Sanhedrin 223

קשיא

This is a difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though not actually refuting Resh Lakish, the Biblical expression 'nine out of the two' is difficult. ');">¹</span> The scholars propounded: What if they were self-seduced? Since Scripture writes [Certain men&nbsp;…] have seduced the inhabitants etc. It implies, but not if they were self-seduced; or perhaps, [the law holds good] even if they were self-seduced?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Bible merely stating a general truth, that people are usually enticed to idolatry by others, but not making this an integral condition of the law. ');">²</span>

איבעיא להו הודחו מאליהן מהו וידיחו אמר רחמנא ולא שהודחו מאליהן או דילמא אפילו הודחו מאליהן

— Come and hear: IF WOMEN OR MINORS SEDUCED IT [… THEY ARE TREATED AS INDIVIDUALS]: but why so? Should it not be [at least] as though they were self-seduced?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that self-seduction is insufficient. ');">³</span> — [No.] The latter are enticed through their own desires, whilst the former are influenced by women and minors.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When they are drawn to idolatry by their own wish, their desire for it must be very strong; consequently, the place is treated as a seduced city. But if enticed by women or minors, their adherence thereto is weaker, and hence the law does not apply. — This distinction is merely stated as a possibility, not a certainty. ');">⁴</span>

ת"ש הדיחוה נשים וקטנים אמאי ליהוי כהודחו מאליהן הנך בתר נפשייהו גרידי הני בתר נשים וקטנים גרידי:

UNLESS THE MAJORITY THEREOF ARE SEDUCED. How is this encompassed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since each individual's offence must be attested by two witnesses and preceded by a formal warning, how is it possible for a whole town to be treated so simultaneously? ');">⁵</span> R. Judah said: We judge and imprison, judge and imprison.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a few are observed practising idolatry, they are tried and sentenced; but instead of being executed, they are imprisoned. Then others are similarly treated, and the process is repeated until a majority have thus been sentenced. Then they are all tried together, and the place declared a condemned city. ');">⁶</span>

עד שיודח רובה: היכי עבדינן אמר רב יהודה דנין וחובשין דנין וחובשין א"ל עולא נמצא אתה מענה את דינן של אלו אלא אמר עולא דנין וסוקלין דנין וסוקלין

Said 'Ulla to him: Then thou delayest the judgment of these.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is forbidden. ');">⁷</span> But 'Ulla said thus: We judge and stone them, and judge and stone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., every few caught practising idolatry are stoned, as idolaters. But when half of a town have thus been executed, and there are still more, the place is declared a condemned city, and the rest are decapitated. ');">⁸</span>

איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר דנין וסוקלין דנין וסוקלין ור"ל אמר מרבין להן בתי דינין

It has been stated: R. Johanan maintained: We judge and stone them, judge and stone them. Resh Lakish ruled: Many courts of law are set up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That all may be judged simultaneously, and the provisions of a condemned city applied. ');">⁹</span> But that is not so, For did not R. Hama, son of R. Jose, say in R. Oshaia's name: Then thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman… unto thy gates:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 5. ');">¹⁰</span>

איני והאמר ר' חמא בר יוסי א"ר אושעיא (דברים יז, ה) והוצאת את האיש ההוא או את האשה ההיא איש ואשה אתה מוציא לשעריך ואי אתה מוציא כל העיר כולה לשעריך אלא מרבין להן בתי דינין ומעיינין בדיניהן ומסקינן להו לבית דין הגדול וגמרי להו לדינייהו וקטלי להו:

[this teaches,] a man or a woman thou mayest bring forth to thy gates, but not a whole city?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only individuals are tried by the local Beth din, but a community can be tried only by the great Sanhedrin of 71; how then can many courts of law be set up? ');">¹¹</span> — But many lawcourts are set up and the indictments examined [but no verdicts pronounced]; then the accused are taken to the great <i>Beth din</i>, their trials completed, and they are executed.

הכה תכה את יושבי העיר וכו': תנו רבנן החמרת והגמלת העוברת ממקום למקום לנו בתוכה והודחו עמה אם נשתהו שם ל' יום הן בסייף וממונן אבד פחות מיכן הן בסקילה וממונן פלט

THOU SHALT SURELY SMITE THE INHABITANTS OF THAT CITY etc. Our Rabbis taught: If a company of ass-drivers or camel-drivers passing from place to place lodges therein and were seduced together with it: if they had stayed there thirty days, they are decapitated and their possessions destroyed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the inhabitants of the condemned city, wherein they are included after a stay of thirty days. ');">¹²</span> if less, they are stoned, but their possessions unharmed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case of individuals. ');">¹³</span>

ורמינהי כמה יהיה בעיר ויהיה כאנשי העיר י"ב חדש אמר רבא לא קשיא הא למיהוי מבני מתא הא למיהוי מיתבי מתא

An objection was raised: 'How long must [a stranger] stay in a town, that he may be as its citizen?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To share in their general liabilities in respect of town maintenance; v. B.B. 7b. ');">¹⁴</span> Twelve months'? — Raba answered: There is no difficulty. The latter [period is necessary] for one to be a full citizen; the former, to be regarded a town resident.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since in the case of a seduced city the condemnation extends to 'the inhabitants', a period of thirty days suffices. ');">¹⁵</span>

והתניא המודר הנאה מבני העיר אם יש אדם שנשתהא שם י"ב חדש אסור ליהנות ממנו פחות מיכן מותר ליהנות ממנו ביושבי העיר אם נשתהא ל' יום אסור ליהנות ממנו פחות מיכן מותר ליהנות ממנו:

