How do Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan argue about "li'Vli Chok"?

Rashi: Reish Lakish holds that one who left over one Chok, i.e. he did not guard it, he will be judged in Gehinom for this.

Maharal: Heaven forbid to say that Reish Lakish holds that one who did not guard one Chok will be judged in Gehinom for this! "Ein Tzadik ba'Aretz Asher Ya'aseh Tov v'Lo Yecheta"! (NOTE: Why can this not be? We find that R. Yochanan ben Zakai (Berachos 28b) and even Moshe (Bamidbar Rabah 23:5) feared lest they go to Gehinom! - PF): Rather, Gehinom opens its mouth and wants to swallow him, just Mitzvos and good deeds protect him.

Maharsha: Rashi implies that R. Yochanan holds that if he learned one Mitzvah, this saves from Gehinom. This is difficult!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Meshech Chochmah (Devarim 30:20): R. Yochanan holds that even if he learned only one Mitzvah, and fulfills it, and does not know the rest, he does not go to Gehinom. It is not such a wide argument.

Maharsha: In the Yerushalmi, R. Akiva discusses one who lacks a Mitzvah to tip the scale to merit. This is only for the world to come, where the Din is Emes. One who is half Mitzvos needs a merit to tilt his judgment. Every Mitzvah creates an advocating angel, and every Aveirah creates a prosecutor. In this world, even one advocate out of 1000 suffices. For the world to come, if he did one Mitzvah to make his merits weigh more, but then refrained from a Mitzvah, he [is even again, and] falls to Gehinom. R. Yochanan holds that if he learned one Chok (even if he refrained from many Mitzvos), it saves him from Gehinom.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Meshech Chochmah (Devarim 30:20): "Ki Ner Mitzvah v'Sorah Or" - just like one lamp can light lamps without limit, a Mitzvah can lead to many Mitzvos, so it decides the Din for merit. This is in this world, but not for the world to come - if it did not lead to Mitzvos, its potential to do so does not help! If the scales are equal, he goes to Gehinom for 12 months.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Reish Lakish cannot hold that one who omitted one Mitzvah falls to Gehinom. How many fulfill the entire Torah without any omission?! Rather, even for not fulfilling Milah, which is called Chok - "va'Ya'amidah l'Yakov l'Chok", he is prepared for Gehinom. R. Yochanan holds that Milah suffices to save from Gehinom. (NOTE: This is like Ramah's text 'even for doing one Mitzvah' (he is saved from Gehinom). - PF)

Iyun Yakov: This is like it says in Eruvin (19a), that one who is circumcised, Avraham does not let him go to Gehinom.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 2 citing Be'er Sheva: Others say that even for not wearing Tefilin, which is called Chok - "v'Shamarta Es ha'Chukah ha'Zos", Reish Lakish holds that he is prepared for Gehinom. R. Yochanan holds that either of these two Mitzvos suffices to evade Gehinom. This is wrong. One who annuls Bris... even if he has Torah and good deeds, he has no share in the world to come (Avos 3:11)!

Anaf Yosef citing Ba'al ha'Ikarim: Reish Lakish holds that Torah gives Sheleimus only if he fulfilled everything. If he omitted even one Mitzvah, he needs Gehinom to achieve the ultimate perfection normally obtained through that Mitzvah. R. Yochanan holds that Torah gives Sheleimus even if he fulfilled only one Mitzvah.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Yalkut Yehoshua: This is like their argument about how the Torah was given (Gitin 60a). Reish Lakish holds that the Torah was given complete; only Kiyum of the entire Torah gives Sheleimus, for every Mitzvah depends on all the others. R. Yochanan holds that it was given one Parshah at a time. Each Mitzvah contains the entire Torah, so even one Mitzvah gives Sheleimus.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 2: Ba'al ha'Ikarim says that we find that one can merit the world to come via one deed, e.g. the launderer who killed himself (NOTE: He used to come in front of Rebbi every day. The day that Rebbi died, he did not come. When he heard, he jumped off the roof out of anguish (Kesuvos 103b). I ask, perhaps he merited the world to come because he used to come in front of Rebbi every day! - PF) and the executioner of R. Chanina ben Tradyon (Avodah Zarah 18a).

