## Sanhedrin Daf 112a

###### Sanhedrin 112a:1
[Sanhedrin 112a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:1)

קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: The matter presents **a difficulty** with the opinion of Reish Lakish.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:2
[Sanhedrin 112a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:2)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הוּדְּחוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן, מַהוּ? ״וַיַּדִּיחוּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא שֶׁהוּדְּחוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן? אוֹ דִילְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ הוּדְּחוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If the inhabitants of an idolatrous city **subverted themselves** to idol worship and were not subverted by others, **what is** the *halakha*? Since **the Merciful One states: “And have subverted,”** perhaps it may be inferred: **But not if they subvert themselves; or perhaps even** if **they subverted themselves** to idol worship, the city can be deemed an idolatrous city.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:3
[Sanhedrin 112a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הִדִּיחוּהָ נָשִׁים וּקְטַנִּים, אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּהוּדְּחוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן! הָנָךְ בָּתַר נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ גְּרִידִי, הָנֵי בָּתַר נָשִׁים וּקְטַנִּים גְּרִידִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution of the dilemma from the mishna: If **women or children subvert** the inhabitants of the city, these idol worshippers are judged as individuals. **Why** is that so? **Let** their status **be** considered **as** though **they subverted themselves.** Apparently, if the inhabitants subverted themselves the city is not deemed an idolatrous city. The Gemara rejects this proof: These cases are not comparable, as **these,** who subverted themselves, **are drawn after their own** initiative and worship idols wholeheartedly, and therefore perhaps the city is rendered an idolatrous city. **Those,** who are subverted by women and children, **are drawn after women and children** and are not committed to idol worship, and therefore, perhaps the city is not rendered an idolatrous city.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:4
[Sanhedrin 112a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:4)

עַד שֶׁיּוּדַח רוּבָּהּ. הֵיכִי עָבְדִינַן? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: דָּנִין וְחוֹבְשִׁין, דָּנִין וְחוֹבְשִׁין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ עוּלָּא: נִמְצָא אַתָּה מְעַנֶּה אֶת דִּינָן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ! אֶלָּא, אָמַר עוּלָּא: דָּנִין וְסוֹקְלִין, דָּנִין וְסוֹקְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that a city is not deemed an idolatrous city **unless most of** the inhabitants of the city **are subverted.** The Gemara asks: **How do we act** in order to determine if most of the inhabitants have been subverted? **Rav Yehuda says:** The court **judges** each inhabitant suspected of idol worship, **and** if he is found liable **imprisons** him in a jail, and it **judges and imprisons** each succeeding idolater until a majority of the city has been convicted. **Ulla said to him:** That will **result in you delaying justice for those** already sentenced and awaiting execution, and it is prohibited to delay justice. **Rather, Ulla says:** The court **judges** each inhabitant **and stones** him if he is found liable, then **judges and stones** each succeeding idolater until half of the city is found guilty, and all future convicted idolaters are executed by the sword.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:5
[Sanhedrin 112a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:5)

אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: דָּנִין וְסוֹקְלִין, דָּנִין וְסוֹקְלִין, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מַרְבִּין לָהֶן בָּתֵּי דִינִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated** that there is a parallel amoraic dispute. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The court **judges and stones** the idolater, then **judges and stones** each succeeding idolater. **And Reish Lakish says: One increases** the number of **courts for them** so that all the inhabitants of the city can stand trial at the same time and the means of their execution will be determined with no delay of justice.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:6
[Sanhedrin 112a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:6)

אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר יוֹסֵי אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: ״וְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הָהִיא״ – אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אַתָּה מוֹצִיא לִשְׁעָרֶיךָ, וְאִי אַתָּה מוֹצִיא כָּל הָעִיר כּוּלָּהּ לִשְׁעָרֶיךָ! אֶלָּא, מַרְבִּין לָהֶן בָּתֵּי דִינִין וּמְעַיְּינִין בְּדִינֵיהֶן, וּמַסְּקִינַן לְהוּ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל, וְגָמְרִי לְהוּ לְדִינַיְיהוּ, וְקָטְלִי לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosei say** that **Rabbi Oshaya says** that it is written: **“And you shall take that man or that woman out…**to your gates” (Deuteronomy 17:5), from which it is derived: **You take a man and a woman out to your gates** and they are judged by the local court, **but you do not take the entire city out to your gates;** instead, they stand trial before the Great Sanhedrin. **Rather,** the procedure is that **one increases** the number of **courts for them and** those courts **analyze their cases,** and when they conclude that a majority of the inhabitants are guilty of idolatry they are not sentenced; instead, **we take them to the High Court [Sanhedrin] and** the court **issues** the **verdict of** the idolaters **and executes them.**


