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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 7, 2022 | 讛壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

Megillah 26

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Shanna Winters in honor of Ruth Raskas. 鈥淭hank you for your friendship and for inspiring so many.鈥

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?

讬拽讞讜 住驻专讬诐 住驻专讬诐 诇讜拽讞讬谉 转讜专讛


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.


讗讘诇 讗诐 诪讻专讜 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 住驻专讬诐 住驻专讬诐 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 诪讟驻讞讜转 诪讟驻讞讜转 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 转讬讘讛 转讬讘讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 讗转 讛专讞讜讘


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.


讜讻谉 讘诪讜转专讬讛谉:


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.


讙诪壮 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 砖诪讻专讜 专讞讜讘讛 砖诇 注讬专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讘专 讬讜住讬 住转讜诪转讗讛 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讞讜讘 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖讛


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 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Mena岣m 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.


讜专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讘专 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛注诐 诪转驻诇诇讬谉 讘讜 讘转注谞讬讜转 讜讘诪注诪讚讜转 讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗:


And Rabbi Mena岣m 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.


讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讜拽讞讬谉 转讬讘讛: 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诇 讻驻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诇 讻专讻讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注诇诪讗 讗转讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪爪讜 诪讝讘谞讬 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬诐


搂 The mishna states: If they sold a synagogue, they may purchase an ark. The Gemara cites a qualification to this halakha: Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪注诇诪讗 讗转讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讬 拽讗转讜 讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 诪讝讘谞讬谞讗 诇讛


Rav Ashi said: This synagogue of Mata Me岣sya, 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诇 讟讜专住讬讬诐 砖讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖诪讻专讜讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜注砖讛 讘讛 讻诇 爪专讻讬讜 讜讛讗 讛转诐 讚讻专讻讬诐 讛讜讛 讛讛讬讗 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讝讜讟讬 讛讜讛 讜讗讬谞讛讜 注讘讚讜讛


The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani鈥檚 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鈥檛 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讘讘讬转 讗专抓 讗讞讜讝转讻诐 讗讞讜讝转讻诐 诪讬讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讬讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞讬 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 诪拽讚砖 讘诇讘讚


The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: The verse states with regard to leprosy of houses: 鈥淎nd I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession鈥 (Leviticus 14:34), from which it may be inferred: 鈥淵our possession,鈥 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.


讛讗 讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讚讻专讻讬谉 讛讜讜 讗讬诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞讬 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 诪拽讜讚砖 讘诇讘讚


The Gemara explains: From Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇砖讘讟讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 谞转讞诇拽讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇砖讘讟讬诐


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.


讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬


The Gemara notes: They each follow a different opinion in the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m:


讚转谞讬讗 诪讛 讛讬讛 讘讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讛专 讛讘讬转 讛诇砖讻讜转 讜讛注讝专讜转 讜诪讛 讛讬讛 讘讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讗讜诇诐 讜讛讬讻诇 讜讘讬转 拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐


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.


讜专爪讜注讛 讛讬转讛 讬讜爪讗转 诪讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讜谞讻谞住转 讘讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讜讘讛 诪讝讘讞 讘谞讜讬 讜讛讬讛 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讛爪讚讬拽 诪爪讟注专 注诇讬讛 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诇讘讜诇注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讞讜驻祝 注诇讬讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讝讻讛 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讜谞注砖讛 讗讜砖驻讬讝讻谉 诇砖讻讬谞讛


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鈥 blessing to Benjamin: 鈥淗e covers it throughout the day, and he dwells between his shoulders鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:12). The phrase 鈥渃overs it鈥 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.


讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇砖讘讟讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪砖讻讬专讬诐 讘转讬诐 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞谉 砖诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘专 爪讚讜拽) 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 诪讟讜转 诇驻讬讻讱 注讜专讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 讘注诇讬 讗讜砖驻讬讝讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讝专讜注


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鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 诇诪讬砖讘拽 讗讬谞砖 讙讜诇驻讗 讜诪砖讻讗 讘讗讜砖驻讬讝讬讛


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 诪讻专讜 砖讘注讛 讟讜讘讬 讛注讬专 讘诪注诪讚 讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讗讘诇 诪讻专讜 砖讘注讛 讟讜讘讬 讛注讬专 讘诪注诪讚 讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讗驻讬诇讜


搂 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鈥檚 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


诇诪讬砖转讗 讘讬讛 砖讬讻专讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬


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.


专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 转讬诇讗 讚讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讬讝专注讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讘谞讬讛 诪砖讘注讛 讟讜讘讬 讛注讬专 讘诪注诪讚 讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讜讝专注讛


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.


