Sanhedrin 145

1:
Our mishnah continues the discussion concerning the idolatrous township – despite the fact that the Gemara [Sanhedrin 71a] has already established that "there never has been and there never will be an idolatrous township". Thus the sole purpose of this discussion is the elucidation of the text of the Torah and what can be deduced therefrom. (In this the idolatrous township is similar to the stubborn and rebellious son" who was the subject of our study in Chapter Eight, as we have already noted.)

2:
The Torah stipulates that we "must strike down the inhabitants of that township with the sword" [Deuteronomy 13:16]. The reisha [first section] of our mishnah seeks to elucidate the precise definition of the term "inhabitant". Does this term refer to permanent residents of the township, to the exclusion of tourists and other temporary residents, or does it refer to anybody who happened to be in the township on the day that the mass defection to paganism took place? Our mishnah brings the case of a caravan – something which may be equated perhaps with long-distance truckers today. What is the status of such a caravan? To answer this question the Gemara [Sanhedrin 112a] quotes a baraita which distinguishes between temporary residents who took part in the defection to paganism but who had been in the township for less than one month as opposed to temporary residents (who took part in the defection to paganism) who had been there for more than one month. The former are executed by stoning and their property is not destroyed whereas the latter are executed by decapitation and their property is destroyed. (See the previous Shiur for an explanation of the fates of these two groups.) In the discussion that follows on this baraita the Babylonian Amora Rava clearly distinguishes between permanent residents and temporary residents.

3:
In his commentary on our mishnah, Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro [Italy, 15th century CE]] explains the strange phrase in our mishnah "a caravan of donkeys or camels … save it. How can a group of visitors save the doomed township? He explains: if the defectors among the locals were a majority, but when one includes in the count the visitors who did not defect the number of defectors becomes a minority, then the visitors have in fact saved the town from destruction. However, the opposite is also true: if the defectors among the locals were a minority, but when one includes in the count visitors who defected as well the number of defectors becomes a majority, then the visitors have in fact doomed the town to destruction.

4:
The seifa [last section] of our mishnah seeks to elucidate a different part of the same Torah text: "the township and everything in it, together with its livestock, must be ritually annihilated" [Deuteronomy 13:16]. From this the sages said that the property of the people of the township who did not defect to paganism with the rest us lost, for the Torah states quite clearly that the destruction must include "everything in it". But the property of those same people which is outside the township is saved since the Torah only requires the destruction of "everything that is in it" – and not what is outside of it. But the property of the those who took part in the defection to idolatry it is lost regardless of whether it is inside or outside the township because the Torah requires the destruction of "all its booty" [Deuteronomy 13:17] (a negative term).