this is the meal-offering of a tenth of an ephah of flour, which every priest would bring on the day he began serving in the Temple. But as long as he is ritually impure, whether because he had come into contact with a corpse or due to leprosy, he may not send his offerings to the Temple; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states: “And on the day that he goes into the Sanctuary, into the inner court, to minister in the Sanctuary he shall sacrifice his sin offering.” This teaches that when he is fit to enter the Sanctuary, he is fit to sacrifice an offering. But when he is not fit to go into the Sanctuary, i.e., when he is ritually impure, he is not fit to sacrifice an offering. This implies that a leper may not send his offerings to the Temple to be sacrificed on the altar, as he himself is not fit to enter the Temple.

§ Having discussed some of the restrictions applying to a person who was ostracized, the Gemara explains some of the basic principles relating to ostracism: Rava said: From where do we derive that a court agent is sent to summon the defendant to appear before the court before he is ostracized? As it is written: “And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab” (Numbers 16:12). And from where do we derive that we summon the defendant, that he himself must appear before the court? As it is written: “And Moses said to Korah: Be you and all your congregation before the Lord, you and they, and Aaron, tomorrow” (Numbers 16:16).

From where is it derived that the defendant must be told that he is being summoned to appear before a great man? As it is written: “And Moses said to Korah: Be you and all your congregation before the Lord” (Numbers 16:16). From where is it derived that the summons must mention the names of both parties: You and so-and-so, the plaintiff? As it is written: “You, and they, and Aaron” (Numbers 16:16). From where is it derived that we set a date for the court proceedings? As it is written: “Tomorrow” (Numbers 16:16). From where is it derived that a second date must be set after the first date, if the defendant did not heed the first summons? As it is written: “They did cry there, Pharaoh, king of Egypt is but a noise; he has passed the time appointed…Surely as Tabor is among the mountains, and as Carmel by the sea, so shall he come” (Jeremiah 46:17). Although a time had been appointed and it had passed, it was not canceled entirely but pushed off to a later date.

And from where do we derive that if the summoned person behaves disrespectfully toward the agent of the court, and the agent comes back and reports his conduct, that this is not considered slander? As it is written: “Will you put out the eyes of these men?” (Numbers 16:14). Dathan and Abiram spoke these words to the messenger that Moses had sent to them, and the messenger reported them back to Moses.

And from where do we derive that we ostracize one who does not obey a court summons? As it is written: “Curse Meroz” (Judges 5:23), who was ostracized for not coming to battle after having been summoned. From where is it derived that the ostracized person must be told that it was the decision of a great man to ostracized him? As it is written: “Curse Meroz, said the messenger of the Lord” (Judges 5:23). And from where do we derive that, if he fails to mend his ways, we excommunicate such a person more harshly, putting him under the most severe form of excommunication? As it is written: “Curse Meroz…curse bitterly its inhabitants” (Judges 5:23), implying that one curse is followed by another, i.e., lesser ostracism is followed by harsh excommunication.

From where is it derived that the curse applies to anyone who eats or drinks with, or stands within, four cubits of the ostracized person? As it is written: “Curse bitterly its inhabitants” (Judges 5:23), in reference to all those sitting together with Meroz. And from where do we derive that we detail his sin in public? As it is written: “Curse bitterly its inhabitants, because they did not come to the help of the Lord” (Judges 5:23).

And Ulla said: Barak ostracized Meroz with the blowing of four hundred shofarot due to his failure to come. As for the identification of Meroz, some say that he was a great man and that he was ostracized because he did not join in the war effort. And others say that the reference is to a star and not a human being, and that it did not aid the Jewish people in their battle, as it is stated: “The stars fought from heaven; in their courses they fought against Sisera,” (Judges 5:20). This star, which did not help the Jewish people, was cursed.

And from where do we derive that the court may declare the property of one who does not obey its orders as ownerless? As it is written: “And that whoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the Elders, all his substance shall be forfeited [yaḥoram] and himself separated from the congregation of the exiles” (Ezra 10:8). “Shall be forfeited” is referring to excommunication.

