Siman 334

The law of the kingdom is the law – this is a great principle. And by the law of the Caesar, it is forbidden to issue any niddui or any cherem, and such is the law in all the kingdoms of Europe. Only in the lands of Ishmael, such as the kingdom of the Togar, and Persia, and Morocco – there it is permitted according to the law of the government. Therefore, all the laws that we are explaining regarding nidduin and cheremot – it is all for those countries. But in our country, Heaven forbid to issue nidduin and cheremot. It is only upon us to know the laws of what is forbidden and what is permitted, and we shall separate ourselves from that which is forbidden to us. Therefore, it is necessary to write all the laws pertaining to this. The source from the Torah for these matters is from what is written in the Song of Deborah in Judges (Judges 5:23): "Curse Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse bitterly its inhabitants! For they did not come to the aid of the Lord, etc." And so we say in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 16a): And from where do we know that we place one in shamta? As it is written: "Curse Meroz." For such is the opinion of a great man, meaning that such a certain great man decreed to place him in shamta, as it is written: "said the angel, etc." For the prophets and the sages are called "angels," as angel is a term of mission, and they come on the mission of the Lord. And from where do we know that we place one in cherem? As it is written: "Curse," "bitterly curse." That one may not eat or drink with him, and one must stand outside his four amot. Meaning: that we decree that they shall not eat and shall not drink with him, and that they shall not stand within his four amot. From where do we know that we have the authority to do so? As it is written: "its inhabitants." And from where do we know that we specify his sin in public? As it is written: "For they did not come to the aid of the Lord." And Ulla said: With four hundred shofars Barak placed Meroz in shamta. There are those who say: He was a great man, etc., see there.

The explanation of the matters: At the time when Sisera pressured Israel, and Deborah the prophetess and Barak son of Abinoam were aroused, they decreed upon all of Israel that they should be aroused for this milchemet mitzvah to fight with Sisera; and there was a certain man there named "Meroz," a great man, and he and all the people of his place did not want to come. Therefore, Deborah and Barak cursed him, placed him under nidui, and placed him under cherem. And "cherem" is more severe than "shamta," which is nidui. Therefore, first where it is written "Curse Meroz" – its meaning is nidui and shamta. And afterwards where it is written "Curse bitterly" with a doubling of the language, its meaning is that we place under cherem. And there are [instances] in monetary matters, such as one who refuses to come to beit din, or who does not obey the law. The Rambam explained them in the twenty-fifth chapter of Sanhedrin, and it was explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 11. And there are [instances] in matters of prohibition, and the Rambam explained them in the sixth chapter and the seventh chapter of Talmud Torah. They will be explained in this siman with the help of Heaven.

The Tur wrote that before they place him under niddui – they warn him on Monday, Thursday, and Monday. In what case are these words said? Regarding a monetary matter. But if they place him under niddui because he violates a matter of prohibition – they place him under niddui immediately, etc. Thus far his words. And it appears that even regarding a matter of prohibition they must first warn him, and if he did not listen – they place him under niddui. And so it is implied from Eruvin (Eruvin 63a). And this is also the intention of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 334:1) who wrote: immediately. That is to say: not as in a monetary matter. (And the Shach, subsection 1, wrote that it implies without a warning, see there, and he inferred this from the wording "immediately." But there is no proof, and the intention is as I have written. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And if one is placed under nidui for a rabbinic prohibition – there is no clear proof. For in several places in the Shas we find makat mardut and not nidui. And there is one who distinguishes between a matter whose essence is rabbinic, and a matter whose essence is from the Torah (see Ran at the beginning of the fourth chapter of Pesachim). And there is one who says that one who casts doubt on a rabbinic decree, we certainly place him under nidui, like that case in the fifth chapter of Eduyot regarding one who cast doubt on netilat yadayim. However, one who violates a rabbinic prohibition – it is makat mardut (Kesef Mishneh chapter six of Talmud Torah halacha 14 (Rambam Laws of Talmud Torah 6)). But in Eruvin (Eruvin 63a) we find regarding one who made use of a palm tree on Shabbat, which is rabbinic, and they placed him under shamta, see there. And there is no clear determination in this, for in Shabbat (Shabbat 40a) we find that it is only permitted to call him a transgressor, see there.

A niduy is not less than thirty days. And if he does not repent—they repeat the niduy after thirty days. And if he does not repent—they wait for him another thirty days, and they place him under cherem. And even if a festival occurs within the thirty days—it does not cancel it. In what case are these matters stated, that a niduy is thirty days? Regarding the niduy of the people of Eretz Yisrael. But in the diaspora it is only seven days, like the nezifah of the people of Eretz Yisrael, which will be explained as being seven days. And the nezifah of the people of the diaspora is only one day. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even if there is a concern that through the niduy he will go out to an evil culture—one need not be concerned about this. Thus far his words. And there is one who elaborated with proofs to disagree with this (Taz, subsection 1). But many great authorities agreed with our teacher, the Rema, only that one must be moderate in this, and everything is according to the matter. And it is obvious that if there is a concern that we will come through this to a state of danger, that one does not need to place him in niduy. And everything is according to the state of the time and the place. And the main thing is that the intention should be for the sake of Heaven. And regarding the nezifah of a Nasi, the Tur wrote thirty days. (And it implies that this is even for a Nasi of the diaspora; Bach. And the Rambam omitted all these distinctions, and his reason is not known. And after these times they release him, even if the sage who placed him in niduy went away from here. So wrote the Beit Yosef and Shach, subsection 3.)

