Sanhedrin 113a (קיג.) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

but

still

let him redeem it

[let him redeem it],

as we learned: Produce purchased with second tithe money that became impure—

let him redeem it!

And we say: The

b

araitha follows the

opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,

who

says that produce purchased with second-tithe money that became impure—

that an item purchased with second tithe money that became impure—

must be buried.

The Gemara now challenges the substance of the answer itself, namely, that the case concerns second tithe that became impure:

If so,

if the case concerns second tithe that became impure,

why specifically

does the

apostate city

have to be mentioned as the place where this property must be concealed?

Even

second tithe that became impure

elsewhere,

in an ordinary city,

also

must be concealed!

Rather, actually

the case concerns

pure

second tithe,

and, for example, its walls fell, in accordance with the statement of Rava. For Rava said: A partition is required in order to eat—

by Torah law. To absorb—

by rabbinic law. And when did the Sages decree—

when there is a partition. When there is no partition—

they did not decree.

We learned in the

baraitha:

Sacred writings must be concealed. The Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

As it was taught in a baraitha, Rabbi Eliezer says: Any city in which there is even a single mezuzah—

it does not become an apostate city. As it is stated: “You shall burn the city and all its spoils with fire, completely.” And where there is a mezuzah—

it is impossible to burn

the city and everything within it, since the mezuzah would then also be burned, and several mentions of the Divine Name are written in it. And it is forbidden to do so,

as it is written: “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations served there, etc., and you shall destroy their names from that place;

You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations served there and so on, and you shall obliterate their names from that place;

you shall not do so to the Lord your God.”

And from this verse we derive that it is forbidden to destroy anything upon which the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is written.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, etc.

[If you make an apostate city, I will regard it as though you were offering a burnt offering entirely before Me.]

And later in the Mishna, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to whether it is possible to make gardens and orchards in place of the apostate city, or not.

Shall we say that they disagree with regard to the statement of Rabbi Avin in the name of Rabbi Ilaa?

For Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ilaa: Wherever you find a general statement formulated as a positive commandment,

such as the statement concerning an apostate city, “It shall be an eternal mound,” which is a general statement that the site of the city must remain desolate, with not even gardens and orchards there, and this command is expressed in the form of a positive commandment,

and a specific statement—

in

the form of

a prohibition, “It shall not be built again,” where Scripture specifies in the language of a prohibition that houses may not be built there—

one does not interpret it by the method of “general rule and specific rule,”

we do not interpret it by the hermeneutical principle of “generalization and specification,”

which is one of the Thirteen Principles by which the Torah is expounded. According to that principle, one says: The general statement includes only what is specified, because the specification explains the general statement. That is, when Scripture says, “It shall be an eternal mound,” this means: “It shall not be built again”—houses may not be built there. But gardens and orchards are permitted.

Rather, we say that Scripture stated two things here: “It shall be an eternal mound”—gardens and orchards may not be made there; “It shall not be built again”—no type of construction whatsoever, even gardens and orchards, may be built again there.

And we expound the verse according to this principle: Anything that was included in a general statement and then was singled out from the general statement in order to teach something—not only about itself was it singled out, but it was singled out to teach about the entire general statement.

Here too, the prohibition against building houses was included in “It shall be an eternal mound.” Why, then, was it singled out—why did Scripture write explicitly, “It shall not be built again”?

To compare building to the general prohibition of “It shall be an eternal mound,” and to tell you: Just as the particular type of building is one that provides a settlement for people, so too, all building, such as gardens and orchards, is prohibited. But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that we do not expound it in accordance with Rabbi Avin, and he expounds it as follows: “It shall be an eternal mound”—with regard to everything, so that nothing at all may be done there; and “it shall not be built again”—which indicates the building of houses, teaches us a prohibition with regard to building houses, whereas with regard to gardens and orchards there is only a prohibition derived from a positive commandment. So I heard.

One master says,

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili—

he accepts the principle of Rabbi Avin

[he holds in accordance with Rabbi Avin],

and therefore it is prohibited to make even gardens and orchards there.

And the other master says,

Rabbi Akiva—

he does not accept the principle of Rabbi Avin,

and therefore he holds that it is permitted to make gardens and orchards there.

And we reject this:

No.

It is actually possible to say

that everyone accepts the principle of Rabbi Avin. And here they disagree about this:

One master,

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

holds: Scripture states, “It shall not be built

again.” The word

again”;

“again” indicates completely,

so that it may not be built in the future for any purpose, even for gardens and orchards.

And the other master,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds that “it shall not be built

that “It shall not be built

again”—

that is,

it shall not be built as it was,

meaning that houses may not be built there again.

But it may be made into gardens and orchards.

The Sages taught: If there were

in the apostate city

detached trees—

they are forbidden.

But if there were trees

attached

—

they are permitted.

The reason is that it is stated: “You shall gather and burn,” which indicates an object that requires nothing more than gathering and burning. Attached trees are excluded, as they also require uprooting from the ground.

Those belonging to another city, whether detached or attached—

are forbidden.

What is meant by “another city”?

Rav Hisda said:

The city of

Jericho.

As it is written: “The city shall be under a ban,

it and everything in it,

for the Lord. And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying: Cursed is the man before the Lord who rises up and builds this city,

this very Jericho; with his firstborn shall he lay its foundation, and with his youngest shall he set up its gates.” “It and everything in it” indicates that even the trees attached to the ground there are forbidden.

It was taught in a beraita: One may not build the city of

It was taught in a baraitha: He may not build

the city

Jericho

and call it

by the name of another city.

And

he may

not

build

another city

and call it

by the name of Jericho.

This is so that the name “Jericho” will be erased from the world.

