> Here's what I said: "Yes, that's the term (הַחֲרֵם). The first "ha" is a part of the verb form."

Here's what you said: "You are wrong. I have look at the translation of [i]cherem[/i] and here is the results:" (and you gave a link to an Internet Hebrew English lexicon defining [i]cherem[/i]."

The Internet Lexicon you linked me to doesn't prove I'm wrong, so I don't know what your point is. Let's have a discussion, and you can explain it to me. The Hebrew term in Dt. 13.15 (v. 16 in the Hebrew text) is הַחֲרֵם ([i]cherem[/i] with a הַ prefix. Here the הַ (the first "ha") is preformative—part of the hiphil verb form; hiphils have a הַ in front of them. So what is it I'm wrong about?

> Yes, that's the term (הַחֲרֵם). The first "ha" is a part of the verb form.

You are wrong. I have look at the translation of cherem and here is the results:

[url]https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/cherem.html[/url]

Yes, that's the term (הַחֲרֵם). The first "ha" is preformative—part of the verb form.

I assume you mean ‘ha-ḥă-rêm’? Is that approximately the same?

"Cherem" is used is Deut. 13.15, mistranslated as "utterly destroy." Cherem doesn't mean "utterly destroy; to destroy completely," but rather "to be removed from common use." As I mentioned in my 4 points, most of the uses of cherem don't involve destruction, and therefore the term doesn't mean that (though to cherem something can in some cases involve destruction as a way to remove it from common use). When cherem objects are destroyed, the purpose of the destruction is to make sure that nobody can use it. Joshua 11.12-13 reports that all the cities of the north were cherem, but only one was destroyed (Hazor).

There's a Hittite document that describes the devotion of a city comparable to the Israelite use of cherem. "Teshub my lord handed it over to me and I have desolated it handmade it sacred. As long as heaven and earth and mankind exist, in future no son of man may inhabit it. I have offered it to Teshub my lord, together with fields, farmyards, vineyards, and grazing lands."

I don't know if I answered your question. If not, please try again.

The word cherem is never used. Is there some derivative?

God's intent was that the idolatry and lies be stopped. [i]Cherem[/i] can involve many different mechanisms. There are 4 distinct categories of things that can be [i]cherem[/i]:

[list]1. Inanimate objects (including plots of land): plunder (Josh. 6.17), metal objects (Josh. 6.19, 24), a field (Lev. 27.21). These things are assigned to the divine realm. They are not destroyed at all, but assigned to use exclusively for God.
2. Living Individuals (people or animals). It is implied in Josh 6.17 & 8.2; Lev. 27.28. People or animals can be killed, in some cases, or enter temple service in others.
3. Abstractions representing communities of people. The nation of Israel refers to the abstract identity of the community, not to each and every individual Israelite. The same is true of nations who inhabit the land. If [i]cherem[/i] means “remove from use,” then removing an identity from use depends on what identity is used for. Essentially it is the equivalent of disbanding an organization. It is not disposing of the members, but disposing of enough of the organization so that there is no longer any identity as members.
4. Cities. They prohibited all human activity at the site. [i]Cherem[/i] cannot and does not mean “destroy” because apart from Jericho, Ai, and Hazor, no [i]cherem[/i] city was destroyed. The city was removed from use. They drove them out. After that, YHWH leased the land and the cities back to Israel. Because the land is [i]cherem[/i], Israel cannot make use of it for herself, but it belongs to YHWH, and so YHWH can do whatever he wants with it. What He chooses to do with His land is to allow Israel to use it, provisionally on Israel’s fidelity to the covenant.
[/list]

Therefore, [i]cherem[/i] in Deut. 13.15 is the governing concept, and the Israelites would have understood that. The "put to the sword" is rhetorical. The sacrificial animals would have been killed (put to the sword) so they couldn't be transported elsewhere and used as idolatrous sacrifice elsewhere. The false prophets would have been killed (put to the sword) in judgment for their sin. The rest of the population would be dispersed to put a stop to the madness, so to speak. and to strip them of this deceitful cultural identity of idolatry.

For both the inhabitants and animals, it says strike with the edge of the sword

Deuteronomy 13.15 (v. 16 in the Hebrew text) says, "you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock." The term "destroy it completely" ([i]cherem[/i]) has been shown by recent archaeological discoveries to be an inadequate translation. What [i]cherem[/i] actually means is "to remove it from human use." Sometimes that means to destroy it (like burning a farm field), but sometimes it means stripping the people of their cultural identity so that they either leave (and align themselves with a different culture and those cultural ways) or assimilate into Israel (and align themselves with Israelite culture and religion (and thus are "totally destroyed" as a people group, a worldview, and a cultural pattern).

So in Deuteronomy 13.15, what is actually being commanded (it really helps to know the cultural background and situation) is that these idolaters be driven out, that the idols and sacrificial animals get destroyed, that everything in the town that would lead a person to idolatry be removed, destroyed, and discredited. In this sense, knowing the mindset of the ancient world, one would have "destroyed the town". The people will be dispersed, the city will be rendered non-functional, the idols will be burned, sacrificial animals killed off so they can't be used for that purpose, and in that way the impurity would be removed.

In other words, this isn't a city-wide genocide of a mix of guilty and innocent people. It's a purgation of idolatry and a removal of anything that would allow its resurgence later.

But where does it say the entire city? Is it not just one person?