The Torah of Cancel Culture: Halakhah

§ 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.

(1) A wise man aged in wisdom, or a president, or a dean of a tribunal who committed an unsavory act should never be excommunicated publicly, unless he imitated Jeroboam son of Nebat and his associates¹See First Kings, 11.26–14.20.G.; but if he commit any other sin, the punishment of lashes should be administered secretly, even as it is said: "Therefore shalt thou stumble in the day, and the prophet also shall stumble with thee in the night" (Hosea, 4.5), even though he stumbled, cover it with darkness as the night. However, he should be told: "Honor yourself and remain in your house". And even so, when a disciple of the wise be found guilty of an offense punishable by excommunication, it is forbidden to jump to conclusions hastily and excommunicate him; it is rather commendable to run away from such thing, and avoid it. The pious among the wise prided themselves that they were never numbered among those who excommunicated a disciple of the wise, although it is permissable to be counted in to inflict lashes if he be guilty of an offense punishable by lashes, and even be counted in to inflict upon him scourge of rebellion.²Mo’ed Katan, 17b; Horayot, 11b; Pesahim, 52a. C.G.

(2) How is the excommunication pronounced? The authority says: "That one (naming him) should be in seclusion." If the excommunication is in the presence of the offender, he says to him: "This one (naming him) is in seclusion". An excommunication of exclusion is pronounced in this way: "That one (naming him) is excluded". An excommunication of separation is pronounced as follows: "He is accursed; the oath of cursing is in him; there is forswearing in him" (Shebu'ot, 36a).

(3) How is the bond of excommunication or ostracism released? The authority says to him: "Thou mayest (come back), thou art forgiven". If he releases him in absenta he says: "That one (naming him) may (come back), and he is forgiven."

(4) What regulations should one under sentence of separation follow himself, and how should others act toward him? One under sentence of separation is forbidden to shave and wash, as one in mourning, all the days of his separation. He must not be counted in among three to bless God after meals, or among ten in any religious service which requires ten adults, and no one is permitted to sit within four ells of him. Nevertheless, he may give instruction to others and others may instruct him, and others may hire him and he may hire others. If his demise occurs while under sentence of separation, the tribunal has a stone sent which is deposited upon his coffin, as if saying that he is being stoned because he had to be separated from the community. Needless to say that no mourning is permitted after him, and that his hearse is not followed.³Mo’ed Katan, 16b; Baba Mezi’a, 59a. C.

(5) Of greater punishment than he is the one excluded, who is forbidden to instruct others or be instructed by others (although he may study by himself so as not to forget his learning) either to hire himself out or hire others, either to give or to receive in business, with none to deal with him, save for the barest necessities of his support.⁴Mo’ed Katan, 16b. C.

(6) He who remains thirty days under sentence of separation and appears not for release, another sentence of separation is pronounced against him. If he again remains thirty days and seeks no release, a sentence of exclusion is pronounced against him.⁵Ibid.C.

(7) How large a personnel does it require to release the bonds of separation or exclusion?⁶ Three, even uneducated. An individual scholar may release the bond of separation or exclusion by himself. A student is authorized to release the bonds of separation or exclusion, even instead of the master.⁷See Mo’ed Katan, 17a, and Ros-ha-Shanah, 29a. G.

(9) If three pronounce an excommunication against one and depart, meantime the offender repents of the sin on account of which sentence was imposed, three others may come and release him.⁸Mo’ed Katan, 16b. C.

(10) One ignorant as to who imposed the sentence upon him, should go to the president who may release him.

(11) If a conditional sentence was imposed upon him, even on his own evidence, he must receive release. A disciple of the wise who imposed a sentence of separation upon himself; even the sentence was based upon the opinion of another, and even if it be on account of a matter which carries the punishment of separation, he may release the bond by himself.¹¹Makkot, 11a. C.

(12) He who dreamt that a sentence of excommunication was pronounced upon him, although he remembers the one who made the pronouncement, must have ten men who are capable of studying treatises to release him. If he finds them not, he should walk a mile to find them; if such can not be found, even ten who study Mishnah may release him; if such can not be found, ten who can read the Torah may release him; if such can not be found, even ten who can not read at all may release him; if there be no ten adults in his place, even three can release him.¹²Nedarim, 8b; Berakot 29b. C.

(13) One against whom a pronouncement of excommunication was made in his presence, is not released save when he is present. If the pronouncement was made in absenta, the release may be given, both in his presence and in his absence. There is no interval necessary between pronouncement and release; a bond of separation may be imposed, and, if the offender doth repent himself, he may be released the same minute. Yet, if the tribunal see fit to leave one under ban many years, he may be so left, all depending upon his wickedness. Likewise, if the tribunal see fit to first exclude one and then exclude whomsoever that will eat with him, drink with him, or stand within four ells of him, such exclusion should stand so as to punish him, and so as to make a guard around the Torah which the sinners will be unable to break. Although a scholar is vested with authority to excommunicate to preserve his honor, it is not good taste for a disciple of the wise to accustom himself to do such thing, but conceal his ears from the gossip of the ignorant people, and pay no attention to them, as the subject was spoken of in Solomon's wisdom: "Also take not heed unto all words that are spoken" (Ecc. 7.21). So was the way of the pious of yore: they heard themselves maligned, but made no reply; moreover, they pardoned the traducer and condoned him. Great scholars prided themselves in their becoming conduct and related that they have ever declined to pronounce an excommunication of separation or exclusion against a man for the sake of their honor. Such way of disciples of the wise is proper to follow. Whereat are these words directed? When one abused him maligned him secretly; but a disciple of the wise, who was abused or maligned by a man publicly, is forbidden to pardon an offense against his honor, and if he does pardon it he is punished in the end, for it is disgraceful to the Torah; he must avenge it and beat it in his heart serpent-like until the traducer will beg his pardon, when he should forgive him.¹³Nedarim, 7b; Megillah, 28a; Yer. Mo’ed Katan, 10b; Yoma, 22b-23a; Kiddushin, 32a. C. G.

(5) The penitent who confesses publicly is praiseworthy, and it is commendable for him to let the public know his iniquities, and to reveal the sins between himself and his neighbor to others, saying to them: "Truly, I have sinned against that man, and I have wronged him thus and such, but, behold me this day, I repent and am remorseful". But he, who is arrogant and reveals not but covers up his sins, is not a wholehearted penitent, of whom it is said: "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper" (Prov. 28.13). But that is saying solely concerning sins between man and man, but sins between man and God, the penitent need not make public, on the contrary it would be impudent of him to reveal them...

(6) With the consent of the Almighty, and consent of this congretation, in a convocation of the heavenly court, and a convocation of the lower court,³The court of man. we hereby grant permission to pray with transgressors.⁴Anyone who has transgressed either a law of the Torah or Rabbinic law is called an “Avaryan” (transgressor) and is subject to excommunication from the community and hence cannot be included in any prayer or service which requires a quorum. (See Periesha to Tur Shulchan Aruch section 619, also Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 324). Special permission is thus required in order to include them in our prayers. The above declaration is based on a talmudic statement: “Rabbi Shimon Chasidah says: A public fast wherein Jewish transgressors do not participate is not a [true] fast.” This is deduced from the fact that though the odor of galbanum is unpleasant, Scripture included it among the fragrant spices of the incense-offering.—Maseches Kerisos 6b
According to Bach (Ibid.) permission granted is not a blanket dispensation but is predicated on the assumption that these transgressors will repent. This is implied in the words: עַל דַעַת הַמָקוֹם, with the consent of Hashem.