(a)Question: If the city was enticed by itself (people decided on their own to serve idolatry), what is the law?

1."Va'Yadichu" - not that it was enticed by itself;

2.Or, even if it was enticed by itself?

(b)Answer (Mishnah): If the enticers were women or children (it is not an Ir ha'Nidachas).

1.(They are not influential enticers), this is like being enticed by itself, and it does not become an Ir ha'Nidachas!

(c)Rejection: No, being drawn after women or children is not the same as being drawn after themselves.

(d)(Mishnah): Only if the majority of the city was enticed.

(e)Question: How do we determine whether or not the majority was enticed?

(f)Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): We judge people, those found guilty are jailed; if the majority are convicted, the city is an Ir ha'Nidachas.

(g)Rejection (Ula): We do not delay execution!

(h)Answer #2 (Ula (and R. Yochanan)): Rather, we judge people, those found guilty are stoned; if the majority are convicted, the city is an Ir ha'Nidachas (and anyone found guilty from now on is beheaded).

(i)Answer #3 (Reish Lakish): We make many Batei Din, in order that we can judge all of them in one day (and give the proper Misah without delay).

(j)Question (against Reish Lakish): Rav Chama bar Yosi taught that "V'Hotzeisa Es ha'Ish...(El She'arecha)" - you judge individuals at the local Beis Din, but (most of) a city is only judged by the Great Sanhedrin!

(k)Correction: Rather, we make many Batei Din, in order to see how many transgressed; if we see that the majority sinned, the Great Sanhedrin will give the final verdict.


(a)(Mishnah): "Hake Sakeh Es Yoshvei ha'Ir"...

(b)(Beraisa): If a caravan of donkey-drivers or camel- drivers stopped in a city that became an Ir ha'Nidachas (and they were enticed with it):

1.If they were in the city for 30 days, they are killed by the sword and their property is destroyed (like residents of the city);

2.If they were there less than 30 days, they are stoned, and their heirs inherit their money (like individuals who served idolatry).

(c)Contradiction (Mishnah): One who has lived in a city 12 months is considered a resident.

(d)Answer (Rava): One is not considered to be (a resident) of the city until 12 months;

1.(Regarding Ir ha'Nidachas, it says "Yoshvei (those who dwell in) ha'Ir") - after 30 days, one is considered to be dwelling there.

2.(Beraisa): If one vows not to benefit from people of a city, this applies to people who have lived there for 12 months;

i.If he vows from Yoshvei ha'Ir, this applies to people who have lived there for 30 days.


(a)(Mishnah): "Ha'Charem Osah..."

(b)(Beraisa): "Ha'Charem Osah" excludes property outside the city that belongs to Tzadikim of the city;

1."V'Es Kol Asher Bah" includes Tzadikim's property inside the city.

2."Shelalah (its spoils)", but not what pertains to Shamayim;

3."V'Es Kol Shelalah" includes property outside the city that belongs to Resha'im of the city.

(c)R. Shimon: The Torah says that Tzadikim's property inside the city is destroyed because it led them to live there.

(d)(Beraisa): "V'Es Kol Shelalah" includes Resha'im's property outside the city.

(e)(Rav Chisda): This is only if it is Nikbatzim b'Sochah (it was once in the city, and can be brought to the city within one day).

(f)(Rav Chisda): Deposits of people of an Ir ha'Nidachas are permitted.

(g)Question: What is the case?

1.Suggestion: Property of people of another city was deposited in the Ir ha'Nidachas.

2.Rejection: Obviously, we do not destroy it. It is not Shelalah!

(h)Answer #1: Property of Resha'im of the Ir ha'Nidachas was deposited in another city.

(i)Rejection: If it is Nikbatzim b'Sochah, it is forbidden. If it is not Nikbatzim b'Sochah, Rav Chisda already taught this!

(j)Answer #2: Really, property of people of another city was deposited (with Resha'im) in the Ir ha'Nidachas. The case is, the Shomrim accepted Acharayus;

1.One might have thought that since they accepted Acharayus, it is considered like their property. Rav Chisda teaches that this is not so.

(k)(Rav Chisda): If half an animal belongs to an Ir ha'Nidachas and half to another city, it is forbidden;

1.If half a dough belongs to an Ir ha'Nidachas and half to another city, it is permitted.

(l)Question: What is the reason?

(m)Answer: We do not consider an animal to be divided among the partners (rather, each owns half the entire animal), but we consider a dough to be divided. As if each partner owns (by himself) half the dough.