This is the wording of the Tur (Tur Yoreh Deah 334): The Rambam wrote: How is the nidui performed? They say: "So-and-so shall be in shamta." But the Ra'avad wrote that they do not say "he shall be in shamta," for it is more severe than nidui, but rather he says "he shall be in nidui." And if it appears to the beit din to be stringent with him because of the magnitude of his sin, they say: "Cursed," and that is shamta, which contains nidui and a curse. And likewise if the beit din desired to reduce from the thirty days or to add – the authority is in their hands. And the beit din has authority to be stringent with him so that they shall not circumcise his sons, and that he shall not be buried with honor if he dies, and to expel his sons from the school, and his wife from the synagogue – until he accepts the law upon himself, if they see that through this he will bow his head. But otherwise, one is not to punish children for their father, or a wife for her husband, and even young children. (And with this, all that the Taz questioned in subsection 3 in the name of the Maharshal is settled well, for for the benefit of the matter they are permitted to act. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

What is the law of one who is under a ban? One may not sit within his four amot, meaning surrounding him on every side, except for his wife and children who are permitted. And some say that all the members of his household are permitted, and one should be lenient like this view. And this prohibition of his four amot applies whether in his house, whether in the synagogue, whether in the public domain, or in an alleyway or a ownerless field. However, not in the house of others (Shach, subsection 7). And one may not eat or drink with him. And this applies to anyone under a ban. And if he was placed under a ban due to a transgression—it is added regarding him that one does not invite for him in the zimun of the blessing over food, and one does not include him for any matter of sanctity that requires a minyan of ten, such as for prayer and the reading of the Torah and the like.

And this is when they explicitly specified that they should not include him. But in an ordinary case, even if he is a transgressor or if he violated a communal decree and they placed him under an ordinary niddui – he is included for a minyan of ten and for zimun. And even when they specified not to include him, nevertheless, it is permitted to pray while he is in the beit knesset, provided that they distance themselves four amot from him. And as for what they were accustomed to do, to expel him from the beit knesset – this was so that those who need to distance themselves from him would not be crowded. And know that the prohibition is only to enter within his four amot. But if he enters within the four amot of another – that other person does not need to distance himself.

One who is under a nidui is forbidden from laundering, haircutting, and the wearing of shoes, like a mourner. However, he does not require tearing of the garment, muffling of the head, or overturning of the bed. Similarly, he is permitted in washing, anointing, and marital relations. He is permitted in tefillin and the greeting of peace. He is permitted in matters of Torah, and he may teach others and others may teach him. He may be hired by others for work, and others may be hired by him. But one who is under a cherem may not teach and others may not teach him, and he may not be hired and others may not be hired by him. Similarly, it is forbidden to provide him with benefit beyond his basic livelihood. However, he is permitted to learn for himself, so that he does not forget his learning. One may set up a small shop for him for the sake of his sustenance. It is permitted to buy from him, since this is only for the sake of his livelihood. It is permitted to speak with one under a nidui and with one under a cherem, unless the beit din explicitly dealt stringently with him that they should not speak with him. And even when it is permitted to speak with him—one should not speak extensively with him, only as much as is necessary, as with a mourner. It is forbidden to enter his house, for his entire house is like his four amot. And regarding the four amot, there is no distinction between standing or sitting. But while walking, it appears that he does not occupy four amot. And it appears that if one needs to enter his house for the matter of his accepting upon himself the decree of the beit din or the like—it is permitted to enter his house, and he should distance himself four amot and speak with him.

Regarding an excommunicated person who died, the beit din sends and places a stone upon his coffin, which means upon his grave as a sign. And one does not perform keriah for him, nor do they bare the shoulder, nor do they eulogize him. However, they stand in a row for him and comfort his mourners, because this is for the honor of the living. Similarly, regarding burial and shrouds, he is like any other person. And this matter of placing a stone and not performing keriah or baring the shoulder—this is when he was excommunicated due to insolence and violating the words of the sages. But when they excommunicated him because of monetary matters, once he has died, he is exempt from their decree. And they do not stone his coffin, and they eulogize him appropriately, and certainly they perform keriah and bare the shoulder for him. And if he was excommunicated because he disparaged a talmid chakham, his law is like that of insolence. And even in a case of insolence, if he repented before his death, even though they had not yet released his excommunication, the excommunication is removed from him, and they attend to him in every matter.

Even though it is forbidden to eat and drink with him, nevertheless, if one transgressed and ate and drank with him – he does not have the status of a menudeh. Unless the beit din saw severity in the transgression, and that it was necessary to establish a fence, for then they are able to be stringent and stipulate that one who eats and drinks with him, and one who sits within his four amot – shall also be like him. For the beit din has the capacity to be lenient or stringent according to their sight, if their intention is for the sake of Heaven. For example, if they wished to add to the thirty days or to reduce from the thirty – the authority is in their hands. And likewise, if they wished that he be joined to ten and for zimun – the authority is in their hands. And conversely: even if they placed him under nidui on account of money, if they wished that he not be joined – the authority is in their hands. However, ordinarily regarding money – we join him, and regarding insolence – we do not join him. And likewise, when the beit din wishes to place him under herem immediately after the nidui without waiting thirty days – the authority is in their hands. And likewise, when the time arrives of the completion of the days of nidui – they may release him if they wish even if he does not repent. And nevertheless, it is good that they should not release him as long as he does not repent, so that their fear shall be upon him and upon others. (With what we have explained, the contradictions in the Shulchan Arukh from section 10 to section 2 are settled well, which the Shach questioned in subsection 21 and the Taz in subsection 5. However, that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11: If he was placed under nidui for a transgression he is not joined to ten, thus far his words – I do not understand, for behold this was already explained in section 2. And it is a duplication of words, and it requires further study.)

