Sanhedrin 111b (קיא:) — the Talmud in English

He said before Him

Moses:

“Master of the Universe! And

for

did You not say this to me: ‘Even toward the wicked’?”

And this is what is written: “And now, may the strength of the Lord be magnified, as You spoke, saying.”

If so, it follows that when Moses saw this attribute—that the Holy One, blessed be He, is patient even toward the wicked—he rejoiced and hastened to bow down.

Rabbi Ḥaga was ascending and walking up the steps of the house of

[He was ascending the stairs of the house of]

Rabba bar Sheila.

He heard a certain child saying

[Rabbi Ḥaga heard that child reciting] the verse in Psalms [chapter 93]:

“Your testimonies are most trustworthy; holiness befits Your house, O Lord, for length of days,” and adjacent to it is

[and adjacent to this verse] above [in chapter 90]:

“A prayer of Moses, etc.”

Thus Moses said the verse “Your testimonies are most trustworthy, etc.”

Said

Rabbi Ḥaga:

Infer from this

that Moses saw the attribute of

patience

when he bowed down. For “O Lord, for length of days” means the attribute of patience. And concerning it Moses said, “Your testimonies are most trustworthy” .

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will be a crown upon the head of every righteous person

as it is stated: “On that day the Lord of Hosts shall be a crown of glory and a diadem of beauty to the remnant of His people, etc.”

What is the meaning of: “A crown of glory and a diadem of beauty”?

For those who do His will and await His salvation .

One might

that the Holy One, blessed be He, will be a crown

for all

who do His will, even though they are arrogant.

The verse states: “To the remnant of His people.”

Specifically

for one who makes himself like

a

remnant,

who is insignificant, for in this way he considers himself insignificant and does not become arrogant—the Lord will be a crown for him.

The verse continues:

“And for a spirit of judgment to him who sits in judgment, and for strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate.”

And the verse is expounded as follows:

“And for a spirit of judgment,”

meaning that he judges his spirit—

this is one who subdues his inclination.

He kicks at his inclination and repents for the transgression he committed.

“And to him who sits in judgment”—

this is one who judges a true judgment faithfully.

“And for strength”—

this is one who overcomes his inclination.

He provokes the good inclination against the evil inclination. For if his inclination tells him to commit a transgression, it is not enough that he refrain from committing it; rather, he goes and performs a mitzva. One who overcomes his inclination is superior to one who merely subdues it.

“Those who turn back the battle”—

this is one who debates

the battle of Torah.

“At the gate”—

these are those who rise early and remain late in the synagogues and batei-midrash.

“At the gate” means the gates of the synagogues and batei-midrash .

The attribute of judgment said before the Holy One, blessed be He: “Master of the Universe! How are these different

those righteous people who possess these good qualities listed above

from these,

the others, who do not possess these qualities and will not merit that same benefit?”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to it

the attribute of judgment:

“And these too have erred through wine, and through strong drink have gone astray, etc.; they are confused in judgment.”

[This verse continues the preceding verses.] That is, those others went astray because of wine. “

They are confused.”

And confusion

means only Gehinnom, as it is stated: “This shall not be your confusion.” “

In judgment.”

And judgment

means only judges, as it is stated: “And he shall place it before the judges.”

That is, because they went astray through wine, they will be judged in Gehinnom.

Mishna:

The inhabitants of an idolatrous city —

have no share in the World to Come

as it is stated: “Men, worthless people, have gone out from your midst and have led the inhabitants of their city astray, saying.”

And the verse is expounded as follows: “They have gone out, etc., from your midst”—they have gone out from the community of Israel, and they have no share in the World to Come.

And they are not executed

[the inhabitants of an idolatrous city are not executed]—

until their instigators are from that city,

as it is stated: “And they led the inhabitants of their city astray.”

And

they must be

from the same tribe,

as it is stated: “From your midst,” implying from the midst of that very tribe.