Etz Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Reish Lakish holds that each limb and sinew in man corresponds to a Mitzvah. One who omitted one, he did not purify that limb; it must be purified in Gehinom. The rest of the body needs to go to Gehinom with it. R. Yochanan holds that if he did [or learned] one Mitzvah, he purified the corresponding limb or sinew. It need not go to Gehinom, and the rest of the body is drawn after it, and exempted from Gehinom. Some texts say 'learned', for many Mitzvos, a person cannot fulfill them. If he engages in learning them, it is as if he fulfilled them - one who engages in the law of Olah, it is as if he offered an Olah (Menachos 110a).

Anaf Yosef citing Ri Mintz: Reish Lakish explains, there is a Chok that he despises and refuses to keep it. R. Yochanan holds that the verse discusses one who denies that a Mitzvah is from the Torah. Chazal said about him "Ki Devar Hash-m Bazah v'Es Mitzvaso Hefar." Some texts say 'he was not Mekayem even one Chok.' This is like "Kiymu Aleihem ha'Yehudim."

Margoliyos ha'Yam 2 citing Be'er Sheva: Reish Lakish holds that one who did not learn one Mitzvah, he receives Gehinom for this, and afterwards merits the world to come. R. Yochanan holds that only one who did not learn at all goes to Gehinom [for this]; man's first Din is for Divrei Torah.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Sha'ar Bas Rabim (Tetzaveh): Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan argue about "Kol Chelev Lo Sochal." R. Yochanan holds that Kol is even part; the Torah forbids Chetzi Shi'ur. Reish Lakish disagrees. "V'Shamarta Kol Chukav" obligates fulfilling all of them. R. Yochanan holds that even if he fulfilled one, he fulfilled the verse.

Reish Lakish himself said (Eruvin 19a) that the fire of Gehinom does not rule over sinners of Yisrael. He learned a Kal va'Chomer from the golden Mizbe'ach. All the more so, one who has many Mitzvos (even sinners of Yisrael are full of Mitzvos like a pomegranate - "k'Felach ha'Rimon Rakasech"), they protect him!

Maharal: Reish Lakish teaches that Gehinom wants to swallow him, just Mitzvos and good deeds protect him.

Iyun Yakov: There is no contradiction. He descends to Gehinom, just the fire does not rule over him.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 3: There, Reish Lakish discusses Poshe'ei Yisrael - they are lazy and do not fulfill Mitzvos properly, e.g. they are the last to enter the Beis ha'Keneses.

Why did R. Yochanan say 'Hashem is not pleased that you said so'?

Rashi: He does not want to judge Yisrael so harshly.

How does Reish Lakish explain "...Pi Shnayim Bah Yikarsu"?

Rashi citing his Rebbi: Two thirds of the world will be cut off and die, and a third will remain. That third will be a third in as many ways as possible - one of Noach's three sons (Shem), Shem's third son (Arpachshad). Presumably, the remnant will be from Arpachshad, for Yisrael descend from him. A third of Arpachshad's seed will remain. Also Yishmael, Bnei Lot and Bnei Haran descend from Arpachshad; perhaps Yisrael will be the majority, and they will be diminished.

Rashi: A third of Shem's third son (Arpachshad). Yisrael are from Arpachshad; a third of Yisrael will remain.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 5: In Mo'ed Katan 25b, Rashi says that Yisrael are called Shelishis.

Maharal #1: Two thirds will be cut off, and a third will remain, even in the third of Shem. This could apply to Yisrael, for the verse did not exclude Yisrael! The verse did not mention Shem. Presumably, Reish Lakish refers to Yisrael; he said Shem for a euphemism, lest he say that most of Yisrael will be cut off.