All that has been explained applies to one who is under niddui from a beit din, whether regarding a monetary matter or a matter of transgression, for their niddui is inclusive of all, whether for his own city or for another city. However, there is a niddui where a sage places another under niddui for the sake of his honor, and the like, as will be explained, in a manner that is a partial niddui. That is to say: it is not an inclusive niddui, and it does not possess all the stringencies that have been explained; rather, people distance themselves from him in order to shame him, but he is not subject to mourning or the other stringencies. (Tur in the name of the Ra'avad. And regarding what the Shach wrote in subsection 23 concerning niddui on account of a transgression, see there—I do not know. For here we are not dealing with a transgression. Examine it closely and you will find it easy.)

And that which we say that an unspecified niddui is thirty days, or when they specified—thirty days is when he did not repent. But if he repented, even if the niddui was because of money or insolence—they release him immediately. And even if he did not repent, there is one who says that they release him after thirty days. And specifically when he comes to beit din and requests that they release him. But if he does not request, and treats the niddui with contempt—they leave him in his niddui until he dies. And there is one who disagrees regarding this, and holds that even if he requests after thirty days that they release him, if he has not repented regarding the matter itself—they do not release him until he repents. And there is also one who says that even if he repented—they do not release him within thirty days. But there is one who proved with evidence that regarding one who repented, there is no opinion that would hold not to release him within thirty days. Rather, everyone agrees that regarding one who repented—they release him immediately (Taz, subsection 6).

It has already been explained that nezifah in Eretz Yisrael is seven days, and in the diaspora one day. And what is nezifah? It is when a great man rebukes him, saying: "How impudent is so-and-so" and the like. This is its law: he shall hide and sit in his house all day, and be ashamed, and shall not show his face to the one who shamed him. He shall diminish on this day laughter, speech, and his business affairs, and shall afflict himself in the eyes of all who see him. Some say that he is forbidden from haircutting on that day. However, he does not need to distance himself from people, neither regarding eating and drinking nor regarding asking of one's welfare. And he does not need to practice any of the laws of mourning. And he does not need to appease the one against whom he acted impudently. And he does not need them to release him; rather, once he has conducted himself as one rebuked for the duration of the nezifah—he is permitted automatically. And nezifah applies even if the great man said nothing to him, but this person knows that he holds a grudge in his heart against him—he must practice nezifah upon himself for one day.

The sage may place a person under niddui for his own honor if they insulted him with words, and certainly for some action. However, there are specific laws in this matter: namely, if the teacher placed a person under niddui—he is under niddui also to his students, and certainly to the rest of the people. But he is not under niddui to other sages who are not his students, even if they are lesser than him. And some say that to them he is also under niddui (Shach, subsection 30). One who is under niddui to a student—is not under niddui to the teacher. But he is under niddui to the rest of the people who are not sages, but not to sages even if they are lesser than him. And some say that to them he is also under niddui if they are not greater than him, and only to the teacher is he not under niddui (ibid.). And this is when the student is a sage in Torah, who is fit to place one under niddui for his honor, and he placed him under niddui not in the presence of the teacher. For in the presence of the teacher it is chutzpah on his part, and his niddui is not niddui. Similarly, if he is not a sage in Torah—it is nothing. Nevertheless, if he is a sage in Torah, and his teacher accorded him honor—even in the presence of the teacher his niddui is niddui. And all this is when they are able to withstand what he decreed. But if they are not able to withstand it, even if the teacher decreed it, and his students are unable to withstand his decree—one does not need to fulfill it.

A student may place under niddui one who insulted his teacher in his presence, or his father when his father was a talmid chacham. Nevertheless, since the teacher himself did not place him under niddui, and also the beit din did not place him under niddui—he is not considered under niddui regarding the teacher. And it appears to me that if it was in the presence of the teacher—it is as if the teacher himself placed him under niddui. And specifically a teacher who is great in Torah, and because of his greatness in Torah they accepted him as a teacher. But if he is not great in Torah, but rather became a teacher through a strong hand and violence, and all the more so if he became a teacher due to his money or his lineage and not due to his actual greatness, he does not have the status of a teacher at all. And all this is when they placed him under niddui for his honor. But one who was placed under niddui for other matters for which one is liable for niddui, even if the smallest of Israel placed him under niddui—he is considered under niddui to all of Israel. And even the Nasi is obligated to conduct himself toward him with niddui, until he returns in repentance from the matter for which he was placed under niddui, and then they shall release it for him.

