POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Sanhedrin 112
SANHEDRIN 112 (27 Teves) - dedicated in honor of the memory of Hagaon
ha'Gadol Rav Pinchas Hirschprung, well-known and much loved Rav of Montreal,
Talmid of Hagaon Rav Meir Shapiro (founder of the Dafyomi cycle), on the day
of his Yahrzeit. Dedicated by his son, Rav Yitzchak Hirschprung, may he be
blessed with long years and all that he needs.
1) HOW WE MAKE AN "IR HA'NIDACHAS"
(a) Question: If the city was enticed by itself (people
decided on their own to serve idolatry), what is the law?
2) CRITERIA FOR MAKING AN "IR HA'NIDACHAS"
1. "Va'Yadichu" - not that it was enticed by itself;
(b) Answer (Mishnah): If the enticers were women or children
(it is not an Ir ha'Nidachas).
2. Or, even if it was enticed by itself?
1. (They are not influential enticers), this is like
being enticed by itself, and it does not become an
(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
(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): But Rav Chama bar Yosi
taught, "V'Hotzeisa Es ha'Ish...(El *Sh'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"...
3) WHICH PROPERTY IS DESTROYED?
(a) (Beraisa): If a caravan of donkey-drivers or
camel-drivers stopped in a city that became an Ir
ha'Nidachas (and 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);
(b) Contradiction (Mishnah): Someone who has lived in the
city 12 months is considered a resident.
2. If they were there less than 30 days, they are
stoned, their heirs inherit their money (like
individuals who served idolatry).
(c) Answer (Rava): One is not considered to be (a person) of
the city until 12 months;
1. (Regarding Ir ha'Nidachas, it says "Yoshvei (those
that stay in) ha'Ir") - after 30 days, one is
considered to be staying there.
2. (Beraisa): If one vows not to benefit from people of
a city, this applies to people that have lived there
for 12 months;
i. If he vows from Yoshvei ha'Ir, this applies to
people that have lived there for 30 days.
(a) (Mishnah): "Ha'Charem Osah..."
4) WHICH PROPERTY IS DESTROYED? (Cont.)
(b) (Beraisa): "Ha'Charem Osah" - this excludes property
outside the city that belongs to Tzadikim of the city;
1. "V'Es Kol Asher Bah" - this includes Tzadikim's
property inside the city.
(c) R. Shimon: The Torah says that Tzadikim's property inside
the city is destroyed because it led them to live there.
2. "Shelalah (its spoils)" - not what pertains to
3. "V'Es Kol Shelalah" - this includes property outside
the city that belongs to Resha'im of the city.
(d) (Beraisa): "V'Es Kol Shelalah" - this 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
(g) Question: What is the case?
1. Suggestion: Property of people of another city was
deposited in the Ir ha'Nidachas.
(h) Answer #1: Property of Resha'im of the Ir ha'Nidachas was
deposited in another city.
2. Rejection: Obviously, we do not destroy it, it is
(i) Rejection: If it is Nikbatzim b'Sochah, it is forbidden;
if it is not Nikbatzim b'Sochah, Rav Chisda already
(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 Acharayos;
1. One might have thought, since they accepted
Acharayos, it is considered like their property -
Rav Chisda teaches, 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
1. "L'Fi Charev" - there is no distinction how it was
killed, it is like an animal killed without
slaughter (a Neveilah);
(o) This question is not resolved.
2. Or, the verse does not discuss if it was
slaughtered, but if it was slaughtered, it is not
(a) Question (Rav Yosef): What is the law of hair of a
Tzadekes of the city?
(b) Objection: (Rava): You only ask about a Tzadekes,
implying that hair of a Resha'ah must surely be
1. "Tikbotz...v'Sarafta" - we only burn things that are
ready to be gathered and burned, not hair (or
anything else) that must first be detached!
(c) (Rava): Rather, Rav Yosef asks 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, it is destroyed;
(f) Version #2 - Ramah - Question: What is the case?
2. Or, since she regularly puts it on, it is like
clothing she is wearing, it is spared.
1. If it is attached to her (e.g. through wax), it is
(g) Answer: The case is, it is hanging on a peg in back of
1. Is it destroyed with property of Tzadikim in the
(h) This question is not resolved.
