Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 7, 2022 | ื”ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Megillah 26

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Shanna Winters in honor of Ruth Raskas. โ€œThank you for your friendship and for inspiring so many.โ€

If sanctified items are sold, what can be done with the money. There is a hierarchy of sanctified items and one can only go up the list, not down. Does the public square where prayers take place on a public fast have sanctity or since it is not used permanently, it does not? A shul in a city is considered owned by many people, even those not from the town, and therefore one cannot sell it as it belongs to the public. Why was Rav Ashi’s shul in Mata Mechasia an exception to this rule? A contradiction to this rule is raised from a braita regarding the sale of a shul in Jerusalem. Why was the law different there? Another question is raised from a tannaitic debate regarding laws of a leperous house in Jerusalem – can it become leperous as it is a private space and only the Temple is not or can it not become leprous as it is all considered public space? If one holds that only the Temple is public, shuls are private! Perhaps what was meant was “holy spaces” and not only the Temple. The root of that debate is whether Jerusalem was divided between Benjamin and Judah or didn’t belong to any particular tribe. The Gemara brings another tannaitic debate on that topic – one opinion holds that the Temple was divided between Benjamin and Judah – which parts belonged to who? Where is there a reference to this in the Torah? The other holds that one cannot rent out space in Jerusalem when people come to the Temple for aliya laregel as the space is owned by all. In that case, what was customarily taken by the hosts as compensation since they couldn’t charge rent? What can be derived from here as good advice for one who is a guest in another’s house? Even though sanctified items cannot be sold for something of lesser sanctity, there is an exception to the rule – if it is stipulated by seven people who are in charge of communal activities for the city and in front of the people of the city. It is forbidden to take apart bricks or beams from an old shul and put them in a new shul. Why? If one sells a shul, the money becomes sanctified and the sanctity leaves the shul and the space can be used for other lesser things. But can it be rented? Is the same true for the bricks and other parts? On what does it depend? If the shul is given as a gift, does the sanctity leave the space? There are different levels of sanctity to items that are used for a mitzva and items that are used for a sanctified item. What falls into which category and can those items be thrown away or do they need to be buried? What can be done with a safer Torah that has fallen apart?

ื™ืงื—ื• ืกืคืจื™ื ืกืคืจื™ื ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ืชื•ืจื”

they may purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings. If they sold scrolls of the Prophets and Writings, they may purchase a Torah scroll.

ืื‘ืœ ืื ืžื›ืจื• ืชื•ืจื” ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ืกืคืจื™ื ืกืคืจื™ื ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ืžื˜ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื˜ืคื—ื•ืช ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ืชื™ื‘ื” ืชื™ื‘ื” ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ืืช ื”ืจื—ื•ื‘

However, the proceeds of a sale of a sacred item may not be used to purchase an item of a lesser degree of sanctity. Therefore, if they sold a Torah scroll, they may not use the proceeds to purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings. If they sold scrolls of the Prophets and Writings, they may not purchase wrapping cloths. If they sold wrapping cloths, they may not purchase an ark. If they sold an ark, they may not purchase a synagogue. If they sold a synagogue, they may not purchase a town square.

ื•ื›ืŸ ื‘ืžื•ืชืจื™ื”ืŸ

And similarly, the same limitation applies to any surplus funds from the sale of sacred items, i.e., if after selling an item and purchasing something of a greater degree of sanctity there remain additional, unused funds, the leftover funds are subject to the same principle and may be used to purchase only something of a degree of sanctity greater than that of the original item.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ื ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืฉืžื›ืจื• ืจื—ื•ื‘ื” ืฉืœ ืขื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกืชื•ืžืชืื” ืื‘ืœ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื”ืจื—ื•ื‘ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉื”

GEMARA: The mishna states: Residents of a town who sold the town square may purchase a synagogue with the proceeds. Concerning this mishna, Rabba bar bar แธคana said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Menaแธฅem bar Yosei, cited unattributed. However, the Rabbis say: The town square does not have any sanctity. Therefore, if it is sold, the residents may use the money from the sale for any purpose.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ืขื ืžืชืคืœืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื‘ืชืขื ื™ื•ืช ื•ื‘ืžืขืžื“ื•ืช ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ืืงืจืื™ ื‘ืขืœืžื

And Rabbi Menaแธฅem bar Yosei, what is his reason for claiming that the town square has sanctity? Since the people pray in the town square on communal fast days and on non-priestly watches, it is defined as a place of prayer and as such has sanctity. And the Rabbis, why do they disagree? They maintain that use of the town square is merely an irregular occurrence. Consequently, the town square is not to be defined as a place of prayer, and so it has no sanctity.

ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ืชื™ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืฉืœ ื›ืคืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืฉืœ ื›ืจื›ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืขืœืžื ืืชื• ืœื™ื” ืœื ืžืฆื• ืžื–ื‘ื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื

ยง The mishna states: If they sold a synagogue, they may purchase an ark. The Gemara cites a qualification to this halakha: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: They taught this only with regard to a synagogue of a village, which is considered the property of the residents of that village. However, with regard to a synagogue of a city, since people come to it from the outside world, the residents of the city are not able to sell it, because it is considered to be the property of the public at large and does not belong exclusively to the residents of the city.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื“ืžืชื ืžื—ืกื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžืขืœืžื ืืชื• ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืงืืชื• ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืžื–ื‘ื ื™ื ื ืœื”

Rav Ashi said: This synagogue of Mata Meแธฅasya, although people from the outside world come to it, since they come at my discretion, as I established it, and everything is done there in accordance with my directives, if I wish, I can sell it.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืฉืœ ื˜ื•ืจืกื™ื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืฉืžื›ืจื•ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ื›ืœ ืฆืจื›ื™ื• ื•ื”ื ื”ืชื ื“ื›ืจื›ื™ื ื”ื•ื” ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื–ื•ื˜ื™ ื”ื•ื” ื•ืื™ื ื”ื• ืขื‘ื“ื•ื”

