Study Moed Katan folio 17A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
תלמיד שנידה לכבודו — נדויו נידוי, דתניא: מנודה לרב — מנודה לתלמיד, מנודה לתלמיד — אינו מנודה לרב. לרב הוא דאינו מנודה, הא לכולי עלמא — מנודה.
If a student ostracized someone else due to an insult to his dignity, and not because the ostracized person was guilty of some transgression, his decree of ostracism is valid, as it is taught in a baraita: One who is ostracized by the teacher is considered ostracized with regard to the student. However, one who is ostracized by the student is not considered ostracized with regard to the teacher. The Talmud attempts to draw an inference from a careful reading of this baraita: He is not considered ostracized with regard to the teacher, which implies that he is considered ostracized with regard to everyone else.
למאי? אי במילי דשמיא — ״אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה׳״! אלא לאו, לכבוד עצמו.
The Talmud clarifies the case: For what reason was he ostracized? If it was for a matter relating to Heaven, i.e., because he sinned, then why, if he was ostracized by the student, should he not be considered ostracized with regard to the teacher? Doesn’t the verse state: “There is no wisdom or understanding or counsel against YHWH” (Proverbs 21:30)? This means that when a sin is committed and God’s name is desecrated, all other considerations are ignored, even the eminence and knowledge of the teacher, and therefore he too must treat the offender as ostracized. Rather, is it not that the Talmud is referring to a case where the student ostracized the other person due to an insult to his own dignity? Therefore, it is apparent that his decree of ostracism is valid and binding upon all, with the exception of his teacher.