专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 讘谞讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讛讜讛 讛讛讬讗 讻谞讬砖转讗 注转讬拽讗 讛讜讛 讘注讬 诇诪讬住转专讬讛 讜诇讗转讜讬讬 诇讬讘谞讬 讜讻砖讜专讬 诪讬谞讛 讜注讬讜诇讬 诇讛转诐 讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诇讬住转讜专 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 注讚 讚讘谞讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗住专 诇讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗住专 诇讬讛


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 岣sda said, as Rav 岣sda said: One should not demolish a synagogue until one has built another synagogue. Rami bar Abba reasoned that Rav 岣sda鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讞诇讜驻讛 讜讝讘讜谞讛 砖专讬 讗讜讙讜专讛 讜诪砖讻讜谞讛 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 拽讗讬


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.


诇讬讘谞讬 谞诪讬 讞诇讜驻讬谞讛讜 讜讝讘讜谞讬谞讛讜 砖专讬 讗讜讝讜驻讬谞讛讜 讗住讜专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注转讬拽转讗 讗讘诇 讘讞讚转讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛


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.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讝诪谞讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讙讜谉 讛讗讜专讙 讘讙讚 诇诪转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讟讜讜讬 诇讗专讬讙 讚诪讬 讜诇讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专


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.


诪转谞讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讘讛讗讬 转驻拽注 拽讚讜砖转讛 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讛讚专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪转谞讛 讻讝讘讬谞讬


Rav A岣 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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转砖诪讬砖讬 诪爪讜讛 谞讝专拽讬谉 转砖诪讬砖讬 拽讚讜砖讛 谞讙谞讝讬谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 转砖诪讬砖讬 诪爪讜讛 住讜讻讛 诇讜诇讘 砖讜驻专 爪讬爪讬转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 转砖诪讬砖讬 拽讚讜砖讛 讚诇讜住拽诪讬 住驻专讬诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 讜转讬拽 砖诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜谞专转讬拽 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜专爪讜注讜转讬讛谉


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鈥檚 name, i.e. articles on which God鈥檚 name is written, and articles that serve an article that has God鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪专讬砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讻讜专住讬讗 转砖诪讬砖 讚转砖诪讬砖 讛讜讗 讜砖专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬谞讗 讚诪讜转讘讬 注诇讜讬讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转砖诪讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专


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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪专讬砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讗讬 驻专讬住讗 转砖诪讬砖 讚转砖诪讬砖 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬谞讗 讚注讬讬驻讬 诇讬讛 讜诪谞讞讬 住讬驻专讗 注诇讜讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转砖诪讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专


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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 转讬讘讜转讗 讚讗讬专驻讟 诪讬注讘讚讛 转讬讘讛 讝讜讟专转讬 砖专讬 讻讜专住讬讬讗 讗住讬专 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 驻专讬住讗 讚讘诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚讬讛 驻专讬住讗 诇住驻专讬 砖专讬 诇讞讜诪砖讬谉 讗住讬专


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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 讝讘讬诇讬 讚讞讜诪砖讬 讜拽诪讟专讬 讚住驻专讬 转砖诪讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜谞讙谞讝讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诇讗讜 诇讻讘讜讚 注讘讬讚谉 诇谞讟讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 注讘讬讚讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


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鈥檛 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.


讛讛讜讗 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讚讬讛讜讚讗讬 专讜诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 驻转讬讞 诇讛讛讜讗 讗讬讚专讜谞讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讞讬转 讘讬讛 诪转 讜讛讜讜 讘注讜 讻讛谞讬 诇诪讬注诇 诇爪诇讜讬讬 讛转诐 讗转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚诇讜 转讬讘讜转讗 讗讜转讘讜讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诇讬 注抓 讛注砖讜讬 诇谞讞转 讜讻诇讬 注抓 讛注砖讜讬 诇谞讞转 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛


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.


讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 诪谞讞 住驻专 转讜专讛 注诇讜讬讛 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬讟诇讟诇讗 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗驻砖专


The Rabbis said to Rava: But isn鈥檛 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.


讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讟驻讞讜转 住驻专讬诐 砖讘诇讜 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 转讻专讬讻讬谉 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 讙谞讬讝转谉


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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讘诇讛 讙讜谞讝讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗爪诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜谞讛 讛诇讻讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讜讘讻诇讬 讞专住 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转转诐 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 诇诪注谉 讬注诪讚讜 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐


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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: And when it is buried, it is first placed in an earthenware vessel, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for many days鈥 (Jeremiah 32:14).