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmaniโ€™s statement, from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving a synagogue of bronze workers [tursiyyim] that was in Jerusalem, which they sold to Rabbi Eliezer, and he used it for all his own needs. The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t the synagogue there one of cities, as Jerusalem is certainly classified as a city; why were they permitted to sell it? The Gemara explains: That one was a small synagogue, and it was the bronze workers themselves who built it. Therefore, it was considered exclusively theirs, and they were permitted to sell it.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืืจืฅ ืื—ื•ื–ืชื›ื ืื—ื•ื–ืชื›ื ืžื™ื˜ืžื ื‘ื ื’ืขื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžื™ื˜ืžื ื‘ื ื’ืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื ื™ ืœื ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืืœื ืžืงื•ื ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืœื‘ื“

The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: The verse states with regard to leprosy of houses: โ€œAnd I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possessionโ€ (Leviticus 14:34), from which it may be inferred: โ€œYour possession,โ€ i.e., a privately owned house, can become ritually impure with leprosy, but a house in Jerusalem cannot become ritually impure with leprosy, as property there belongs collectively to the Jewish people and is not privately owned. Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard this distinction stated only with regard to the site of the Temple alone, but not with regard to the entire city of Jerusalem.

ื”ื ื‘ืชื™ ื›ื ืกื™ื•ืช ื•ื‘ืชื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื•ืช ืžื™ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืืžืื™ ื”ื ื“ื›ืจื›ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืื™ืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื ื™ ืœื ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืืœื ืžืงื•ื ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ืœื‘ื“

The Gemara explains: From Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s statement, it is apparent that only the site of the Temple cannot become ritually impure, but synagogues and study halls in Jerusalem can become ritually impure. Why should this be true given that they are owned by the city? The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita and say as follows: Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard this distinction stated only with regard to a sacred site, which includes the Temple, synagogues, and study halls.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ื ืชื—ืœืงื” ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืœืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ื ืชื—ืœืงื” ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืœืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื

With regard to what principle do the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The first tanna holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, i.e., it was never assigned to any particular tribe, but rather it belongs collectively to the entire nation. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes, and it is only the site of the Temple itself that belongs collectively to the entire nation.

ื•ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™

The Gemara notes: They each follow a different opinion in the dispute between these tannaโ€™im:

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื” ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ืฉืœ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืจ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืฉื›ื•ืช ื•ื”ืขื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืžื” ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ืฉืœ ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืœื ื•ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื

One tanna holds that Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes, as it is taught in a baraita: What part of the Temple was in the tribal portion of Judah? The Temple mount, the Temple chambers, and the Temple courtyards. And what was in the tribal portion of Benjamin? The Entrance Hall, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies.

ื•ืจืฆื•ืขื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื•ืฆืืช ืžื—ืœืงื• ืฉืœ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื ื›ื ืกืช ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ืฉืœ ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื” ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื ื•ื™ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืง ืžืฆื˜ืขืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ืœื‘ื•ืœืขื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื—ื•ืคืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื›ืŸ ืœืฉื›ื™ื ื”

And a strip of land issued forth from the portion of Judah and entered into the portion of Benjamin, and upon that strip the altar was built, and the tribe of Benjamin, the righteous, would agonize over it every day desiring to absorb it into its portion, due to its unique sanctity, as it is stated in Mosesโ€™ blessing to Benjamin: โ€œHe covers it throughout the day, and he dwells between his shouldersโ€ (Deuteronomy 33:12). The phrase โ€œcovers itโ€ is understood to mean that Benjamin is continually focused upon that site. Therefore, Benjamin was privileged by becoming the host [ushpizekhan] of the Divine Presence, as the Holy of Holies was built in his portion.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ื ืชื—ืœืงื” ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืœืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื›ื™ืจื™ื ื‘ืชื™ื ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ (ื‘ืจ ืฆื“ื•ืง) ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืœื ืžื˜ื•ืช ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืขื•ืจื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ืขืœื™ ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื™ืŸ ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื–ืจื•ืข

And this other tanna holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, as it is taught in a baraita: One may not rent out houses in Jerusalem, due to the fact that the houses do not belong to those occupying them. Rather, as is true for the entire city, they are owned collectively by the nation. Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: Even beds may not be hired out. Therefore, in the case of the hides of the renterโ€™s offerings that the innkeepers take in lieu of payment, the innkeepers are considered to be taking them by force, as they did not have a right to demand payment.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื•ืจื— ืืจืขื ืœืžื™ืฉื‘ืง ืื™ื ืฉ ื’ื•ืœืคื ื•ืžืฉื›ื ื‘ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื™ื”

Apropos the topic of inns, the Gemara reports: Abaye said: Learn from this baraita that it is proper etiquette for a person to leave his wine flask and the hide of the animal that he slaughtered at his inn, i.e., the inn where he stayed, as a gift for the service he received.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืœื ืžื›ืจื• ืฉื‘ืขื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื‘ืžืขืžื“ ืื ืฉื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืžื›ืจื• ืฉื‘ืขื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื‘ืžืขืžื“ ืื ืฉื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืืคื™ืœื•

ยง The Gemara returns its discussion of the mishna: Rava said: They taught that there is a limitation on what may be purchased with the proceeds of the sale of a synagogue only when the seven representatives of the town who were appointed to administer the townโ€™s affairs had not sold the synagogue in an assembly of the residents of the town. However, if the seven representatives of the town had sold it in an assembly of the residents of the town, then even

ืœืžื™ืฉืชื ื‘ื™ื” ืฉื™ื›ืจื ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™

to drink beer with the proceeds seems well and is permitted. The seven representatives have the authority to annul the sanctity of the synagogue, and therefore the proceeds of its sale do not retain any sanctity.

ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืชื™ืœื ื“ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื”ื• ืœืžื™ื–ืจืขื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ืžืฉื‘ืขื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื‘ืžืขืžื“ ืื ืฉื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ื–ืจืขื”

The Gemara relates: Ravina had a certain piece of land on which stood a mound of the ruins of a synagogue. He came before Rav Ashi and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to sowing the land? He said to him: Go, purchase it from the seven representatives of the town in an assembly of the residents of the town, and then you may sow it.

ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื”ื•ื” ืงื ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื”ื•ื” ื”ื”ื™ื ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืขืชื™ืงื ื”ื•ื” ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืกืชืจื™ื” ื•ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืœื™ื‘ื ื™ ื•ื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื ื” ื•ืขื™ื•ืœื™ ืœื”ืชื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœื ืœื™ืกืชื•ืจ ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืขื“ ื“ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ืคืฉื™ืขื•ืชื ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืืกืจ ืœื™ื”

Rami bar Abba was once building a synagogue. There was a certain old synagogue that he wished to demolish, and bring bricks and beams from it, and bring them to there, to construct a new synagogue. He sat and considered that which Rav แธคisda said, as Rav แธคisda said: One should not demolish a synagogue until one has built another synagogue. Rami bar Abba reasoned that Rav แธคisdaโ€™s ruling there is due to a concern of negligence, as perhaps after the first synagogue is demolished, people will be negligent and a new one will never be built. However, in a case like this, where the new synagogue is to be built directly from the materials of the old one, what is the halakha? He came before Rav Pappa to ask his opinion, and he prohibited him from doing so. He then came before Rav Huna, and he also prohibited him from doing so.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื—ืœื•ืคื” ื•ื–ื‘ื•ื ื” ืฉืจื™ ืื•ื’ื•ืจื” ื•ืžืฉื›ื•ื ื” ืืกื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื” ืงืื™

Rava said: With regard to this synagogue, exchanging it for a different building or selling it for money is permitted, but renting it out or mortgaging it is prohibited. What is the reason for this? When a synagogue is rented out or mortgaged, it remains in its sacred state. Therefore, it is prohibited to rent it out or mortgage it, because it will then be used for a non-sacred purpose. However, if it is exchanged or sold, its sanctity is transferred to the other building or to the proceeds of the sale, and therefore the old synagogue building may be used for any purpose.

ืœื™ื‘ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ืœื•ืคื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื–ื‘ื•ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืฉืจื™ ืื•ื–ื•ืคื™ื ื”ื• ืืกื•ืจ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืขืชื™ืงืชื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื“ืชื ืœื™ืช ืœืŸ ื‘ื”

The same halakha is also true of the bricks of a synagogue; exchanging them or selling them is permitted, but renting them out is prohibited. The Gemara comments: This applies to old bricks that have already been part of a synagogue, but as for new bricks that have only been designated to be used in a synagogue, we have no problem with it if they are rented out for a non-sacred purpose.

ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื–ืžื ื” ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื™ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื”ืื•ืจื’ ื‘ื’ื“ ืœืžืช ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื›ื˜ื•ื•ื™ ืœืืจื™ื’ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ

And even according to the one who said that mere designation is significant, i.e., although a certain object was not yet used for the designated purpose, the halakhic ramifications of using it for that purpose already take hold, this applies only in a case where it was created from the outset for that purpose, for example, one who weaves a garment to be used as shrouds for a corpse. However, here the bricks are comparable to already spun thread that was then designated to be used to weave burial shrouds. Concerning such designation, where nothing was specifically created for the designated purpose, there is no one who said that the designation is significant.

ืžืชื ื” ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื—ื“ ืืกืจ ื•ื—ื“ ืฉืจื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ืืกืจ ื‘ื”ืื™ ืชืคืงืข ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื” ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืฉืจื™ ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื”ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ื›ื–ื‘ื™ื ื™

Rav Aแธฅa and Ravina disagree about whether it is permitted to give away a synagogue as a gift to then be used for a non-sacred purpose. One of them prohibited it, and the other one permitted it. The one who prohibits it says: Is it possible that with this act of giving alone its sanctity is removed? This cannot be the case. Since the synagogue was not exchanged for anything else, there is nothing to which the sanctity may be transferred. Consequently, the synagogue remains sacred. And the one who permitted it does so because he reasons that if the donor did not receive any benefit from giving the synagogue, he would not have given it. Therefore, the gift has reverted to being like a sale, and the sanctity is transferred to the benefit received.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืฉืžื™ืฉื™ ืžืฆื•ื” ื ื–ืจืงื™ืŸ ืชืฉืžื™ืฉื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื ื’ื ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืชืฉืžื™ืฉื™ ืžืฆื•ื” ืกื•ื›ื” ืœื•ืœื‘ ืฉื•ืคืจ ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืชืฉืžื™ืฉื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื“ืœื•ืกืงืžื™ ืกืคืจื™ื ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื–ื•ื–ื•ืช ื•ืชื™ืง ืฉืœ ืกืคืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื ืจืชื™ืง ืฉืœ ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืจืฆื•ืขื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: Articles used in the performance of a mitzva may be thrown out after use. Although these items were used in the performance of a mitzva, they are not thereby sanctified. However, articles associated with the sanctity of Godโ€™s name, i.e. articles on which Godโ€™s name is written, and articles that serve an article that has Godโ€™s name written on it, even after they are no longer used, must be interred in a respectful manner. And these items are considered articles of a mitzva: A sukka; a lulav; a shofar; and ritual fringes. And these items are considered articles of sanctity: Cases of scrolls, i.e. of Torah scrolls; phylacteries; and mezuzot; and a container for a Torah scroll; and a cover for phylacteries; and their straps.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืจื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืื™ ื›ื•ืจืกื™ื ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ื“ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื•ืฉืจื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ืžื•ืชื‘ื™ ืขืœื•ื™ื” ืกืคืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืืžื™ื ื ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืืกื•ืจ