Maharal #2: Even though Shem's seed is closer to existence, for they are closer to Yisrael, two thirds will be cut off. Even though the verse did not mention Shem, presumably, it refers to Shem, for the verse divided Yefes and Cham to consider each by itself; it did not do so for Shem. (NOTE: I do not understand this. For all of them, the Torah lists their descendants! - PF) This Perush is primary.

Maharsha: "V'Heveisi Es ha'Shelishis ba'Esh... u'Vchantim" - Yisrael and virtuous Goyim will be tested, and only a third will remain.

What is the meaning of 'even the third of Noach'?

Rashi citing his Rebbi: A third of Noach, i.e. the entire world, will remain. Presumably, if there are not enough Yisraelim to comprise a third, converts and virtuous Nochrim will complete the third. If they are more than a third, they will be diminished a little.

Rashi: All of Arpachshad, the third of a third of Noach, will remain. This Perush is primary.

Maharal: The verse discusses Noach's seed; it need not discuss Yisrael. We can say that the two thirds that will be cut off are the seed of his other two sons; Shem's seed will remain. It can be that all of Yisrael will remain!

What is the literal meaning of "Echad me'Ir u'Shenayim mi'Mishpachah"?

Rashi: Only one from a city or two from a family will survive.

Maharsha: This is like Reish Lakish holds, that Yisrael will be diminished.

What is the significance of one saving a city or two saving a family?

Maharsha: We find that Avraham's merit saved Tzo'ar, and in the merit of Moshe and Aharon Shevet Levi was chosen. (NOTE: Even though Tzo'ar was saved via Lot's Tefilah, Lot himself was saved due to Avraham! - PF)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): If one can save a city, why are two needed to save a family? Rather, one can save the city, and even his family in his city. They are included in Bnei ha'Ir. He does not save his family in another city. If there are two Tzadikim in a city, one saves the city, and the other saves his family in another city.

How did Rav expound "Lo Simatzei b'Eretz ha'Chayim"?

Maharsha: The previous verse says "veha'Chochmah me'Ayin Timatzei." Our verse teaches that it is not found b'Eretz ha'Chayim, i.e. markets where pleasures are found - one is Mechayeh himself there.

Is shampooing one's hair considered indulging himself?

Rashi: Yes, for it was when he should have been learning.

Maharal: Torah is found only in one who kills himself for it - "Zos ha'Torah Adam Ki Yamus b'Ohel" (Berachos 63b). When one cares for his body, he neglects Torah, which is intellectual. The intellect and body are opposites.

How do we learn from a Hekesh "v'Lakachti... v'Heveisi"? The former verse does not discuss Yetzi'as Mitzrayim! We should learn from "v'Hotzeisi Eschem... v'Heveisi"!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): The Hekesh is primary due to a difficulty. It should have said "v'Heveisi Eschem El ha'Aretz" before "v'Lakachti Eschem... v'Hayisi Lachem lEi'lokim", since "v'Hayisi Lachem lEi'lokim" is only in Eretz Yisrael. One who lives in Chutz la'Aretz, it is as if he has no G-d! Rather, the order was changed for the Hekesh, to equate leaving to entering. (NOTE: Strictly speaking, a Hekesh is only in the same verse; adjacent verses are called Semichus. - PF)

Why did only two out of every 600,000 leave Egypt?

Rashi: The rest died during the plague of darkness, lest Egypt see Yisrael suffering.

Maharal: This refers to those who expected to leave, i.e. all the generations that died in Egypt.

What do we learn from "v'Ansah Shamah... uch'Yom Alosah me'Eretz Mitzrayim"?

Rashi: They will be poor (NOTE: in number) and lowly, like when they ascended from Egypt.

Maharsha: They will be diminished in Galus like they were diminished in their youth, i.e. in the Midbar, when only two survived. Perhaps the two, Yehoshua from Efrayim and Kalev from Yehudah, hint to Mashi'ach ben Yosef from Efrayim, and Mashi'ach ben David from Yehudah.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 9 citing AMaTZ: Tosfos (Bava Basra 121a, from Midrash Eichah) says that the decree was cancelled in the 40th year; over 15,000 who should have died entered the land. There was no decree on those who were less than 20 or above 60, nor on Leviyim, nor on women. Here it says that two entered - the two known by name.