(讜讗诪专) 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 诇讘讬 专讘谞谉 砖专讬 诪讘讬 专讘谞谉 诇讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗住讬专 讜专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬 讗讬驻讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗


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 A岣 said:


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

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

讬拽讞讜 住驻专讬诐 住驻专讬诐 诇讜拽讞讬谉 转讜专讛


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.


讗讘诇 讗诐 诪讻专讜 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 住驻专讬诐 住驻专讬诐 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 诪讟驻讞讜转 诪讟驻讞讜转 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 转讬讘讛 转讬讘讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 讗转 讛专讞讜讘


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.


讜讻谉 讘诪讜转专讬讛谉:


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.


讙诪壮 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 砖诪讻专讜 专讞讜讘讛 砖诇 注讬专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讘专 讬讜住讬 住转讜诪转讗讛 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讞讜讘 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖讛


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 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Mena岣m 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.


讜专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讘专 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛注诐 诪转驻诇诇讬谉 讘讜 讘转注谞讬讜转 讜讘诪注诪讚讜转 讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗:


And Rabbi Mena岣m 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.


讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讜拽讞讬谉 转讬讘讛: 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诇 讻驻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诇 讻专讻讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注诇诪讗 讗转讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪爪讜 诪讝讘谞讬 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬诐


搂 The mishna states: If they sold a synagogue, they may purchase an ark. The Gemara cites a qualification to this halakha: Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪注诇诪讗 讗转讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讬 拽讗转讜 讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 诪讝讘谞讬谞讗 诇讛


Rav Ashi said: This synagogue of Mata Me岣sya, 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诇 讟讜专住讬讬诐 砖讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖诪讻专讜讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜注砖讛 讘讛 讻诇 爪专讻讬讜 讜讛讗 讛转诐 讚讻专讻讬诐 讛讜讛 讛讛讬讗 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讝讜讟讬 讛讜讛 讜讗讬谞讛讜 注讘讚讜讛


The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani鈥檚 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鈥檛 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讘讘讬转 讗专抓 讗讞讜讝转讻诐 讗讞讜讝转讻诐 诪讬讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讬讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞讬 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 诪拽讚砖 讘诇讘讚


The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: The verse states with regard to leprosy of houses: 鈥淎nd I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession鈥 (Leviticus 14:34), from which it may be inferred: 鈥淵our possession,鈥 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.


讛讗 讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讚讻专讻讬谉 讛讜讜 讗讬诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞讬 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 诪拽讜讚砖 讘诇讘讚


The Gemara explains: From Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇砖讘讟讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 谞转讞诇拽讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇砖讘讟讬诐


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.


讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬


The Gemara notes: They each follow a different opinion in the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m:


讚转谞讬讗 诪讛 讛讬讛 讘讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讛专 讛讘讬转 讛诇砖讻讜转 讜讛注讝专讜转 讜诪讛 讛讬讛 讘讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讗讜诇诐 讜讛讬讻诇 讜讘讬转 拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐


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.


讜专爪讜注讛 讛讬转讛 讬讜爪讗转 诪讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讜谞讻谞住转 讘讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讜讘讛 诪讝讘讞 讘谞讜讬 讜讛讬讛 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讛爪讚讬拽 诪爪讟注专 注诇讬讛 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诇讘讜诇注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讞讜驻祝 注诇讬讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讝讻讛 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讜谞注砖讛 讗讜砖驻讬讝讻谉 诇砖讻讬谞讛


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鈥 blessing to Benjamin: 鈥淗e covers it throughout the day, and he dwells between his shoulders鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:12). The phrase 鈥渃overs it鈥 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.


讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇砖讘讟讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪砖讻讬专讬诐 讘转讬诐 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞谉 砖诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘专 爪讚讜拽) 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 诪讟讜转 诇驻讬讻讱 注讜专讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 讘注诇讬 讗讜砖驻讬讝讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讝专讜注


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鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 诇诪讬砖讘拽 讗讬谞砖 讙讜诇驻讗 讜诪砖讻讗 讘讗讜砖驻讬讝讬讛


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 诪讻专讜 砖讘注讛 讟讜讘讬 讛注讬专 讘诪注诪讚 讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讗讘诇 诪讻专讜 砖讘注讛 讟讜讘讬 讛注讬专 讘诪注诪讚 讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讗驻讬诇讜


搂 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鈥檚 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


诇诪讬砖转讗 讘讬讛 砖讬讻专讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬


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.


专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 转讬诇讗 讚讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讬讝专注讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讘谞讬讛 诪砖讘注讛 讟讜讘讬 讛注讬专 讘诪注诪讚 讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讜讝专注讛


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.


