Sanhedrin 146

1:
Our mishnah continues and concludes the midrashic exposition of Deuteronomy 13:13-19. You will recall that this is the passage in the Torah from which the law of the apostate township derives. This midrashic exposition was begun in the previous mishnah, which was the subject of our last Shiur. Indeed, in many manuscripts – including that used by the Babylonian Talmud – these two mishnayot are treated as one and our present mishnah begins with the connecting phrase "as it is said". To facilitate an easier appreciation I have separated into four paragraphs the four midrashim which comprise our present mishnah.

2:
The town square was, of course, any free area within the township that was used for public gatherings. In biblical times the "public square" was a large area just inside the town's main gate. (This can still be seen illustrated in the concourse of the Jaffa Gate of the old city of Jerusalem (even though it only dates to the sixteenth century CE). This large free space was used for anything from a market for selling produce to the local court where trials were held. From the wording of our mishnah it will appear that in more peaceful times many townships must have found it more convenient to have their main meeting place outside the fortifications, thus leaving more room inside the walls for (dense) population. The first midrash deals with the requirement of the Torah that "you shall assemble all its booty into its square" [Deuteronomy 13:17]: if the township does not have a free space within its walls a space must be cleared for it; similarly, if the township's meeting place was outside the walls a space for one must be cleared inside the walls. We must always bear in mind that the township of which we are speaking is quite imaginary since "there never has been and never will be an apostate township" [Sanhedrin 71a].)

3:
The text of the Torah continues: "and you shall burn with fire the township and all its booty totally to God" [Deuteronomy 13:17]. The original idea is concerned with the concept of ĥerem. This is a Hebrew term which, in biblical times, implied that a person or persons, whose life was considered to be an affront to Heaven, were to be completely annihilated in a kind of "holy war". To emphasize that the motive was religious zeal with no material or mundane considerations, it was forbidden to take any of the town's material effects: everything belonging to the township – human remains, livestock, chattels – were to be committed to a purifying conflagration. It would seem that our ancestors looked upon the whole nation of Israel as one body: the individual was not only himself or herself, but also an integral part of the body politic. Even in modern medicine, when one limb threatens the health of the whole body it is amputated in order to preserve the general health of the person, so our ancestors believed that a cancerous growth within the body politic must be ruthlessly amputated in order to preserve the general health and vigour of the nation.

4:
The verse under discussion yields two different midrashim. The second, attributed to Rabbi Shim'on bar-Yoĥai, is the less complicated so we shall deal with it first. The keyword, the springboard that gives rise to the midrash, is the word "totally", kalil in Hebrew. If the nation of Israel applies the rigour of the law against the apostate township "totally", then God will accept this as if it were the offering of a sacrifice that was consumed "totally" on the altar of the Bet Mikdash. (Some sacrifices were only partially offered on the altar, the main part of the animal being returned to the celebrating family to be consumed at a festive gathering or being considered a priestly perquisite.) It does not seem too far-fetched to see in this midrash an attempt to answer critics of the law of the apostate township as being cruel, "barbarian".

5:
The first of the midrashim on the above verse requires more explanation. By rendering an exact interpretation of the text the midrash points out that the Torah requires the annihilation of "all its booty totally unto heaven": it is the effects that belong to the township and its inhabitants that are to be burned, and not effects that belong to "Heaven". Three categories are mentioned: hekdesh, terumah and ma'aser sheni.

6:
Hekdesh is the status of material goods or monies declared by their owner to be dedicated (i.e. donated) to the Bet Mikdash. From that moment they cease to be the property of their erstwhile owner and become the property of the Bet Mikdash under the control of the Temple's treasurer – or, in more picturesque language – they become the property of Heaven. Such effects are to be redeemed: that is to say that the nation must pay into the treasury of the Bet Mikdash the equivalent value of these effects which are then to be consigned to the flames.

7:
>em>Terumah was a certain fraction of agricultural produce that was to be separated off by the farmer and to be given to the kohen [priest] of his choice as a sacerdotal perquisite. The Gemara [Sanhedrin 112b] explains that terumah which had been separated off but not yet donated to a kohen when the township became apostate was to be given to a Kohen of another town, since it already "belonged to Heaven"; but terumah which was already in the possession of a kohen who resided in the apostate township was to be left to rot.

8:
Ma'aser was also a portion of agricultural produce that was separated off by the farmer. The particular form of ma'aser referred to by our mishnah is ma'aser sheni. In every cycle of seven years, in years three and six the ma'aser was to be used for boosting the economy of Jerusalem; in the other four years it is to be donated to the indigent. (Each seventh year was a fallow year. 5761 will be such a year.) Ma'aser was to be locked away, as were also sacred scriptures that belonged to people of the township. [For a full discussion and explanation of the terms terumah and ma'aser see RMSG of 7th January 1996.]

9:
The third of the four midrashim that comprise our mishnah is concerned with the fate of the apostate township after its destruction. Rabbi Yosé ha-Gelili gives the biblical text [Deuteronomy 13:17] its overt meaning: "It shall be left an everlasting ruin never to be rebuilt" must mean just that. Rabbi Akiva has a more liberal interpretation: while the township can never be rebuilt into a township as it once was, its area may be used for creating agricultural land and orchards.

10:
Verse 18 of Deuteronomy 13 gives expression to the basic concept of ĥerem:

The annihilation of the township, however horrifying it may seem (to any generation) reflects the concept that Heaven cannot abide wickedness: with the removal of the wicked Divine wrath departs from this world to be replaced with mercy and harmony. We belong to the generations that witnessed the fruits of man's capability of ultimate wickedness: the wholesale carnage of the First World War (the "war to end wars"), the mindboggling inhumanity of the Second World War and the Holocaust, the annihilation of Hiroshima, the "purges" behind the erstwhile iron curtain, "the killing fields" of Asia, terrorist outrages at sea, on land and in the air, "ethnic cleansing" even in Europe … was there ever a century that had the opportunity of seeing mankind at its most destructive and at its most wicked such as the twentieth century? Perhaps it is appropriate that our study of this tractate ends with the assurance that "the disappearance of the wicked from this world means the disappearance of Divine wrath from the world" to be replaced with mercy and harmony that can only be present when everyone acts in accordance with the requirements of justice. Amen.

It is with a great feeling of accomplishment that I conclude our study of Tractate Sanhedrin. Since November 1995 we have managed to complete the study of three tractates: Kiddushin, Berakhot and now Sanhedrin. This last tractate took longer than expected because I was dogged by ill health and overwork, but with profound thanks to Heaven I have succeeded in completing this tractate. Traditionally, at the conclusion of the study of a tractate, we say Hadran – we will return to study this tractate at some time in the future. But my thoughts are already moving towards the next tractate of RMSG. I thank the many people who have already sent me their thoughts as to what it should be. I am now going to take a short break and will resume the regular Shiurim after Pesaĥ. However, during the break I shall post a notice giving details of the many suggestions that I have received – and the rationale concerning the tractate that I eventually decide on, whichever it may be. My heartfelt thanks to all those hundreds who read these Shiurim and to the many who also write to me with queries, suggestions and comments … To all, my profound thanks.