Sanhedrin 111b — the Talmud in English

He said before Him

Moses:

“Master of the universe! And

for

you did not say this to me: even for the wicked?”

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

If so, it is reasonable that when Moses saw this attribute, that the Most High is patient even toward the wicked, he rejoiced and hastened to bow down.

Rabbi Haga was ascending and going up the stairs of the house of [

he was ascending the stairs of the house of ]

Rabba bar Shila.

He heard a certain child say [

Rabbi Haga heard that child saying ] the verse in Psalms [chapter 93]:

“Your testimonies are very 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 very trustworthy, etc.”

Said

Rabbi Haga:

We learn 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 very trustworthy” .

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: In the future, the Most High will be a crown upon the head of every righteous person

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

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

For those who do His will and await His salvation .

One might have thought

that the Most High would be a crown

for all

who do His will, even though they act arrogantly?

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

Specifically

for one who makes himself like

a

remnant,

who are insignificant; for since he is insignificant in his own eyes and does not act arrogantly, the Lord will be a crown for him.

It is written later in the verse:

“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 rules over his inclination.

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

“And to him who sits in judgment”—

this is one who judges a true judgment truthfully.

“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 does not commit the transgression; rather, he goes and performs a mitzva. And one who overcomes his inclination is superior to one who rules over his inclination.

“Those who turn back the battle”—

this is one who debates

in the battle of Torah.

“At the gate”—

these are those who rise early and stay late in synagogues and batei-midrash. “

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

The Attribute of Judgment said before the Most High: Master of the universe! Why are these different,

those righteous people who possess these good traits enumerated above,

from these,

from others who do not possess these traits and will not merit that same good?

He said to it

the Most High:

“And these also err through wine, and through strong drink they go astray, etc.; they stumble in judgment” [

this verse is a continuation of the preceding verses ]. And these are those others who erred through wine. “

They stumble.”

And there is no stumbling—

except Gehenna. As it is stated: “This shall not be a stumbling block for you.” “

In judgment.”

And there is no judgment—

except judges. As it is stated: “And he shall give it over to the judges.”

That is, because they erred through wine, they will be judged in Gehenna.

Mishna:

The people of a city led astray —

have no share in the World to Come

. As it is stated: “There went out men, worthless men, from your midst, and they led the inhabitants of their city astray, saying.”

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

And they are not executed [

the people of a city led astray 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 that tribe,

as it is stated, “from your midst,” implying from within that tribe itself.

And until the majority of it is led astray

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

And until men lead it astray,

and not women or minors.

But if

women and minors led it astray,

or only

a

minority of it

of the city was led astray,

or its instigators were outside it,

who were not members of the city—

these

who were led astray are judged

as individuals

who served idolatry, whose law differs from that of the people of a city led astray, as follows.

And

in order that the law of a city led astray be applicable,

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

of the people of the city.

This is the stringency applying to individuals

who served idolatry—

over the many,

that is, a city led astray:

For the individuals

their law is

stoning,

which is a severe death.

Therefore,

since their death was treated stringently, their

property

was treated leniently, for it is not burned; rather,

something remains [

is left for preservation ].

But the many

their law is

the sword,

which is a lighter death. Since their death was treated leniently—

therefore their property is lost.

“Strike the inhabitants of this city by the sword.”

The expression “inhabitants of the city” implies that whoever is considered an inhabitant of the city has the status of all the people of the city with regard to a city led astray.

And 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, and through the addition of the members of the caravan, who had not been led astray, a situation arose in which the majority of the city’s inhabitants no longer served idolatry—

these [

the members of the caravan ]

save it,

for this is not considered that its majority was led astray. And the inhabitants of the city are judged as individuals.

And the reverse is likewise true. If without the people of the caravan its majority was not led astray, but through the people of the caravan, who were also led astray, a majority was created, then all the inhabitants of the city are judged as the many. (

It is stated) it is written concerning a city led astray:

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

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

is lost

with the property of the wicked. But their property

that is outside it—

remains [

is left for preservation ].