Specifically, one may place under niddui for the honor of the Rav. However, one does not place under cherem unless he persists in the dispute excessively. And that which we say, that a Rav who placed someone under niddui for his honor, he is under niddui to his students—this is if the one under niddui did not retract. And even if he promised the Rav that he would appease him afterwards, nevertheless, as long as he has not appeased him, it is nothing, if he already placed him under niddui before he promised. But if the one under niddui actually retracted, in that he appeased the Rav after his niddui, or even if he did not actually retract but promised to appease the Rav and this was before the niddui, and the Rav did not pay heed and placed him under niddui—he is not under niddui at all to his students. And immediately upon saying that he will correct that which he distorted according to what the sages tell him—there is no niddui upon him when they placed him under niddui afterwards. And know that a Rav who placed someone under niddui for his honor— his niddui is a valid niddui. Even if the community enacted that no man can place someone under niddui for his honor—their enactment is nothing, for who gave them this power to forgo the honor of the Torah? (It appears to me regarding what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 18: "if the one under niddui did not retract before he placed him under niddui"—this version is not accurate according to what the Taz wrote in subsection 7 and the Shach in subsection 36, as we have explained. And so it must be said: "if the one under niddui did not retract after he placed him under niddui," see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

It is found in the Yerushalmi: An elder who placed someone under niddui for his own needs, even if according to the halakha—it is not a niddui. Thus far his words. The Rishonim exerted themselves regarding this: there are those who rejected it from the halakha, for in the Shas it is found several times the opposite of this. And there are those who interpreted it as when he did not intend for the honor of the Torah, but only to gain money that the person would give him in order to release his niddui. And there are those who interpreted it as when it is known that he did it to him because of hatred, such as when we see that he placed that person under niddui but did not place others under niddui who did the same as him. And so too anything similar to this. And our teacher, the Rema, brought these two interpretations in section 19 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 334:19), see there. And the Rosh in a responsum (Klal 28) interpreted that the intention is like the incident of Reish Lakish in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 17a), where someone owed him money and they placed him under niddui. And he said to him: If I have become liable to you for money, have I become liable to you for niddui? And in the Hagahot Maimoniyot, chapter six of Talmud Torah, he wrote in the name of the Ramach that this is its interpretation: that a sage was not permitted to place someone under niddui for his honor except when they insulted him. But if someone did not act with the honor due to him, such as not standing before him and the like—he has no authority to place him under niddui because of this. And this is the intention of the Yerushalmi "an elder who placed someone under niddui for his own needs": because he did not act with honor toward him, even if according to the halakha. That is to say: even if the law is with him, nevertheless it is not a niddui, for because of a lack of honor he has no authority to place someone under niddui. And all the interpretations are true in practice.

It is stated in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 16a): One who is placed under niddui by his city is under niddui for another city, even one larger than it. One who is placed under niddui by another city is not under niddui for his city, and likewise he is not under niddui for cities larger than it. However, he is under niddui for other cities that are similar to the city that placed him under niddui. And the explanation is: that they did not place him under niddui because of a matter of transgression, for in that case "his city" and "another city" would not be relevant. Rather, the city placed him under niddui for their honor, such as if he spoke disparagingly about the city or the like. And it is further stated there: One who is placed under niddui by the Nasi is under niddui for all of Israel. One who is placed under niddui for all of Israel is not under niddui for the Nasi. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 20 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 334:20): The people of a city who made a prohibition against anyone who comes to dwell in their city—it does not take effect upon the one coming to dwell there unless he has a Rav in the city, for then he must fulfill the prohibition of his Rav. However, they can enact among themselves and fence themselves in so that they do not conduct business with him. Thus far his words. And this law was established based on what has been explained in Choshen Mishpat at the end of siman 232, see there.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 22 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 334:22): It is the custom not to apply niddui to one who violates a communal decree issued under cherem and niddui until they issue a proclamation against him. And one who violates a decree of our teacher, Gershom Meor HaGolah, if he violated it unintentionally—he does not require hatarah. But if they warned him and he violated it intentionally—any group of ten are the emissaries of our teacher, Gershom Meor HaGolah, to release him when he repents of his own accord. For we say: It is the intent of our teacher, Gershom Meor HaGolah, that such was his intent from the beginning, to apply nezifah and niddui to him according to their discretion. However, in a matter where he explicitly decreed that he should be under niddui forever—then it is so if he violated it intentionally. Thus far his words. And this is certainly so, that their intention refers to the rest of the enactments of our teacher, Gershom Meor HaGolah, which are not clearly known to us. For as for the enactment regarding two wives and regarding a get against her will, it has been explained in Even HaEzer that we practice with every possible stringency in the world.

And I will transcribe here from the book "Be'er HaGolah" at the end of this siman: Aside from the enactment regarding women: that the shaliach tzibbur shall not pray while a person holds a cherem, until the leaders of the city say that he may pray. And not to distance oneself from one's wife for more than eighteen months. And not to rent the house of an Arab in which his fellow dwells. And not to cut the margin of a book. And not to shame penitents. And not to read the letter of his fellow without his permission, unless he threw it away. And I am in doubt in this time, when many send open letters via the post office, if it is permitted to read them, since he does not hide it. And not to buy anything from a thief. And one is not permitted to delay the prayer on Shabbat and Yom Tov, if he did not delay it on a weekday three times. And not to refuse to enter into an enactment to set aside ma'aser. And regarding one who strikes his fellow, if he accepts upon himself that he will fulfill all that the beit din commands him – they can release him. And that they shall not speak in the beit knesset. And there are further enactments at the end of the Responsa of the Maharam of Rothenburg. And several of them have spread among us, and several have not spread. And there is no reason to elaborate on this, for in every place it is known what was accepted and what was not accepted.

