From Admonishment to Excommunication: The Talmudic Laws of Ostracism (Moed Katan 16a-b) - Pt.3

Pt.3 - Story #4 - Shmuel and Mar Ukva; Story #5 - “a certain woman”, and Rav Nachman; Story #6 - Zutra bar Toviah and Rav Yehuda

This the third, and final, part of a three-part series. Previous parts: Part 1; Part 2.

The Talmudic passage

Story #4: Moed Katan 16b (sections #11-12); Story #5: ibid, section #13; Story #6: ibid, sections #14-15.

Story #4 - Shmuel and Mar Ukva

In this Talmudic story, Shmuel and Mar Ukva, the Exilarch, display mutual respect based on their roles and expertise.¹ When studying halakha (Jewish law), Mar Ukva showed deference to Shmuel by sitting at a distance of four cubits (ארבע אמות), treating him as his teacher due to Shmuel's greater Torah knowledge. Conversely, when they served as judges (in bet din), Shmuel accorded Mar Ukva the same respect, sitting at a distance because of Mar Ukva's position as Exilarch and chief judge. Despite these formalities, adjustments were made so Mar Ukva could still hear Shmuel's Torah teachings during their judicial duties.

The story also illustrates a moment of misunderstanding between the two. One day, after a particularly engrossing case, Mar Ukva was so absorbed that he inadvertently led Shmuel, who, out of respect for Mar Ukva's position, followed him home. Upon realizing this, Shmuel pointedly asked to be released from the obligation of accompanying Mar Ukva further, indicating that he felt slighted by Mar Ukva's lack of awareness. Recognizing his oversight and the disrespect it implied, Mar Ukva imposed upon himself a one-day period of self-admonishment.

שמואל ומר עוקבא, 

כי הוו יתבי גרסי שמעתא, 

הוה יתיב מר עוקבא קמיה דשמואל ברחוק ארבע אמות. 

וכי הוו יתבי בדינא, 

הוה יתיב שמואל קמיה דמר עוקבא ברחוק ארבע אמות. 

והוו חייקי ליה דוכתא למר עוקבא בציפתא, ויתיב עילויה כי היכי דלישתמען מיליה.

כל יומא הוה מלוי ליה מר עוקבא לשמואל עד אושפיזיה. 

יומא חד איטריד בדיניה, הוה אזיל שמואל בתריה. 

כי מטא לביתיה, אמר ליה: לא נגה לך? לישרי לי מר בתיגריה! 

ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה, נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה חד יומא.

Shmuel and the Exilarch Mar Ukva, 

when they would sit and study halakha, 

Mar Ukva would sit before Shmuel at a distance of four cubits as a sign of respect. Mar Ukva would conduct himself as though Shmuel were his teacher because Shmuel was much greater than him in Torah matters.

 And when they would sit together in judgment, Shmuel would sit before Mar Ukva at a distance of four cubits because Mar Ukva was the Exilarch and the chief judge. 

But they would lower a place for Mar Ukva in the matting upon which he sat, and he would sit on it so that he could hear Shmuel’s words of Torah even when they were engaged in judgment.

Every day, Mar Ukva would accompany Shmuel to his lodgings, in the manner that a student would show honor toward his teacher. 

One day, Mar Ukva was so heavily preoccupied with a case that had been brought before him for judgment that he did not realize that Shmuel was walking behind him to show him respect due to his position as the Exilarch. 

When Mar Ukva reached his home, Shmuel said to him: Is it not enough for you that I accompanied you until here? Release me, Master, from my obligation, so that I may return home. 

Mar Ukva understood that Shmuel had taken the matter to heart and was insulted. Therefore, he conducted himself as if he had been admonished, for one day as a self-imposed punishment.

Story #5 - “a certain woman”, and Rav Nachman

In this Talmudic story, a woman was sitting beside a path, sifting barley with her leg extended into the path. When a Torah scholar passed by and she did not move her leg to allow him space, he remarked on her rudeness. The woman, concerned about the implications of his comment, approached Rav Naḥman to inquire whether the scholar's comment could be considered a form of excommunication.

