Today's Daf Yomi
January 7, 2022 | ה׳ בשבט תשפ״ב
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
Megillah 26
Today’s daf is sponsored by Shanna Winters in honor of Ruth Raskas. “Thank you for your friendship and for inspiring so many.”
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?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף-יומי-לנשים): Play in new window | Download
יקחו ספרים ספרים לוקחין תורה
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.
אבל אם מכרו תורה לא יקחו ספרים ספרים לא יקחו מטפחות מטפחות לא יקחו תיבה תיבה לא יקחו בית הכנסת בית הכנסת לא יקחו את הרחוב
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.
וכן במותריהן:
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.
גמ׳ בני העיר שמכרו רחובה של עיר אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן זו דברי רבי מנחם בר יוסי סתומתאה אבל חכמים אומרים הרחוב אין בו משום קדושה
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 Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Menaḥem 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.
ורבי מנחם בר יוסי מאי טעמיה הואיל והעם מתפללין בו בתעניות ובמעמדות ורבנן ההוא אקראי בעלמא:
And Rabbi Menaḥem 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.
בית הכנסת לוקחין תיבה: אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן לא שנו אלא בית הכנסת של כפרים אבל בית הכנסת של כרכין כיון דמעלמא אתו ליה לא מצו מזבני ליה דהוה ליה דרבים
§ The mishna states: If they sold a synagogue, they may purchase an ark. The Gemara cites a qualification to this halakha: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani 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.
אמר רב אשי האי בי כנישתא דמתא מחסיא אף על גב דמעלמא אתו לה כיון דאדעתא דידי קאתו אי בעינא מזבנינא לה
Rav Ashi said: This synagogue of Mata Meḥasya, 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.
מיתיבי אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בבית הכנסת של טורסיים שהיה בירושלים שמכרוה לרבי אליעזר ועשה בה כל צרכיו והא התם דכרכים הוה ההיא בי כנישתא זוטי הוה ואינהו עבדוה
The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani’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 wasn’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.
מיתיבי בבית ארץ אחוזתכם אחוזתכם מיטמא בנגעים ואין ירושלים מיטמא בנגעים אמר רבי יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקדש בלבד
The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: The verse states with regard to leprosy of houses: “And I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34), from which it may be inferred: “Your possession,” 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.
הא בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מיטמאין אמאי הא דכרכין הוו אימא אמר רבי יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקודש בלבד
The Gemara explains: From Rabbi Yehuda’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.
במאי קמיפלגי תנא קמא סבר לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים ורבי יהודה סבר נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים
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.
ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי
The Gemara notes: They each follow a different opinion in the dispute between these tanna’im:
דתניא מה היה בחלקו של יהודה הר הבית הלשכות והעזרות ומה היה בחלקו של בנימין אולם והיכל ובית קדשי הקדשים
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.
ורצועה היתה יוצאת מחלקו של יהודה ונכנסת בחלקו של בנימין ובה מזבח בנוי והיה בנימין הצדיק מצטער עליה בכל יום לבולעה שנאמר חופף עליו כל היום לפיכך זכה בנימין ונעשה אושפיזכן לשכינה
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 Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: “He covers it throughout the day, and he dwells between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12). The phrase “covers it” 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.
והאי תנא סבר לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים דתניא אין משכירים בתים בירושלים מפני שאינן שלהן רבי אלעזר (בר צדוק) אומר אף לא מטות לפיכך עורות קדשים בעלי אושפיזין נוטלין אותן בזרוע
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 renter’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.
אמר אביי שמע מינה אורח ארעא למישבק אינש גולפא ומשכא באושפיזיה
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.
אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שלא מכרו שבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר אבל מכרו שבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר אפילו
§ 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 town’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
למישתא ביה שיכרא שפיר דמי
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.
רבינא הוה ליה ההוא תילא דבי כנישתא אתא לקמיה דרב אשי אמר ליה מהו למיזרעה אמר ליה זיל זבניה משבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר וזרעה
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.
