Sanhedrin

The scholars propounded: What if they were self-seduced? Since Scripture writes [Certain men …] have seduced the inhabitants etc. It implies, but not if they were self-seduced; or perhaps, [the law holds good] even if they were self-seduced?  — Come and hear: IF WOMEN OR MINORS SEDUCED IT [… THEY ARE TREATED AS INDIVIDUALS]: but why so? Should it not be [at least] as though they were self-seduced?  — [No.] The latter are enticed through their own desires, whilst the former are influenced by women and minors. UNLESS THE MAJORITY THEREOF ARE SEDUCED. How is this encompassed?  R. Judah said: We judge and imprison, judge and imprison.  Said 'Ulla to him: Then thou delayest the judgment of these.  But 'Ulla said thus: We judge and stone them, and judge and stone. It has been stated: R. Johanan maintained: We judge and stone them, judge and stone them. Resh Lakish ruled: Many courts of law are set up.  But that is not so, For did not R. Hama, son of R. Jose, say in R. Oshaia's name: Then thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman… unto thy gates:  [this teaches,] a man or a woman thou mayest bring forth to thy gates, but not a whole city?  — But many lawcourts are set up and the indictments examined [but no verdicts pronounced]; then the accused are taken to the great Beth din, their trials completed, and they are executed. THOU SHALT SURELY SMITE THE INHABITANTS OF THAT CITY etc. Our Rabbis taught: If a company of ass-drivers or camel-drivers passing from place to place lodges therein and were seduced together with it: if they had stayed there thirty days, they are decapitated and their possessions destroyed;  if less, they are stoned, but their possessions unharmed. An objection was raised: 'How long must [a stranger] stay in a town, that he may be as its citizen?  Twelve months'? — Raba answered: There is no difficulty. The latter [period is necessary] for one to be a full citizen; the former, to be regarded a town resident.  And it has been taught likewise: He who forswears benefit from the citizens of a town is forbidden to benefit from any one who has tarried twelve months therein, but if less he is permitted. [If he forswears benefit from] the residents of a town, he may not benefit from any one who has tarried there thirty days, but if less, he is permitted. DESTROYING IT UTTERLY, AND ALL THAT IS THEREIN etc.  Our Rabbis taught: Destroying it utterly, and all that is therein:  this excludes the property of righteous men without the city. 'And all that is therein:' this includes the property of righteous men within it. 'The spoil of it' [teaches], but not the spoil of Heaven.  'And all the spoil of it', teaches that the property of the wicked without the city is included. R. Simeon said: Why did the Torah ordain that the property of the righteous within the city shall be destroyed? What caused them to dwell therein? Their wealth.  Therefore their wealth is destroyed. The Master said: And all the spoil of it thou shalt gather includes the property of the wicked without it. R. Hisda observed: But only if it can be gathered thereinto. R. Hisda said: Entrusted objects of the inhabitants of a doomed city are permitted. How so? Shall we say, Those belonging to another city and now within it?  Is it then not obvious that they are permitted, not being 'the spoil thereof'? If, again, the reference is to their own objects placed in another city: in this case, if they can be gathered thereinto,  why are they permitted? Whilst if they cannot be gathered, then surely he has already stated this once! — No. After all, it refers to objects of another city placed in this one. But the circumstances are that [the person to whom they were entrusted] accepted responsibility for them.  I might think, since he accepted responsibility, they are as his;  therefore, he teaches [otherwise]. R. Hisda said: An animal, the property partly of a condemned city and partly of another, is forbidden [entirely]; dough, belonging partly to a condemned city and partly to another, is permitted. Why so? Because an animal is as undivided,  whilst dough is as though [already] divided. R. Hisda propounded: An animal of a condemned city — does shechita  avail to purify it from [the uncleanliness of] nebelah:  the Divine Law said, [Thou shalt surely smite … the cattle thereof] with the edge of the sword: hence it is all alike, whether slaughtered [ritually] or killed;  or perhaps, having been ritually slaughtered, the shechita is efficacious [to permit it]. What is the law? [This problem is] to stand over. R. Joseph  propounded: What of the hair of the righteous. women [within the condemned city]?  Raba asked: This implies that the hair of the wicked women is forbidden!  [Surely] Scripture writes, Thou shalt gather … and thou shalt burn, denoting, that which only lacks gathering and burning [is forbidden for general use, yet must be thus destroyed;] excluding this, which needs cutting off, gathering and burning?  — But, said Raba, the problem refers to a wig. How so? If it is fastened to herself it is as herself?  — It is necessary [to propound this] only if it is hanging on a nail [i.e., not being worn]: is it as other property of the righteous within the town, and destroyed; or perhaps, since it is donned and doffed, it is as her garments? [The problem is] to stand over. AND THOU SHALT GATHER ALL THE SPOIL OF IT INTO THE MIDST OF THE PUBLIC SQUARE THEREOF etc. Our Rabbis taught: If it has no public square, it cannot become a condemned city: this is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: If it has no public square, a public square is made for it. Wherein do they differ? — The one maintains that 'the public square thereof' implies, that which was originally [before sentence] so; whilst the other holds that 'the public square thereof' implies even if it has [only] now become one.