How is the release of a niddui performed? They say to him: "It is released for you, it is forgiven for you." And if they release it not in his presence, they say: "So-and-so, it is released for him, it is forgiven for him." And specifically through speech, for any cherem or niddui that was not explicitly released, even if he was under niddui for a long time and repented, nevertheless he is not released until they release him explicitly. And it is proper that the shamash should announce "So-and-so is released" (Taz subsection 9). And they release the niddui with three laymen or with a single expert. And even though regarding nedarim there is no single expert in this time, as I wrote in siman 228, nevertheless regarding the release of niddui there is an expert even in this time (Bach and Shach subsection 42). And a student may release the niddui even in the place of his teacher, for this is not a legal ruling. And three who placed someone under niddui and departed, and the one under niddui repented regarding the matter for which they placed him under niddui—three others may release it for him. And there is one who says that it is necessary for them to be as great as them in wisdom, age, fear of Heaven, and stature. But the Ra'avad wrote in the seventh chapter of the Laws of Talmud Torah (the Rambam, Laws of Talmud Torah 7) that this is when they release it for him within the time. But when the time is completed—any three or a single expert can release it. And specifically when individuals placed him under niddui; but when many placed him under niddui—many like them are required to release it (ibid. subsection 43).

If three people placed him under nidui – two of them cannot release him, unless the third gives them permission. However, these three – each one may release him, even not in the presence of the others, even though they were together at the time they placed him under nidui. And if there were many at the time of the nidui – they must all release him. And all those who were consulted at the time of the nidui are considered among the excommunicators, and they too must release him, or others as significant as they (ibid. subsection 44). And if they placed him under nidui and he does not know who placed him under nidui – others cannot release him except for the Nasi (Moed Katan 17). And it appears to me that nowadays the leader of the generation can release him, for we have no Nasi, and is it possible that he should have no release? And if they placed him under nidui indefinitely – he remains forever in his nidui until they release him. And if he treated his nidui and his cherem with contempt – he must observe the prohibition for as many days as he conducted himself with permission, as with nedarim above in siman 208, see there.

If they placed him under nidui in his presence—they may only release him in his presence. And the reason: because of suspicion, for if they release him not in his presence and he does not know of this, and he sees that they do not conduct themselves toward him as one under nidui—he will treat matters of nidui with contempt (Taz and Shach in the name of the Ran, see there). Therefore, if they placed him under nidui not in his presence—they may release him not in his presence, for he will say: just as they placed him under nidui not in his presence—so too they released him not in his presence. And therefore, since the reason is only because of suspicion, even if they placed him under nidui in his presence and released him not in his presence, some say it is permitted ex post facto. And some disagree (see Shach, subsection 46). And in my humble opinion, I do not understand how suspicion is relevant to nidui: for they do not release him until he repents from the matter for which he was placed under nidui. And since he has repented, he certainly knows that they must release him, and if so, why would he suspect that they are treating matters of nidui with contempt? And it requires further study. However, according to this reason, it is not specifically in his presence, for when they inform him it is sufficient, as there is no longer suspicion. And some say the reason is that they said this because of the honor of the one under nidui, for since they placed him under nidui in his presence—one must accord him honor and release him in his presence (Rosh, Nedarim 7). And according to this, informing him does not avail. And according to this reason, what we questioned is not difficult, as is understood (see the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

If they placed him under niddui on a condition – he requires hatarah, for the niddui takes effect even if he fulfills the condition. And even if he placed himself under niddui on a condition, like Yehuda who placed himself under niddui and said to Yaakov, "If I do not bring him" – referring to Binyamin – "to you, then I shall have sinned against you all the days." And they said that his bones were rolling in the coffin because of this (Makkot 11b). And this is specifically in a matter where the one under niddui is himself in doubt if he can fulfill the condition, like that case of Binyamin, lest Yosef take him. But if it is clear to him that he can fulfill it – he does not require hatarah (Tosafot ibid.). And one who places himself under niddui in this world and in the world to come, some say that he has no hatarah. Therefore, one who guards his soul shall distance himself from this. And some say that he has hatarah, and we have already written this above in siman 228. And the reasoning of those who say he has no hatarah is also learned from Yehuda, as our sages, of blessed memory, said that his bones were rolling until our teacher Moshe prayed for him. And why did Yaakov not release him during his lifetime? Rather, it is because he said, "and I shall have sinned against my father all the days," meaning: in two worlds.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 31: Even if he set a time, saying, "Let me be in niddui if I do not do such-and-such by such-and-such a time"—they may permit it for him immediately, even though the time has not arrived. Thus far his words. And even though regarding a neder one does not permit it until the neder takes effect, as I wrote in siman 228, nevertheless niddui is more lenient, for even regarding an opening and regret, niddui is more lenient than a neder, as I wrote in siman 229. And it is very wonderous, for above in siman 228, section 17, he ruled that they do not permit it for him until the niddui takes effect; see there (Taz and Shach, subsection 47). Therefore, in practice, one should be stringent. And it is possible that one should distinguish between when others permit it for him, which is like a neder, where then the niddui must take effect. But in a case where he permits it for himself—as will be explained, that a talmid chacham permits it for himself—he may permit it even before the niddui takes effect. For it is much more lenient, and it is not similar to a neder.