As it is written: “Hiel the Bethelite built Jericho. With Abiram, his firstborn, he laid its foundation, and with Seguv, his youngest, he set up its gates.”

That is, Hiel built another city in the name of Jericho, and thereby violated Joshua’s curse. And this is what is meant by the expression “the Bethelite”: Hiel violated the curse.

It was taught in a baraitha: With the death of

upon the death of

his firstborn Abiram,

who was

wicked, he had no

reason for Hiel

to learn

not to continue building the city, because he could attribute Abiram’s death to Abiram’s wickedness and not to Joshua’s curse.

But

with

the death of

Seguv, his youngest—

he should have learned.

And we inquire about this:

Abiram and Seguv—

what did they do [what did they do]? Why does the tanna call them wicked?

And we explain: In truth, we do not know whether Abiram and Seguv were wicked or not, and this was not what the tanna was discussing.

And

this is what the tanna is saying:

It teaches that

From Abiram, his firstborn, he should have learned concerning that wicked man,

namely, Hiel. He should have learned from the death of Abiram, his firstborn, that this punishment had come upon him because of Joshua’s curse.

It is written in the verse cited above:

“With Seguv, his youngest.”

And this is difficult:

From the fact that it says, “With Abiram, his firstborn,” do I not know that Seguv—

was his youngest

?

What does the verse teach by saying, “with Seguv, his youngest”?

It teaches that

Hiel was

burying one after another

[while building that city] all his sons,

from Abiram

his firstborn

to Seguv,

who was the youngest of his sons.

Ahab—

he was his close friend

[he was Hiel’s friend and beloved companion].

He and Elijah came

[he and Elijah came]

to inquire after the welfare of the mourners [to offer condolences to Hiel, who was mourning his sons].

and he shall not

Ahab sat

and

said: Perhaps when Joshua cursed, this is what he cursed

[perhaps when Joshua cursed, this is what he said]:

not

to build

Jericho in the name of another city

[even if it would be called by another name],

and not

to build

another city—

in the name of Jericho?

Elijah said to him: Yes.

Indeed, that is so.

He said to him,

Ahab:

Now, if Moses’ curse is not being fulfilled

[now even Moses’ curse is not being fulfilled],

for

it is

written: “You shall turn aside and serve

other gods

etc.,” and it is written

later:

“The anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and He will shut up the heavens, etc.,”

so Moses cursed that if they worship idolatry, there would be no rain—

and that man

[he was referring to himself]

set up idolatry on every furrow

[he made so much idolatry that he set it up on every furrow ],

and

nevertheless so much rain falls and ruins the roads, to the extent that

it does not allow him rain to go and bow down to it

[because of the rain, he cannot go to worship idolatry]!

And if Moses’ curse is not being fulfilled,

will Joshua’s curse, his disciple’s, be fulfilled

[will the curse of Joshua, his disciple, be fulfilled]?!

Immediately: “And Elijah the Tishbite, of the inhabitants of Gilead, said to Ahab: As the Lord, God of Israel, lives, there shall be neither dew nor rain these years, etc.”

[This verse is adjacent to the verse about Hiel the Bethelite cited above.]

He entreated

[Elijah entreated],

and they gave him the key to rain

[they gave him from Heaven the key to rain ],

and he arose and left

[he arose from there and departed].

It is written afterward:

“And the word of the Lord came to him

[to Elijah]

saying: Go from here, turn eastward, and hide yourself by the brook Cherith.”

And it is written below:

“And the ravens brought him

[to Elijah]

bread and meat in the morning, etc.”

From where

[from where did the ravens bring it to him]?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: From Ahab’s slaughterhouse

[from Ahab’s kitchen] .

It is written below:

“And it came to pass after some time that the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land.”

Once He saw

[once the Holy One, blessed be He, saw]

that there was suffering in the world

because no rain had fallen, He wanted Elijah to return the key to rain to Him so that He could bring rain. And He arranged matters so that he would return it to Him, as follows.

It is written: “And the word of the Lord came to him, saying: Arise, go to Zarephath

which belongs to Sidon, and dwell there; behold, I have commanded a widow there to sustain you.” And indeed this is what happened, as is recounted there.

And it is written

below:

“And it came to pass after these things that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, became ill,

and his illness became so severe that there was no breath left in him.”

“And she said to Elijah: What have I to do with you, man of God? Have you come to me to bring my sin to remembrance and to put my son to death?”

Elijah asked

The key to childbirth

for mercy, that he be given the key to the revival of the dead

[Elijah asked that he be given from Heaven the key to the revival of the dead], in order to revive the son of that widow.

They said to him

from Heaven: All the keys to the storehouses of the Holy One, blessed be He, have been entrusted to the hands of appointed agents. But

three keys—

were never entrusted

at any time

to an agent,

and these are they:

The key of childbirth

[of a woman giving birth],

the key of rain, and the key of the revival of the dead.

And if We now give you the key to the revival of the dead as well, in addition to the key to rain that is already in your possession, they will wonder and

say: Two

[two keys]

in the hands of the disciple, and

only

one in the hands of the master!?

Bring this one—

and take that one

[bring the key to rain, and We will give you the key to the revival of the dead].

And from where do we know that this is what happened?

As it is written,

as the Holy One, blessed be He, subsequently said to Elijah:

“Go, show yourself to Ahab, and I will give rain.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, did not say to him, “and give rain,” but rather, “and I will give rain.” It follows that the Holy One, blessed be He, took the key to rain from his hand and gave rain.

A certain Galilean expounded before Rav Hisda: The incident involving Elijah—to what may it be compared?

To a man who locked his door and lost his key

[to a man who slammed and locked his gate and lost the key to the gate]. So too, Elijah locked the gates of rain and ultimately lost the key to rain, so that the gate would not be opened through him.