Could the Egyptian show what his fathers did to R. Eliezer's fathers?!

Maharsha: Perhaps he showed to him chronicles. All kingdoms have chronicles.

About which matters did Moshe complain?

Maharsha: It was not about drowning Yisraelim in the sea. That decree was before Moshe was born! (NOTE: It is relevant when it ceased. Midrashim say that when Moshe was born, Pharaoh's astrologers told him 'Yisrael's savior was born today', and he commanded to kill even Egyptians born that day. Three months later, they told him that the savior was put in the water. Presumably, the decree ceased then. - PF) Rather, he complained about those who were killed via the sword and mashed into buildings. The verses imply that after Moshe was sent, the Shibud worsened only regarding not getting straw and needing to meet the old quota of bricks! Perhaps Chazal said that Moshe was punished only for complaining about those who were mashed into buildings, for "Levenim" is like l'Vanim. Without straw, you will need to meet the quota of Levenim via your Banim. We can say that he complained also about those who were killed via the sword. He said that he put a sword in their hands to kill them.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 13 citing AMa"Tz: The matters of the Avos pertained to themselves. Moshe, a faithful shepherd, was Moser Nefesh for the sake of Yisrael, but Hash-m is very exacting with His Tzadikim.

R. Eliezer says that Hash-m appeared many times to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov with the name "Kel Shakai." We find this once with Avraham, once with Yakov, but not with Yitzchak!

Etz Yosef citing Yefe To'ar: He appeared to them many times, just the Torah recorded only two of them.

What is the significance of asking Hash-m's name?

Maharsha, based on Ramban: A promise with Hash-m's great name is greater than a promise with other names. Also the Avos, sometimes Hash-m appeared to them with His great name, e.g. Bris Bein ha'Besarim and Yakov's dream, but sometimes it was only with Kel Shakai, and they did not request a promise with His great name, and they did not complain that the promise was not fulfilled for themselves. Hash-m did not rebuke Moshe for asking His name, only for his complaint "Lamah Hare'osa." The Tanchuma implies like this. Hash-m said "v'Gam Ani Shamati Na'akas..." - I heard their groaning, and I will fulfill what I promised to their Avos with Kel Shakai. All the more so I will fulfill what I promised to you with My great name!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 11 citing Kuzari 5:2: Hash-m did greater than miracles for Moshe's generations than with the Avos, for (a) They are a Rabim, and (b) Only the Avos' Emunah was complete. Even had they experienced only evil their entire lives, their Emunah in Hash-m would not have weakened. They did not need miracles!

Etz Yosef: Even though Moshe asked to know what to tell Yisrael if they will ask, [R. Eliezer] holds that this was a pretext to know His name. (NOTE: Would Moshe, who was "b'Chol Beisi Ne'eman", do so?! He knows that Hash-m knows his intent! Perhaps Moshe himself was unaware that at a subconscious level, he asked also for himself. - PF) In any case, Hash-m did not rebuke him until Moshe complained, and then he rebuked him also for asking His name.

What is the Havah Amina that Avraham would resent needing to pay for a burial place for Sarah? Hash-m promised the land only to his seed - "v'Dor Revi'i Yashuvu Henah"!

Etz Yosef: If Hash-m loves the Avos so much, to promise the land to their seed, it is improper that they have such difficulties getting a burial place, or water...

Here it says that due to asking His name and complaining, Moshe did not come to Eretz Yisrael. The Torah says that it was due to Mei Merivah - "Ya'an Lo He'emantem Bi"!

Maharsha citing Re'em: This Nevu'ah could have meant that you will not enter as the leader. Therefore, Moshe included himself "Nose'im Anachnu" (we will enter).

