Sanhedrin, Chapter 10, Mishnah 6 - the final Mishnah in the chapter, and the last of three Mishnayos dealing with the ir hanidachas (subverted city). This Mishnah goes through five of the verses in the section of the ir hanidachas and expounds them for practical halachah.
The Mishnah opens with the word "as it is stated," which is an unusual opening: usually, this word comes to bring a verse as proof for a law stated beforehand, whereas here it introduces the first of the five verses that we will expound.
The first verse - the place of gathering:
"V'es kol shlalah tikbotz el toch rechovah" - all the assets of the ir hanidachas must be gathered into the public area within it.
The word "rechov" is used in modern Hebrew to mean a street passing between buildings, but its root letters - reish, ches, beis - indicate something wide, an open and spacious place. In the language of the Mishnah, it refers to a large public area: the town square, the place of commerce and the market, similar to the Cardo in Jerusalem, where people would announce their wares. The assets of the city must be gathered into such an area.
We can deduce further: the verse uses the phrase "el toch rechovah" (into the midst of its square), rather than "b'soch rechovah" (in its square), and from here we see that the square must be located entirely within the actual city. Therefore, the Mishnah adds two laws:
"Im ein lah rechov" - if the city does not have such an open area, "osin lah rechov" - we make a square for it: we demolish one of the structures and create an open area in it.
"Hayah rechovah chutzah lah" - if it did have a market or square, but it was located outside the walls, this is not sufficient, and therefore "konesin oso lesochah" - we bring it inside: we bring it into the city by building the wall around it, and thus a gathering place is created within the walls where the spoils can be gathered for burning.
The second verse - "its spoils, and not the spoils of Heaven":
"V'sarafta ba'eish es ha'ir v'es kol shlalah kalil l'Hashem Elokecha" - the city itself and all its property are burned completely. The Mishnah deduces: "its spoils" - and not the spoils of Heaven. Assets that do not belong to the city and its residents but to the Most High are not included in the burning. "Mikan amru: hahekdeshos shebah yipadu" - property that was consecrated to the Beis HaMikdash is no longer the possession of the individual who consecrated it but belongs to the Most High, and therefore it is not considered the spoils of the ir hanidachas and is exempt from being burned.
How is this done? If a resident of the city consecrated an object for the upkeep of the Temple (bedek habayis) - the object is not burned with the rest of the assets, but rather it goes to the Beis HaMikdash and is sold, and the proceeds are used for the maintenance of the Temple. As for the object itself, which assumes non-sacred status (chullin) after it is redeemed: according to the Rambam it is burned afterwards, and according to the Raavad it is not burned.
It is worth noting the law regarding an animal that was consecrated for the altar, such as a firstborn or an animal dedicated for an olah offering. It is not burned, as it is no longer the property of its owner but of the Most High. It cannot be offered either, due to the rule that "the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination." Redemption is not possible, since such a consecrated animal cannot be redeemed. Therefore, it is left to die of its own accord.
Items that are not burned out of respect for them:
There are items that are the property of the inhabitants of a subverted city, and by right they should be burned, but due to the respect we must show them, they are not destroyed by fire. Even though it is forbidden to derive benefit from them, a different approach is taken with them:
"Terumos yirkavu" - Terumah gedolah, Terumas maaser, challah, and even bikkurim that were already given to a kohen who is an inhabitant of the subverted city are his private property, and it is forbidden to derive benefit from them. Due to the respect for the Terumah, we do not burn it, but rather leave it to rot - a passive destruction rather than an active action.
"Maaser sheni vekitvei hakodesh yiganzu" - Maaser sheni, whether the fruits themselves or the coins onto which they were redeemed, is considered the property of the owner, for it is his and he brings it up to Jerusalem to eat it there. Therefore, it is also forbidden to derive benefit from it, but due to the respect for the maaser, we do not burn it, but rather bury it.
Incidentally: Terumah that has not yet been given to a kohen, such as an Israelite inhabitant of the city who separated Terumah gedolah or challah and did not give them, is not his private property but rather belongs to the entire tribe of kohanim. Because of this, it is not included in the "spoils" of the city, and it is not burned but rather given to kohanim outside the city.
The same law applies to sacred texts: the Megillah of Esther or a book in the hands of one of the inhabitants of the city - and even if he was an upright and righteous person who acted to spread Torah within it - all his property is burned, but the texts are not burned. The reason is not because of the names of God in them, for there is no name of God in the Megillah, but rather because of the proper respect due to sacred texts, and therefore they "yiganzu" - they are buried and not burned.
