When a Mesit tries to convince an individual to worship idolatry, what is the responsibility of that individual? And what is the legal difference between a Mesit who asks people to worship idols, and a Mesit who asks people to worship him?

After having studied the laws of the Condemned City, we next learn the laws of the "Mesit" - that is, the individual who tries to convince others to become idolaters.

After having studied the laws of the Condemned City, we next learn the laws of the "Mesit" - that is, the individual who tries to convince others to become idolaters.

After having studied the laws of the Condemned City, we next learn the laws of the "Mesit" - that is, the individual who tries to convince others to become idolaters.

The Talmud states that a Condemned City never existed and never will exist; it is a purely theoretical legal construct, rather than a law designed to be put into practice. Given that reality, why does the Rambam conclude his study of the Condemned City by praising the court that is willing to adjudicate this case?

The Talmud states that a Condemned City never existed and never will exist; it is a purely theoretical legal construct, rather than a law designed to be put into practice. Given that reality, why does the Rambam conclude his study of the Condemned City by praising the court that is willing to adjudicate this case?

The Talmud states that a Condemned City never existed and never will exist; it is a purely theoretical legal construct, rather than a law designed to be put into practice. Given that reality, why does the Rambam conclude his study of the Condemned City by praising the court that is willing to adjudicate this case?

While the property belonging to inhabitants of a condemned city is destroyed, there are exceptions to this rule.

While the property belonging to inhabitants of a condemned city is destroyed, there are exceptions to this rule.

While the property belonging to inhabitants of a condemned city is destroyed, there are exceptions to this rule.