The Condemned City and the Remote City

The Talmudic sugya (discussion) about the “Condemned City” (Ir Nidahat) is a fascinating one, revealing strong disputes relating to a sinful community. The Talmudic discussion also presents the positions and standings of the different factors in the decision- making process leading to pesak (Halakhic rulings) in this matter.

There are two polar opposite positions among the Sages regarding the type of effort required to bring the people of the sinful city to justice. An example of this phenomenon is manifest in two contradictory Halakhic Midrashim, both of which are based on the verse “And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the broad place [rehov] thereof” (Deut. 13:17, JPS 1917 trans.). What happens if the city has no “rehov” (road, broad place or public square)?

Our Rabbis taught: If it has no public square [rehov], 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.

(B. Talmud Sanhedrin 112a, Soncino trans; Rabbi Akiva’s strict opinion is brought verbatim in 10:6 of the Mishna of Tractate Sanhedrin, without the opposing view of Rabbi Yishmael.)

What’s common to both Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael is that they each acknowledge that there must be a rehov (broad place or public square) in a Condemned City. Otherwise, the command of the verse to “gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the broad place thereof” – cannot be fulfilled to the letter.

According to Rabbi Yishmael, if there is no rehov, it is impossible to judge it by the strict laws of the Condemned City, which include the burning of all the contents of the city, and the killing of the men, women, and children who inhabit it.

Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, however, is to reject any room for leniency due to a technical lack of a rehov in the city. He would say to hire a construction company to come and build one, gather the spoils of the city there, and ultimately destroy it along with the rest of the city’s infrastructure as the city is burned down.

A similar debate appears regarding the burning of the city and all its spoils by fire – every whit (“kalil” in Hebrew). Here, too, there are two homiletic interpretations that go in opposite directions. On the one hand: “the spoil thereof' [implies], but not the spoil of heaven. Hence it was ruled, the holy objects therein must be redeemed; the terumoth allowed to rot; and the second tithe and the sacred writings hidden” (Mishna Sanhedrin 10:6; Soncino trans.).

This midrashic reading assumes that spoils which are not part of the fiscal assets of the city’s inhabitants cannot be burned, as such spoils as Trumoth (priestly gifts) and sanctified items really belong to God. Therefore, the instructions are to wait until the Terumah decays and has its holy status removed, to bury holy books, and to redeem the sanctified animals.

The other view, however, has a lenient reading of the verse:

For it has been taught, R. Eliezer said: No city containing even a single mezuzah can be condemned. Why so? Because the Bible saith [in reference thereto], And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it in the midst of the street thereof and shalt burn [them]. But if it contains a single mezuzah, this is impossible, because it is written, [And ye shall destroy the names of them — i.e., the idols — …] Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God. (Sanhedrin 71a; Soncino trans.)

According to Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the presence of “spoils of Heaven” in the city prevent the city from being designated as a Condemned City because it is prohibited to burn or destroy sacred items, as is derived from the verse “Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God” (Deut. 12:4, JPS 1917 trans.; - We are commanded to uproot altars and their accoutrements used for idolatrous worship, and we are prohibited to take similar action against that which is related to worship of God). The fact that sacred items are found among the city’s spoils serves to completely prevent the execution of any part of the sentence.

These two approaches (and the differences between them) may derive from a dispute about how zealous the People of Israel are to be in order to stamp out fringe elements: One approach follows the dictum of “Let justice pierce the mountain” (yikov ha-din et ha-har) – all strength must be brought in full force in order to crush the threat, leaving no survivors or remnants. The other approach calls for acting with restraint and tolerance, and to give the benefit of the doubt -to try to judge favorably as much as possible so as not to cut off and destroy to such an enormous extent.

In effect, a deeper philosophical debate is underlying the question of the nature of the Condemned City phenomenon. The two examples above demonstrate that both opinions agree that in order for a city to be a Condemned City, it needs to have a rehov and cannot contain objects of sanctity.  That said, the two examples ascribe very different meanings to the lack of a rehov and the presence of sacred items. The strict opinion sees these elements as mere technicalities that come with some additional procedures – temporary obstacles which can be resolved. In contrast, the forgiving view argues that a city without a rehov is not a true city; rather, it is a neglected suburb or slum district, an at risk-neighborhood, or a poor area. The presence of a mezuza there, or terumoth and tithes, demonstrates that the deterioration of the town can still be rectified – that there is a glimmer of hope for rehabilitation, and that the “illness” isn’t a terminal one.  Our reading here has an interesting precedent in the rule that border towns or cities in the periphery are not to be designated as Condemned Cities:

                A city on the border may not be condemned.