A talmid chacham who placed himself under a nidui—may release it for himself, even if he placed the nidui based on the opinion of a certain person, and even for a matter for which he was obligated in nidui. And there is one who says that if he was obligated in nidui—he cannot release it for himself. And there is one who says that if it was by way of an oath, where he said "I swear to be under nidui if I do such-and-such a thing"—he cannot release it for himself. And one who is not a talmid chacham who placed himself under a nidui—certainly cannot release it for himself. And there is one who says that he requires ten men to release it for him. And there is no need for them to be scholars; rather, any group of ten is sufficient. And the same law applies to a talmid chacham when he cannot release it for himself, according to the opinions that have been explained—he requires ten men (Bach and Shach subsection 50).

Our sages, of blessed memory, said (Nedarim 8a): If they placed him under nidui in a dream—he requires hatarah; we are concerned that perhaps from Heaven they placed him under nidui. That is to say: even though we hold that the matters of dreams neither raise nor lower, like that which is in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 30a), nevertheless, regarding the matter of nidui one must be concerned, perhaps it is from Heaven. And not only that, but even if they permitted it to him in a dream—it is nothing, for since there is no dream without idle matters, we are concerned that perhaps the hatarah is from the idle matters and the nidui is true. And even if he dreamed that so-and-so and so-and-so placed him under nidui—they cannot permit it to him, for perhaps this is from the idle matters.

And what is his remedy? Our sages, of blessed memory, said there that he should take ten men who study halachot and they shall release him, for wherever there are ten, the Shekhinah dwells. Therefore, even if they placed him under a ban from Heaven, they can release him. And it only requires distinguished men, talmidei chachamim whose words are more readily heard. And if he did not find talmidei chachamim in his place—he must exert himself to seek them up to a parasa. And if he did not find them—even ten who study Mishnayot may release him. If he did not find them—even ten who only know how to read from the Torah may release him. And there is a doubt whether even for those who study Mishnah one must exert himself up to a parasa. And it appears that it is so, that he must exert himself, and if he did not find even these—even ten who do not know how to read may release him. And if he did not find ten in his place—even three may release him. And even with three, he should seek out the best among them. However, some say that even ex post facto he has no release except through ten who study halachot or Mishnayot; however, it is sufficient if they release him one after another. And this is the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur. And certainly one should be stringent accordingly, and he should exert himself to travel from place to place until ten talmidei chachamim release him one by one.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 36 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 334, 36): There are those who say: One who was placed under nidui in a dream, and sent a messenger to permit it not in his presence, if the messenger found the ten assembled—they permit it for him. And if not—no. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: Since we are concerned that perhaps it is from Heaven, if so, it should not be effective through a messenger, for in the dream they placed him under nidui in his presence, and it requires permitting specifically in his presence. However, this is the sign: if the messenger found them when they were assembled—this is a sign that from Heaven they desire so, that they permit it for him through a messenger, since he did not trouble them in this at all. But if he needs to assemble them—he is compelled to come himself, and that they permit it for him in his presence (Tosafot Nedarim 8b). And how do they permit for one who was placed under nidui in a dream? Those permitting say: "Because so-and-so was banned in his dream—it shall be permitted to him. Neither suffering nor curse shall come upon him." And they say: "Let Reuven live and not die, etc.", "You will make known to me the path of life, etc.", "O Lord, I have heard the report of You and I am afraid", and three times "Vaya'avor" (Beit Yosef and Shach and Taz). And know that there is one who is uncertain regarding one who was placed under nidui in a dream if he needs to conduct himself according to the laws of a menudeh. And there is one who says that he needs to conduct himself so (Shach subsection 54). And to me this requires further study, for according to the law, the matters of dreams neither bring up nor bring down, rather it is only regarding nidui that they were concerned. And this is only to require permitting, and not for the stringencies that are according to the law. And in this, it is equal to other dreams.

The Rambam wrote at the end of the laws of oaths (the Rambam, Laws of Oaths): One who hears the mention of the Name from the mouth of his fellow in vain, or if one swore falsely before him, or if one recited a blessing that is not needed, for he transgresses because of "taking the name of Hashem in vain" – behold, this person is obligated to place him under nidui. And if he did not place him under nidui – he himself shall be under nidui. (Nedarim 7b. And the Ran wrote: He is worthy of being placed under nidui, and not that he is under nidui automatically.) And it is necessary to release him immediately, so that it will not be a stumbling block for others, for they do not know that they placed him under nidui. And if you say they should inform them – it would result in the whole world being under nidui, for they have taught their tongues perversion and constant swearing. In what case are these matters stated? When this one who swore or recited a blessing in vain was intentional. But if he was unintentional, and did not know that this is forbidden – one is not obligated to place him under nidui. And I say that it is forbidden to place him under nidui: the verse did not punish one who is unintentional, but rather warns him and admonishes him so that he does not repeat it. Thus far the wording of the Rambam. (See the Bach and Taz who made a distinction between the Rambam and the Semag, and they were pressed regarding the wording of the Tur, see there. And there is no dispute here, and the Semag adopted the wording of the Rambam, and calls him by his name. And the author of the Chiddushei Hagahot on the Tur already noted this, see there. And examine closely and you will find it simple.)

