Laws of Idolatry, Chapter 4 (Auto Translated)

Rambam Hilchos Avodah Zarah Chapter 4 — Ir HaNidachas, Meisis U’Madi’ach

Introduction to Chapter 4

Speaker 1: Okay, good. We’re continuing to learn in the Rambam, Sefer HaMada, Hilchos Avodah Zarah. We’re now going to learn the fourth chapter of Hilchos Avodah Zarah, Chapter 4.

We’ve already learned about how avodah zarah developed, that was in the first and a bit in the second chapter. Then the main laws of avodah zarah, which types of worship one is liable for. In the current chapter, and also in the next one primarily, we’re going to learn about a law called ir hanidachas, and a bit more broadly than that, meisis u’madi’ach.

The Uniqueness of Meisis U’Madi’ach by Avodah Zarah

It’s a special law. Generally, if someone talks someone else into doing another sin, perhaps he transgresses lifnei iver or something, but he’s not part of the sin. But by avodah zarah there’s a concept that if someone incites someone and he is meisis them to serve avodah zarah, he gets, even if he himself didn’t serve avodah zarah, he gets a din of meisis u’madi’ach, very many, various many punishments with various prohibitions around this.

And so too there’s a special law for an entire city. There’s no law for an entire city that desecrates Shabbos or something like that. But by avodah zarah we see the concept of ir hanidachas, a city that was pushed away, became an avodah zarah city. Ir hanidachas has various laws in which it’s unique, and it’s very different from the entire Torah, that even innocent people are also killed, that is the women and the children and the property, because the entire city served avodah zarah. We’ll see these laws discussed.

Why Ir HaNidachas is Central by the Rambam

We thought that it could be that this has to do with, this is literally the next law that the Rambam says, it could be there are still details that he’s going to say afterwards, but the main reason why this is so central in Hilchos Avodah Zarah by the Rambam, as it seems comes out clearly also in the first chapter and afterwards in other places, I don’t remember right now off the top of my head, the Rambam speaks this way, that the Rambam laid down that the entire problem of avodah zarah is that it starts with some good idea or a half-mistake, then gradually they become meisitim u’madi’ichim, they become wicked, they start making from this a new religion, they start serving the forms and the stars.

So he says that avodah zarah is a “slippery slope”, it usually starts with a mistake of a prophet or of some wise person who got a bit crooked, and then the masses take the mistake further and further. So kal vachomer ir hanidachas one sees, later the Rambam will speak about a false prophet, a prophet who says in Hashem’s name that one should serve avodah zarah, there are various laws. And it fits very well with the framing that the Rambam said about the story, how his story develops. That a prophet says something wrong, and then a few people start, and then it drags along with it the entire city.

Speaker 2: Right, and the important thing is that there’s also, that the Rambam looks at it as also like a religion, a false religion. Avodah zarah doesn’t just mean that there’s one person serving avodah zarah, that’s one thing. Then there’s this, an entire group was drawn after avodah zarah, became worshippers, became people of the religion, of the avodah zarah religion. So that’s what ir hanidachas is. It’s not simply that the city became non-Jews, they converted. I have a law in the Rambam, we’ll see a bit later more deeply.

Halacha 1 — Madi’ichei Ir and Anshei Ir HaNidachas

Speaker 1: So let’s see the first halacha in Chapter 4. So the Rambam says: “Madi’ichei ir miYisrael” — people who were madi’ach.

Explanation of the Words: Meisis U’Madi’ach

What does the word madi’ichei mean? Pushed away, like the language of docheh, pushed away from the Jewish path, from the good path. Meisis means to incite, to agitate. Madi’ach is the action that happens through the meisitim.

Speaker 2: Yes, meisitim means one incites, and madi’ach means one succeeds in taking the other person away, turning him from the good path. Very good.

Speaker 1: Ah, it says “vayadi’chu es yoshvei iram”, that’s the language. Yes. “Madi’ichei ir miYisrael”. I think it’s the same language that we saw yesterday in the verse, “venidchu vehishtachavitem”.

Speaker 2: Yes, they are pushed away from the correct paths.

Punishment of Madi’ichim

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “Madi’ichei ir miYisrael”. Madi’ach is always, it takes two people. That’s the law of madi’ach, when two people do it together. That’s how it develops. Yes. “Madi’ichei ir miYisrael”, when they are madi’ach a city of Jews, “harei eilu niskolin”.

The punishment for avodah zarah we learned is sekilah, then one hangs afterwards. But the main death that one receives is misos sekilah. So generally one only gets sekilah if one served avodah zarah. But the madi’ichim, “af al pi shelo avdu avodah zarah”, even if they themselves didn’t serve avodah zarah, “ela hidi’chu es yoshvei iram ad she’avdu osam”, they turned, they told the people of the city that they should serve avodah zarah, even if they didn’t serve themselves, they get the punishment of sekilah for being a madi’ach.

Speaker 2: You know why they didn’t serve themselves? Because the bluffer is smarter, he knows that it’s junk.

Speaker 1: Yes, yes.

Punishment of Anshei Ir HaNidachas

The Rambam says further, “ve’anshei ir hanidachas”, that’s the punishment that the madi’ach gets, the one who causes sin. What punishment do the anshei ha’ir get, those who followed and became mudach, they served avodah zarah? “Neheragin besayif”. There’s a new law that anshei ir hanidachas don’t get the usual punishment that one gives for an oved avodah zarah, sekilah, but they have the punishment of sayif, as it says in the Torah.

“Vehi”, says the Rambam, “vehi”, what does anshei ir hanidachas mean? “She’avdu avodah zarah o shekibluha aleihem be’eloha”. Only if they actually served avodah zarah with one of the, as we learned yesterday, the various types of worship, or the worships that are always worships, or a specific way of worship of a certain avodah zarah. “O shekibluha aleihem be’eloha”, or one accepted upon oneself an avodah zarah, one accepted divinity, as we also learned yesterday. So if someone accepts upon an avodah zarah that it’s my god, usually one gets sekilah, but anshei ir hanidachas get sayif.

Warning Against Madi’ichim

The Rambam says further, it says in the Torah that the madi’ichim get sekilah, but “ve’azharah al madi’ichim minayin?” Where is the prohibition? Every time there’s a punishment, the Gemara calls it “onesh shamanu, azharah minayin?”, where is the warning? The Rambam says, “Talmud lomar ‘lo yishama al picha’”. One should not hear from your mouth any words of incitement and leading astray.

Discussion: Why Sayif and Not Sekilah?

Speaker 2: Good. Did you discuss why specifically is the reason for the sayif? It’s interesting, it’s a kula so to speak. It’s interesting, usually one says that sekilah is more severe than sayif. Here the mudachim, they only get sayif.

Ir HaNidachas as War

Speaker 1: I think the concept is, we’ll perhaps discuss it later, but I think that the concept is that ir hanidachas one shouldn’t look at like a regular punishment, but it’s more something like a concept of, more similar to a war.

And so it also says in the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim Part 3 Chapter 42 I think, he says it this way, he doesn’t say it very clearly, but one can see it there, that only this way can fit various laws that we’ll soon learn. For example, that one can also kill innocent people. That usually a punishment is a very specific thing, one takes the person, one looks at him, and one gives him a specific punishment. But ir hanidachas is simply that there’s a city among Jews that they rebelled against the Kingdom of Heaven, it’s like a rebellion, it’s an uprising against Klal Yisrael, against the God of Israel, and one goes out with them in a sort of war. And with this will fit later more laws.

I think that for this also fits sayif, because a usual way of war is a way of war of the sword. Taking hundreds of people and each one throwing down from the roof and throwing stones, you need a multitude in that. Sayif is a more warlike way of punishing people. It goes around one great zealot, like Pinchas ben Elazar ben Aharon HaKohen killed with a spear, because it was also a declaration of war, because when a prince of a tribe does such a thing, he didn’t get a punishment, that’s also the kana’im pog’im bo, it’s not in the way of punishment, but it’s in the way of war. It must be cherev ish be’achiv, because also by the Golden Calf it was so, when there’s such a great type of desecration of Hashem’s name, it’s a concept of a rebellion against the Kingdom of Heaven, and on this one must declare war. Does that make sense?

Speaker 2: Yes yes, I think that it’s the sayif. More laws we’ll see later that will fit with this law that we understood. But the sayif is still like a law, there’s a part of it that’s more literally like a sayif of the law of execution by beis din, one brings witnesses, one gives warning.

Speaker 1: Yes, because even if the law is of sayif, one hasn’t divided it. Even when there’s a regular law in beis din there’s a sayif. But I’m saying, the mindset of the punishment of ir hanidachas is a mindset of war.

Parallel to the Seven Nations

Speaker 2: The Rambam says further. I can think a bit similarly, this can be based on this, like the mudachim, like for example by the seven nations, the Canaanites, Hittites, that one kills them because they’re ovdei avodah zarah.