###### Sanhedrin 112a:7
[Sanhedrin 112a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:7)

״הַכֵּה תַכֶּה אֶת יֹשְׁבֵי הָעִיר וְכוּ׳״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַחַמֶּרֶת וְהַגַּמֶּלֶת הָעוֹבֶרֶת מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, לָנוּ בְּתוֹכָהּ וְהוּדְּחוּ עִמָּהּ – אִם נִשְׁתַּהוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, הֵן בְּסַיִיף וּמָמוֹנָן אָבֵד. פָּחוֹת מִיכָּן, הֵן בִּסְקִילָה וּמָמוֹנָן פָּלֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is written: **“You shall smite the inhabitants of that city** with the edge of the sword, destroy it utterly, and all that is in it and its animals, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy 13:16). **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **The caravan of donkeys and the caravan of camels that move from place to place,** that **lodged in** the city **and were subverted with it, if they had stayed there thirty days they** are executed **by the sword and their property is destroyed.** If they had stayed there **less than that, they** are executed **by stoning,** as individual idolaters, **and their property is spared.**


###### Sanhedrin 112a:8
[Sanhedrin 112a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:8)

וּרְמִינְהִי: כַּמָּה יִהְיֶה בָּעִיר וְיִהְיֶה כְּאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר? שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ! אָמַר רָבָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא לְמִיהְוֵי מִבְּנֵי מָתָא, הָא לְמִיהְוֵי מִיָּתְבֵי מָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a *baraita*: **How long shall** one **be in the city and** as a result, his status **will be like** that of **the residents of the city** with regard to giving charity and paying taxes? He is obligated if he remained there **twelve months,** and not thirty days. **Rava says:** This contradiction is **not difficult,** and it may be resolved: **This** period of twelve months is the period required **to become** one **of the citizens of the city; this** period of thirty days is the period required **to become** one **of the inhabitants of the city.**


###### Sanhedrin 112a:9
[Sanhedrin 112a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:9)

וְהָתַנְיָא: הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מִבְּנֵי הָעִיר, אִם יֵשׁ אָדָם שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּהָא שָׁם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אָסוּר לֵיהָנוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ, פָּחוֹת מִיכָּן – מוּתָּר לֵיהָנוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ. בְּיוֹשְׁבֵי הָעִיר, אִם נִשְׁתַּהָא שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – אָסוּר לֵיהָנוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ, פָּחוֹת מִיכָּן – מוּתָּר לֵיהָנוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** so **it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the citizens of the city, if there is a person who had stayed there twelve months, it is prohibited** for the one for whom deriving benefit is forbidden **to derive benefit from him.** If a person had stayed there **less than that, it is permitted** for the one for whom deriving benefit is forbidden **to derive benefit from him.** With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit **from the inhabitants of the city, if** there is a person who **had stayed there thirty days, it is prohibited** for the one for whom deriving benefit is forbidden **to derive benefit from him.** If a person had stayed there **less than that, it is permitted** for the one for whom deriving benefit is forbidden **to derive benefit from him.** In the context of an idolatrous city, the reference is to the inhabitants of the city, which includes anyone who had stayed there for thirty days.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:10
[Sanhedrin 112a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:10)