    Why?

  — Because the Torah says: From the midst of thee, but not [a city] on the border. (Sanhedrin 16b)

This Halakhic Midrash teaches that if the city that is to be condemned is found on the border of the Land of Israel, it is not to be designated as a Condemned City. The reason comes from the interpretation of the term from the verse: “within your midst.” Needless to say, this Midrash Halakha is a conceptual one. People who live on the border of the Land of Israel, in the periphery, are not part of the central core of the nation. Inhabitants of the periphery who stray from the correct path certainly constitute a worrying phenomenon, but not one that reflects or threatens the nation as a whole.

The sad phenomenon of the marginalized and disenfranchised fringe elements of society - located on the “ragged edges” of the periphery -- is a familiar one.

                Rabbi Shimon’s stricter approach, though, highlights another aspect of the exemption for towns in remote areas. According to his opinion, a town on the border is not to be designated as a Condemned City because the execution of its punishment can lead to a security risk for the rest of the country. Destroying a border city can unwittingly pave the way for enemies in the vicinity to infiltrate and seize control of the now-empty lands. In his words: “near the border, even a single city cannot be condemned. Why? Lest the Gentiles become aware of it and destroy the whole of Eretz Yisrael” (Sanhedrin 16b; Soncino trans.).

                We can see that, as opposed to the forgiving and accommodating view, the more exacting approach places the needs of the People of Israel at the forefront. A corrupted city is to be destroyed, its terumoth will rot, main street areas that are lacking will be built and then destroyed. All of this is to be carried out to root out phenomena that threaten the majority and which have a risk of spreading. However, the existence of the Land of Israel and our ability to maintain and hold it is an important value, and if it is endangered by carrying out the judgment of the Condemned City, then the considerations of what is best for the whole nation prevail, and turn the inhabitants of the wayward city into the protectors of the rest of the nation – acting as a wall or shield to secure the borders.

                Perhaps this fundamental dispute is also the basis for the different perspectives about the section in the Torah about the Condemned City.  Rabbi Shimon, on the one hand, sees the sentencing and punishment of the city as a viable, possible – even positive situation; parallel to bringing a burnt offering (Korban Olah). The people of Israel may occasionally need to sacrifice their sons, on order to unify the people around a clear spiritual ethos. The idea of the parallel between the burning of the Condemned City and the Burnt Offering derives from a hermeneutical “common word” found in both cases: in this instance, the rare Hebrew word “kalil” (completely) which appears in the context of burning the city completely:  “R. Simeon said: the Holy One, Blessed Be He, declared, if ye execute judgment upon the seduced city, I will ascribe merit to you as though ye had sacrificed to me a whole offering” (Mishna Sanhedrin 10:6; Soncino trans.).

                In contrast, the Tosefta suggests that a Condemned City never existed and never will exist: "The Condemned City did not happen and never will happen, so why was the law written? So that you will study and receive a reward." (Tosefta Sanhedrin 14:1).

In light of our discussion here, the reason is clear: in section about the city in the Torah itself, there is a strong connection between what happens in the city and the conditions and context that enabled these goings-on. The whole section describes a paradox: a city that is complete with all amenities and services, located in the heart of the country, functioning in peace and security without external threats -and despite all of this, there is not one mezuza to be found in the whole town. A situation like this could only exist in a science fiction story.

And if this section of the Torah was only written in order for people to study and receive its reward, it would seem that these days, it would be a mitzvah to study the subject of peripheral towns and their relationship to the central areas of the country – and the nation. Now, more than ever, it is clear that these towns are essential in protecting the borders of the country, and their steadfastness is inspiring. It is just as crucial for the center to support them, to invest in their physical, educational, and spiritual development -- for their sake and for the sake of all.