Rabbi Heller's Blog

The first half of Parashat Re’eh is deeply concerned about the possibility of the Israelites being tempted into idolatry as they enter the land of Israel. Temptation lurks around every corner: false prophets, seditious family members, even the mere sight of the idols or the mention of their names might be enough to draw the Israelites into the abhorrent practices of the Canaanites. The penalty for those who go astray are harsh, nothing less than death. The most extreme case, found in Deuteronomy 13, is the “Ir Hanidachat”- a whole town whose residents have gone astray. The entire city is to be doomed to destruction.  Its inhabitants must be executed. There are to be no spoils of war. All the cattle must be slaughtered, all of the property of the town must be gathered in the town square and burned, and it may never be rebuilt. Is there any city, any society, that is worthy of such destruction?

While today some might be troubled by the idea that individual Jews who were seduced to idol worship would be sentenced to death, this concept was comfortable for our ancestors. The Torah understood that our presence in the land of Israel was dependent on our fulfillment of the covenant, and so those who betrayed that covenant were committing treason that endangered the entire nation. 

However, the concept of the Ir Hanidachat gave pause to our sages. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 113a), Rabbi Eliezer focuses on the requirement that all of the property of the town is to be burned in the town square. Earlier in our portion, we are told that it is forbidden to destroy God’s name. Therefore, if there is even a single mezuzah in the city, the destruction cannot be carried out. Since even the most wayward city would certainly still have at least one mezuzah, the commandment could never be fulfilled.

However, this view is not universal. In pages of conversation before and after that statement, the talmud recognizes that any town will have holy scrolls and many other sacred items, and discusses how they are to be disposed of respectfully (for example, scrolls carrying God’s name would be buried). In fact, elsewhere in the tractate, (Sanhedrin 71a) Rabbi Yonatan offers a personal rejection of  Rabbi Eliezer, insisting that he personally saw such a city and sat in its ruins.  

The converse question is what to do about the righteous people in the city. Any city, even as sinful as Sodom, is likely to have not just a mezuzah, but at least one righteous family. Just as Abraham argued before God- are the righteous to be destroyed with the wicked?   Is it fair that the children be killed. In the Tosefa, (a parallel text) the same Rabbi Eliezer insists that they should, while Rabbi Akiva argues, against the plain sense of the Biblical text, that they should be spared. Moreover, if a majority of the town has gone astray, if there are any who have not participated in the idolatry, they and their families are saved. However, they do not escape totally unharmed. Their property in the city is still subject to destruction. Rabbi Shimon justifies this approach, explaining that it was because of their property that they made the choice to stay and remain in a sinful place, so it is logical that their property would be lost.

There is a fundamental question underlying this debate. It is rare that the right can be carried out with 100% precision. Can any evil be redeemed by even the tiniest bit of good? Or, conversely, must the good suffer from their association with the bad? We can apply it to many situations. For example, in war, if we are fighting an enemy city, and there are those within who are blameless, must we refrain from attack for their sake, or may we (after giving them the opportunity to find safety) proceed knowing that their homes will be destroyed? If a parent has done wrong, must their children be spared the effect of that punishment?

We can follow the view of Rabbi Eliezer, and hold onto the idea that there is no place, no community, without at least a mezuzah, some redeeming feature that means that the whole must be saved. Or we can follow Rabbi Shimon, and understand that one is surely obligated to take care for the lives of the blameless, but merely living in a place of wrong still has consequences.