Reference for Sanhedrin 223:18
ואת כל שללה תקבוץ אל תוך רחובה וכו': ת"ר אין לה רחוב אינה נעשית עיר הנדחת דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר אין לה רחוב עושין לה רחוב במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר רחובה מעיקרא משמע ומר סבר רחובה השתא נמי משמע:
or perhaps, having been ritually slaughtered, the shechita is efficacious [to permit it]. What is the law? [This problem is] to stand over. R. Joseph<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This passage is cited in 'Ar. 7b with the reading R. Jose son of R. Hanina. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> propounded: What of the hair of the righteous. women [within the condemned city]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it permitted or forbidden for use? ');"><sup>30</sup></span> Raba asked: This implies that the hair of the wicked women is forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If cut off before execution. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> [Surely] Scripture writes, Thou shalt gather … and thou shalt burn, denoting, that which only lacks gathering and burning [is forbidden for general use, yet must be thus destroyed;] excluding this, which needs cutting off, gathering and burning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is not ready for immediate burning, but must first be cut off. Such is not forbidden. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> — But, said Raba, the problem refers to a wig. How so? If it is fastened to herself it is as herself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And regarded as personal wear, which are not destroyed in the case of the righteous. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> — It is necessary [to propound this] only if it is hanging on a nail [i.e., not being worn]: is it as other property of the righteous within the town, and destroyed; or perhaps, since it is donned and doffed, it is as her garments? [The problem is] to stand over. AND THOU SHALT GATHER ALL THE SPOIL OF IT INTO THE MIDST OF THE PUBLIC SQUARE THEREOF etc. Our Rabbis taught: If it has no public square, it cannot become a condemned city: this is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: If it has no public square, a public square is made for it. Wherein do they differ? — The one maintains that 'the public square thereof' implies, that which was originally [before sentence] so; whilst the other holds that 'the public square thereof' implies even if it has [only] now become one.