interpreting biblical texts; and the personal dynamics between Torah scholars.
שוב פעם אחד גזר רבי שלא ישנו לתלמידים בשוק,
מאי דרש — [...]
יצא רבי חייא ושנה לשני בני אחיו בשוק, לרב ולרבה בר (בר) חנה.
שמע רבי, איקפד.
אתא רבי חייא לאיתחזויי ליה,
אמר ליה: עייא, מי קורא לך בחוץ!
ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה, נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה תלתין יומין.
ביום תלתין שלח ליה: תא.
הדר שלח ליה דלא ליתי
[...]
לסוף אתא.
אמר ליה: אמאי אתית?
אמר ליה: דשלח לי מר דליתי.
והא שלחי לך דלא תיתי!
אמר ליה: זה ראיתי, וזה לא ראיתי.
קרי עליה: ״ברצות ה׳ דרכי איש גם אויביו ישלים אתו״.
מאי טעמא עבד מר הכי?
אמר ליה, דכתיב: ״חכמות בחוץ תרונה״.
אמר ליה: אם קרית — לא שנית, ואם שנית — לא שילשת, ואם שילשת — לא פירשו לך [...]
Once again, on another occasion, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi decreed that students not be taught in the marketplace but only in a study hall.
What verse did he expound to serve as the basis for this decree? The verse states: [...]
Despite Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s decree, Rabbi Ḥiyya went out and taught his two nephews, Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana, in the marketplace.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard what he had done and became angry with him.
When Rabbi Ḥiyya came at some later date to visit him,
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mockingly said to him: Iyya, who is calling you outside (עייא, מי קורא לך בחוץ)?2 By asking this question Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was intimating that Rabbi Ḥiyya should leave his house.
Rabbi Ḥiyya understood that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had taken the matter to heart and was insulted, and so he conducted himself as if he had been admonished, as a self-imposed punishment, for thirty days.
On the thirtieth day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent him a message, saying: Come and visit me.
However, he later reversed his opinion and sent him another message, telling him not to come.
[...]
In the end Rabbi Ḥiyya came on that same day.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked him: Why have you come?
Rabbi Ḥiyya responded: Because you, Master, sent me a message that I should come.
He said to him: But I sent you a second message that you should not come.
He responded: This messenger that you sent, i.e., the first one, I saw him and I did as he said, but that messenger, i.e., the second one, I did not see.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi read the verse about Rabbi Ḥiyya: “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Proverbs 16:7), as it was clear to him that Rabbi Ḥiyya had merited divine assistance.
Concerning the issue with which the entire incident had begun, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked Rabbi Ḥiyya: What is the reason that you, the Master, acted as you did, ignoring my instructions not to teach Torah in the marketplace?
Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: As it is written: “Wisdom cries aloud in the streets” (Proverbs 1:20), which implies that Torah should be publicized in the streets.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: If you read this verse once, you certainly did not read it a second time in greater depth; and if you read it a second time, you certainly did not read it a third time; and if you read it a third time, then it was not adequately explained to you, as it is clear that you do not understand it properly
[...]
This quote from R’ Yehuda Hanasi is in Hebrew, while the rest of the story is in Aramaic.
This quote from R’ Yehuda Hanasi is in Hebrew, while the rest of the story is in Aramaic.