What is the difference between Terumah, which must be left to rot, and maaser sheni and sacred texts, which must be hidden away?
The answer is that kohanim are meticulous and careful with mitzvos, and therefore there is no concern that they will come to inadvertently eat from the remains of the Terumah that were left to rot. Other people are not as meticulous as them, and we must be concerned that they might eat or derive benefit from the maaser sheni and maaser sheni coins, or from the sacred texts, out of a lack of attention, and therefore they must be buried.
The third verse - "Kalil laShem Elokecha":
The beginning of the verse is omitted in the Mishnah: "And you shall burn the city in fire... completely," and the Mishnah continues by quoting, "kalil laShem Elokecha" - it is burned completely, for the sake of Hashem. Regarding this, the Mishnah states: "Amar Rabbi Shimon: amar HaKadosh Baruch Hu: im atem osin din be'ir hanidachat, ani maaleh aleichem ke'ilu atem maalin olah kalil lefanai" - Rabbi Shimon said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: If you execute judgment upon the subverted city, I account it to you as if you are offering a complete burnt-offering before Me. Just as the olah sacrifice is burned completely and no person derives benefit from it, but rather it is entirely a recognition of Hashem and His kingship, so too is the fulfillment of the judgment of a subverted city. From his words it emerges that the burning itself is a mitzvah, and is done for the sake of Heaven. The Rema brought this as practical halachah, and this is not a mere idea but a mitzvah in its own right: to burn the subverted city to fulfill the will of Hashem and to reveal His kingship, and to make it clear that such a thing does not pass in silence.
The fourth verse - "Vehaysah tel olam lo sibaneh od":
The city shall be a mound forever, "lo sibaneh od" - it shall not be built again. The word "od" (again or anymore) has two possible meanings in the Bible:
Absolute negation, with no exception: "Ein od milvado" (There is none else besides Him), and similarly, "For Hashem is the God in the heavens above and on the earth below, ein od" (there is none else).
Repeating and doing a second time: "Do not speak to Me od (again) regarding this matter," and similarly, "You shall not return this way od (again)," which is stated regarding a king returning to Egypt to multiply horses.
These two possibilities are the basis of the dispute in the Mishnah: Does "lo sibaneh od" mean that it may not be built at all whatsoever, and it must remain a mound forever, or that it may not be rebuilt as a residential city only, but it is permitted to use its land for agriculture.
Rabbi Yosei HaGlili: "Lo te'aseh afilu ginos ufardesim" - "od" means completely and entirely, and nothing may be done with its land, not even agriculture.
Rabbi Akiva: "Lo sibaneh od - lekemo shehayesa" - it may not be rebuilt anew like its original residential construction, "aval na'asis hi ginos ufardesim" - but it may be made into gardens and orchards, since repurposing it for agriculture does not constitute rebuilding the city.
The Rambam rules like Rabbi Akiva, that it is permitted to turn the site of an ir hanidachas into gardens and orchards.
The fifth verse - "Velo yidbak beyadcha me'umah min hacherem":
Nothing of the cherem, from the forbidden contents of the city, may cling to your hand. The continuation of the verse, which is not quoted in the Mishnah, is: "so that Hashem will turn from His burning anger."
A precedent for this is found in the story of Achan in the Book of Yehoshua: Yehoshua warned that no man should take from the cherem in Yericho, but Achan took in secret. When they went out to the war of Ai, men fell, because burning anger was in the world, and it became clear that Achan's taking from the cherem was the cause. Here too the principle is similar: a person should not take from the property of the city, in order to turn away the burning anger of Hashem.
And the language of the Mishnah: "Shekol zeman shehareshaim ba'olam - charon af ba'olam" - as long as there are wicked people in the world who benefit from the cherem, from the forbidden items of the ir hanidachas, the burning anger of the Holy One, blessed is He, flares up against the world. "Avdu reshaim min ha'olam - nistalek charon af min ha'olam" - once the wicked are destroyed from the world and no one benefits from its contents anymore, the anger dissipates and departs from the world, and it is no longer a source of accusation and danger for the inhabitants of the world.
With this we conclude the tenth chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin, and with Hashem's help we will now move on to the eleventh and final chapter.