Rava said: Initially, I used to say that this lectern in the synagogue upon which the Torah is read is only an article of an article of sanctity, as the Torah scroll does not rest directly upon the lectern but rather upon the cloth that covers it. And the halakha is that once an article of an article of sanctity is no longer used, it is permitted to throw it out. However, once I saw that the Torah scroll is sometimes placed directly upon the lectern without an intervening cloth. I said that it is an article used directly for items of sanctity, and as such it is prohibited to simply discard it after use.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืจื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืื™ ืคืจื™ืกื ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ื“ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ืขื™ื™ืคื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ืžื ื—ื™ ืกื™ืคืจื ืขืœื•ื™ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืืกื•ืจ

And Rava similarly said: Initially, I used to say that this curtain, which is placed at the opening to the ark as a decoration, is only an article of an article of sanctity, as it serves to beautify the ark but is not directly used for the Torah scroll. However, once I saw that sometimes the curtain is folded over and a Torah scroll is placed upon it. I said that it is an article used directly for items of sanctity and as such it is prohibited to simply discard it after use.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืชื™ื‘ื•ืชื ื“ืื™ืจืคื˜ ืžื™ืขื‘ื“ื” ืชื™ื‘ื” ื–ื•ื˜ืจืชื™ ืฉืจื™ ื›ื•ืจืกื™ื™ื ืืกื™ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืคืจื™ืกื ื“ื‘ืœื” ืœืžื™ืขื‘ื“ื™ื” ืคืจื™ืกื ืœืกืคืจื™ ืฉืจื™ ืœื—ื•ืžืฉื™ืŸ ืืกื™ืจ

And Rava further said: With regard to this ark that has fallen apart, constructing a smaller ark from its materials is permitted, as both have the same level of sanctity, but to use the materials to construct a lectern is prohibited because the lectern has a lesser degree of sanctity. And Rava similarly said: With regard to this curtain used to decorate an ark that has become worn out, to fashion it into a wrapping cloth for Torah scrolls is permitted, but to fashion it into a wrapping cloth for a scroll of one of the five books of the Torah is prohibited.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื ื™ ื–ื‘ื™ืœื™ ื“ื—ื•ืžืฉื™ ื•ืงืžื˜ืจื™ ื“ืกืคืจื™ ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื ื’ื ื–ื™ืŸ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืœืื• ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืŸ ืœื ื˜ื•ืจื™ ื‘ืขืœืžื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

And Rava also said: With regard to these cases for storing scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah and sacks for storing Torah scrolls, they are classified as articles of sanctity. Therefore, they are to be interred when they are no longer in use. The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t that obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since these items are not made for the honor of the scrolls but rather are made merely to provide protection, they should not be classified as articles of sanctity, Rava therefore teaches us that although they are indeed made to protect the scrolls, they also provide honor and are therefore to be classified as articles of sanctity.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื“ื™ื”ื•ื“ืื™ ืจื•ืžืื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืคืชื™ื— ืœื”ื”ื•ื ืื™ื“ืจื•ื ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžื—ื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืžืช ื•ื”ื•ื• ื‘ืขื• ื›ื”ื ื™ ืœืžื™ืขืœ ืœืฆืœื•ื™ื™ ื”ืชื ืืชื• ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื“ืœื• ืชื™ื‘ื•ืชื ืื•ืชื‘ื•ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืช ื•ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ื—ื•ืฆืฅ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื”

The Gemara relates: There was a certain synagogue of the Jews of Rome that opened out into a room in which a corpse was lying, thereby spreading the ritual impurity of the corpse throughout the synagogue. And the priests wished to enter the synagogue in order to pray there. However, it was prohibited for them to do so because a priest may not come in contact with ritual impurity of a corpse. They came and spoke to Rava, about what to do. He said to them: Lift up the ark and put it down in the opening between the two rooms, as it is a wooden utensil that is designated to rest in one place and not be moved from there, and the halakha is that a wooden utensil that is designated to rest is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and therefore it serves as a barrier to prevent ritual impurity from spreading.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื ื•ื”ื ื–ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ืžื ื— ืกืคืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืขืœื•ื™ื” ื•ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื˜ืœื˜ืœื ืžืœื ื•ืจื™ืงื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืืคืฉืจ

The Rabbis said to Rava: But isnโ€™t the ark sometimes moved when a Torah scroll is still resting inside it, and therefore it is a utensil that is moved both when it is full and when it is empty; such a utensil is susceptible to ritual impurity and cannot prevent ritual impurity from spreading. He said to them: If so, if it is as you claim, then it is not possible to remedy the situation.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ืžื˜ืคื—ื•ืช ืกืคืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืชื›ืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืžืช ืžืฆื•ื” ื•ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื’ื ื™ื–ืชืŸ

Mar Zutra said: With regard to wrapping cloths of Torah scrolls that have become worn out, they may be made into shrouds for a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], and this is their most appropriate manner for being interred.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืกืคืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื‘ืœื” ื’ื•ื ื–ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืืฆืœ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ื ื” ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืชื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ ืœืžืขืŸ ื™ืขืžื“ื• ื™ืžื™ื ืจื‘ื™ื

And Rava said: A Torah scroll that became worn out is interred and buried next to a Torah scholar, and in this regard, a Torah scholar is defined even as one who only studies the halakhot in the Mishna and the baraitot but is not proficient in their analysis. Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said: And when it is buried, it is first placed in an earthenware vessel, as it is stated: โ€œAnd put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for many daysโ€ (Jeremiah 32:14).