״הַחֲרֵם אֹתָהּ וְאֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ״ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַחֲרֵם אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ״ – פְּרָט לְנִכְסֵי צַדִּיקִים שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָהּ. ״וְאֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת נִכְסֵי צַדִּיקִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ. ״שְׁלָלָהּ״ – וְלֹא שְׁלַל שָׁמַיִם. ״וְאֶת כׇּל שְׁלָלָהּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת נִכְסֵי רְשָׁעִים שֶׁחוּצָה לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is written: **“Destroy it utterly, and all that is in it”** (Deuteronomy 13:16). **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to that which is written: **“Destroy it utterly, and all that is in it”;** this serves **to exclude the property of the righteous that is** located **outside** the city, which is not destroyed. **“And all that is in it”;** this serves **to include the property of the righteous that is** located **inside** the city; it is also destroyed. It is stated: “And you shall gather all of its spoils into the midst of its square” (Deuteronomy 13:17). From the term **“its spoils”** it is derived: **But not the spoils of Heaven;** all consecrated property is excluded. The phrase **“and** you shall gather **all of its spoils”** serves **to include the property of the wicked that is** located **outside** the city; it is also destroyed.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:11
[Sanhedrin 112a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה נִכְסֵי צַדִּיקִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ יֹאבֵדוּ? מִי גָּרַם לָהֶם שֶׁיָּדוּרוּ בְּתוֹכָהּ? מָמוֹנָם. לְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד. אָמַר מָר: ״וְאֶת כׇּל שְׁלָלָהּ תִּקְבֹּץ״ – לְרַבּוֹת נִכְסֵי רְשָׁעִים שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָהּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: וּבְנִקְבָּצִים לְתוֹכָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon said: For what** reason **does the Torah say** that **the property of the righteous that is in it shall be destroyed?** Why must they suffer for the sins of others? The reason is: **Who caused** the righteous **to live in** this city inhabited by wicked people? It is **their property** that tied them to this city; **therefore, their property is destroyed. The Master said** that the phrase **“and you shall gather all of its spoils”** serves **to include the property of the wicked that is** located **outside** the city; it is also destroyed. **Rav Ḥisda says: And** this is the *halakha* only **with regard to** property that can be **gathered into** the city.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:12
[Sanhedrin 112a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:12)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: פִּקְדוֹנוֹת שֶׁל אַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת מוּתָּרִין. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי לֵימָא דְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת וְאִיתַנְהוּ בְּגַוַּהּ – פְּשִׁיטָא דְּמוּתָּרִין, לָאו שְׁלָלָהּ הוּא! וְאֶלָּא דִּידְהוּ וְאִיתַנְהוּ בְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת. אִי דְּנִקְבָּצִין לְתוֹכָהּ – אַמַּאי מוּתָּרִין? וְאִי אֵין נִקְבָּצִין לְתוֹכָהּ – הָא אַמְרַהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda says: Deposits of the inhabitants of an idolatrous city are permitted,** i.e., they are not destroyed. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If we say** that Rav Ḥisda is referring to property belonging to inhabitants **of another city and** that property **is** deposited **within** the idolatrous city, it is **obvious that** the deposits are **permitted,** as the deposits are **not “its spoils”;** they are the property of others. **But rather,** say that Rav Ḥisda is referring to property **belonging to** the inhabitants of the idolatrous city, **and** it **is** deposited **within another city.** If so, the status of that property should be like any other property belonging to the inhabitants of the idolatrous city; **if** it is property **that** can be **gathered into** the city, **why are** the deposits **permitted?** It was already established that the property of the wicked is destroyed. **And if** it is property that **cannot** be **gathered into** the city, **didn’t** Rav Ḥisda already **say once** that this property is not burned?


###### Sanhedrin 112a:13
[Sanhedrin 112a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:13)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת דְּמַפְקְדִי בְּתוֹכָהּ. וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אַחְרָיוּת. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אַחְרָיוּת, כְּדִידֵיהּ דָּמֵי? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** Rav Ḥisda is **actually** referring to property belonging to inhabitants **of another city that is deposited within** the idolatrous city; **and what are we dealing with here?** It is a case **where** an inhabitant of the idolatrous city **assumes** financial **responsibility for** the deposit in his possession. **Lest you say: Once he assumes** financial **responsibility for** the deposit in his possession, the status of the deposit is **like** that of **his own** property and it should be destroyed, therefore Rav Ḥisda **teaches us** that deposits are permitted and not destroyed.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:14
[Sanhedrin 112a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:14)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּהֵמָה חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת וְחֶצְיָהּ שֶׁל עִיר אַחֶרֶת – אֲסוּרָה. עִיסָּה חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת וְחֶצְיָהּ שֶׁל עִיר אַחֶרֶת – מוּתֶּרֶת. מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּהֵמָה כְּמַאן דְּלָא פְּלִיגָא דָּמְיָא, עִיסָּה כְּמַאן דִּפְלִיגָא דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda says: An animal** that is **half** the property **of an idolatrous city and half** the property **of another city** is **forbidden.** By contrast, with regard to **dough** that is **half** the property **of an idolatrous city and half** the property **of another city,** the half that belongs to the other city is **permitted.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the difference between them? The Gemara explains: **An animal is like an entity that is not divided,** as it is possible to eat part of an animal only through the slaughter of the entire animal. Therefore, if any portion of the animal is forbidden, the entire animal is forbidden. **Dough is like an entity that is divided.** Therefore, the fact that one portion of the dough is forbidden does not render the entire dough forbidden.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:15
[Sanhedrin 112a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:15)