(n)Question (Rav Chisda): If an animal of an Ir ha'Nidachas was slaughtered, is this considered slaughter to inhibit Tum'as Neveilah?

1."L'Fi Charev" - there is no distinction how it was killed. It is like an animal killed without slaughter (a Neveilah);

2.Or, the verse does not discuss if it was slaughtered, but if it was slaughtered, it is not Neveilah.

(o)This question is not resolved.


(a)Question (Rav Yosef): What is the law of hair of a Tzadekes of the city?

(b)Objection (Rava): You ask only about a Tzadekes. This implies that hair of a Resha'ah must surely be destroyed;

1."Tikbotz... v'Sorafta" - we burn only what is ready to be gathered and burned, but not hair (or anything else) that must first be detached!

(c)(Rava): Rather, we may ask about a wig of a Tzadekes of the city.

(d)Version #1 - Rashi - Question: What is the case?

1.If it attached to her, it is like herself (even the clothing she is wearing is spared)!

(e)Answer: The case is, it is hanging on a peg;

1.Since she is not wearing it, it is like Tzadikim's property inside the city, and it is destroyed;

2.Or, since she regularly puts it on, it is like clothing that she is wearing, and it is spared.

(f)Version #2 - Ramah - Question: What is the case?

1.If it is attached to her (e.g. through wax), it is like herself!

(g)Answer: The case is, it is hanging on a peg in back of her ear;

1.Is it destroyed with property of Tzadikim in the city?

2.Or, since she is wearing it, is it like the clothing she wears, which is spared? (end of Version #2)

(h)This question is not resolved.

(i)(Mishnah): "V'Es Kol Shelalah Tikbotz El Toch Rechovah..."

(j)(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): If it does not have a square, it cannot become an Ir ha'Nidachas;

(k)R. Akiva says, if it does not have one, we build one.

(l)Question: What do they argue about?

(m)Answer: R. Yishmael holds that "Rechovah" (its square) connotes that it was already there;

1.R. Akiva holds that if now it has one, also this is called Rechovah.



(a)(Mishnah): Hekdesh is redeemed...

(b)(Beraisa): Kodshei Mizbe'ach (Korbanos) are left to die, Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (property of Hekdesh that is not used for the Avodah, but it is sold and the money is used for needs of Avodah) is redeemed, Terumah is left to rot, and Ma'aser Sheni and Kisvei ha'Kodesh are buried;

(c)R. Shimon says, "Behemtah (its animals)" excludes Bechor (a firstborn Tahor Behemah, which is automatically a Korban) or Ma'aser Behemah (one tithes the animals born in his flock every year. Every 10th animal is a Korban), which are Kodesh;

1."Shelalah", but not money of Hekdesh or Ma'aser Sheni.

(d)Question: Why does the first Tana say that we leave Kodshei Mizbe'ach to die? We should graze them until they become blemished, redeem them, and use the money to bring another!

(e)Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" (we should not bring a Korban from Resha'im).

(f)Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): The Mishnah discusses Kodshim with Acharayus (i.e. if the Korban becomes lost or blemished, the owner must bring another). The Tana is R. Shimon, who says that these are considered the property of the owner (therefore, it must be destroyed. We do not overtly kill them, for this would not be Kavod Shamayim.)

(g)Objection: R. Shimon argues. The first Tana cannot be R. Shimon!

(h)Answer #3: The Mishnah discusses Kodshim Kalim (they become permitted in all of Yerushalayim, even to Yisre'elim). The Tana is R. Yosi ha'Galili, who considers them like property of the owner.

(i)Inference: Kodshei Kodoshim (which become permitted only to Kohanim in the Mikdash) are not the property of the owner. We would redeem them.

(j)Question: Why does the Tana say that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are redeemed? He should rather distinguish between Kodshim Kalim and Kodshei Kodoshim, and teach that Kodshei Kodoshim are redeemed!

(k)Answer: The Tana teaches that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are redeemed, for this is always true;

1.Not all Kodshei Kodoshim are redeemed. A Chatas is left to die (because its owner will die, and a Chatas whose owner died must die).

(l)R. Yochanan did not answer like Reish Lakish, he learns from "Zevach Resha'im To'evah."

(m)Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish answer like R. Yochanan?

(n)Answer: He holds that "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" applies only to the actual Korban of the Rasha;

1.Here, if we sell the Rasha's Korban and buy another, "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" does not apply.

(o)(Beraisa - R. Shimon): "Behemtah" excludes Bechor and Ma'aser.

(p)Question: What is the case?

1.If they are Tamim (unblemished), these are spoils of Shamayim! (Shelalah excludes them.)