Speaker 1: And continue to serve avodah zarah. But it’s not simply that each one is extremely guilty, he’s a mudach, he’s like a tinok shenishbah, not exactly a tinok shenishbah, he’s a mudach, they convinced him poor thing. He gets killed, as you say, one judges him with the law of ir hanidachas, which is a different type of law, but it’s actually less severe regarding the mudach, because he was only pushed away.

Actually, if you think about it, the seven nations is also a type of ir hanidachas, because their sin is also the avodah zarah part, as we learned in this week’s parsha, that the problem of sparing the ir hanidachas is because afterwards your children will be pushed away to avodah zarah through them. So one can see that the general laws should be similar a bit.

Halacha 2 — Conditions for Ir HaNidachas

Speaker 1: Let’s go further. Eino na’asis ir hanidachas ad sheyihyu madi’iheha shnayim o yoser al shnayim. A city doesn’t get a law of ir hanidachas until when those who are madi’ach the city, those who incite to avodah zarah, are two people or more than two people, shene’emar “yatzu anashim bnei vliya’al”, and the language of plural is at least two. If there’s only one person who is madi’ach, it doesn’t get any law of ir hanidachas.

I think it’s a gezeiras hakasuv, because there are various laws here that don’t necessarily have a clear explanation, but that’s how one learns it out from the verses. I think perhaps the explanation is, there’s the opinion that says that ir hanidachas lo haysah velo nivra’ah. The Torah made various limitations, because there must be such a law, the world should know the severity, but it’s not necessarily that one must carry it out so, it should be so easy to carry out. Interesting.

If Only One Madi’ach

The Rambam says further, veyihyu madi’iheha… Again, if there’s only one madi’ach, the people who served avodah zarah will still get their punishment of sekilah. On the contrary, they got a greater punishment. But there isn’t the law of ir hanidachas regarding killing the entire city, or regarding the cherem, losing their money.

The Madi’ichim Must Be From the Same City and Tribe

The Rambam says further, veyihyu madi’iheha, those who are madi’ach, must be me’oso hashevet ume’oso ha’ir. They must be from the same tribe. When Eretz Yisrael was divided it was divided to tribes. It probably took, I know, a nice few years until it was divided, everyone had to map and everything, but originally each city had a tribe also. Must be from that city and from that tribe, “mikirbekha” — mikirbekha means from your tribe. “Vayadi’chu es yoshvei iram” — they are madi’ach the yoshvei iram, from the city where the madi’ichim live. If madi’ichim come from another place, there’s no law of ir hanidachas.

One Must Be Madi’ach the Majority of the City

Another law, “ad sheyadi’chu rubah” — they must be madi’ach the majority of the anshei ha’ir. And further than…

Halacha 2 (Continued) — The Parameters of Ir HaNidachas: Minimum and Maximum

Speaker 1:

Yes, it must be the majority, and it must be that the mudachim should be one hundred, and up to the majority of the tribe. How much? The minimum is one hundred, and the maximum is the majority of the tribe. If the majority of the tribe became pushed away, then one no longer kills out a majority of a tribe.

Perhaps this isn’t a gezeiras hakasuv, perhaps there’s a concept of… It’s only a language of the verse, that one shouldn’t wipe out a tribe from Israel, “velo yimacheh”. By the incident of pilegesh beGiv’ah there was yes a bit of ir hanidachas, not for avodah zarah, but a type of ir hanidachas, yes. Doesn’t it say by yibum “velo yimacheh shemo miYisrael”? It also says a language of “velo yimacheh shevet miYisrael”. It could be it has with that, and apparently it’s a gezeiras hakasuv that only up to the majority of a tribe.

The Rambam says further, “aval im hidi’chu rubo shel shevet”, what happens then? It’s not simple that one lets them free. “Nedonin kol echad keyechidim”, then one takes each person separately, and one judges them as individuals, as it says “yoshvei ir”.

The Source for “Ir” — Not a Small Village, Not a Large City

How does one learn out “majority of a tribe”? The Rambam says that from “ir” one learns out “velo kfar katan”. One doesn’t speak of a small town that has less than about two hundred people. “Velo kerekh gadol”, also not a very large city, because if it’s a large city it’s already the majority of the tribe. Does that mean it? Ah, the Rambam says.

Yes, the Rambam says further, “kol pachot meme’ah hu kfar”, a place where fewer than one hundred people live.

Discussion: The Calculation of “One Hundred” — Must It Be Two Hundred?

It’s interesting, because the calculation must come out more than one hundred, it must come out almost two hundred, that the one hundred must be the majority. Could that be what the Rambam means?

No, one hundred can be the whole thing too. It’s not a problem. If there’s a majority, no one remained, it’s not a problem.

No, but it can also be the majority of the city, no?

The whole city. It can be the entire city. It must be more than the majority, at least the majority. Majority is only regarding the tribe, not regarding the city. It can be at least the majority, but it can be that the entire city is only one hundred people, and it will be so.

When a majority doesn’t have a tribe, in a place where there lives there a majority of a tribe, is already called a large city.

Comparison with Megillah — Ten Batlanim

It’s interesting, we learned for example by Megillah, that there there’s a kfar, yes, “anshei hakfarim hakdumim”, and there there’s a different law, because there are ten batlanim. Here what’s the novelty, that up to one hundred people is a kfar.

You know what’s the difference between a rebbe’le and a rebbe? A rebbe’le has up to one hundred chassidim, and a rebbe has… Or does one have ten batlanim with a rebbe even with only ten, because they’re there.

Le’inyaneinu he explains… But it could be that the concept here is as I said, that a small town that serves avodah zarah, it’s not a rebellion against the Kingdom of Heaven, and it’s not an uprising that comes before war. Could be. And the majority of a tribe is already too great a rebellion, one can’t… It becomes already a civil war, and they… One must think. But it could be that it’s a simple gezeiras hakasuv, that one doesn’t need… One doesn’t need… We know that we can think. Could be.

Discussion: The Madi’ichim — Why Must There Be More Than One?

I want to ask you a technical question, perhaps you thought about this. The madi’ichim, what’s the reason for madi’ichim? There’s always one person who started the movement. Then it becomes as you say, a slippery slope, it’s already become… He was madi’ach me, I was madi’ach not me, but a second one, one was madi’ach the third one.

I think the Rambam will later more… In the later laws the Rambam will explain more how the madi’ach works. Then it will simply become clearer. I think one doesn’t need to think now.

Halacha 3: The Laws of Madi’ichim — Who Can Be Madi’ach

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further, Rabbi Chaim, an ir hanidachas only becomes if two people at least came, and they are men. But im hidi’chu nashim uketanim, if women or minors came and they were madi’ach, a bit. What’s the shame? They are but… One must have mercy on them.

Chapter 4 (Continued): Laws of Idol Worship and Idolatrous Cities

No, the minors, like, you know, the woman who led the war in France, right? It happens sometimes, a youth comes and he is a prophet and he leads an entire movement, the child who cries out that the king is naked, an entire movement.

Or shehedich yachid, if an individual came and he was maddiach (incited) the public. O shehodach mei’ito.

It could actually be, and I think they meant that man as having a din of meisit u’maddiach, but we don’t see that there was any din of ir hanidachat there in the exile. It could be that’s why they call him “that man,” that it was an individual, there was no din of ir hanidachat, and it’s a terrible end for all of Israel. A Jewish man. Okay.

A minority of the city was hodach. O shehodchu mei’aleihen, ah, this is an interesting thing, people were to’eh (went astray) on their own. It’s interesting, there was no maddiach. Seemingly when it’s hodchu mei’aleihen there must also be someone who taught them false interpretations, but he didn’t have a din of meisit u’maddiach, he didn’t do what we’ll later see in the Rambam how a maddiach operates.

O shehedichum anashim michutz lah, there came from outside the city agitators and they were maddiach.

All of these are judged as an ir hanidachat. But what then? They’re not exempt that they go free. Rather they are like individuals who worshiped idolatry, they are judged like individuals who worshiped idolatry, so all who worshiped are stoned, those who worshiped idolatry are stoned.

And the money, later we’ll see in anshei ir hanidachat one must burn the money, but when we see here a din of individuals, the money doesn’t need to be confiscated, rather their money goes to their heirs, the money goes to the heirs, kosher Jews whose heirs can take their money.

Halacha 4: Ir Hanidachat is Judged by the Great Beit Din of Seventy-One

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further, now he’s going to speak about who can judge an ir hanidachat. The Rambam says, an ir hanidachat is only judged by the great beit din of seventy-one. Usually for capital cases a beit din of twenty-three is sufficient, yes, I think. But for ir hanidachat, is it also perhaps like war? Here certain things come up that ir hanidachat that the Rambam takes from war, but simply because one kills an entire city, one needs for it a great beit din of seventy-one.