He further wrote there: One must be very careful with children, and to teach their tongues words of truth without an oath, so that they do not become accustomed to swearing constantly. And this is like an obligation upon their fathers and upon teachers of children, etc. And it is not only a vain oath that is forbidden, but even to mention one of the unique Names in vain is forbidden. Even though he did not swear, for the verse commands and says: "To fear this honored and awesome Name" – and included in fear is that they shall not mention it in vain. Therefore, if the tongue slipped and one uttered a Name in vain, he should immediately hasten and praise and glorify and beautify, so that it was not mentioned in vain. How so? If he said "Hashem" – he should say "Blessed is He forever and ever" or "He is great and very much praised" and the like, so that it should not be in vain. Thus far his words. And it was further explained in Orach Chaim siman 215, see there.

One who places another under niddui unlawfully, and the latter said to him "on the contrary" – the niddui of the second is a niddui. This is specifically when this second person is a greater man than the one who placed the niddui, or at the very least equal to him, even if he was not ordained or it is not known who he is, for we are concerned that perhaps he is greater than the one who placed the niddui. But if the one who placed the niddui unlawfully is a talmid chakham, and the other is not a talmid chakham (no), and even though the talmid chakham acted improperly and his niddui is nothing, nevertheless the "on the contrary" of the second is also nothing. The same law applies to a student against his teacher – he cannot say "on the contrary" unless he received permission from a beit din. And then, even if the beit din are not as great as the teacher, nevertheless since the beit din saw fit to permit the student to say "on the contrary" – presumably they acted according to the law, and they needed to act so (it seems to me). And one who said to his fellow: "Do not do this thing under niddui," and the latter says to him "on the contrary," even if the first acted unlawfully, nevertheless the niddui of the second is also nothing even if he is greater than the first, for he did not place him under niddui plainly, but rather that he should not do the thing under niddui. And this is not a niddui such that he would be able to say "on the contrary." And automatically, if the first acted unlawfully – there is nothing in the words of both of them (and see Shach subsection 59, and subsection 60, and subsection 61).

The Rosh, of blessed memory, instructed that if a wicked person insulted a talmid chacham until they placed him under niddui because of this, and he acted according to the law, and the wicked person responded to him "on the contrary" – they shall proclaim regarding him that he is under niddui. He shall remain in his niddui for thirty days, and afterward he shall seek forgiveness in public. And an older brother who insulted his brother who is younger than him in years but is a talmid chacham, and the younger one placed the older one under niddui – his niddui is a valid niddui. This has already been explained in siman 240; see there for the reason.

A sage who is old in wisdom, even if he is not old in years, or a head of a beit din who has sinned—we never place him under nidui in public because of the honor of the Torah. Rather, we say to him: "Be honored and sit in your house." Unless he acted like Jeroboam son of Nebat and his associates, meaning that he sins and causes the masses to sin, for then we pursue him. But when he committed some sin for himself—we lash him in his house. And so too, any talmid chakham who is liable for nidui—the beit din should not jump and place him under nidui quickly, but rather they should avoid him in every way possible. Unless they see that many will be corrupted by this, for then we do not show him favoritism. And the pious among the sages used to praise themselves that they were never counted among those who voted to place a talmid chakham under nidui (Moed Katan 17a), even though they would be counted to lash him if he was liable for malkut or makkat mardut. However, if the rumors about him increase, such as if he occupies himself with the books of heretics and drinks with types of music, or if his colleagues are ashamed of him, and the Name of Heaven is desecrated through him—we place him under shamta, for we are unable to waive anything regarding the honor of Heaven.

It is stated in Berakhot (Berakhot 19a): In twenty-four places a beit din excommunicates: for the honor of the teacher, see there. The Rambam in the sixth chapter of Talmud Torah enumerated them, and likewise in the Shulchan Aruch and in the Tur in this siman. And these are they: (1) One who treats a sage with contempt, even after his death. (2) One who treats a messenger of the beit din with contempt. (3) One who calls his fellow an "eved." (4) One who treats lightly a single matter from the words of the scribes, and it goes without saying, from the words of the Torah. (See Shach, subsection 70. And see what I wrote above, section 4. Examine it and you will find it simple.) (5) One to whom the beit din sent, and they set a time for him and he did not come. And it is explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 18, see there. (6) One who did not accept the judgment upon himself—they excommunicate him until he gives. That is to say: that he obeys the judgment. And see in Choshen Mishpat siman 100. (7) One who has in his possession a damaging object—they excommunicate him until he removes the damage. (8) One who sells his land to an extortionist—they excommunicate him until he accepts upon himself any damage that will come to his fellow through this. And it is explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 175. (9) One who testifies against his fellow before extortionists, and they extracted money from him unlawfully—they excommunicate him until he pays. And see in Choshen Mishpat siman 28. (10) A Kohen butcher who does not separate the gifts to give them to another Kohen. And it was explained above, siman 61.