And until the majority of the city is led astray,

for the expression “the inhabitants of their city” implies the population of the city, that is, the majority.

And until men lead them astray,

but not women or minors.

But if

women and minors led them astray,

or only

a

minority

of the city was led astray,

or its instigators were outside it,

not being residents of the city—

these

who were led astray are judged

as individuals

who worshipped idolatry, whose law differs from that of the inhabitants of an idolatrous city, as follows.

And

in order for the law of an idolatrous city to apply,

two witnesses and a warning are required for each and every one

of the inhabitants of the city.

This is the stringency applicable to individuals

who worshipped idolatry

as compared with a multitude,

that is, an idolatrous city:

The individuals

are judged

by stoning,

which is a severe form of execution.

Therefore,

since their execution is treated more stringently, their

property

is treated leniently: it is not burned, but

escapes

[is left to survive].

But the multitude

is judged

by the sword,

which is a less severe form of execution. Since their execution is treated leniently—

therefore their property is lost.

“You shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the sword.”

The expression “the inhabitants of the city” implies that whoever is considered an “inhabitant of the city” has the status of all the members of the city with regard to an idolatrous city.

Therefore,

a caravan of donkeys or camels

[a caravan of donkeys or camels]

passing from place to place,

and that caravan remained in a city whose majority had been led astray for thirty days, so that, because of the addition of the caravan members who had not been led astray, the situation arose that the majority of the city’s inhabitants no longer worshipped idolatry—

these

[the caravan members]

save it,

for this is not considered a case in which the majority was led astray. The inhabitants of the city are judged as individuals.

And the reverse is likewise true. If without the caravan members the majority had not been led astray, but because of the caravan members, who had themselves been led astray, a majority was formed, all the inhabitants of the city are judged as a multitude. (

It is stated) It is written concerning an idolatrous city:

“You shall utterly destroy it and all that is in it, and its animals, with the sword.”

From here they said: The property of righteous people that is within it—

is lost

along with the property of the wicked. But their property

that is outside it—

escapes

[is left to survive].

And

if it is the property

of wicked people, whether

that

within it,

or

whether

that

outside it—

all of it is lost.

The Gemara will explain how this law is derived from the verse.

(It is stated)

It is also written concerning this matter:

“You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its square

and burn it with fire,

etc.”

The square is the place where the inhabitants of the city gather, and there they burn the spoil with fire.

If it has no square—

they make for it

now

a square,

for this purpose. Even a square newly established now is called “its square.” The wording “its square” does not necessarily mean a square that had already existed there; it may also mean one newly established there.

And if

its square was outside it

[there was a gathering place for the inhabitants of the city outside it]—

they gather it into the city

[they make a square within the city] .

As it is stated:

“And you shall burn with fire the city and all its spoil, entirely, for the Lord your God.”

From the fact that it says, “You shall burn with fire, etc., and all its

spoil,”

it is implied that specifically the property of the city’s inhabitants is burned—

and not

the

spoil of Heaven.

From here they said: Consecrated property that is in it

is not burned; rather, its law is like that of other consecrated property, and it

is redeemed

for money equal to its value.

Teruma

that is in it

must decompose

[the Gemara will explain the reason for this].

Second tithe,

although it may be eaten by an Israelite, since the Torah calls it “holy,” is not burned; rather, it is buried.

And

likewise

sacred writings—

must be buried. “

And you shall burn with fire the city, etc.,

entirely for the Lord your God.” Rabbi Shimon said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “If you administer judgment to an idolatrous city, I will consider it for you as though you were offering a burnt offering entirely before Me” .

“And it shall be an eternal ruin

and shall not be rebuilt again”—not only may a city not be built there again, but

one may not make

there even

gardens and orchards. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

Rabbi Akiva says: “It shall not be rebuilt again”—

for

the

settlement of houses as it was, it may not be rebuilt. But it may be made into gardens and orchards.