Maharsha: This is difficult. Could his Talmid Yehoshua lead Yisrael in Moshe's lifetime? A kingship does not detract from another kingship! (NOTE: What is the question? Hash-m decreed that Moshe's kingship end in the Midbar! - PF) Also, did Moshe not understand his Nevu'ah?! Also the Midrash implies unlike this.

Maharsha: Moshe knew that it was decreed that he will not enter, but he thought that Tefilah can nullify the decree; there was no Shevu'ah with it. Therefore, he said "Nose'im Anachnu." There was a Shevu'ah with the decree of Mei Merivah.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 14 citing Be'er Sheva: Moshe could have entered Eretz Yisrael, but died before the war of the 31 kings.

How do we learn from "Atah Sir'eh..." that you will not see what I will do to the 31 kings in Eretz Yisrael?

Etz Yosef: "Sir'eh" is extra, for this Drashah. It should have said "Atah E'eseh..."

What is the question 'what did he see'?

Rashi: Which of the 13 Midos did he see, and due to this he bowed?

Maharsha: Surely Moshe already knew the Midos, just now he was aroused more to one of them.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): What is the source that he was aroused only due to one of them? Also, he should have said immediately 'Resha'im should perish'! Also, he should not criticize Hash-m's Midos! Also, Moshe is the advocate of Yisrael - why did he say that Resha'im should perish?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ya'aros Devash 2:2, 36a: Moshe hated Nochrim. He asked that Hash-m put Shechinah only on Yisrael. Hash-m promised to give Eretz Yisrael to Yisrael when the Kena'anim's sin is complete. Due to the Meraglim, Yisrael did not deserve it at the time. Moshe prayed for Erech Apayim for them, that Hash-m delay punishing them until Yisrael bear their punishment in the Midbar for 40 years.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Why did he rush to bow, and not wait for Hash-m to finish the Midos?

Why does R. Chanina ben Gamliel say that Moshe bowed due to Erech Apayim?

Maharal: When Moshe saw that Erech Apayim is even for Resha'im, he was not pained, and praised Hash-m for this Midah. Or, we can say that he bowed because Erech Apayim enables the world to exist, for man cannot avoid sinning, so he could not survive without Erech Apayim.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Moshe understood that Erech Apayim is only for Tzadikim. It says Apayim (plural) for before Hash-m punishes, and after He began punishing and the sinner does not repent; He punishes slowly. The Yerushalmi says that Moshe requested two Erech's for Tzadikim. Hash-m said, even for Resha'im. Moshe said, if they persist in their evil, why punish them gradually? When Yisrael sinned "va'Yamru Al Yam", and at Mei Merivah they said "ha'Yesh Hash-m b'Kirbenu", and again at the Egel, they are Resha'im. Hash-m began "Hash-m Hash-m El Rachum v'Chanun..." Moshe rushed to bow and pray to nullify his words, and fulfill Hash-m's words (Erech Apayim is even for Resha'im).

Iyun Yakov: Moshe thought that there should not be Erech Apayim for Resha'im. They should perish, for while Resha'im are in the world, there is anger in the world. This is why "b'Avod Resha'im Rinah."

Etz Yosef: It did not occur to Moshe that all (i.e. most) of Yisrael will sin.

Why do Rabanan say that he saw Emes?

Rashi: He saw that if Hash-m will judge them with absolute Din, they will be eradicated. He rushed to pray for them that Hash-m not judge them according to their deeds.

Maharsha: Midas ha'Emes opposes man's creation. Emes said that man should not be created, for he is totally Sheker!

Maharal: Even though Tzadik v'Ra Lo in this world, Moshe saw that His Midos are Emes, and the Tzadik has his reward in the world to come. Understanding this is called seeing Emes. Therefore, he bowed. Rabanan hold that Rasha v'Tov Lo did not bother Moshe, since a Tzadik receives his full reward. There is no injustice if Hash-m pardons a Rasha.

Why did Moshe say "v'Atah Yigdal Na... Erech Apayim", i.e. even for Resha'im, only after Chet ha'Meraglim? He should have said so earlier, at Chet ha'Egel!