It says, it’s written so in the verse, “And you shall bring out that man or that woman who did this evil thing to your gates, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them with stones and they shall die”. So, normally it says “to your gates,” which usually means beit din, he says “the man or the woman.” We see that individuals are killed in the beit din of each and every gate. Every city, every… the city gate is like… I mean, when you go to old cities you see how there’s a main street, and there’s such a gate. It’s a way how one builds a city. And the gate is a symbol of the city. Every city that has their own gate has their own beit din. And they can themselves, each beit din can itself judge the man or woman from that city who worshiped idolatry.

But an ir hanidachat is killed by the great beit din. But when it’s a multitude, when it’s an ir hanidachat, it must be specifically the great beit din. It makes sense too, this is another level. That is, a city is one level, then there’s the great beit din which is above all cities.

Halacha 5: Cities of Refuge and Jerusalem Don’t Become Ir Hanidachat

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further: “One of the cities of refuge doesn’t become an ir hanidachat”. There were in all of Israel six and thirty cities of refuge. The cities of refuge… what? Three… and whatever, six with two and forty, yes. The cities of refuge means here the cities of the Levites, or the… we’ll see. The cities of refuge, the places that are made for inadvertent killers to flee to, don’t become an ir hanidachat.

It says, “in one of your gates”, the cities belong to the tribe. But the cities of refuge don’t belong to a tribe, rather the cities of refuge are cities that the tribes gave away for all of Israel to be cities of refuge.

Dispute Between Rambam and Ra’avad Regarding Cities of Refuge

And about this, the Ra’avad right away argues, and he says that the cities of refuge are that the tribes received, and then they gave it for cities of refuge. Therefore, according to him it’s still called “your cities.” The Rambam says however that they were in practice given away, even if they once inherited it. It’s a dispute between Rambam and Ra’avad, but okay, that’s the point.

But the next halacha, Jerusalem, the Ra’avad agrees. But Jerusalem, Jerusalem isn’t a city that belongs to a certain tribe, rather Jerusalem belongs to all of Israel. “And Jerusalem doesn’t become an ir hanidachat”, Jerusalem can’t become an ir hanidachat, “because it wasn’t divided among the tribes”. It wasn’t divided to tribes.

Discussion: The Difference Between Cities of Refuge and Jerusalem

So all these questions about ir hanidachat, it’s the Ra’avad with… it’s said about ir hanidachat… so the Rambam also says that ir hanidachat, cities of refuge, is anyway for Jerusalem.

What? The Rambam didn’t say that cities of refuge lo nitchalku, because it was indeed divided, and the tribes gave it away. That’s the Ra’avad’s claim, that it was indeed divided. But the Rambam holds that it goes on the term “your gates,” meaning that it’s now yours.

I hear. Okay.

Halacha 5 (Continued): Ir Hanidachat at the Border – At the Border of Eretz Yisrael

Speaker 1:

You see that here the next halacha is practical matters. You could have known that it’s a bit of a practical halacha, because in prisons very many people… people seek spirituality, and many people become religious, many people become baalei teshuva. I also have a bit of experience with prisons. But there are also people who go after, I don’t know, it’s a place where people are vulnerable to go after cults and things. So, further.

But the next halacha you see that this is indeed practical. Very good. Here is a practical thing.

The Rambam says: “And one doesn’t make an ir hanidachat at the border”, a region that is at the corner of Eretz Yisrael, there one can’t make an ir hanidachat, “so that gentiles won’t enter and destroy Eretz Yisrael”. Because if you’re now going to burn a city at the corner, at the border, it will be a danger for the land, because gentiles will come in from the other side of the border, and they will destroy Eretz Yisrael, they will make themselves comfortable there.

Proof That Ir Hanidachat is a War-Related Din

It also fits a bit with what I said that ir hanidachat is somewhat of a war-related din. If it were only a din like killing a person for desecrating Shabbat, one doesn’t take political considerations. One doesn’t enter into that. But here we see that the war-related din overrides the ir hanidachat din.

Discussion: Comparison to Shabbat at the Border

Even regarding Shabbat there is also, at the border one may desecrate Shabbat if gentiles come.

Yes, but that’s pikuach nefesh. Here there’s no pikuach nefesh. Even if yes, but it’s not so urgent. That could be. But this is one of the rules of Eretz Yisrael, it’s one of building the land.

Right. So you see here, it’s very interesting. It comes out, Eretz Yisrael will be protected like… yes, we see today how important the people who live at the border are, and they’re strong, and they’re fortified, and so on.

Who Protects Eretz Yisrael? – A Perverse Reality

Who is the protector of Eretz Yisrael? A bunch of idol worshipers. One leaves the idolaters to be there.

It doesn’t have to be that it’s about the people, it could be that it’s about the territory. That it shouldn’t be a destroyed territory. Because the Torah tells you so, that you won’t drive them out all at once, rather little by little, “lest the beasts of the field multiply against you”. If you have a destroyed city, it becomes a destruction for the entire region.

Yes, but I’m saying, it must be a city. And even in the city, one might say, what do we have from the fact that Eretz Yisrael is protected by a bunch of idolaters? No, even if they’re an ir hanidachat, they’re still my idolaters. “They are servants and not servants to servants”.

Exactly. The gentiles are also on the border. What are they better than us?

No, no, it’s still some Jews, some difference, I don’t know.

Halacha 5 (Continued): One May Not Make Three Ir Hanidachat

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further, “And one doesn’t make three ir hanidachat, and if they made them, they are like all cities”. If there were three cities that had a din of ir hanidachat, one doesn’t now burn the three cities for the same reason, because it will suddenly become, the Gemara says, that it’s a bald spot, it will become a hole in Eretz Yisrael.

Halacha 5 (Continued) – Din of Three Idolatrous Cities

Speaker 1: Yes, but I’m saying, it must be a city, and even a city one might say, what do we have from the fact that Israel is protected by a bunch of idolaters? No, even if they’re an ir hanidachat. Yes, indeed yes. I mean politically. Idolaters, but not against us, yes. What, the gentile is also on the border. What are they better than us? No, no. It’s still some Jews, some difference, you know? The Rambam says further.

And one doesn’t make, one, three cities nidachot, very close. If there were three cities that had a din of ir hanidachat, one doesn’t now burn the three cities for the same reason. Because it will now suddenly become… the Gemara says that it will be a bald spot. It will become a hole in Eretz Yisrael. There will be an entire territory of ir hanidachat. It’s a terrible thing.

But if the three cities aren’t one next to the other, one can indeed give them a din of ir hanidachat. And about this the Ra’avad also argues. Because the Ra’avad says that the din of three cities isn’t only about making a hole in Eretz Yisrael, but simply so. A beit din can’t make a din of ir hanidachat on three cities. It’s too much, one doesn’t kill so many Jews. Even if it’s one in Judea and one in the Galilee, there’s no difference.

And the Ra’avad also said a claim of beit din. It’s only that one beit din years later even. But three ir hanidachat one doesn’t make even many years apart, because one can mean at one time. Beit din means one time, which the Ra’avad does agree with, Judea and Galilee, it’s far enough. So the simple meaning is it’s two provinces, and it’s two different provinces.

Let’s learn further, the Rambam says further.

Halacha 6 – Plural Language and Specific Services

Speaker 1: How are the madichim, what do they do? One makes an ir hanidachat, if the madichim incited in plural language? The madichim must say in plural language. They must also be humble, because if the master inciter is still arrogant, the world won’t follow him. So he must say, let us go. The Gemara learns, he must say, neilech v’na’avod, how it’s written in the verse neilech v’na’avod, or neilech v’nizbecha, or neilech v’nakteir, as the Rambam grasps the laws of idolatry that he said in the previous chapter, that the services are zoveach, zoveach, makteir, menasech u’mishtachaveh, or mekabelo be’eloha.

So the commentators learn here that the maddiach must also say, he must incite to specific services which are the services for which one is liable to death, which are the main idolatry. That is, if he says simply “let’s become gentiles,” and he doesn’t say clearly what to do, he says “neilech v’na’avod”, this means the service that is accepted as service. It must be a forbidden service. Not if he says “neilech v’na’avod,” and I don’t know, “na’avod” can mean what the worshiper himself holds that this is a service. Let’s become more gentile-like, a bit of laxity, which doesn’t mean a din of idolatry, not even in public. He must have clear idolatry, that he must need idolatry, even if he transgresses many other things. Yes, we’re speaking here of a maddiach.

“V’neilech v’na’avod elohim acheirim”. One of the things we learned earlier are the laws of idolatry punishable by stoning. “And they heard and worshiped it in its manner of worship”, they actually did either in its manner of worship, or one of the four services, as we learned last night with the various laws, even just similar to menasech. We learned last night that one breaks a stick, because it has a similarity to menasech. “Or that they accepted it upon themselves as a god”, then one gets a din of ir hanidachat.

Discussion: Plural Language and the Maddiach’s Own Worship

Speaker 1: I think that the plural language is a bit opposite from what we learned in the first halacha, that the maddiach doesn’t need to worship idolatry, he is stoned. Ah, we’ll learn, no, but he must say “neilech v’na’avod”. Even if he doesn’t worship himself, he must make it that he wants to worship.