בָּעֵי רַב חִסְדָּא: בֶּהֱמַת עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת מַהוּ דְּתִיתְהֲנֵי בַּהּ שְׁחִיטָה לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵילָה? לְפִי חֶרֶב אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, לָא שְׁנָא שַׁחֲטַהּ מִשְׁחָט, לָא שְׁנָא קַטְלַהּ מִקְטָל. אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּשַׁחְטַהּ מַהְנְיָא לַהּ שְׁחִיטָה? מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda raises a dilemma:** With regard to **the animal of an idolatrous city, what is** the *halakha*; **is ritual slaughter effective** at least **in purifying it from** the ritual impurity **of an unslaughtered animal carcass?** If the animals of the city are killed but not ritually slaughtered, they are impure with the impurity of a carcass and transmit impurity by means of contact as well as if they are lifted. Will the ritual slaughter of those animals prevent the transmission of that impurity? Is it so that since **the Merciful One states:** “And its animals, **with the edge of the sword,”** indicating that **it is no different** if **one ritually slaughtered** the animal, and **it is no different** if **one killed** the animal in another way, its status is that of a carcass and it transmits impurity? **Or perhaps, since one ritually slaughtered** the animal, **ritual slaughter is effective. What** is the *halakha*? The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:16
[Sanhedrin 112a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:16)

בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שְׂעַר נָשִׁים צִדְקָנִיּוֹת מַהוּ? אָמַר רָבָא: הָא דִּרְשָׁעִיּוֹת אָסוּר? ״תִּקְבֹּץ וְשָׂרַפְתָּ״ כְּתִיב. מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא קְבִיצָה וּשְׂרֵיפָה – יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְחוּסָּר תְּלִישָׁה וּקְבִיצָה וּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: What is** the status of **the hair of pious women** in the idolatrous city; must it be destroyed? **Rava says:** Is that to say **that the hair of wicked** women is **forbidden** and must be destroyed? **“And you shall gather…and you shall burn”** (Deuteronomy 13:17), **is written,** and it is derived: An item **that is lacking,** i.e., that requires, **only gathering and burning** must be destroyed, **excluding this** hair, **which is lacking detaching, gathering, and burning.** Therefore, even the hair of a wicked woman is not forbidden.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:17
[Sanhedrin 112a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:17)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בְּפֵיאָה נׇכְרִית, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּמְחוּבָּר בְּגוּפַהּ, כְּגוּפַהּ דָּמְיָא. לָא צְרִיכָא דִּתְלֵי בְּסִיבְטָא. כְּנִכְסֵי צַדִּיקִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ דָּמֵי וְאָבַד? אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּעָיְילָא וְנָפְקָא, כִּלְבוּשַׁהּ דָּמֵי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava says:** This dilemma is raised **with regard to a wig.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If** the wig **is attached to her body,** its status is **like** that of **her body.** The Gemara answers: **No,** this dilemma **is necessary** only in a case **where** the wig **is hanging on a peg. Is** its status **like** that of **the property of the righteous inside** the city **and** therefore **it is destroyed, or perhaps, since she enters and exits** with the wig, its status is **like** that of **a garment,** and it is not destroyed? This dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Sanhedrin 112a:18
[Sanhedrin 112a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112a:18)

״וְאֶת כׇּל שְׁלָלָהּ תִּקְבֹּץ אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ״ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לָהּ רְחוֹב – אֵינָהּ נַעֲשֵׂית עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין לָהּ רְחוֹב – עוֹשִׂין לָהּ רְחוֹב. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: ״רְחוֹבָהּ״ – מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע, וּמָר סָבַר: ״רְחוֹבָהּ״ – הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the verse: **“And you shall gather all of its spoils into the midst of its square”** (Deuteronomy 13:17), **the Sages taught:** If the city **has no square, it does not become an idolatrous city,** as it does not fulfill the criterion mandated by the verse; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says:** If the city **has no square, one creates a square for** the city. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do they disagree?** The Gemara explains: One **Sage,** Rabbi Yishmael, **holds “its square” indicates** a square that existed **from the outset. And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Akiva, **holds** that **“its square”** can **also indicate** a square that was created **now.**