2. Or, since she is wearing it, is it like the clothing
she wears, which is spared? (End of Version #2)
(i) (Mishnah): "V'Es Kol Shelalah Tikbotz El Toch
(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 "Rechov*ah*" (*its*
square) connotes that it was already there;
1. R. Akiva holds that if it now has one, it is also
5) KODSHIM IN AN "IR HA'NIDACHAS"
(a) (Mishnah): Hekdesh is redeemed...
6) WHAT WE DO WITH TERUMAH AND MA'ASER
(b) (Beraisa): Kodshei Mizbe'ach are left to die, Kodshei
Bedek ha'Bayis are redeemed, Terumah is left to rot,
Ma'aser Sheni and Kisvei ha'Kodesh are buried;
(c) R. Shimon says, "Behemtah (*its* animals)" - not Bechor
(a firstborn) or Ma'aser Behemah, which are Kodesh;
1. "Shelalah" - not money of Hekdesh or Ma'aser Sheni.
(d) Question: Why does the first Tana say that Kodshei
Mizbe'ach are left to die - we should graze them until
they become blemished, redeem them, and use the money to
(e) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" (we do
not want to bring a Korban from Resha'im).
(f) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): The Mishnah discusses Kodshim
with Acharayos (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
flagrantly kill them, for this would not be Kavod
(g) Objection: R. Shimon argues, the first Tana cannot be R.
(h) Answer #3: The Mishnah discusses Kodshim Kalim; the Tana
is R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that these are considered
the property of the owner.
(i) Inference: Kodshei Kodoshim 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 - it would be better to 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
(whose owner died, as will be the case) is left to
(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.
(n) Answer: He holds that "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" only
applies to the very 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" - not Bechor and
(p) Question: What is the case?
1. If they are Tamim (unblemished), these are spoils of
(q) Answer (Ravina): Really, they are blemished, but they are
not considered spoils of the city because they are not
like (Chulin) animals of the owner - even blemished
firstborn and Ma'aser retain laws of Kedushah (e.g. one
may not benefit from the milk or shearings or work with
2. If they are blemished, they are spoils of the city!
(r) Ravina argues with Shmuel.
1. (Shmuel): Everything is offered, everything is
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, Behemtah excludes it.
(a) (Beraisa): Terumah is left to rot.
(b) (Rav Chisda): This only applies to Terumah by a Yisrael -
but Terumah given to a Kohen is his money, 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 as Terumah
belongs to a Kohen, and it must be buried!
(d) Correction - (Rav Chisda): The Beraisa (which says that
Terumah is left to rot) discusses Terumah by a Kohen -
but Terumah by a Yisrael is given to a Kohen in another
(e) (Mishnah - R. Meir): A dough of Ma'aser Sheni is exempt
(f) Chachamim say, Chalah must be taken.
(g) (Rav Chisda): They argue about Ma'aser Sheni in
Yerushalayim - R. Meir says, it is Mamon Gavoha (i.e.
like Hekdesh), 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?
(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, it became
Tamei (therefore, it may be taken out of Yerushalayim, it
is Nikbatzim b'Soch the Ir ha'Nidachas).
2. Answer #1: The city is Yerushalayim.
3. Rejection (Beraisa): Ten things are special about
i. ...It cannot be condemned to be an Ir
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 forbidden
to take 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, it never entered
Yerushalayim (and it must be buried - we do not
consider it Mamon Gavoha)!
(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'eiso";
(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, it is
2. "Se'eiso" is a language of eating - "va'Yisa
3. Suggestion: The Ma'aser was bought with Ma'aser
4. Rejection: Even so, he can redeem it!
i. (Mishnah): If produce was bought with money of
Ma'aser Sheni and it became Tamei, it can be
5. Suggestion: The Beraisa is R. Yehudah, who says that
it must be buried.
6. Rejection: If so, even if it did not belong to
someone of an Ir ha'Nidachas, we would have to burn
1. The case is, the walls of Yerushalayim fell (so it
can no longer be eaten).
2. (Rava): Mid'Oraisa, Ma'aser can only be eaten within
the walls; mid'Rabanan, once Ma'aser enters the
walls, it cannot be redeemed;
i. Chachamim only decreed when there are walls
(and it can be eaten) - if the walls fell, it
may be redeemed.