You’re saying that a prophet, it could be that it’s more that he’s not really part of the thing. It’s true that he’s stoned even if he himself didn’t worship and in the end he turned out so clever, but he must be part of the movement.

We also see here seemingly that if there were an incident of a maddiach like the story of the first chapter, that one just makes a small mistake and says that the Almighty wants one to honor the stars, seemingly he wouldn’t have a din of ir hanidachat. One must only really go to the end. From giving a distorted system to actually doing the idolatry. Yes, but I’m saying, if he comes and says “neilech v’na’avod,” he doesn’t say all kinds of reasons, but he has a calculation from there, he’s still a meisit u’maddiach.

Halacha 7 – When There is No Din of Ir Hanidachat

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, “An ir hanidachat that doesn’t have idol worshipers and its madichim at all times found upon it”. He didn’t say “neilech nizbecha,” but he didn’t say in plural language. They warned him, he tells you to enter, “it was found standing,” then witnesses testify about each and every one, and one must immediately see regarding warning.

Seemingly above it appears that by ir hanidachat there isn’t even a din of warning in the usual din of witnesses. However when there’s no din of ir hanidachat, then one can only give the regular punishment, when one fulfills all the laws of death by beit din, and witnesses and warning must come on each individual idol worshiper, whoever transgresses the foundations as individuals, then one gives them stoning each one individually for himself alone, and their money, and then there’s also not the din of ir hanidachat that the money must be burned, rather the money goes to the heirs.

Halacha 8 – Order of Carrying Out the Punishment: Investigation and Inquiry

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, “And how is the din of ir hanidachat and what is its measure to make an ir hanidachat?” How does one do it? How does the beit din actually carry it out?

Until now, so basically, until now we learned… until now we learned the transgression, now he’s going to learn about the punishment. Until now we learned the transgression, how the din of ir hanidachat, and now he’s going to learn about the punishment. Now just as we learned Pesach, remember, an entire order of making the Pesach. For example, an ir hanidachat one says the order of carrying out the punishment. Earlier one learned the transgression, now one says which… further he says many details in ir hanidachat.

The Rambam says, “And how is the din of ir hanidachat?” How does one do the din of ir hanidachat? The Rambam says so, how is the din when it’s indeed an ir hanidachat, what is its measure to make an ir hanidachat? The Rambam says so, the great beit din, we already discussed that this must be the great beit din of seventy-one, send, they send messengers, and the messengers are investigating and inquiring what’s going on there, until they know with clear proof…

Must one bring witnesses? No, on the contrary, so one sees it’s more than regular witnesses. And also the Rambam says so, he says the language “they investigate with clear proof.” I think simply in practical terms, because when such a thing is written all kinds of rumors start. It’s very easy to say, “Ah, there… you have no idea what’s going on in that Hasidic group, it’s like it was in that city, you have no idea what’s going on there.” Regular witnesses aren’t enough. Beit din must send messengers like inspectors, they should make their serious investigation and inquiry, until they know with clear proof that the entire city or its majority was led astray and returned to idolatry.

This is the language “returned,” as he calls it, “initially our forefathers were idol worshipers”, they did teshuva back to idolatry. But it’s more… even when they were back, it’s indeed the language that I brought earlier, it’s more that they became “converted,” one can say, they became a society for idolatry. It could even be that an entire city, like a Jewish city place, this is an ir hanidachat by us. It could be that the essence of idolatry isn’t simply that a bunch of people, each individual one worships idolatry, it’s more that the city as a city became a returnee to idolatry.

Halacha 9 – Sending Torah Scholars: Warning or Call for Peace?

Lecture on Ir HaNidachas (Subverted City) – Part 3

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, “achar kach sholchim lahem shnei talmidei chachamim lehazir osam ulehachziram”. Afterwards, one sends two talmidei chachamim (Torah scholars), this is even not the same witnesses that we had… It wasn’t, it seems, the talmidei chachamim were the “researchers.” Important people, “lehazir osam”, to warn them, “ulehachziram”. A very interesting halacha.

Let’s finish until the end, and then we’ll talk about this. “Im chazru ve’asu teshuva”, if the people of the city returned, yes, they had returned to avodah zarah (idolatry), and now they returned from that return, did teshuva (repentance), “mutav”, it’s wonderful. “Ve’im amdu betifshusam”, if they remain in their foolishness, “metzavin lechol Yisrael la’alos aleihem letzava”, then Jews gather together like a military, “vetzorim aleihem ve’orchim imahem milchama ad shetivka ha’ir”, until they break through the wall of the city, they break the city. “Tivka ha’ir” means like… well, what is this? Like “shivas yamim tesobu,” yes, when they break through the wall.

Discussion: The Raavad’s Question — Teshuva After Warning and Action?

Speaker 1: So, here is an amazing halacha. Here the Raavad stands up and asks, it’s a correct thing, in any case teshuva would help. He says, “tov hadavar shetoe’il lahem teshuva”, I agree, teshuva is a good thing, “aval lo matzanu teshuva moe’eles achar hasra’ah uma’aseh”. How can teshuva help after warning and action?

There are two approaches. There are certain commentators here who learn that by us there wasn’t any hasra’ah (warning), because by an ir hanidachas there usually isn’t any hasra’ah. Yes, most of a city gets “excited” for something, there isn’t a law of hasra’ah. Even let’s say someone stands and says, “Gentlemen, don’t follow this,” usually hasra’ah means that one tells the person personally. So the two talmidei chachamim made the hasra’ah. And if they still didn’t follow the hasra’ah, then.

But the Raavad didn’t accept this, because it was stated earlier… We learned one version of the Rambam, but in certain versions of the Rambam it stated… It was, it seems in the Raavad’s version that we’re already talking after hasra’ah, that beis din needs to investigate that there was a hasra’ah, that there was a zarah (idolatry) and hasra’ah, and then, so what does a second hasra’ah help?

Innovation: The Law of War and Call for Peace

Speaker 2 (R’ Yitzchak): But I think, about this, about this, as was said earlier that it’s somewhat a law of war, and as we see here very clearly that the Jews come up letzava vehem tzorim aleihem, I think that it’s more similar to the law of calling for peace. There is indeed a law that before one goes to war with a city, vekara’ata eleha leshalom. The Rambam says that even with Amalek there is a law of calling for peace, on every type of war there is a call for peace. So I think that this here by ir hanidachas, the specific call for peace is calling to return them in teshuva.

Speaker 1: A good explanation, R’ Yitzchak. It’s true, I agree, I want to add, this is also the interpretation of the commentators on the Mishna by tzava (army), or is this the Rambam himself who used the language tzorim aleihem, the language la’alos aleihem letzava?

Discussion: Is “Letzava” the Rambam’s Innovation?

Speaker 1: An interesting question. I want to ask, did you look in the sources to… This is your whole main teaching which is built on the language letzava, challenge whether the language letzava is the innovation of the Rambam, or is this… because in the Gemara when one learns Rashi and the commentators on Rashi, it sounds like it’s a beis din, it doesn’t sound at all like it’s a war. The Rambam said this.

Speaker 2 (R’ Yitzchak): So I saw in the Mekoros V’Tziyunim, in the Mekoros V’Tziyunim he has something with R’ Chaim Kanievsky, the Mekoros V’Tziyunim of Frankel. He brings from him. Yes, it’s his life. He brings two verses in Yehoshua. In Sefer Yehoshua it states that the people of Gad and Reuven who remained in Ever HaYarden made there their own altar. After they had already made an altar in the place of the Temple, it states there that all of Israel, I mean Yehoshua, sent Pinchas with ten tribes to warn them.

Speaker 1: Pinchas and another one, I mean Pinchas and a second kohen, and another ten tribes.

Speaker 2 (R’ Yitzchak): Ah, and another ten tribes. And they gave them a chance, and we also see this is like a call for peace. What’s going on with you? Why are you rebelling against all of Israel? So he wants to understand that this is the source of the Rambam. The Rambam himself, I mean, he brings this source in Moreh Nevuchim.

Summary: Answer to the Raavad’s Question

Speaker 1: So, it seems here that this is the answer to the Raavad’s question. The Raavad asks that teshuva never helps after zarah and hasra’ah. This is perhaps just the law as such, but regarding ir hanidachas the hasra’ah has a law more like a war, where there is on this a call for peace. Before one goes to war there must be a call for peace. But truly it’s not the reason that when one goes to war there is a call for peace.

Halacha 9 (Continued) — The Rambam’s Source: Call for Peace Like in War

Speaker 1: One should perhaps say that this is the source of the Rambam. The Rambam himself brought this source in Moreh Nevuchim, yes.

It seems here that this is an answer to the Raavad’s question. The Raavad asks that teshuva never helps after zerizus (zeal) and hasra’ah. This is not just the law as such. But the people of ir hanidachas have the law more like a war, where there is on this a call for peace. Before one goes to war there must be a call for peace.

Digression: Amalek and Call for Peace

I want to truly, not to trump that one goes to negotiate and one doesn’t negotiate. Not incidentally, it’s not politics.

No, what I mean to say is very interesting, because I spoke about Shabbos Zachor, the Rambam says that one must negotiate with Amalek. People have a problem with this. Like there’s the joke that I know a Litvak has a necktie because he wants to choke himself if he becomes aware that he’s just from the seed of Amalek, the silly jokes. But it’s not the simple meaning that by Amalek every law that exists is thrown in the garbage. By Amalek there are also laws of war, like calling for peace and so forth.

Discussion: The Foundation of Hasra’ah — A Law in Teshuva

Speaker 1: No, I want to add even sharper if I may, if you let me, I want to argue. The Raavad’s principle seems to me that I’m on the side of the Rambam here. What you’re saying is certainly true, but I think it goes to the depth.

In other words, the Raavad says, where do we find teshuva after witnesses and hasra’ah? I want to ask you another question: where do we find hasra’ah at all? Where does it say in the Torah anywhere that one must make a hasra’ah? The Gemara has a source for this, but I want to tell you, the source for this is, as I once learned in Hilchos Teshuva, the source for this is the concept of teshuva itself. Hasra’ah means I give you an opportunity to do teshuva.

What does hasra’ah mean? Before this you asked a question about one who curses Hashem. It can be many times that hasra’ah is already after the first time you do the sin, because if not it’s indeed hard to save oneself.

What does hasra’ah mean? You know that someone is going to do it? It means that person is a criminal. That’s what hasra’ah means. That person is mechalel Shabbos (desecrates Shabbos) every week. One doesn’t come even one Shabbos. Everyone knows that one is warned without fear that one is mechalel Shabbos. Nothing happens. One gives him one, and here we see that hasra’ah must be effective. Hasra’ah must be in a manner that could help you, like judging favorably.

I know that someone says that hasra’ah doesn’t just mean explained here. I mean when there is a beis din that can truly apply, to the extent that the hasra’ah is very serious even in such a manner. But the hasra’ah means in such a manner that it can cause that person to return in teshuva. We learn from Yechezkel, from the prophets, and how the prophets make a hasra’ah, and not only if they will fulfill the mitzvah. Hasra’ah is if they will not fulfill the mitzvah. Hasra’ah is a law in teshuva. The law of hasra’ah is to make it so that one can do teshuva. That action is then to present oneself to this.

And the same thing here, certainly, what you said you’re probably right, even if the Rav is right to give a law of hasra’ah earlier, or not, I don’t know, perhaps yes, perhaps no, not the point. The whole thing is here… The Rav probably held that a part of doreshin vechokrin (investigating thoroughly) is that one must check how the hasra’ah went. Yes, but he thinks of the technical hasra’ah. I say that the idea of hasra’ah is always this.

It’s not correct. That teshuva doesn’t work after before one transgresses, is like saying that teshuva doesn’t work after trying to do teshuva. Like “mi she’amar avodah zarah e’evod ve’ashuv” (one who says I will worship idolatry and repent), I think that you’re right perhaps for another reason.

Here there is the law that one should judge favorably until the last moment. He said, what’s already relevant? We’ve already done drishos vechakiros (thorough investigation). Seemingly, judging favorably is an opinion that we didn’t give him truly a chance. We didn’t truly… the hasra’ah wasn’t a true hasra’ah that he could do teshuva.

The Rambam’s Language — “Techila”

But the Rambam’s language really appealed to me. The Rambam says, “tova dibura shel Torah mitzvah”, like, if only. It’s something like a bit of chassidus. The Rambam goes like with the… like the Kanter Rav R’ Avraham’ele said, that when a gadol writes, he’s ruling in halacha. The Rambam says, “techila” (first). The Rambam rules very well that one should begin the ruling.

But I thought, the Rambam didn’t make a distinction. The Rambam says indeed, “I agree.” “Aval im his’akeshu velo shavu me’avonam, mitzvah lehilachem imahem”. He said before the Rambam, he said, “We did indeed find a side salvation.” But this is the question, whether to bring. Perhaps, I don’t know.

Teshuva in Beis Din Shel Mata

But the Chofetz Chaim says, I think that this is a normal thing, and here it’s necessary to be. Just to kill just people, certainly one must give a chance. The salvation seemingly also doesn’t go with all the laws in ir hanidachas, because there we’re talking about two whole tribes, and we learned earlier that it works. But it just has similarities.

But the truth is that I thought earlier this way, I think that it can be to remove from their hearts for the opposite reasons too. What is a very difficult thing in reality, it’s basically a civil war. One must hold by this, it’s a great danger. Just as we’ve seen, it’s not a simple thing to do.

And as I think that the Rambam brings the laws here mainly because he wants to explain that avodah zarah is not just a private matter, avodah zarah can be a public matter, it’s a different type of law.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Discussion: Killing Innocent People

Speaker 1: No, it’s correct, that when one makes a law of ir hanidachas, one kills indeed many innocent people, so the beis din will be very very careful with issuing such a ruling. When you take here the Levovil Nevoros touch, when we only give stoning for the one who worships avodah zarah, they come anyway. At most we save them anyway, but the minute we make the greater law of killing the whole city.

It’s not exactly that we kill innocent people. It’s indeed only the people who served avodah zarah and they go see, but even children of the worshippers. Asher avdu me’ah, when the father does avodah zarah the children serve more. And the children are not innocent. Very good, and the sense is he’s a subjugated captive. Here he’s in war, like war, because he’s not going to grow up a child and he goes… and what is argued.

So, I want to say there, for this, we’ll soon learn that teshuva is indeed many Acharonim from a Gemara about this which says that teshuva doesn’t help in beis din shel mata (earthly court). Here we see clearly a source that indeed teshuva helps in beis din shel mata. Perhaps Rambam, that teshuva helps in this manner means hasra’ah, let’s call it, hasra’ah is connected with teshuva.

Halacha 10: Establishing Batei Dinim and Drisha Vechakira

Speaker 1: Further, afterwards the city will have already been broken, “miyad ma’amidin lahem batei dinim vedanin osim”. They establish different batei dinim, but here there doesn’t need to be a beis din of seventy-one, because here we’re talking about a beis din that judges one person at a time.

Why Talmidei Chachamim?

Interesting, we’re already holding here by the third, so what needs three committees, we send messengers and inspectors, or we send with talmidei chachamim such ones who return in teshuva, and we send a delegation of the great court, I know there R’ Yitzchak, tries to return batei dinim, and here we make different batei dinim. One should be careful gentlemen that it’s not a way. One should be careful beis din. I know there such to be wise, that one there must be wise when one tries to return in teshuva has that aspect.

Speaker 2: Okay.

The Law of Individuals — The Minority of Worshippers

Speaker 1: Here one establishes different batei dinim, and the batei dinim judge the Jews. So, “kol ish asher avad avodah zarah, achrei she’hitra bo”. On each person so, one brings two witnesses who say that he served avodah zarah after he was warned.

Here we see, yes, that there’s a clear thing. Regarding the individual. Regarding the individual. But can, from here the Raavad saw that we’re talking that there was actual hasra’ah. About this he wonders what the returning in teshuva helps.

Discussion: What Does “Returning in Teshuva” Mean?

Speaker 2: But… or can, that the returning means this returning in teshuva? So I thought has the talmidei chachamim go around person to person. Can, so they go around beis hamidrash they hold and knock on tables they return the people? Perhaps both?

Speaker 1: The law is indeed that talmidei chachamim, I mean that technically it means like there is indeed the beis din that they are the chachamim. Talmidei chachamim means that one should still send more chachamim. Hayotzim, one needs more chachamim, students who they go to learn halachos and speak it.

There was a yeshiva. I think another reason why they need to be talmidei chachamim, smart Jews, because later we’ll see that it’s perhaps a fortified city, they don’t let in. One needs to find smart Jews who know how to get in. It’s a politically difficult thing. One must go into the city and outsmart the mesisim umadichim (inciters and misleaders) and find a way how to speak to the people. The city is fortified, but when one comes already with a war, they still come in peaceful ways, they are diplomats. Diplomats need to be smart Jews.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Minority vs. Majority — Law of Individuals or Ir HaNidachas

Speaker 1: Already, further. So, two witnesses come that he served avodah zarah. We investigate him, we say okay, the person, we write him down, the person we already know the law. And then we look, we make a list.

“Im nitztarfu kol ha’ovdim heim mi’uta”, if among all who served avodah zarah they are still the minority of the city, then they are judged as individuals, and the punishment for individuals for worshippers of avodah zarah is stoning, “ushe’ar ha’ir nitzul”. The rest of the city is saved. It was indeed only a minority.

But “im nitztarfu”, if one finds that the worshippers of avodah zarah are the majority of the city, that there’s a law of ir hanidachas, then one must “ma’alin osam lebeis din hagadol”. One must bring them to Jerusalem, or one brings down the beis din hagadol there. One brings them, the beis din hagadol must judge the whole majority at once, or also two people at once, I don’t know exactly.

Killing by Sword — Not Stoning

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: “Vegomrin sham dinam”, and the beis din judges, the beis din hears out the Sanhedrin’s arguments, and decides that it has a law of ir hanidachas. And then, “vehorgin kol elu she’avdu basayif”, then one kills each one of those who served avodah zarah with a sword.

Discussion: Who Gets Killed?

Ah, “makin es kol nefesh adam asher ba lefi charev”, every soul of a person who was there in the city.

Speaker 2: No, it seems here even the minority who didn’t serve avodah zarah.

Speaker 1: No, no. “Im nischayva”, look, it says here so, “im nischayva”. Ah, ah, ah, excuse me, you’re right. “Makin es nefesh adam asher ba”, everyone who is there. If the whole city served avodah zarah one kills everyone.

Speaker 2: Taf venashim (children and women) too, the women and children of the worshippers of avodah zarah?

Speaker 1: There we know, you’re saying perhaps only if the worshippers of avodah zarah served…

Speaker 2: The whole city one kills only the worshippers.

Speaker 1: In short, the worshippers of avodah zarah one kills, plus one kills their household. “Makin es kol hataf venashim shel ovdim lefi charev”.

Dispute of Tannaim About Children

Speaker 2: No, good.

Speaker 1: There’s a dispute about this, there were Tannaim who say that we don’t even kill the children.

Speaker 2: Ah, you see, in short, the Rash from Shantz, I see that it was the Ramatz, I thought, and he says that what the Rambam says “we strike the women of the worshippers,” he only means the women who incited them, but the righteous women…

Speaker 1: Ah, because the Gemara asks something, what do you do with the righteous women?

Speaker 2: So he learns that even in an ir hanidachas there are also righteous women who didn’t agree.

Speaker 1: That’s how it appears.

Speaker 2: Okay, there is about this, he discusses this with the Gemara, and the details there. But what the Rambam says here is that in the merit of righteous women that they didn’t follow, I don’t know exactly the law of ir hanidachas, but there is such a thing as righteous women.

Speaker 1: In any case, this is clear, even in the Rambam, the Rambam goes a bit stringently, there were Tannaim who had lenient opinions. Even the Rambam never kills any person who didn’t worship avodah zarah. Only the houses, the women and children of the worshippers, if they are the majority, which isn’t everyone.

Women is simple, but minors is indeed a novelty. So anyway, a woman can be a worshipper of avodah zarah, but minors is the innovation apparently.

Halacha 11: The Law of the Inciters — Stoning

Speaker 1: Further the Rambam says, okay, this is the law of the people. Now the Rambam says further, “Whether the entire city was incited or its majority was incited, we stone its inciters.” The inciter, the mesit umediach, they indeed receive stoning. They don’t receive the punishment of the sword, they receive a greater punishment of stoning. We learn it from a verse.

The Law of Spoils — Gathering in the Street

“And you shall gather all its spoils into its street.” We gather together all the money, the spoils, the plunder that is in it.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: We take it “into its street.” “One street, if it has no street”. What if it doesn’t have any kind of street? We take an area and make it into a street.

And further, if the city’s street is outside the city, we build a wall around it until we bring it inside, we build in such a way, we build a wall around the street, but the street should be in the city, as it says “into its street”, that the street should be inside, in the city.

Do you understand the halacha? Very interesting, it looks like Chanina ben Dosa’s city.

Halacha 11 (continued): The Law of the City’s Street — If There Is No Street

What if it doesn’t have? It doesn’t have a street? We take an area and make it into the street. And further, if the city’s street is outside the city, we build a wall outside it until it enters inside, we build in such a way, we build a wall around the street, but the street should be in the city. To fulfill “into its street”, the street must be inside, in the city. We must build like a stage to wrap the street. The street apparently means the market, where people turn, the main plaza. Yes.

The Law of Killing Animals

The Rambam says further, and we kill every living soul that is in it. He says it again, who, are these people who worship avodah zarah, or animals. I don’t know. In the end that all its spoils with the city in fire, that it has already entered… ah, animals. He brings that it means the animals. What is an animal according to destruction? Right, the animals we don’t burn, we slaughter them first. But here it says living animal? I don’t know. There’s no law of burning. They burn in the fire just like destroying chametz. Ah, and we kill means, killing, and afterwards we burn. And you shall burn is a positive commandment, as it says “and you shall burn the city with fire.” The city apparently means here all the living things, and all its spoils, we burn the property. Right, good.

The Connection Between Ir Hanidachas and Destroying Chametz

The Rambam says further… like destroying chametz. This is a preparation for destroying chametz. We burn all the avodah zarah that was there. Chametz shebalev. Yes. The Rambam says further. Chametz, this is like chametz and avodah zarah, have a connection. From the burning. Ah, because both are balev. Both are in the… yes. Both have a law of burning. The Rambam says further.

Halacha 12: The Property of the Righteous Within It

The property of the righteous within it. What happens with the righteous in the city? The Rambam says, what does righteous mean? We don’t necessarily mean righteous who are at the level of tzaddikim. No, it means the rest of the city’s inhabitants who were not incited, those who didn’t follow the mesit umediach.

The city has the law of ir hanidachas, but they didn’t follow. For this they’re called righteous. And so it was with the fifty righteous, Avraham Avinu called them righteous, the wise Jews who don’t fool themselves after the ir hanidachas. Righteous within the city, righteous in their judgment. Not necessarily righteous, people who are almost not transgressors. Righteous in their judgment.

And the property of Lot and his brother who sat at the gate are burned along with the spoils. Their own property is of course saved, but their money is also burned, since they lived there their property is lost, because they lived there, such is woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor, their money is lost.

Why Did They Lose Their Money — The Reason of Lot

It could be that the Rambam learns, I think that in the Gemara it seems that why did they go there? They went there for money. They were honest Jews, but why did they go? Because there’s a large settlement there. And it also fits with what the Rambam learned earlier, one may not live with the wicked. Why didn’t he go to a desert? Because he needs to have a store, he needs to be a normal person. So there’s a fine for this. Lot indeed lost his money. This is the simple meaning in truth, his money wasn’t saved, only him. Avraham saved his money the first time from the kings, but when it was the destruction of Sodom, then the law of ir hanidachas must apply.

The Law of Benefit from the Spoils of Ir Hanidachas — One Set of Lashes

The Rambam says further, and anyone who benefits from it receives one set of lashes, one who can’t restrain himself and takes from the spoils, from the money, receives one malkos, as it says “and nothing of the cherem shall stick to your hand.” He shouldn’t take anything from the cherem, from the money that must be destroyed. What is “one”? He says that “one” means, to exclude chapter seven, we see that there is benefit from the avodah zarah itself, he receives two sets of lashes. These are two prohibitions. But ir hanidachas is only one prohibition.

Halacha 13: The Law of Despair — Whoever Seizes Their Property Acquires It

The Rambam says further, how was this law carried out? An ir hanidachas that had witnesses, witnesses came and gave a city the law of ir hanidachas, but they warned the witnesses. And meanwhile someone grabbed property from the ir hanidachas. He planned to benefit from what is forbidden to benefit from.

Okay, until the judgment wouldn’t have been finalized or… no, we’re talking here about the judgment being finalized, we’ll see. Whoever seizes their property acquires it. We’re not talking here about any law of avodah zarah, this is a ruling in despair, in lost objects, in that kind of halacha. That the one who took money while they’re in the middle of judging it as an ir hanidachas, and later it turns out that the city isn’t an ir hanidachas, the one who grabbed it has acquired it, and one may indeed benefit. Why may one benefit? Because they despaired, therefore it’s called another law of intermediate monetary cherem. Why indeed did he acquire? Because each and every one already made his property ownerless at the time of the final judgment, because when they were already at the final judgment everyone already gave up, they already despaired of the money, therefore the one who grabbed it was as if he acquired ownerless property, acquired through despair.

Question and Answer: Why Would One Despair If One Is Innocent?

The Aruch LaNer says a halacha, because I think that the person knows, he feels that he’s innocent, did he despair in the end? On the contrary, very good. On the contrary, on the contrary. He brings the Gemara in Kerisus where this law comes from, he says that on the contrary, if people would make their objects ownerless because they think they’re guilty, it’s over, because it was ruled that they’re guilty. On the contrary, each one says, I’m a tzaddik, the rest of the city’s majority sinned truly, but I’m a tzaddik. So he makes his objects ownerless on the understanding that he’s a tzaddik who unfortunately lost his money. So he’s a tzaddik who lost his money.

Another Explanation: Probably There Was Something Fishy

The Rambam says further, but probably, if we want to say it in a chassidic way, probably something was fishy in the city, they don’t deserve their money. Let’s say this, they waited until a time, meaning we’re already after sending messengers to bring them back in repentance. It could even be that they indeed worshipped avodah zarah, but there weren’t two kosher witnesses or something, that’s what it means.

Halacha 14: It Shall Not Be Built Again — One May Not Rebuild

The Rambam says further, and it shall never be rebuilt, an ir hanidachas may never be rebuilt, and anyone who builds it receives lashes, as it says “it shall not be built again.” Does forever mean forever or as long as the person lives? One must think what “forever” doesn’t apply to one person. It’s interesting, because usually “you shall not enter the congregation of Hashem” there’s no longer any Ammonite or Moabite, but the city still remains.

This is another question, how long nowadays can you say that a place was an ir hanidachas. If you don’t know, may one not build? One doesn’t know. One doesn’t know.

Comparison to Nachal Eisan — The Lomdishe Question

This is an interesting thing. This is the well-known question of why one may build every place, because it’s a doubt of nachal eisan, kol kavua is like half and half. This is the well-known lomdishe question. It’s said that one doesn’t travel in nachal eisan, and if we say kol kavua is like half and half, every place should be a doubtful nachal eisan.

What you could apparently ask is the same question about a doubtful ir hanidachas, according to the opinion that… okay, but probably such a place the beis din must hang a sign, or put in something. Apparently it’s not a good comparison, because nachal eisan isn’t such a big publicity. When a person died in a place it’s a whole huge event, it must be written in histories, not just like that.

What Does “Build It” Mean — Gardens and Orchards Are Permitted

But the Rambam says that one may not build a city, but it’s permitted to make it gardens and orchards. One may indeed build gardens and orchards. It says in the Rambam “it shall not be built again”, he says, “you shall not build a city as it was, but it’s permitted to make it gardens and orchards.” One may not remake it into a city.

And then I thought, generally “build it” means that one rebuilds the city. It could be that even there building some little houses… one needs to know what “build it” means. No, it could be even not gardens and orchards. One needs to think, because “as it was” is something. One needs to think.

Answer to the Question — Building a New City with a New Name

So perhaps an answer to my question, that one may not rebuild the city. There was a city that had such a name, and one makes it with a new name or something, God forbid. I don’t know if there’s such a month, one may not do this. But okay, one needs to think. But yes, only gardens and orchards are permitted.

Digression: Beit Shemesh and Purim

The Rambam says further… a question was raised in the laws of… well… there’s a law of a city in Purim, because there are people who say that in Beit Shemesh, I know, nearby there was some city, from ancient settlements, and others claim that it could be that one builds in the same area and it becomes a city, but it’s not the city. Jerusalem, Jerusalem was rebuilt. It was destroyed, and it was rebuilt. But you’re building precisely a city in that place, what you say doesn’t mean “it shall not be built again.”

Okay, I haven’t yet heard that there’s already a place that was an ir hanidachas and one may not build. It’s said that there are people who throw around the word, because there’s a holy community that doesn’t allow building somewhere. Just finding sources for other desires. Okay.

Halacha 15: A Caravan Traveling from Place to Place — Travelers in Ir Hanidachas

The Rambam says further, a caravan traveling from place to place, there are people who go wandering in exile, they travel from one place to another, and they stopped at an ir hanidachas. If they passed through an ir hanidachas, so, if they incited them, if they also followed the avodah zarah worshippers of the city, so, if they were residents of the city, always the law is that at thirty days, also regarding Pesach, regarding mezuzah, if you live in a city thirty days you become part of the city, then they are killed by the sword and their property is lost, they also have the law of ir hanidachas. And if not, if they don’t become part of the city’s residents, they’re only called avodah zarah worshippers as individuals, they receive the punishment of individuals that they are by stoning, and their property is not for the wicked, and the money indeed goes to the heirs.

Halacha 16: Property from Other Cities Deposited in Ir Hanidachas

The Rambam says further another halacha about the property of an ir hanidachas. The Rambam says thus, property of people from another city that was deposited within it, what happens if the ir hanidachas had a bank there, or there were people from other cities who deposited their money there. Even though they accepted responsibility upon themselves, even if the ir hanidachas people accepted responsibility, and regarding other halachos, for example indeed with chametz, it gets the law that the person who took responsibility it becomes his money, but regarding ir hanidachas it’s not yet called their money. In other words, essentially responsibility means that if it would have been burned one could have claimed against the ir hanidachas people that they should pay. But since it’s not theirs, these belong to their owners, we give it back to the owners, because it’s not spoils. The word spoils seems like an extra word, but what we learn is a novelty, that it’s not the spoils of association, even in a manner where they accepted responsibility.

Property of the Wicked Deposited in Another City

The Rambam says further, but conversely, the property of the wicked, the people, the people of the ir hanidachas, the wicked who incited, that was deposited in another city, they kept their money in institutions outside the city, so, if it was claimed together with them, if it was somehow taken when judging, it’s burned with them, we burn it also when we burn the ir hanidachas. And if not, if it wasn’t gathered, it remained in the outside city, once lost, these are given to the wicked, it also doesn’t get the law of being taken away. Spoils means when it’s there it seems.

Halacha 17: An Animal That Half Belongs to Ir Hanidachas and Half to Another City

The Rambam has such a case, such an interesting halacha. He says it three times. An animal that… I almost became happy. Yes. An animal that half belongs to the ir hanidachas, two people had a partnership, one from the people of ir hanidachas with one from outside, and it’s one animal, and half belongs to ir hanidachas and half to another city within it, this is forbidden, the entire animal is forbidden. The Rambam is already explaining this. But dough that is so, a person from ir hanidachas with a neighbor from the next city had a large dough together, it’s permitted. The dough is still permitted, because he can divide his dough, because half the dough is kosher.

But an animal one can’t say half an animal, because the life force is one. When you cut an animal in half the animal won’t survive. Dough one can make into a smaller dough. An animal we say like every drop of blood is in both, therefore the entire animal…

What’s the language of the Gemara? He can have an olive’s worth in this and an olive’s worth in that. But as you say, an animal is a living thing, it’s one thing, I can’t divide it. It wouldn’t remain two living things. It’s one thing.

Animals of ir hanidachas that were slaughtered, the Rambam says further, we take them out for slaughter, usually we kill them, we kill them by sword, and the property we burn. But what happens we take them out for slaughter? It’s forbidden in benefit like other slaughtered animals that are forbidden in benefit.

Halacha 18 — The Law of Head Hair and Wigs

So, the Rambam says further, se’ar harosh, the hair of the head, bein shel anashim bein shel nashim sheba, mutar behana’ah. Why? Because the people are killed, but their hair is not property and not people.

Aval se’ar pe’ah nochris, harei hu bichllal shelalah ve’asur. Therefore we learn that a wig has the same law as an ir hanidachas, oops, an ir hanidachas, but only if it was from an ir hanidachas. It’s an interesting halachah. It’s an interesting explanation. That’s why the Gemara says it. It’s a cheftza. Hair is not that, but a wig is not hair.

So, the Gemara asks about se’ar shel nashim tzidkaniyos, and the Gemara says hana’ah milsa. So, yes.

The Law of Palm Fruits — Mechusar Kevitzah

The Rambam says further, peiros dekalim sheba, mutarim. The fruits of palm trees, he doesn’t mean specifically palm trees, he means fruits from trees in the ir hanidachas, are permitted. This is a simple thing, it’s a simple thing.

And this is actually what he says about the vessels. There’s such a question in every Gemara, perhaps this is mechusar kevitzah. It could be, that’s exactly it. Perhaps one takes items that are on it, then it’s already mechusar kevitzah. Something that has already been torn off, it only needs to be gathered in one place, these things must be burned. Yotza peiros hamechuborin she’hen mechasrin telishah ukevitzah usreifah.

The Rambam says, just as you see the reason why se’ar harosh is also mutar behana’ah, is because it’s still mechusar kevitzah. He says, once you pick the trees that are forbidden, it’s still mechusar telishah, the trees themselves, so this is certainly also so, because it’s also mechusar kevitzah.

Halachah 19 — The Law of Consecrated Items Within It

The Rambam says further, what happens when the people of the ir hanidachas had hekdesh before they served avodah zarah? Perhaps it was, they served both worlds, and they consecrated for the sake of Heaven. Eh, it could be the hekdeshos of the tzaddikim sheba, you don’t know. Ah, it could be.

So, kodshei mizbe’ach, what he consecrated and it already received the sanctity of kodshei mizbe’ach, that is, there is in hilchos kodashim, there is when one says things in such a way that it’s fitting that it should be offered, then, once one said it should be offered, yamusu, it must die.

Why? Because it cannot be brought as a korban, and the only thing that can be done with kodshei mizbe’ach is to bring it as a korban, so it must die. That is, one must do as with all other animals, one must kill it and burn it, because zevach resha’im to’evah, one may not bring it as a korban. Just like esnan zonah umechir kelev, yes.

The Law of Kodshei Bedek HaBayis — They Shall Be Redeemed and Then Burned

What happens with kodshei bedek habayis, where the animal doesn’t have kedushas haguf but kedushas damim, that usually the hekdesh takes the animal and sells it, and uses the money for kodesh? The law is, also here yipadu, one should redeem it for money, ve’achar kach sorfin osan, and afterwards one should burn it. The money goes to hekdesh.

Yes, but who will want to redeem it if he will have to burn the animal afterwards? Again. Ah, who redeems it? The people themselves redeem it. Who? The money of the ir hanidachas. The money of the ir hanidachas is also invalid money apparently, yes. The money must be thrown away. One must find another person who will redeem it.

It could be one finds a nadvan, someone who wants to give money for hekdesh so that the Beis HaMikdash won’t have a loss. But usually someone who redeems wants to have the animal. Perhaps one takes their money? Yes, but their money also has the law that one may not take from the spoils.

The Dispute Between the Rambam and the Ra’avad

The Ra’avad is actually in disagreement, the Ra’avad says that one doesn’t burn it. According to him he has no problem. The Ra’avad says that it’s always not his own, because once he gave it to the Beis HaMikdash it’s no longer his property. He gave a gift to someone. He was for the redemption and one leaves it, it remains good. One can use it.

Yes, yes, just like always. As if I can understand that the Ra’avad should be correct, because if one of us would have given away a gift of money, he also wouldn’t have to burn it, because it’s no longer his, even if it remained in his house apparently. This is the law that we learned, “nichsei cherem shenitkedshu beva’an”. It’s actually a good question, the Ra’avad’s question.

But the Rambam says, “yipadu ve’achar kach yisrefu, mah shene’emar ‘shalal velo shalal shamayim’”. It’s very interesting. It means one must burn it. Well, I don’t understand, what is the “mah shene’emar”? The “mah shene’emar” is why one can indeed redeem it. And what’s the point of redeeming it and then burning it? Something is interesting, something doesn’t fit here with the Rambam. What’s the explanation?

It’s a Mishnah, and there are two ways how one learns the Mishnah. It’s a bit of a complicated sugya, how the Rambam learns the Mishnah and how the Ra’avad learns the Mishnah. So yes, I also don’t know.

So one redeems, and “achar kach sorfin osan, mah shene’emar ‘shalal velo shalal shamayim’”. “Shalal shamayim” one cannot, that’s the advantage, one can still redeem it. Because if not for this, one wouldn’t be able to redeem it either, because the hekdesh also wouldn’t be allowed to have benefit from it, just like the law of “kol shalal tihyeh”.

The Law of Bechor and Ma’aser Within It

“Habechor veha’ma’aser shebsocha” – there’s such an example of “zevach shelamim tocheluhu”, but it’s only here on korbanos, not on ma’aleh aliyos themselves. Yes. “Habechor veha’ma’aser shebsocha, she’hen kodshei mizbe’ach, yamusu”. Because if they’re temimim, one gives the animal itself, the bechor or the ma’aser one gives itself, and this the kohen may not take, because it’s like kodshei mizbe’ach, and one must let it die. “Yamusu” means to say one burns it.

But ba’alei mumin is still the same halachah that it’s only… what? It’s only mumin that he redeems, still the same thing. Okay, generally an animal of those killed, no, but one must indeed kill it. On this one doesn’t say “shelo velo shalal shamayim”. Right, because the owner will do as if he redeems, like the law of bedek habayis, the kodesh only has the money from it. So one can give him the money.

So why would one give him the money? Perhaps one actually takes the money from the ir hanidachas. But the animal itself is an animal. It doesn’t fit. It doesn’t fit.

Ah, because the owner could have eaten it. Because it’s a ba’al mum, the owner could have eaten it and redeemed it. Therefore it’s considered his own. When the owner cannot eat it, it belongs to hekdesh, one just cannot bring it if it’s an oveid avodah zarah. But since it’s a ba’al mum, the owner can keep it and redeem it and eat it, and actually send the money, therefore it’s considered an animal of those killed.

Halachah 20 — The Law of Terumah Within It

He says here something else, a very sweet thing. He says like this, he continues, terumah shebsocha, terumah that lies there, im higi’a leyad kohen, yirkav. One should let it become moldy, and not grab what is the practical difference. And the kohen is also tamei in the ir hanidachas. That’s the point. And why doesn’t one burn it? One does burn it. Rashi says yes that one burns it. Perhaps he didn’t have time to discuss.

Okay. Im adayin beyad Yisrael, yinaten lakohen shebe’ir acheres. Perhaps one cannot burn it because it has some sanctity, so one waits for it to rot. I don’t know. Im adayin beyad Yisrael, if one hasn’t yet given it to the kohanim, yes, Rashi says that one should let it lie until it becomes a kli he’asuy lehirkev. One doesn’t burn it because it’s somewhat kodesh, one lets it become rotten, he says.

If it’s still beyad Yisrael, the explanation is not his, because you don’t have to give it to a kohen, because it’s terumah shebsocha, just like one speaks how long once it’s ma’aser, one gives it to a kohen as a matnas kehunah, nachas ruach lashamayim mikedushasan kedushas haguf, and on this there’s also no zevichah lishmah ta’avor except on the mizbe’ach, and the kohen can eat it as usual.

The Law of Ma’aser Sheni and Sacred Writings

Ma’aser sheni vechessef ma’aser sheni vechessef ma’aser sheni, and or money one has already redeemed ma’aser sheni to kessef ma’aser sheni, essentially it belongs to the ba’al habayis, because the ba’al habayis eats it in Yerushalayim, so in a way it’s kodesh, it has sanctity, and with tumah one must burn it because it’s zilzul in kodashim, but one also may not eat it because only the ba’al habayis can eat it.

So a proof lignizei, kisvei hakodesh, and kisvei hakodesh is also kisvei hakodesh that one may not burn also for the same reason. For which reason? Because it’s kisvei hakodesh, because it received the seal of anshei ir hanidachas that it’s lignizei.

The Rambam says, he concludes with these matters of the laws of ir hanidachas.

That is, everything is certainly details of things that are kodesh or that belong to God. And just like partnership, it means that it’s eser benai, that it becomes completely burned. And now one learns that there’s also actually a sanctity of an olah, it’s such an aspect of olah.

Halachah 21 — The Excellence of the Law of Ir HaNidachas: Olah, Charon Af, Blessing and Mercy

Velo od ela shemesalek charon af miYisrael, with this one removes the charon af, shene’emar “lema’an yashuv Hashem meicharon apo”, and he also says by Pinchas it says so, yes, that… very good, because the Almighty was very angry about avodah zarah.

Umevi berachah verachamim, shene’emar “venasan lecha rachamim verichameha vehirbecha”. Perhaps here the rachamim means, the famous Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, that it’s mercy that a person doesn’t become cruel, and one brings blessing and mercy.

But the simple meaning of the verse, one must remember, the Jew will say the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, the simple meaning of the verse is simply that the Almighty has mercy on you, and the explanation is that as the Rambam brings in another place, the Rambam, that the reward for avodah zarah is “ela elu shematridim es ha’adam achar hahevel rachamim yavo’u la’olam”, that being cruel toward avodah zarah, that is mercy, because the world, a better world is a world that serves the Almighty.

Just as we learned last week in the parshah, “mi yode’acha hayom”, one can speak much about blessing because one did the mitzvah.

Mercy and Cruelty by Ir HaNidachas — Hashkafic Summary

But the simple meaning is, one must remember, the Jew knew the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, but the simple meaning is that the Almighty has mercy on the world.

And the explanation is, as the Rambam brings in another place, the Rambam that the connection to cruelty is al elu shematilim al atzman achrayus al rachamim ba’olam. That they are cruel toward avodah zarah, that is mercy, because the world, a better world is a world that serves the Almighty.

The Story of “Mi LaHashem Eilai” — Cruelty When Necessary

Just as we learned in last week’s parshah, “mi LaHashem eilai”, we know the Gemara in Berachos, because he did the mitzvah of cruelty when necessary.

The Rambam’s Position That Charon Af Is Only on Avodah Zarah

And charon af, the Rambam is famous, he says in the Moreh that charon af appears in the Torah only on avodah zarah. It’s a huge question, it’s a huge question, because the Rambam says so, that the greatest thing that brings charon af on the world chas veshalom is avodah zarah.

So therefore, this is apparently the opposite, the yetzer hara tells him “have mercy”, he says “no, mercy is when one kills him, not when one lets him live”.

The Prohibition of Having Mercy on Idol Worshippers

Regarding the next chapter we will see more about the prohibition of having mercy on idol worshippers, a clear explicit prohibition.

Eh, he gives here a whole halachah, so this is apparently the middle path of being interesting, of mercy or anger, I don’t know what. But here one must indeed have cruelty. Yes. Okay.