(11) One who profanes the second Yom Tov of the Diaspora. (12) One who performs work on Erev Pesach after midday. (13) One who mentions the Name of Heaven in vain, or for an oath regarding matters of vanity. (14) One who brings the public to eat sacrificial meat outside [the Temple] (like that case of Thudos of Rome in Pesachim 53a). (15) One who brings the public to a profanation of the Name. (And this is when a great man promises that "certainly Hashem will do such and such." And if afterward it is not according to his words, it is a profanation of the Name. Therefore, it is forbidden to say that "certainly it will be such and such.") (16) One who calculates years and fixes months in the Diaspora. (Nowadays, since we have calendars until the end of the world, this is not applicable.) (17) One who places a stumbling block before the blind. (And not specifically one who is literally blind, but rather anyone who is ignorant in a matter, and this person comes and gives him bad advice.) (18) One who prevents the public from performing a mitzvah. (For example, when they want to build a synagogue and he prevents it. And this is when it is a necessity to build it because there is no place to pray, or for example when the old one does not contain everyone. But if one faction forms a conspiracy to build a synagogue for themselves without a proper reason—this is not a mitzvah. And many ruins result from the increase [of synagogues] etc., and similarly in other matters.)

(19) A butcher from whose hand a treif emerged. (20) A butcher who did not show his knife to a sage. See siman 18. (21) One who hardens himself intentionally. (22) One who divorces his wife, and they formed a partnership or business dealings between them. (23) A sage whose reputation is bad, as has been explained previously. (24) One who places under nidui someone who is not liable for nidui, as has been explained. And regarding the matter of nidui, one does not require testimony and clear evidence, but rather an assessment of the mind regarding the truth of the matters when the claimant argues "certainty." And then even a woman, even a minor, is believed if the mind suggests that the matter is true. And there are other matters for which one places under nidui as will be explained, but they are included in the previous ones. And know that the Rambam counted these twenty-four, and it appears that his source is from Berakhot there as I have written. But it is a wonder to me, for in the Gemara there they said: In twenty-four places one places under nidui for the honor of the teacher, see there, and behold there are many here that do not pertain to the honor of the teacher. And in truth, the Rambam omitted this wording. And also in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of the third chapter of Moed Katan, the wording is not like our Shas. And it requires further study.

A sage who ruled to permit [a woman to remarry] in a case of water that has no end is liable for nidui. And so too one who violates his vow. And any beit din that attends to him for a question is a person under the ban. And so too those who perform labor in a city where there is a deceased person who has not yet been buried, unless there are chavurot in the city as is the custom now, who are the ones occupied with it, for then the rest of the people are permitted to perform labor. And so too one who derives a kal vachomer or a gezerah shavah to uproot a matter from the Torah, like that in the first chapter of Tractate Derech Eretz, see there. Or one who asks an impossible matter, like that in Menachot (Menachot 37a). And so too one who has a grievance against his fellow and informs on him to an oppressor. And so too a talmid chacham who maintains a dispute against the many. And so too one who issues a halachic ruling in the place of his teacher, and it was explained in siman 242, see there.

A tzurba miderabanan may place under niddui one who behaved with hefker against him. And if his law is decided in the Gemara, such as if he called him a "slave" – he is under niddui to all of Israel. And if his law is not decided, such as other forms of disparagement – he is only under niddui to those smaller than him. And even if he did not disparage him explicitly with open speech but rather pricked him with his words, where according to the assessment he intended to disparage him – he may place him under niddui. However, not everyone who wishes to take the name "tzurba miderabanan" may take it, until many agree upon him that he is a talmid chakham. And so too Reuven who owes Shimon money and refuses to pay him, if he pushes him off and says "I do not have money now" and the like – he does not have the power to place him under niddui. But if he says that he will not pay him at all and he placed him under niddui – it is a niddui. And there are those who say that a person does not perform justice for himself to place his fellow under niddui over a matter of money, but rather he should go to beit din. And all the more so if the defendant says he will be obedient to the law, but that "in my opinion, you are not owed money from me." And in this law, there is no difference between a talmid chakham and an am ha'aretz.

One who treats a sage with contempt even with words, and even after his death, if there are witnesses to the matter or if the matter is clear—the beit din excommunicates him in public. And they release it for him when he returns in repentance, and asks for forgiveness in public or at his grave. But if the sage is alive—they do not release it for him until the sage for whose sake they excommunicated him is appeased. However, if he did what was incumbent upon him according to what the beit din commanded him, and the sage does not wish to forgive—they release the excommunication for him without his consent. And so too, the sage himself excommunicates for his own honor an am ha'aretz who acted lawlessly against him, and he requires neither witnesses nor a warning. And they do not release it for him until the sage is appeased, or until he does what is incumbent upon him as I have written. And if the sage died, three people come and release it for him when he has done what was incumbent upon him. And above in siman 243 it was explained if there is a status of "talmid chacham" in this time. And one who calls a sage an "informer"—there is no greater contempt than this, and they excommunicate for this.

If they placed someone under nidui for a matter of a transgression he committed, and he acted with violence such that the oppressor decreed a punishment upon anyone who upholds his nidui – they are obligated to see to it to uphold the matter to strengthen the religion if it is not against the law of the land, such as in the land of Ishmael. But if they placed him under nidui for matters between a man and his fellow – we are not obligated to enter into a situation of possible danger. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even though they are obligated to protest against transgressors and one is seized for their iniquity if he is able to protest, nevertheless, one does not need to expend his money for this. Therefore, they have accustomed to be lenient regarding protesting against transgressors where there is a fear that they will rise against our bodies and our possessions. Thus far his words. And know that nidui is not literally from the Torah, and yet it is not as light as a rabbinic decree. Rather, it is from the words of tradition, and it is considered like the words of the Torah.