(ื•ืืžืจ) ืจื‘ ืคืคื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืžื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืœื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉืจื™ ืžื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืืกื™ืจ ื•ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืžืชื ื™ ืื™ืคื›ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื

ยง And Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: To convert a building from a synagogue into a study hall is permitted, but from a study hall into a synagogue is prohibited, as he holds that a study hall has a higher degree of sanctity than a synagogue. And Rav Pappa in the name of Rava teaches the opposite, as he holds that a synagogue has a higher degree of sanctity than a study hall. Rav Aแธฅa said:

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Megillah: 24-32 + Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

We will continue to learn about the laws of Torah reading. We will also learn the laws for the Blessings...

Megillah 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Megillah 26

ื™ืงื—ื• ืกืคืจื™ื ืกืคืจื™ื ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ืชื•ืจื”

they may purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings. If they sold scrolls of the Prophets and Writings, they may purchase a Torah scroll.

ืื‘ืœ ืื ืžื›ืจื• ืชื•ืจื” ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ืกืคืจื™ื ืกืคืจื™ื ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ืžื˜ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื˜ืคื—ื•ืช ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ืชื™ื‘ื” ืชื™ื‘ื” ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืœื ื™ืงื—ื• ืืช ื”ืจื—ื•ื‘

However, the proceeds of a sale of a sacred item may not be used to purchase an item of a lesser degree of sanctity. Therefore, if they sold a Torah scroll, they may not use the proceeds to purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings. If they sold scrolls of the Prophets and Writings, they may not purchase wrapping cloths. If they sold wrapping cloths, they may not purchase an ark. If they sold an ark, they may not purchase a synagogue. If they sold a synagogue, they may not purchase a town square.

ื•ื›ืŸ ื‘ืžื•ืชืจื™ื”ืŸ

And similarly, the same limitation applies to any surplus funds from the sale of sacred items, i.e., if after selling an item and purchasing something of a greater degree of sanctity there remain additional, unused funds, the leftover funds are subject to the same principle and may be used to purchase only something of a degree of sanctity greater than that of the original item.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ื ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืฉืžื›ืจื• ืจื—ื•ื‘ื” ืฉืœ ืขื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกืชื•ืžืชืื” ืื‘ืœ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื”ืจื—ื•ื‘ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉื”

GEMARA: The mishna states: Residents of a town who sold the town square may purchase a synagogue with the proceeds. Concerning this mishna, Rabba bar bar แธคana said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Menaแธฅem bar Yosei, cited unattributed. However, the Rabbis say: The town square does not have any sanctity. Therefore, if it is sold, the residents may use the money from the sale for any purpose.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ืขื ืžืชืคืœืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื‘ืชืขื ื™ื•ืช ื•ื‘ืžืขืžื“ื•ืช ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ืืงืจืื™ ื‘ืขืœืžื

And Rabbi Menaแธฅem bar Yosei, what is his reason for claiming that the town square has sanctity? Since the people pray in the town square on communal fast days and on non-priestly watches, it is defined as a place of prayer and as such has sanctity. And the Rabbis, why do they disagree? They maintain that use of the town square is merely an irregular occurrence. Consequently, the town square is not to be defined as a place of prayer, and so it has no sanctity.

ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ืชื™ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืฉืœ ื›ืคืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืฉืœ ื›ืจื›ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืขืœืžื ืืชื• ืœื™ื” ืœื ืžืฆื• ืžื–ื‘ื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื

ยง The mishna states: If they sold a synagogue, they may purchase an ark. The Gemara cites a qualification to this halakha: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: They taught this only with regard to a synagogue of a village, which is considered the property of the residents of that village. However, with regard to a synagogue of a city, since people come to it from the outside world, the residents of the city are not able to sell it, because it is considered to be the property of the public at large and does not belong exclusively to the residents of the city.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื“ืžืชื ืžื—ืกื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžืขืœืžื ืืชื• ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืงืืชื• ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืžื–ื‘ื ื™ื ื ืœื”

Rav Ashi said: This synagogue of Mata Meแธฅasya, although people from the outside world come to it, since they come at my discretion, as I established it, and everything is done there in accordance with my directives, if I wish, I can sell it.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ืกืช ืฉืœ ื˜ื•ืจืกื™ื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืฉืžื›ืจื•ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ื›ืœ ืฆืจื›ื™ื• ื•ื”ื ื”ืชื ื“ื›ืจื›ื™ื ื”ื•ื” ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื–ื•ื˜ื™ ื”ื•ื” ื•ืื™ื ื”ื• ืขื‘ื“ื•ื”

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmaniโ€™s statement, from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving a synagogue of bronze workers [tursiyyim] that was in Jerusalem, which they sold to Rabbi Eliezer, and he used it for all his own needs. The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t the synagogue there one of cities, as Jerusalem is certainly classified as a city; why were they permitted to sell it? The Gemara explains: That one was a small synagogue, and it was the bronze workers themselves who built it. Therefore, it was considered exclusively theirs, and they were permitted to sell it.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืืจืฅ ืื—ื•ื–ืชื›ื ืื—ื•ื–ืชื›ื ืžื™ื˜ืžื ื‘ื ื’ืขื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžื™ื˜ืžื ื‘ื ื’ืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื ื™ ืœื ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืืœื ืžืงื•ื ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืœื‘ื“

The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: The verse states with regard to leprosy of houses: โ€œAnd I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possessionโ€ (Leviticus 14:34), from which it may be inferred: โ€œYour possession,โ€ i.e., a privately owned house, can become ritually impure with leprosy, but a house in Jerusalem cannot become ritually impure with leprosy, as property there belongs collectively to the Jewish people and is not privately owned. Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard this distinction stated only with regard to the site of the Temple alone, but not with regard to the entire city of Jerusalem.