רמי בר אבא הוה קא בני בי כנישתא הוה ההיא כנישתא עתיקא הוה בעי למיסתריה ולאתויי ליבני וכשורי מינה ועיולי להתם יתיב וקא מיבעיא ליה הא דרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא לא ליסתור בי כנישתא עד דבני בי כנישתא אחריתי התם משום פשיעותא כי האי גוונא מאי אתא לקמיה דרב פפא ואסר ליה לקמיה דרב הונא ואסר ליה
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 Ḥisda said, as Rav Ḥisda said: One should not demolish a synagogue until one has built another synagogue. Rami bar Abba reasoned that Rav Ḥisda’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.
אמר רבא האי בי כנישתא חלופה וזבונה שרי אוגורה ומשכונה אסור מאי טעמא בקדושתה קאי
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.
ליבני נמי חלופינהו וזבונינהו שרי אוזופינהו אסור הני מילי בעתיקתא אבל בחדתא לית לן בה
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.
ואפילו למאן דאמר הזמנה מילתא היא הני מילי כגון האורג בגד למת אבל הכא כטווי לאריג דמי וליכא למאן דאמר
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.
מתנה פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר בהאי תפקע קדושתה ומאן דשרי אי לאו דהוה ליה הנאה מיניה לא הוה יהיב ליה הדר הוה ליה מתנה כזביני
Rav Aḥa 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.
תנו רבנן תשמישי מצוה נזרקין תשמישי קדושה נגנזין ואלו הן תשמישי מצוה סוכה לולב שופר ציצית ואלו הן תשמישי קדושה דלוסקמי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות ותיק של ספר תורה ונרתיק של תפילין ורצועותיהן
§ 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 God’s name, i.e. articles on which God’s name is written, and articles that serve an article that has God’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.
אמר רבא מריש הוה אמינא האי כורסיא תשמיש דתשמיש הוא ושרי כיון דחזינא דמותבי עלויה ספר תורה אמינא תשמיש קדושה הוא ואסור
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.
ואמר רבא מריש הוה אמינא האי פריסא תשמיש דתשמיש הוא כיון דחזינא דעייפי ליה ומנחי סיפרא עלויה אמינא תשמיש קדושה הוא ואסור
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.
ואמר רבא האי תיבותא דאירפט מיעבדה תיבה זוטרתי שרי כורסייא אסיר ואמר רבא האי פריסא דבלה למיעבדיה פריסא לספרי שרי לחומשין אסיר
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.
ואמר רבא הני זבילי דחומשי וקמטרי דספרי תשמיש קדושה נינהו ונגנזין פשיטא מהו דתימא הני לאו לכבוד עבידן לנטורי בעלמא עבידי קא משמע לן
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: Isn’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.
ההוא בי כנישתא דיהודאי רומאי דהוה פתיח לההוא אידרונא דהוה מחית ביה מת והוו בעו כהני למיעל לצלויי התם אתו אמרו ליה לרבא אמר להו דלו תיבותא אותבוה דהוה ליה כלי עץ העשוי לנחת וכלי עץ העשוי לנחת אינו מקבל טומאה וחוצץ בפני הטומאה
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.
אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא והא זמנין דמטלטלי ליה כי מנח ספר תורה עלויה והוה ליה מיטלטלא מלא וריקם אי הכי לא אפשר
The Rabbis said to Rava: But isn’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.
אמר מר זוטרא מטפחות ספרים שבלו עושין אותן תכריכין למת מצוה וזו היא גניזתן
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.
ואמר רבא ספר תורה שבלה גונזין אותו אצל תלמיד חכם ואפילו שונה הלכות אמר רב אחא בר יעקב ובכלי חרס שנאמר ונתתם בכלי חרש למען יעמדו ימים רבים
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 Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: And when it is buried, it is first placed in an earthenware vessel, as it is stated: “And put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for many days” (Jeremiah 32:14).