And

the property

of the wicked, whether

that

which is within it,

and

whether

that

which is outside it—

these are lost.

And the Gemara will explain how this law is learned from the verse.

(It is stated)

it is also written concerning it:

“And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its square

and burn it with fire

etc.”

A 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 the purpose. For even a square newly made now is called “its square.” For the wording “its square” does not necessarily mean a square that it already had, but also a square newly made in it now.

And if

its square was outside it [

where the gathering place of the inhabitants of the city was outside it ]—

they gather it into it [

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.”

And from the fact that it says, “And you shall burn with fire, etc., and all its

spoil,”

it is implied that specifically the property of the people of the city is burned—

and not

the

spoil of Heaven.

From here they said: The consecrated property that is in it

is not burned, but has the status of other consecrated property, and

is redeemed

with money according to its value.

And terumot

that are in it—

must rot [

the Gemara will explain the reason for this ].

Second tithe,

although it is eaten by an Israelite, since the Torah calls it “holy,” it is not burned, but is concealed.

And

likewise

sacred writings—

must be concealed. “

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

entirely for the Lord your God.” Rabbi Shimon said: The Most High said: If you execute judgment upon a city led astray, I account it for you as though you were offering a burnt-offering entirely before Me .

“And it shall be an eternal mound

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

one may not make

there even

gardens and orchards. The words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean.

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

for

the settlement of the houses of the city,

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

“And nothing from the proscription shall cling to your hand.” As long as the wicked are in the world—

there is anger in the world.

The wicked have been destroyed from the world—

anger has been removed from the world.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

it is written concerning a city led astray: “There went out men, worthless men, from your midst, and they led the inhabitants of their city astray, saying: Let us go and serve other gods that you did not know.”

“There went out”

implies that specifically if

they,

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

And 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 remains.

“Men”—there are not fewer than two men [

for the minimum of a plural is two ]. Therefore, specifically when there were at least two instigators does the city become a city led astray. But if it was led astray by one person, it does not become a city led astray.

Another matter: “Men”—

and not women,

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

“men”—

and not minors.

“Worthless men”—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 if the city is located in the middle.

And not on the frontier.

For if the city is located on the frontier, on the border between the Land of Israel and the gentiles, it does not become a city led astray. “

And they led the

inhabitants of their city”—

and not the inhabitants of another city.

“Saying”—

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

of the inhabitants of the city.

It was stated: Rabbi Yohanan said:

when the land was apportioned , 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 tribe, each tribe would take the portion of the city within its territory.

And Resh Lakish said: One does not divide one city between two tribes .

And if it happened that a city was within the territory of two tribes, the tribe in whose territory the majority of the city lay would take all of it.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish

from our Mishna, in which we learned that a city does not become a city led astray

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

It is implied that both conditions are required: that the instigators be from the same city as those led astray, and also from the same tribe as those led astray.

Is it not

the intention of the tanna as follows:

Even though its instigators are from that city, if there is one from that tribe [

if the condition “from that tribe” also exists ], meaning that the instigators are from the same tribe as those led astray—

yes,

indeed, the city becomes a city led astray. But

if not,

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

no.

The city does not become a city led astray.

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

Learn from this: One divides one city between two tribes!

Resh Lakish replied to Rabbi Yohanan:

No.

In truth, one does not divide one city between two tribes, and therefore it is indeed impossible that the members of two tribes inherited property in the same city. Rather, our Mishna is speaking of a case

where it fell to him

a portion of the city

through inheritance.

That is, his daughter married one of the inhabitants of the city and inherited an estate, and when she died, her father, the instigator, inherited it, although he was a member of another tribe.

Alternatively, they gave it to him as a gift [

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

He raised an objection to him

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 from the tribe of Simeon.

Is it 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,

learn from this

that

one divides one city between two tribes!

Resh Lakish also rejected this proof:

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 he gave

five

cities

from this one,

from the other tribe.

And we challenge this:

If so,

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

Let it specify [

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