“And nothing of the proscribed matter shall cleave to your hand.” As long as the wicked exist in the world—

there is Divine wrath in the world.

When the wicked are eradicated from the world—

Divine wrath is removed from the world.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning an idolatrous city: “Men, worthless people, have gone out from your midst and have led the inhabitants of their city astray, saying: Let us go and worship other gods that you have not known.”

“They have gone out”

implies that specifically if

they,

the instigators themselves, led the inhabitants of the city astray, is it judged as an idolatrous city.

But not

if the instigators sent

agents

to lead the inhabitants of the city astray. Rather, in such a case their law is that of individuals: they are executed by stoning, and their property escapes.

“Men”—the term men indicates no fewer than two

[for the minimum of a plural is two]. Therefore, an idolatrous city is formed specifically when there were at least two instigators. But if the inhabitants were led astray by one person, an idolatrous city is not formed.

Alternatively: “Men”—

and not women,

for a city does not become an idolatrous city if it was led astray by women. And likewise,

“Men”—

and not minors.

“Worthless people”—sons who cast off the yoke of Heaven from their necks.

And this is the meaning of “worthless”: without a yoke.

“From your midst”

implies specifically that the city is situated in the midst

and not on the frontier.

For if the city is on the frontier, on the border between the Land of Israel and the nations, it does not become an idolatrous city. “

And they led

the inhabitants of their city

astray”—and not the inhabitants of another city.

“Saying”—

which means that witnesses and a warning are required for each and every one

of the inhabitants of the city.

It was stated: Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

At the time of the apportionment of the land , when Israel entered the Land of Israel, they

would divide one city between two tribes.

That is, if it happened that a city was built partly within the territory of one tribe and partly within the territory of another, each tribe received the portion of the city within its territory.

And Reish Lakish said: They do not divide one city between two tribes .

If it happened that a city lay within the territories of two tribes, the tribe within whose territory most of the city lay received the entire city.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish

from our Mishna, where we learned that an idolatrous city is not formed

until its instigators are from that city and from the same tribe.

This implies that both conditions are required: the instigators must be from the same city as those they led astray, and also from the same tribe as those they led astray.

Is that not

the tanna’s intention:

Even though its instigators are from the same city, if there are also some from the same tribe

[if the condition of “from the same tribe” is also present], meaning that the instigators are from the same tribe as those they led astray]—

yes,

indeed, the city becomes an idolatrous city. But

if not,

if the instigators are from the same city as those they led astray but are not from the same tribe, rather from another tribe residing in that city—

no.

The city does not become an idolatrous city.

In any event, it necessarily follows that there is a situation in which members of two tribes reside in the same city.

Infer from this: They divide one city between two tribes!

Reish Lakish replied to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

No.

In truth, they do not divide one city between two tribes, and therefore it is indeed impossible for members of two tribes to inherit property in the same city. Rather, our Mishna is speaking of a case

where a portion fell to him

of the city

through inheritance.

That is, his daughter married one of the residents of the city and inherited an estate; when she died, her father, the instigator, inherited it, although he belonged to another tribe.

Alternatively, they gave it to him as a gift

[they gave the instigator an estate in that city as a gift].

He raised an objection

from what is stated in the Book of Joshua:

“Nine cities from these two tribes.”

That is, Joshua gave the Levites nine cities from the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Simeon.

Is that not

the meaning—that he gave them

four and a half from this one

[four and a half cities from one tribe],

and four and a half from this one

[from the second tribe],

and

if so,

infer from this

that

they divide one city between two tribes!

Reish Lakish rejected this proof as well:

No.

It does not mean that he gave four and a half cities from each tribe. Rather, he gave

four

cities

from this one,

from one tribe, and

five

cities he gave

from this one,

from the other tribe.

And we challenge this:

If so,

why did the verse state, “Nine cities from these two tribes”?

Let it specify

[let the verse specify from which tribe he gave four and from which he gave five]!