ื”ื ื‘ืชื™ ื›ื ืกื™ื•ืช ื•ื‘ืชื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื•ืช ืžื™ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืืžืื™ ื”ื ื“ื›ืจื›ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืื™ืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื ื™ ืœื ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืืœื ืžืงื•ื ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ืœื‘ื“

The Gemara explains: From Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s statement, it is apparent that only the site of the Temple cannot become ritually impure, but synagogues and study halls in Jerusalem can become ritually impure. Why should this be true given that they are owned by the city? The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita and say as follows: Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard this distinction stated only with regard to a sacred site, which includes the Temple, synagogues, and study halls.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ื ืชื—ืœืงื” ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืœืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ื ืชื—ืœืงื” ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืœืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื

With regard to what principle do the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The first tanna holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, i.e., it was never assigned to any particular tribe, but rather it belongs collectively to the entire nation. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes, and it is only the site of the Temple itself that belongs collectively to the entire nation.

ื•ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™

The Gemara notes: They each follow a different opinion in the dispute between these tannaโ€™im:

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื” ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ืฉืœ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืจ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืฉื›ื•ืช ื•ื”ืขื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืžื” ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ืฉืœ ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืœื ื•ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื

One tanna holds that Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes, as it is taught in a baraita: What part of the Temple was in the tribal portion of Judah? The Temple mount, the Temple chambers, and the Temple courtyards. And what was in the tribal portion of Benjamin? The Entrance Hall, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies.

ื•ืจืฆื•ืขื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื•ืฆืืช ืžื—ืœืงื• ืฉืœ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื ื›ื ืกืช ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ืฉืœ ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื” ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื ื•ื™ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืง ืžืฆื˜ืขืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ืœื‘ื•ืœืขื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื—ื•ืคืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื›ืŸ ืœืฉื›ื™ื ื”

And a strip of land issued forth from the portion of Judah and entered into the portion of Benjamin, and upon that strip the altar was built, and the tribe of Benjamin, the righteous, would agonize over it every day desiring to absorb it into its portion, due to its unique sanctity, as it is stated in Mosesโ€™ blessing to Benjamin: โ€œHe covers it throughout the day, and he dwells between his shouldersโ€ (Deuteronomy 33:12). The phrase โ€œcovers itโ€ is understood to mean that Benjamin is continually focused upon that site. Therefore, Benjamin was privileged by becoming the host [ushpizekhan] of the Divine Presence, as the Holy of Holies was built in his portion.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ื ืชื—ืœืงื” ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืœืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื›ื™ืจื™ื ื‘ืชื™ื ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ (ื‘ืจ ืฆื“ื•ืง) ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืœื ืžื˜ื•ืช ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืขื•ืจื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ืขืœื™ ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื™ืŸ ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื–ืจื•ืข

And this other tanna holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, as it is taught in a baraita: One may not rent out houses in Jerusalem, due to the fact that the houses do not belong to those occupying them. Rather, as is true for the entire city, they are owned collectively by the nation. Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: Even beds may not be hired out. Therefore, in the case of the hides of the renterโ€™s offerings that the innkeepers take in lieu of payment, the innkeepers are considered to be taking them by force, as they did not have a right to demand payment.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื•ืจื— ืืจืขื ืœืžื™ืฉื‘ืง ืื™ื ืฉ ื’ื•ืœืคื ื•ืžืฉื›ื ื‘ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื™ื”

Apropos the topic of inns, the Gemara reports: Abaye said: Learn from this baraita that it is proper etiquette for a person to leave his wine flask and the hide of the animal that he slaughtered at his inn, i.e., the inn where he stayed, as a gift for the service he received.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืœื ืžื›ืจื• ืฉื‘ืขื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื‘ืžืขืžื“ ืื ืฉื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืžื›ืจื• ืฉื‘ืขื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื‘ืžืขืžื“ ืื ืฉื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืืคื™ืœื•

ยง The Gemara returns its discussion of the mishna: Rava said: They taught that there is a limitation on what may be purchased with the proceeds of the sale of a synagogue only when the seven representatives of the town who were appointed to administer the townโ€™s affairs had not sold the synagogue in an assembly of the residents of the town. However, if the seven representatives of the town had sold it in an assembly of the residents of the town, then even

ืœืžื™ืฉืชื ื‘ื™ื” ืฉื™ื›ืจื ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™

to drink beer with the proceeds seems well and is permitted. The seven representatives have the authority to annul the sanctity of the synagogue, and therefore the proceeds of its sale do not retain any sanctity.

ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืชื™ืœื ื“ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื”ื• ืœืžื™ื–ืจืขื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ืžืฉื‘ืขื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื‘ืžืขืžื“ ืื ืฉื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ื–ืจืขื”

The Gemara relates: Ravina had a certain piece of land on which stood a mound of the ruins of a synagogue. He came before Rav Ashi and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to sowing the land? He said to him: Go, purchase it from the seven representatives of the town in an assembly of the residents of the town, and then you may sow it.

ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื”ื•ื” ืงื ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื”ื•ื” ื”ื”ื™ื ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืขืชื™ืงื ื”ื•ื” ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืกืชืจื™ื” ื•ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืœื™ื‘ื ื™ ื•ื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื ื” ื•ืขื™ื•ืœื™ ืœื”ืชื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœื ืœื™ืกืชื•ืจ ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืขื“ ื“ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ืคืฉื™ืขื•ืชื ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืืกืจ ืœื™ื”

Rami bar Abba was once building a synagogue. There was a certain old synagogue that he wished to demolish, and bring bricks and beams from it, and bring them to there, to construct a new synagogue. He sat and considered that which Rav แธคisda said, as Rav แธคisda said: One should not demolish a synagogue until one has built another synagogue. Rami bar Abba reasoned that Rav แธคisdaโ€™s ruling there is due to a concern of negligence, as perhaps after the first synagogue is demolished, people will be negligent and a new one will never be built. However, in a case like this, where the new synagogue is to be built directly from the materials of the old one, what is the halakha? He came before Rav Pappa to ask his opinion, and he prohibited him from doing so. He then came before Rav Huna, and he also prohibited him from doing so.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื—ืœื•ืคื” ื•ื–ื‘ื•ื ื” ืฉืจื™ ืื•ื’ื•ืจื” ื•ืžืฉื›ื•ื ื” ืืกื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื” ืงืื™

Rava said: With regard to this synagogue, exchanging it for a different building or selling it for money is permitted, but renting it out or mortgaging it is prohibited. What is the reason for this? When a synagogue is rented out or mortgaged, it remains in its sacred state. Therefore, it is prohibited to rent it out or mortgage it, because it will then be used for a non-sacred purpose. However, if it is exchanged or sold, its sanctity is transferred to the other building or to the proceeds of the sale, and therefore the old synagogue building may be used for any purpose.

ืœื™ื‘ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ืœื•ืคื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื–ื‘ื•ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืฉืจื™ ืื•ื–ื•ืคื™ื ื”ื• ืืกื•ืจ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืขืชื™ืงืชื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื“ืชื ืœื™ืช ืœืŸ ื‘ื”

The same halakha is also true of the bricks of a synagogue; exchanging them or selling them is permitted, but renting them out is prohibited. The Gemara comments: This applies to old bricks that have already been part of a synagogue, but as for new bricks that have only been designated to be used in a synagogue, we have no problem with it if they are rented out for a non-sacred purpose.

ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื–ืžื ื” ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื™ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื”ืื•ืจื’ ื‘ื’ื“ ืœืžืช ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื›ื˜ื•ื•ื™ ืœืืจื™ื’ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ

And even according to the one who said that mere designation is significant, i.e., although a certain object was not yet used for the designated purpose, the halakhic ramifications of using it for that purpose already take hold, this applies only in a case where it was created from the outset for that purpose, for example, one who weaves a garment to be used as shrouds for a corpse. However, here the bricks are comparable to already spun thread that was then designated to be used to weave burial shrouds. Concerning such designation, where nothing was specifically created for the designated purpose, there is no one who said that the designation is significant.

ืžืชื ื” ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื—ื“ ืืกืจ ื•ื—ื“ ืฉืจื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ืืกืจ ื‘ื”ืื™ ืชืคืงืข ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื” ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืฉืจื™ ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื”ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ื›ื–ื‘ื™ื ื™

Rav Aแธฅa and Ravina disagree about whether it is permitted to give away a synagogue as a gift to then be used for a non-sacred purpose. One of them prohibited it, and the other one permitted it. The one who prohibits it says: Is it possible that with this act of giving alone its sanctity is removed? This cannot be the case. Since the synagogue was not exchanged for anything else, there is nothing to which the sanctity may be transferred. Consequently, the synagogue remains sacred. And the one who permitted it does so because he reasons that if the donor did not receive any benefit from giving the synagogue, he would not have given it. Therefore, the gift has reverted to being like a sale, and the sanctity is transferred to the benefit received.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืฉืžื™ืฉื™ ืžืฆื•ื” ื ื–ืจืงื™ืŸ ืชืฉืžื™ืฉื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื ื’ื ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืชืฉืžื™ืฉื™ ืžืฆื•ื” ืกื•ื›ื” ืœื•ืœื‘ ืฉื•ืคืจ ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืชืฉืžื™ืฉื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื“ืœื•ืกืงืžื™ ืกืคืจื™ื ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื–ื•ื–ื•ืช ื•ืชื™ืง ืฉืœ ืกืคืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื ืจืชื™ืง ืฉืœ ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืจืฆื•ืขื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: Articles used in the performance of a mitzva may be thrown out after use. Although these items were used in the performance of a mitzva, they are not thereby sanctified. However, articles associated with the sanctity of Godโ€™s name, i.e. articles on which Godโ€™s name is written, and articles that serve an article that has Godโ€™s name written on it, even after they are no longer used, must be interred in a respectful manner. And these items are considered articles of a mitzva: A sukka; a lulav; a shofar; and ritual fringes. And these items are considered articles of sanctity: Cases of scrolls, i.e. of Torah scrolls; phylacteries; and mezuzot; and a container for a Torah scroll; and a cover for phylacteries; and their straps.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืจื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืื™ ื›ื•ืจืกื™ื ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ื“ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื•ืฉืจื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ืžื•ืชื‘ื™ ืขืœื•ื™ื” ืกืคืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืืžื™ื ื ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืืกื•ืจ

Rava said: Initially, I used to say that this lectern in the synagogue upon which the Torah is read is only an article of an article of sanctity, as the Torah scroll does not rest directly upon the lectern but rather upon the cloth that covers it. And the halakha is that once an article of an article of sanctity is no longer used, it is permitted to throw it out. However, once I saw that the Torah scroll is sometimes placed directly upon the lectern without an intervening cloth. I said that it is an article used directly for items of sanctity, and as such it is prohibited to simply discard it after use.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืจื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืื™ ืคืจื™ืกื ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ื“ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ืขื™ื™ืคื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ืžื ื—ื™ ืกื™ืคืจื ืขืœื•ื™ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืืกื•ืจ