And it has been taught likewise: He who forswears benefit from the citizens of a town is forbidden to benefit from any one who has tarried twelve months therein, but if less he is permitted. [If he forswears benefit from] the residents of a town, he may not benefit from any one who has tarried there thirty days, but if less, he is permitted. DESTROYING IT UTTERLY, AND ALL THAT IS THEREIN etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁶</span>

החרם אותה ואת כל אשר בה כו': ת"ר (דברים יג, טז) החרם אותה ואת כל אשר בה פרט לנכסי צדיקים שבחוצה לה ואת כל אשר בה לרבות נכסי צדיקים שבתוכה שללה ולא שלל שמים ואת כל שללה לרבות נכסי רשעים שחוצה לה

Our Rabbis taught: Destroying it utterly, and all that is therein:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Wilna Gaon deletes 'and all that is therein'. ');">¹⁷</span> this excludes the property of righteous men without the city. 'And all that is therein:' this includes the property of righteous men within it. 'The spoil of it' [teaches], but not the spoil of Heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah on 111b. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמר ר"ש מפני מה אמרה תורה נכסי צדיקים שבתוכה יאבדו מי גרם להם שידורו בתוכה ממונם לפיכך ממונם אבד אמר מר (דברים יג, יז) ואת כל שללה תקבץ לרבות נכסי רשעים שבחוצה לה אמר רב חסדא ובנקבצים לתוכה

'And all the spoil of it', teaches that the property of the wicked without the city is included. R. Simeon said: Why did the Torah ordain that the property of the righteous within the city shall be destroyed? What caused them to dwell therein? Their wealth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only for the sake of wealth would the righteous live in such a wicked town. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר רב חסדא פקדונות של אנשי עיר הנדחת מותרין ה"ד אי לימא דעיר אחרת ואיתנהו בגוה פשיטא דמותרין לאו שללה הוא ואלא דידהו ואיתנהו בעיר אחרת אי דנקבצין לתוכה אמאי מותרין ואי אין נקבצין לתוכה הא אמרה חדא זימנא

Therefore their wealth is destroyed. The Master said: And all the spoil of it thou shalt gather includes the property of the wicked without it. R. Hisda observed: But only if it can be gathered thereinto.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only if it is so near that it can be brought into the doomed city on the same day that everything else is carried into the public square, but not if it is more than a day's journey distant (Rashi). ');">²⁰</span>

לא לעולם דעיר אחרת דמפקדי בתוכה והכא במאי עסקינן כגון דקביל עליה אחריות מהו דתימא כיון דקביל עליה אחריות כדידיה דמי קא משמע לן

R. Hisda said: Entrusted objects of the inhabitants of a doomed city are permitted. How so? Shall we say, Those belonging to another city and now within it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the doomed city, the articles having been entrusted to its inhabitants. ');">²¹</span> Is it then not obvious that they are permitted, not being 'the spoil thereof'? If, again, the reference is to their own objects placed in another city: in this case, if they can be gathered thereinto,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 3. ');">²²</span>

אמר רב חסדא בהמה חציה של עיר הנדחת וחציה של עיר אחרת אסורה עיסה חציה של עיר הנדחת וחציה של עיר אחרת מותרת מאי טעמא בהמה כמאן דלא פליגא דמיא עיסה כמאן דפליגא דמיא

why are they permitted? Whilst if they cannot be gathered, then surely he has already stated this once! — No. After all, it refers to objects of another city placed in this one. But the circumstances are that [the person to whom they were entrusted] accepted responsibility for them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For damage etc. ');">²³</span> I might think, since he accepted responsibility, they are as his;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 773, n. 5. ');">²⁴</span>

בעי רב חסדא בהמת עיר הנדחת מהו דתיתהני בה שחיטה לטהרה מידי נבילה לפי חרב אמר רחמנא לא שנא שחטה משחט לא שנא קטלא מקטל או דלמא כיון דשחטה מהניא לה שחיטה מאי תיקו

therefore, he teaches [otherwise]. R. Hisda said: An animal, the property partly of a condemned city and partly of another, is forbidden [entirely]; dough, belonging partly to a condemned city and partly to another, is permitted. Why so? Because an animal is as undivided,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For to obtain even the smallest part of it, the whole must be slaughtered. ');">²⁵</span>

בעי רב יוסף שיער נשים צדקניות מהו אמר רבא הא דרשעיות אסור (דברים יג, יז) תקבץ ושרפת כתיב מי שאינו מחוסר אלא קביצה ושריפה יצא זה שמחוסר תלישה וקביצה ושריפה

whilst dough is as though [already] divided. R. Hisda propounded: An animal of a condemned city — does shechita<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ritual slaughtering according to the Jewish law. ');">²⁶</span>

אלא אמר רבא בפיאה נכרית היכי דמי אי דמחובר בגופה כגופה דמיא לא צריכא דתלי בסיבטא כנכסי צדיקים שבתוכה דמי ואבד או דלמא כיון דעיילא ונפקא כלבושה דמי תיקו:

avail to purify it from [the uncleanliness of] <i>nebelah</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos: the problem is, if slaughtered ritually, is it 'purified.' i.e., permitted? ');">²⁷</span> the Divine Law said, [Thou shalt surely smite&nbsp;… the cattle thereof] with the edge of the sword: hence it is all alike, whether slaughtered [ritually] or killed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., however it comes to its death the animal is forbidden, being regarded as though slain by the edge of the sword! ');">²⁸</span>

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. ');">²⁹</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? ');">³⁰</span> Raba asked: This implies that the hair of the wicked women is forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If cut off before execution. ');">³¹</span> [Surely] Scripture writes, Thou shalt gather&nbsp;… 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. ');">³²</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. ');">³³</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.