Maharsha: Chet ha'Egel was their first sin. They were still Tzadikim, due to Ma'avir Rishon Rishon (the first sin is removed). At Chet ha'Meraglim, they already had many sins - "va'Ynasu Osi Zeh Eser Pe'amim", so they were considered Resha'im. "Ka'asher Dibarta" - I do not request a new matter, only what You already said.

How does "Edosecha Ne'emnu Me'od... Hash-m l'Orech Yamim" teach that he saw Erech Apayim?

Rashi: "L'Orech Yamim" is [patience, i.e.] Erech Apayim. Moshe said that it is Ne'emnu Me'od, for he saw it at Sinai. Moshe said this verse, for beforehand it says "Tefilah l'Moshe."

Maharsha: This is difficult.

Maharsha: Midrash Yalkut says, perhaps just like Hash-m is patient with Resha'im, He is patient with Tzadikim! "Kel Nekamos Hash-m Kel Nekamos Hofi'a" refutes this. This is like it says it says in Eruvin (22a), Hash-m is patient with Resha'im to delay their punishment for the world to come. For Tzadikim, He punishes for their minority of sins in this world. One might have thought that "Erech Apayim" teaches that He is patient also with Tzadikim! "Hash-m l'Orech Yamim" teaches unlike this. It is near "Kel Nekamos Hash-m...", which discusses Resha'im - "Ad Masai Resha'im Hash-m." Vengeance and punishments are at the end of days for Resha'im, but not for Tzadikim. Hash-m delays Tzadikim's reward for the world to come. It seems that the text in our Gemara should say that "Hash-m l'Orech Yamim" is next to "Kel Nekamos Hash-m." (NOTE: Margoliyos ha'Yam 111b 1 brings such a text from Yalkut Reuveni. - PF) According to our text, it should not say 'it is next to "Tefilah l'Moshe"' (for they are not Samuch - the former is in Psalm 93, and the latter is in Psalm 90), rather, 'beforehand it says "Tefilah l'Moshe."'

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Did R. Chaga not read the verse until he heard a child saying it? R. Chaga always read them as two Psalms. The child read them as one - then, R. Chaga understood the Drashah.

How will Hash-m be a crown on every Tzadik's head?

Maharal: A crown is on man's head, but it is separate from him. It has a partial connection to him. So Hash-m will join to each Tzadik, but He is separate.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ba'al ha'Turim on "u'Lesitecha Elyon... l'Sehilah ul'Shem ul'Sif'ares" (Devarim 26:19): When Yisrael praise Hash-m, this returns to them and becomes a crown on their heads.

Why does it say 'of every Tzadik and Tzadik'?

Margoliyos ha'Yam 3: One is a Tzadik who rules over his Yetzer ha'Ra when opportunity for sin comes; the other is one who confronts his Yetzer ha'Ra and overpowers it, e.g. a bachelor who dwells in a big city and does not sin, like R. Chanina and R. Oshaya. They were shoemakers in Eretz Yisrael in a market of harlots; they made shoes for the harlots. The harlots looked at them, but they did not lift their eyes to look at the harlots (Pesachim 113b).

What is the source to expound "la'Ateres Tzvi..." like this?

Maharsha: "Tzvi" is an expression of desire; Tzefiras is an expression of anticipation.

Why do we expound "ul'Ru'ach Mishpat" to discuss one who rules over his Yetzer ha'Ra?

Maharsha: It says "Mi Yode'a Ru'ach Bnei Adam... v'Ru'ach ha'Behemah." Man has two Ruchos - Chiyuni, which also animals have, and the Neshamah - "NIshmas Ru'ach Chayim." These are the Yetzer Tov and Yetzer ha'Ra. It says about Kalev "Haysah Ru'ach Acheres", that of the Neshamah.

Why do we expound "Meshivei Milchamah" to be one who debates in the war of Torah?