And from where do we derive that we may contend with such a person, and curse him, and beat him, and pull out his hair, and make him take an oath in order to prevent him from sinning? As it is written: “And I contended with them, and cursed them, and beat some of them, and pulled out their hair, and made them take oath by God” (Nehemiah 13:25).

And from where do we derive that we may shackle his hands and feet, chain him, and apply pressure? As it is written: “Whether it be for death, or for banishment [lishroshi], or for confiscation of goods, or for imprisonment” (Ezra 7:26). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word “lishroshi,” translated here as banishment? Adda Mari said that Neḥemya bar Baruch said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Yehuda said: This is pressure. Since this expression is also unclear, the Gemara asks: What is pressure? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav that this term refers to the following series of actions: They ostracize him immediately, and then once again after thirty days, and if he still does not repent, they excommunicate him after sixty days.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said to him: Rav Ḥisda said as follows: Before excommunicating a person, the court warns him three times, on Monday, Thursday, and the following Monday. The Gemara notes: This applies in a case where one ignores a monetary judgment that was issued against him. He is warned three times that he must repay his debt. But in a case where one behaves disrespectfully toward a Torah scholar, he is immediately ostracized.

§ 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 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.

The Gemara comments: Apparently, Abaye maintains that if three people ostracized one, three others may not come and release him. This is derived from the fact that Abaye was concerned about releasing the butcher from ostracism and did not delegate the task to someone else.

As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If three people ostracized someone, what is the halakha with regard to three others coming and releasing him from his decree of ostracism? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which is taught in a baraita: One who was ostracized by the teacher of Torah for having acted disrespectfully toward him is considered ostracized with regard to the student, and the latter must keep his distance from him. However, one who was ostracized by the student is not considered ostracized with regard to the teacher.

One who was ostracized by his own city is considered ostracized with regard to another city. However, one who was ostracized by another city is not considered ostracized with regard to his own city. One who was ostracized by the Nasi of the Sanhedrin is considered ostracized with regard to all the Jewish people; but one who was ostracized by all the Jewish people is not considered ostracized with regard to the Nasi of the Sanhedrin. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one of the students sitting as a judge on the court had ostracized someone, and he died before releasing him from the decree of ostracism, his portion of the decree of ostracism is not nullified.

The Gemara says: Learn three halakhot from this baraita. Learn from this that in the case of a student who ostracizes someone due to an insult to his dignity and not because the ostracized person was guilty of some transgression, his decree of ostracism is valid. Were the case one where one was ostracized due to sin, everyone is required to respect the decree of ostracism, even the student’s teacher. And learn from this that each and every one who participated in the decree of ostracism nullifies his own portion of the decree of ostracism, as the baraita speaks of: His portion. And learn from this that if three people ostracized another person, three other people may not come and nullify the decree of ostracism. Were this not the case, it wouldn’t matter if a certain person’s portion was not nullified. His portion could be nullified by someone else.

Ameimar said: The halakha is that if three people ostracize another person, three others may come and nullify the decree of ostracism. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one of the students had ostracized another person, and he died before releasing him from the decree of ostracism, his portion is not nullified? What, is it not that it is not nullified at all, i.e., it cannot be nullified by another person? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, this means that the decree of ostracism remains in force until three other people come and nullify it.

§ The Sages taught the following baraita: Ostracism does not apply for less than a period of thirty days, and admonition, which is less severe than ostracism, does not apply for less than a period of seven days. And although there is no proof with regard to the matter, i.e., the standard duration of admonition, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed for seven days?” (Numbers 12:14). This implies that admonition lasts for seven days.

Rav Ḥisda said: Our decree of ostracism in Babylonia has the power of their admonition in Eretz Yisrael. Since the authorities in Eretz Yisrael are ordained with the title Rabbi, their admonition carries more weight than a decree of ostracism issued in Babylonia. The Gemara asks: Is their admonition in Eretz Yisrael only seven days and no more? But isn’t it related that 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. 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.

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: “Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist” (Song of Songs 7:2). Just as a thigh is ordinarily hidden and kept covered with clothes,