专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 讘谞讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讛讜讛 讛讛讬讗 讻谞讬砖转讗 注转讬拽讗 讛讜讛 讘注讬 诇诪讬住转专讬讛 讜诇讗转讜讬讬 诇讬讘谞讬 讜讻砖讜专讬 诪讬谞讛 讜注讬讜诇讬 诇讛转诐 讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诇讬住转讜专 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 注讚 讚讘谞讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗住专 诇讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗住专 诇讬讛


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 岣sda said, as Rav 岣sda said: One should not demolish a synagogue until one has built another synagogue. Rami bar Abba reasoned that Rav 岣sda鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讞诇讜驻讛 讜讝讘讜谞讛 砖专讬 讗讜讙讜专讛 讜诪砖讻讜谞讛 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 拽讗讬


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.


诇讬讘谞讬 谞诪讬 讞诇讜驻讬谞讛讜 讜讝讘讜谞讬谞讛讜 砖专讬 讗讜讝讜驻讬谞讛讜 讗住讜专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注转讬拽转讗 讗讘诇 讘讞讚转讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛


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.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讝诪谞讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讙讜谉 讛讗讜专讙 讘讙讚 诇诪转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讟讜讜讬 诇讗专讬讙 讚诪讬 讜诇讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专


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.


诪转谞讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讘讛讗讬 转驻拽注 拽讚讜砖转讛 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛谞讗讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讛讚专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪转谞讛 讻讝讘讬谞讬


Rav A岣 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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转砖诪讬砖讬 诪爪讜讛 谞讝专拽讬谉 转砖诪讬砖讬 拽讚讜砖讛 谞讙谞讝讬谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 转砖诪讬砖讬 诪爪讜讛 住讜讻讛 诇讜诇讘 砖讜驻专 爪讬爪讬转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 转砖诪讬砖讬 拽讚讜砖讛 讚诇讜住拽诪讬 住驻专讬诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 讜转讬拽 砖诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜谞专转讬拽 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜专爪讜注讜转讬讛谉


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鈥檚 name, i.e. articles on which God鈥檚 name is written, and articles that serve an article that has God鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪专讬砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讻讜专住讬讗 转砖诪讬砖 讚转砖诪讬砖 讛讜讗 讜砖专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬谞讗 讚诪讜转讘讬 注诇讜讬讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转砖诪讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专


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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪专讬砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讗讬 驻专讬住讗 转砖诪讬砖 讚转砖诪讬砖 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬谞讗 讚注讬讬驻讬 诇讬讛 讜诪谞讞讬 住讬驻专讗 注诇讜讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转砖诪讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专


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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 转讬讘讜转讗 讚讗讬专驻讟 诪讬注讘讚讛 转讬讘讛 讝讜讟专转讬 砖专讬 讻讜专住讬讬讗 讗住讬专 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 驻专讬住讗 讚讘诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚讬讛 驻专讬住讗 诇住驻专讬 砖专讬 诇讞讜诪砖讬谉 讗住讬专


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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 讝讘讬诇讬 讚讞讜诪砖讬 讜拽诪讟专讬 讚住驻专讬 转砖诪讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜谞讙谞讝讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诇讗讜 诇讻讘讜讚 注讘讬讚谉 诇谞讟讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 注讘讬讚讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


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鈥檛 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.


讛讛讜讗 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讚讬讛讜讚讗讬 专讜诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 驻转讬讞 诇讛讛讜讗 讗讬讚专讜谞讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讞讬转 讘讬讛 诪转 讜讛讜讜 讘注讜 讻讛谞讬 诇诪讬注诇 诇爪诇讜讬讬 讛转诐 讗转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚诇讜 转讬讘讜转讗 讗讜转讘讜讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诇讬 注抓 讛注砖讜讬 诇谞讞转 讜讻诇讬 注抓 讛注砖讜讬 诇谞讞转 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛


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.


讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 诪谞讞 住驻专 转讜专讛 注诇讜讬讛 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬讟诇讟诇讗 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗驻砖专


The Rabbis said to Rava: But isn鈥檛 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.


讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讟驻讞讜转 住驻专讬诐 砖讘诇讜 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 转讻专讬讻讬谉 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 讙谞讬讝转谉


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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讘诇讛 讙讜谞讝讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗爪诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜谞讛 讛诇讻讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讜讘讻诇讬 讞专住 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转转诐 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 诇诪注谉 讬注诪讚讜 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐


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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: And when it is buried, it is first placed in an earthenware vessel, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for many days鈥 (Jeremiah 32:14).


(讜讗诪专) 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 诇讘讬 专讘谞谉 砖专讬 诪讘讬 专讘谞谉 诇讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗住讬专 讜专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬 讗讬驻讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗


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 A岣 said:


Scroll To Top