Maharsha: There are two ways of Torah. (a) To delve deeply (Pilpul). (b) To fix times for Torah. After death, a person is asked six things, including 'did you fix times for Torah? Did you delve deeply into Chachmah?' (Shabbos 31a). These are mentioned here, debating in the war of Torah, and those who come early and stay late in Batei Medrash. We learn from Sharah, because they become like gatekeepers - they open them early in the morning, and close them late at night.

What is the question 'why are these different than these'?

Ramah: Why are Tzadikim with these Midos unlike Tzadikim without these Midos?

Melei ha'Ro'im: The text in Megilah is 'Yisrael engaged in Torah; the nations did not.' (NOTE: If so, the question was 'why are Yisrael different than Goyim. - PF)

To whom do "ba'Yayin Shagu..." and "Paku" apply?

Ramah: They apply to Tzadikim without these Midos.

Maharsha: In Yeshayah, Rashi said that they are the judges and Chachamim of the generation. i.e. also the good and esteemed among them stumbled in wine; there is no good among them. Not only will they not have a crown in the future - they will even go to Gehinom. Due to strong drink, they erred in "Peliliyah" (judgment) and ruling about Torah law.

Melei ha'Ro'im: They apply to Goyim.

Why do Anshei Ir ha'Nidachas have no share in the world to come, unlike individuals who served idolatry?

Maharal: Many who sin are worse than individuals who sin. Rabim's sin reaches until the world to come. This is like we said about one who causes Rabim to sin.

Etz Yosef: Tosfos (47a) says that this is if they were not killed. If they were judged and executed, they have a share in the world to come.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 6: Hagahos Ya'avetz says that the enticers have no share in the world to come, for they caused Rabim to sin; [Shamayim] does not enable them to repent. Chamra v'Chayei brings from Tosfos ha'Rosh "Yatz'u Anashim mi'Kirbecha" - they left the Klal of Yisrael. So Chazal said about Navos, "Tzei" - leave My abode. Pnei Moshe learns from "Bnei Vliya'al" - they are not Oleh. Before we judge them, we send Chachamim to them to make them repent. If they persist in their evil, they are judged like deniers. Their death is not for Kaparah; they are like rebels, who have no share in the world to come.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Sanhedri Ketanah: We kill them to fulfill "u'Vi'arta ha'Ra mi'Kirbecha"; it is not for Kaparah. The Vilna Gaon (Shenos Eliyahu, Aderes Eliyahu) says that they are choked, like Nochrim. A Nochri's death does not atone for him.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 5: The Me'iri says that surely they have no share, for they are idolaters! It was mentioned Agav, without need. The Mishnah in the Yerushalmi omits the words 'have no share in the world to come.' Chidushei ha'Ran says that this is the old text, and it is correct, for since they were executed, confessed and accepted their verdict, this and burial atones for them, like others who are Chayav Misah, like it says above (43b). The texts that say 'they have no share', they were 'corrected' based on Rashi, who explains our Mishnah to be connected to our Perek (people with no share in the world to come). This is wrong. It returns to discuss those who are choked. Also Ramah says so.

NOTE: Perhaps Rashi and Me'iri explain like R. Yochanan (Kesuvos 111b), who applies "the dead will not live" to those who served idolatry. Alternatively, idolaters are Apikorsim. (PF)

Why is Ir ha'Nidachas considered like an Olah?

Iyun Yakov: Just like Olah is Kalil, and no one benefits from it, so Ir ha'Nidachas, all its property is destroyed. Also, Olah removes Ru'ach ha'Tum'ah from the land, like Rekanati brings from Yalkut Reuveni - when Resha'im of Ir ha'Nidachas perish, Hash-m's anger leaves the world.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 21 and Daf Al ha'Daf, citing Bamidbar Rabah 21:4: Anyone who spills blood of Resha'im (e.g. Pinchas), it is as if he offered a Korban. Ohr ha'Chayim (Devarim 13:18) says that fulfilling the law of Ir ha'Nidachas is considered like fulfilling all Mitzvos Hash-m.