And Rava similarly said: Initially, I used to say that this curtain, which is placed at the opening to the ark as a decoration, is only an article of an article of sanctity, as it serves to beautify the ark but is not directly used for the Torah scroll. However, once I saw that sometimes the curtain is folded over and a Torah scroll is placed upon it. I said that it is an article used directly for items of sanctity and as such it is prohibited to simply discard it after use.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืชื™ื‘ื•ืชื ื“ืื™ืจืคื˜ ืžื™ืขื‘ื“ื” ืชื™ื‘ื” ื–ื•ื˜ืจืชื™ ืฉืจื™ ื›ื•ืจืกื™ื™ื ืืกื™ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืคืจื™ืกื ื“ื‘ืœื” ืœืžื™ืขื‘ื“ื™ื” ืคืจื™ืกื ืœืกืคืจื™ ืฉืจื™ ืœื—ื•ืžืฉื™ืŸ ืืกื™ืจ

And Rava further said: With regard to this ark that has fallen apart, constructing a smaller ark from its materials is permitted, as both have the same level of sanctity, but to use the materials to construct a lectern is prohibited because the lectern has a lesser degree of sanctity. And Rava similarly said: With regard to this curtain used to decorate an ark that has become worn out, to fashion it into a wrapping cloth for Torah scrolls is permitted, but to fashion it into a wrapping cloth for a scroll of one of the five books of the Torah is prohibited.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื ื™ ื–ื‘ื™ืœื™ ื“ื—ื•ืžืฉื™ ื•ืงืžื˜ืจื™ ื“ืกืคืจื™ ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื ื’ื ื–ื™ืŸ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืœืื• ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืŸ ืœื ื˜ื•ืจื™ ื‘ืขืœืžื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

And Rava also said: With regard to these cases for storing scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah and sacks for storing Torah scrolls, they are classified as articles of sanctity. Therefore, they are to be interred when they are no longer in use. The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t that obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since these items are not made for the honor of the scrolls but rather are made merely to provide protection, they should not be classified as articles of sanctity, Rava therefore teaches us that although they are indeed made to protect the scrolls, they also provide honor and are therefore to be classified as articles of sanctity.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื“ื™ื”ื•ื“ืื™ ืจื•ืžืื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืคืชื™ื— ืœื”ื”ื•ื ืื™ื“ืจื•ื ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžื—ื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืžืช ื•ื”ื•ื• ื‘ืขื• ื›ื”ื ื™ ืœืžื™ืขืœ ืœืฆืœื•ื™ื™ ื”ืชื ืืชื• ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื“ืœื• ืชื™ื‘ื•ืชื ืื•ืชื‘ื•ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืช ื•ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ื—ื•ืฆืฅ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื”

The Gemara relates: There was a certain synagogue of the Jews of Rome that opened out into a room in which a corpse was lying, thereby spreading the ritual impurity of the corpse throughout the synagogue. And the priests wished to enter the synagogue in order to pray there. However, it was prohibited for them to do so because a priest may not come in contact with ritual impurity of a corpse. They came and spoke to Rava, about what to do. He said to them: Lift up the ark and put it down in the opening between the two rooms, as it is a wooden utensil that is designated to rest in one place and not be moved from there, and the halakha is that a wooden utensil that is designated to rest is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and therefore it serves as a barrier to prevent ritual impurity from spreading.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื ื•ื”ื ื–ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ืžื ื— ืกืคืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืขืœื•ื™ื” ื•ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื˜ืœื˜ืœื ืžืœื ื•ืจื™ืงื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืืคืฉืจ

The Rabbis said to Rava: But isnโ€™t the ark sometimes moved when a Torah scroll is still resting inside it, and therefore it is a utensil that is moved both when it is full and when it is empty; such a utensil is susceptible to ritual impurity and cannot prevent ritual impurity from spreading. He said to them: If so, if it is as you claim, then it is not possible to remedy the situation.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ืžื˜ืคื—ื•ืช ืกืคืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืชื›ืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืžืช ืžืฆื•ื” ื•ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื’ื ื™ื–ืชืŸ

Mar Zutra said: With regard to wrapping cloths of Torah scrolls that have become worn out, they may be made into shrouds for a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], and this is their most appropriate manner for being interred.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืกืคืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื‘ืœื” ื’ื•ื ื–ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืืฆืœ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ื ื” ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืชื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ ืœืžืขืŸ ื™ืขืžื“ื• ื™ืžื™ื ืจื‘ื™ื

And Rava said: A Torah scroll that became worn out is interred and buried next to a Torah scholar, and in this regard, a Torah scholar is defined even as one who only studies the halakhot in the Mishna and the baraitot but is not proficient in their analysis. Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said: And when it is buried, it is first placed in an earthenware vessel, as it is stated: โ€œAnd put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for many daysโ€ (Jeremiah 32:14).

(ื•ืืžืจ) ืจื‘ ืคืคื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืžื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืœื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉืจื™ ืžื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ืืกื™ืจ ื•ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืžืชื ื™ ืื™ืคื›ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื

ยง And Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: To convert a building from a synagogue into a study hall is permitted, but from a study hall into a synagogue is prohibited, as he holds that a study hall has a higher degree of sanctity than a synagogue. And Rav Pappa in the name of Rava teaches the opposite, as he holds that a synagogue has a higher degree of sanctity than a study hall. Rav Aแธฅa said:

Scroll To Top