(ואמר) רב פפי משמיה דרבא מבי כנישתא לבי רבנן שרי מבי רבנן לבי כנישתא אסיר ורב פפא משמיה דרבא מתני איפכא אמר רב אחא
§ 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 Aḥa said:
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Megillah 26
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
יקחו ספרים ספרים לוקחין תורה
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.
אבל אם מכרו תורה לא יקחו ספרים ספרים לא יקחו מטפחות מטפחות לא יקחו תיבה תיבה לא יקחו בית הכנסת בית הכנסת לא יקחו את הרחוב
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.
וכן במותריהן:
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.
גמ׳ בני העיר שמכרו רחובה של עיר אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן זו דברי רבי מנחם בר יוסי סתומתאה אבל חכמים אומרים הרחוב אין בו משום קדושה
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 Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Menaḥem 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.
ורבי מנחם בר יוסי מאי טעמיה הואיל והעם מתפללין בו בתעניות ובמעמדות ורבנן ההוא אקראי בעלמא:
And Rabbi Menaḥem 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.
בית הכנסת לוקחין תיבה: אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן לא שנו אלא בית הכנסת של כפרים אבל בית הכנסת של כרכין כיון דמעלמא אתו ליה לא מצו מזבני ליה דהוה ליה דרבים
§ The mishna states: If they sold a synagogue, they may purchase an ark. The Gemara cites a qualification to this halakha: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani 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.
אמר רב אשי האי בי כנישתא דמתא מחסיא אף על גב דמעלמא אתו לה כיון דאדעתא דידי קאתו אי בעינא מזבנינא לה
Rav Ashi said: This synagogue of Mata Meḥasya, 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.
מיתיבי אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בבית הכנסת של טורסיים שהיה בירושלים שמכרוה לרבי אליעזר ועשה בה כל צרכיו והא התם דכרכים הוה ההיא בי כנישתא זוטי הוה ואינהו עבדוה
The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani’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 wasn’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.
מיתיבי בבית ארץ אחוזתכם אחוזתכם מיטמא בנגעים ואין ירושלים מיטמא בנגעים אמר רבי יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקדש בלבד
The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: The verse states with regard to leprosy of houses: “And I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34), from which it may be inferred: “Your possession,” 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.
הא בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מיטמאין אמאי הא דכרכין הוו אימא אמר רבי יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקודש בלבד
The Gemara explains: From Rabbi Yehuda’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.
במאי קמיפלגי תנא קמא סבר לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים ורבי יהודה סבר נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים
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.
ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי
The Gemara notes: They each follow a different opinion in the dispute between these tanna’im:
דתניא מה היה בחלקו של יהודה הר הבית הלשכות והעזרות ומה היה בחלקו של בנימין אולם והיכל ובית קדשי הקדשים
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.
ורצועה היתה יוצאת מחלקו של יהודה ונכנסת בחלקו של בנימין ובה מזבח בנוי והיה בנימין הצדיק מצטער עליה בכל יום לבולעה שנאמר חופף עליו כל היום לפיכך זכה בנימין ונעשה אושפיזכן לשכינה
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 Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: “He covers it throughout the day, and he dwells between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12). The phrase “covers it” 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.
והאי תנא סבר לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים דתניא אין משכירים בתים בירושלים מפני שאינן שלהן רבי אלעזר (בר צדוק) אומר אף לא מטות לפיכך עורות קדשים בעלי אושפיזין נוטלין אותן בזרוע
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 renter’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.
אמר אביי שמע מינה אורח ארעא למישבק אינש גולפא ומשכא באושפיזיה
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.
אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שלא מכרו שבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר אבל מכרו שבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר אפילו
§ 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 town’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
למישתא ביה שיכרא שפיר דמי
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.
רבינא הוה ליה ההוא תילא דבי כנישתא אתא לקמיה דרב אשי אמר ליה מהו למיזרעה אמר ליה זיל זבניה משבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר וזרעה
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.