Rav Naḥman asked her if the scholar had explicitly mentioned the word "excommunication" ("shamta"). When she confirmed that he had not, Rav Nahman advised her that the scholar's intention was likely only to admonish her for her behavior. Therefore, he recommended that she observe a self-imposed admonition for one day. This story illustrates the importance of clear communication and the differentiation between simple admonition (nezifah) and formal excommunication (shamta) in rabbinic practice.

ההיא איתתא דהוות יתבה בשבילא, 

הוות פשטה כרעה וקא מניפה חושלאי, 

והוה חליף ואזיל צורבא מרבנן ולא איכנעה מקמיה. 

אמר: כמה חציפא ההיא איתתא! 

אתאי לקמיה דרב נחמן. 

אמר לה: מי שמעת שמתא מפומיה? 

אמרה ליה: לא. 

אמר לה: זילי נהוגי נזיפותא חד יומא בנפשיך.

It was related that a certain woman was sitting alongside a path 

with her leg extended while she was sifting barley. 

A Torah scholar passed by her on this path, but she did not yield to him and move her leg to make room for him. 

He said: How rude is that woman! 

The woman came before Rav Naḥman to ask if this statement should be deemed as excommunication. 

He said to her: Did you hear the word excommunication (shamta) explicitly issue from his mouth? 

She said to him: No. 

He said to her: If this is the case, then go and observe an admonition for one day, as it appears that the Torah scholar sought only to admonish (nezifah) you.

Story #6 - Zutra bar Toviah and Rav Yehuda

In this Talmudic story, Zutra bar Toviyya² was reading a biblical text in front of Rav Yehuda, and questioned the meaning of a biblical verse from the Book of Samuel. 

Rav Yehuda, upon hearing the question initially, chose not to respond. Zutra bar Toviyya, thinking Rav Yehuda hadn't heard him, repeated the question. This time, Rav Yehuda reacted defensively, questioning whether the inability to answer such a query diminished his stature as a scholar. His response suggested a sensitivity to the implications of the question on his scholarly reputation.

Recognizing that his question had unintentionally insulted Rav Yehuda, Zutra bar Toviyya took it upon himself to behave as if he had been formally admonished, imposing a one-day period of self-discipline to acknowledge the discomfort he caused. 

זוטרא בר טוביה הוה קפסיק סידרא קמיה דרב יהודה, 

כי מטא להאי פסוקא ״ואלה דברי דוד האחרונים״, 

אמר ליה: 

[...]

שתיק ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי, 

הדר אמר ליה: 

[...]

אמר ליה: מאי דעתך, דלא ידע פירושא דהאי קרא לאו גברא רבה הוא? 

ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה, נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה חד יומא.

Zutra bar Toviyya was once reading the portion of the Bible before Rav Yehuda. 

When he reached the verse: “Now these are the last words of David” (II Samuel 23:1), 

[...]

Rav Yehuda remained silent and said nothing to him. 

Zutra bar Toviyya thought that Rav Yehuda did not hear what he had said, so he then said to him a second time: 

[...]

He said to him: What do you think? Do you think that anyone who does not know the meaning of this verse is not a great man? Why are you stressing the fact that I do not know the answer to your question? 

Zutra bar Toviyya understood that Rav Yehuda had taken the matter to heart and was insulted. Therefore, he conducted himself as if had been admonished for one day as a self-imposed punishment.

1. The name Ukva - עוקבא, should most likely properly be pronouncedʿUqba. See what I write in my article “Abba”, p. 83 f. 714:

Cf. The Arabic name ʿUqba (= عقبة-עקבה ), popular in the early Muslim period (7th century) […]

2. The name Zutra means “small/lesser/junior”. See my article “Abbba”, pp. 66; 80. It is notable that this sage has no honorific (rav). Zutra is a common personal name or epithet of a number of exilarchs, see “Abba”, p. 32:

Mar seems to be more common among later Amoraim, both as honorific (espeically for Reish Galuta), and as a given name.

I list examples there.