2.If they are blemished, they are spoils of the city!

(q)Answer (Ravina): Really, they are blemished. They are not considered spoils of the city because one may not eat (and benefit from them) like his (Chulin) animals. A blemished Bechor or Ma'aser is like Shamayim's animal (it retains laws of Kedushah, e.g. one may not benefit from the milk or shearings or work with them).

(r)Ravina argues with Shmuel.

1.(Shmuel): Everything is offered, and everything is redeemed.

2.Question: What does this mean?

3.Answer: Any Korban that is offered when it is Tam and redeemed if it is blemished (i.e. all Korbanos except for Bechor and Ma'aser), Shelalah excludes it (that it need not be destroyed);

i.Any Korban that is offered when it is Tam and is not redeemed if it is blemished, i.e. Bechor and Ma'aser (they are eaten without redemption), Behemtah excludes it.


(a)(Beraisa): Terumah is left to rot.

(b)(Rav Chisda): This applies only to Terumah in a Yisrael's possession. Terumah that a Kohen received is his money, so it is burned.

(c)Objection (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): Ma'aser Sheni and Kisvei ha'Kodesh are buried.

1.Ma'aser Sheni belongs to its owner just like Terumah belongs to a Kohen, and it must be buried!

(d)Correction (Rav Chisda): The Beraisa (which says that we leave Terumah to rot) discusses Terumah that a Kohen received. Terumah in a Yisrael's possession is given to a Kohen in another city.

(e)(Mishnah - R. Meir): A dough of Ma'aser Sheni is exempt from Chalah;

(f)Chachamim say, Chalah must be taken.

(g)(Rav Chisda): They argue about Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim. R. Meir says that it is Mamon Gavoha (i.e. like Hekdesh), and Chachamim say it is like Chulin;

1.All agree that outside Yerushalayim, it is exempt (since it is forbidden there until it is redeemed, it is Mamon Gavoha. Alternatively, since it was forbidden like Mamon Gavoha at the time of kneading, it is always exempt, even after it is redeemed.)

(h)Objection (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): Ma'aser Sheni and Kisvei ha'Kodesh (of an Ir ha'Nidachas) are buried.

1.Question: What is the case?

2.Answer #1: The city is Yerushalayim.

3.Rejection (Beraisa): Ten things are special about Yerushalayim... It cannot be condemned to be an Ir ha'Nidachas.

4.Answer #2: A different city became an Ir ha'Nidachas. One of the residents had brought Ma'aser Sheni to Yerushalayim.

5.Rejection: If so, once it entered the walls of Yerushalayim, it is Niklat (absorbed, and one may not take it out);

i.Since it is not Nikbatzim b'Sochah; it need not be destroyed. It should be permitted!

6.Answer #3: It was in another city, and it never entered Yerushalayim (and it must be buried. It is not considered Mamon Gavoha. According to Rav Chisda, this is not like either Tana!)

(i)Answer #1 (and Answer #4 to Question (1)): No, the case is, a different city became an Ir ha'Nidachas. A resident had brought Ma'aser Sheni to Yerushalayim, and it became Tamei (therefore, it may be taken out of Yerushalayim, so it is considered Nikbatzim b'Soch the Ir ha'Nidachas).

(j)Objection: If so, we should redeem the Ma'aser Sheni!

1.(R. Elazar): Tamei Ma'aser Sheni can be redeemed even in Yerushalayim (since it cannot be eaten) - "Ki Lo Suchal Se'eso";

2."Se'eso" is an expression of eating - "va'Yisa Masa'os."

3.Suggestion: The Ma'aser was bought with Ma'aser money.

4.Rejection: Even so, he can redeem it!

i.(Mishnah): If Peros were bought with money of Ma'aser Sheni and they became Tamei, they can be redeemed.

5.Suggestion: The Beraisa is R. Yehudah, who says that they must be buried.

6.Rejection: If so, even if they did not belong to someone of an Ir ha'Nidachas, we would have to burn them!

(k)Answer #2 (and defense of Answer #2 to Question (h:1)): Really, a different city became an Ir ha'Nidachas. A resident had brought Ma'aser Sheni to Yerushalayim, and it is Tahor;

1.The case is, the walls of Yerushalayim fell (so it can no longer be eaten).

2.(Rava): Mid'Oraisa, Ma'aser can be eaten only within the walls. Mid'Rabanan, once Ma'aser enters the walls, it cannot be redeemed;

i.Chachamim decreed only when there are walls (and it can be eaten). If the walls fell, it may be redeemed.