בִּ״מְנוּדֶּה אֲנִי לְךָ״, דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: לִישָּׁנָא דְּנִידּוּיָא הוּא, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לִישָּׁנָא דִּמְשַׁמַתְּנָא הוּא.

They disagree with regard to a case when the language one uses is: I am ostracized from you, as Rabbi Akiva holds that it is a language of distancing and therefore expresses a vow, and the Rabbis hold that it is a language of excommunication, and not the terminology with which people express vows.

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא; דְּהַהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲמַר ״מְשַׁמַתְּנָא בְּנִכְסֵיהּ דִּבְרֵיהּ דְּרַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא״ אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֵית דְּחָשׁ לָהּ לְהָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. קָסָבַר: בִּ״מְשַׁמַתְּנָא״ פְּלִיגִי.

The Gemara comments: And Rav Pappa disagrees with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as demonstrated in the following incident: There was a certain man who said: I am excommunicated from the property of the son of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba. He came before Rav Ḥisda to ask whether this statement was effective in generating a prohibition or not. Rav Ḥisda said to him: There is no one who, in practice, is concerned for that opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Apparently, Rav Ḥisda holds that they also disagree with regard to the phrase: I am excommunicated from you. This indicates that the dispute between the tanna’im is not with regard to specific terms but with regard to the more general question of whether terms of ostracism or excommunication are terms that can also express vows.

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָּא אָמַר רַב: נִדָּהוּ בְּפָנָיו – אֵין מַתִּירִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו. נִדָּהוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו – מַתִּירִין לוֹ בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו.

§ Rabbi Ila said that Rav said: If one ostracized another individual in his presence, one may dissolve it for him only in his presence. If one ostracized him not in his presence, one may dissolve it for him in his presence or not in his presence.

אָמַר רַב חָנִין אָמַר רַב: הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ הַזְכָּרַת הַשֵּׁם מִפִּי חֲבֵירוֹ – צָרִיךְ לְנַדּוֹתוֹ, וְאִם לֹא נִידָּהוּ – הוּא עַצְמוֹ יְהֵא בְּנִידּוּי. שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהַזְכָּרַת הַשֵּׁם מְצוּיָה שָׁם עֲנִיּוּת מְצוּיָה.

Rav Ḥanin said that Rav said: One who hears mention of the name of God in vain by another individual must ostracize him for doing so. And if he did not ostracize him, he himself, the listener, shall be ostracized, as wherever mention of God’s name in vain is common, poverty is also common there.

וַעֲנִיּוּת כְּמִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כִּי מֵתוּ כָּל הָאֲנָשִׁים״, וְתַנְיָא: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּתְנוּ חֲכָמִים עֵינֵיהֶם – אוֹ מִיתָה אוֹ עוֹנִי.

And poverty is so harsh that it is considered like death, as it is stated: “For all the men are dead who sought your life” (Exodus 4:19). The Sages had a tradition that Dathan and Abiram had sought to have Moses killed in Egypt and that they were the men referred to in the quoted verse (see 64b). They were still alive at that time but had become impoverished. And additionally, it is taught in a baraita : Wherever it says that the Sages set their eyes on a particular individual, the result was either death or poverty. This also indicates that death and poverty are equivalent.

אֲמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, שְׁמָעָהּ לְהַךְ אִיתְּתָא דַּאַפְּקָה הַזְכָּרַת הַשֵּׁם לְבַטָּלָה, שַׁמְתָּהּ וּשְׁרָא לָהּ לְאַלְתַּר בְּאַפָּהּ. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ תְּלָת; שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ הַזְכָּרַת הַשֵּׁם מִפִּי חֲבֵירוֹ – צָרִיךְ לְנַדּוֹתוֹ, וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: נִידָּהוּ בְּפָנָיו – אֵין מַתִּירִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו, וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: אֵין בֵּין נִידּוּי לַהֲפָרָה וְלֹא כְלוּם.

Rabbi Abba said: I was standing before Rav Huna, and he heard a certain woman utter a mention of the name of God in vain. He excommunicated her and immediately dissolved the excommunication for her in her presence. The Gemara comments: Learn three things from this. Learn from this that one who hears mention of the name of God in vain by another individual must ostracize him; and learn from this that if one ostracized another in his presence, one may dissolve it for him only in his presence; and learn from this that there is nothing, i.e., no minimum time that must pass, between ostracism and nullification of the ostracism.

אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: תַּלְמִיד חָכָם מְנַדֶּה לְעַצְמוֹ וּמֵיפֵר לְעַצְמוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אֵין חָבוּשׁ מַתִּיר עַצְמוֹ מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: A Torah scholar can ostracize himself, and he can nullify the ostracism for himself. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that he can nullify the ostracism for himself, just as he is able to do for others? The Gemara answers: It states this lest you say, as per the popular maxim: A prisoner cannot free himself from prison, and since he is ostracized he cannot dissolve the ostracism for himself; therefore it teaches us that he can do so.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי – כִּי הָא דְּמָר זוּטְרָא חֲסִידָא, כִּי מִחַיַּיב בַּר בֵּי רַב שַׁמְתָּא – מְשַׁמֵּית נַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר מְשַׁמֵּת בַּר בֵּי רַב. וְכִי עָיֵיל לְבֵיתֵיהּ – שָׁרֵי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, וַהֲדַר שָׁרֵי לֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where a Torah scholar might ostracize himself? It is like that case involving Mar Zutra Ḥasida. When a student in the academy was liable to receive excommunication, Mar Zutra Ḥasida would first excommunicate himself and then he would excommunicate the student of Torah. And when he would enter his home, he would dissolve the excommunication for himself and then dissolve the excommunication for the student.

וְאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב:

And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: