Sanhedrin 144

1:
Our mishnah returns us to a topic mentioned in the first mishnah of Chapter Nine:

That mishnah then went on to discuss the case of the murderer in detail, but the other item was not dealt with. At the start of our present mishnah the inhabitants of the idolatrous township are mentioned as not meriting the world to come, and the amplification of the case, held in abeyance since Chapter Nine, is then resumed.

2:
The Torah [Deuteronomy 13:13-17] states:

Thus we see that the Torah requires that where the entire population of a township was seduced to idolatry, the population must be put to death and all the property of the township must be completely burned and destroyed. The decision that such a calamity had befallen Israel and must be dealt with is reserved by the fifth mishnah of Chapter One to the Sanhedrin of seventy-one members alone. That the sages were very uncomfortable with the whole issue of the "seduced city" is apparent from the many midrashim that have grown up around the topic, whose sole intention is to circumscribe the very possibility that the mitzvah be effected at any time. As is usual in such cases, the textual basis for the midrash is rather tenuous. Apart from restrictions that are part of our present mishnah, others were mentioned in Chapter One, Mishnah Five: that the declaration that a township in Israel had become idolatrous and must be eliminated is reserved exclusively to the Sanhedrin; that no township near the borders of Eretz-Israel could be declared idolatrous (this is based on the words of the Torah requiring the township that had been eliminated must remain "an eternal ruin" [verse 17]: it could not be the intention of the Torah that such destruction wreaked by Jews upon other Jews, however recalcitrant, should be an object of derision by the foreigners across the border); that three townships may not be eliminated when they are in proximity to each other – and even the permission of the mishnah there "but one or two is possible" is understood by the Gemara [Sanhedrin 16b] as meaning that the two townships must be in greatly separated areas of the country "such as one in Judah and one in the Galilee". Similar to the statement made about the "stubborn and rebellious son", the Tosefta [Tractate Sanhedrin, 14:1] states that "there never was and there never will be such a township. So why was it included in the Torah? – to derive [further] laws from it…"

3:
Our present mishnah states that the inhabitants of such a township have no share in the world to come. This is derived by hermeneutics from the verse that is quoted: "worthless men have separated from you" – they have been separated from the rest of you in the world to come.

4:
In addition to the restrictions already mentioned our present mishnah adds several further restrictions that make the application of the law almost impossible. (You will recall that we have seen the use of midrash for such a purpose on many occasions.) There are restrictions concerning the suborners and there are restrictions concerning the suborned. A township can only be declared a township that has been suborned to idolatry if the instigators of the pagan worship were themselves inhabitants of the town and members of the same tribe. This restriction is derived from the text of the Torah itself: "worthless men have separated from you and suborned the inhabitants of their township" – their township – "and they have separated from you" – the same tribe. Furthermore, the suborners must be adult males, neither females nor minors. This is derived from a literal understanding of the Hebrew term Anashim, men. (The rabbis were quite capable of a non-literal understanding of the text when they wished!)

5:
If the above conditions could be met (!) then the fate of the township was total annihilation: every single one of the inhabitants was to be given a fair trial and decapitated, and the whole township including all its property was to be burned and then left as "an everlasting ruin" [Deuteronomy 13:17]. However, if the suborners were not adult males each and every case must be considered on its own merits. In order to be found guilty of idolatry each suspect must have been given prior warning by two competent witnesses – as in any other capital case. Should any of them actually be found guilty they are to be executed by stoning (as idolators) but their property is not confiscated and destroyed.

I have been sent a couple of messages that are a kind of "public service" and I pass them on gratefully.

As regards the whole question of resurrection and the world to come, which has been the subject of our studies over the past few shiurim, Orin Rotman advises that "those wanting a survey of the development of Jewish views on resurrection and afterlife topics from a Conservative scion may wish to review 'Death of Death' by Rabbi Neil Gillman."

Also, in one of our recent shiurim we mentioned the views of Moshe Ĥayyim Luzzatto (Ramĥal) on the same topic. I surmised that the reference must have been to the last chapter of "Gates of Penitence", but Larry Yudelson has another suggestion:

Regarding the Ramĥal: Your correspondent was probably referring to Derekh ha-Shem, which discusses a spiritualized (Maimonidean) afterlife.

Mishnayot Two and Three of our present chapter dealt with those who have forfeited their share in the world to come. Larry Yudelson also writes:

The four commoners in the Mishnah [Sanhedrin 11:2 – SR] all seem to fit the part of the wicked advisor. They lose their share [in the world to come] not for what they do, but for what they tell others to do: seduce Israel at Ba'al Pe'or, massacre priests, rebel against David, ridicule the sages. Perhaps we can read this together with the Kings, all of whom have the distinction of starting idolatries, of spreading heresies. All seven of the [types mentioned in the] Mishnah put something into motion that they had no control over. There can be no resentence for their sins, and their death cannot atone, because their sin lives after them.

---

Most of us have a personal view of death, the afterlife, resurrection and the world to come. Indeed, since none of us have ever experienced any of these, it could hardly be otherwise that each has his or her own conceptualization.

David Conley sent me his:

I once had death explained thus:

New JPS translation of Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 –

Ecclesiastes 12:7 –

Genesis 3-19 –

Not just our bodies, but us. At conception? birth? God puts a spirit within us. This is what makes us different from animals. This spirit/mind is like the operating system of a computer: by itself, it cannot do anything. It enables a physical brain/computer to do useful work and is the backup floppy that our personality is written on. God will someday use this backup to bring the individual back alive in a resurrection, some say physical, some say spiritual, and we will be the same person we were before we died. He might decide that some individuals should not be resurrected, so He might destroy the floppy.

Shabbat Shalom to everybody.