רמי בר אבא הוה קא בני בי כנישתא הוה ההיא כנישתא עתיקא הוה בעי למיסתריה ולאתויי ליבני וכשורי מינה ועיולי להתם יתיב וקא מיבעיא ליה הא דרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא לא ליסתור בי כנישתא עד דבני בי כנישתא אחריתי התם משום פשיעותא כי האי גוונא מאי אתא לקמיה דרב פפא ואסר ליה לקמיה דרב הונא ואסר ליה
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 Ḥisda said, as Rav Ḥisda said: One should not demolish a synagogue until one has built another synagogue. Rami bar Abba reasoned that Rav Ḥisda’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.
אמר רבא האי בי כנישתא חלופה וזבונה שרי אוגורה ומשכונה אסור מאי טעמא בקדושתה קאי
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.
ליבני נמי חלופינהו וזבונינהו שרי אוזופינהו אסור הני מילי בעתיקתא אבל בחדתא לית לן בה
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.
ואפילו למאן דאמר הזמנה מילתא היא הני מילי כגון האורג בגד למת אבל הכא כטווי לאריג דמי וליכא למאן דאמר
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.
מתנה פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר בהאי תפקע קדושתה ומאן דשרי אי לאו דהוה ליה הנאה מיניה לא הוה יהיב ליה הדר הוה ליה מתנה כזביני
Rav Aḥa 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.
תנו רבנן תשמישי מצוה נזרקין תשמישי קדושה נגנזין ואלו הן תשמישי מצוה סוכה לולב שופר ציצית ואלו הן תשמישי קדושה דלוסקמי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות ותיק של ספר תורה ונרתיק של תפילין ורצועותיהן
§ 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 God’s name, i.e. articles on which God’s name is written, and articles that serve an article that has God’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.
אמר רבא מריש הוה אמינא האי כורסיא תשמיש דתשמיש הוא ושרי כיון דחזינא דמותבי עלויה ספר תורה אמינא תשמיש קדושה הוא ואסור
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.
ואמר רבא מריש הוה אמינא האי פריסא תשמיש דתשמיש הוא כיון דחזינא דעייפי ליה ומנחי סיפרא עלויה אמינא תשמיש קדושה הוא ואסור
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.
ואמר רבא האי תיבותא דאירפט מיעבדה תיבה זוטרתי שרי כורסייא אסיר ואמר רבא האי פריסא דבלה למיעבדיה פריסא לספרי שרי לחומשין אסיר
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.
ואמר רבא הני זבילי דחומשי וקמטרי דספרי תשמיש קדושה נינהו ונגנזין פשיטא מהו דתימא הני לאו לכבוד עבידן לנטורי בעלמא עבידי קא משמע לן
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: Isn’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.
ההוא בי כנישתא דיהודאי רומאי דהוה פתיח לההוא אידרונא דהוה מחית ביה מת והוו בעו כהני למיעל לצלויי התם אתו אמרו ליה לרבא אמר להו דלו תיבותא אותבוה דהוה ליה כלי עץ העשוי לנחת וכלי עץ העשוי לנחת אינו מקבל טומאה וחוצץ בפני הטומאה
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.
אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא והא זמנין דמטלטלי ליה כי מנח ספר תורה עלויה והוה ליה מיטלטלא מלא וריקם אי הכי לא אפשר
The Rabbis said to Rava: But isn’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.
אמר מר זוטרא מטפחות ספרים שבלו עושין אותן תכריכין למת מצוה וזו היא גניזתן
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.
ואמר רבא ספר תורה שבלה גונזין אותו אצל תלמיד חכם ואפילו שונה הלכות אמר רב אחא בר יעקב ובכלי חרס שנאמר ונתתם בכלי חרש למען יעמדו ימים רבים
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 Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: And when it is buried, it is first placed in an earthenware vessel, as it is stated: “And put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for many days” (Jeremiah 32:14).
(ואמר) רב פפי משמיה דרבא מבי כנישתא לבי רבנן שרי מבי רבנן לבי כנישתא אסיר ורב פפא משמיה דרבא מתני איפכא אמר רב אחא
§ 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 Aḥa said:
