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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 8, 2022 | 讜壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Megillah 27

Can a shul be sold to be a beit midrash or can a beit midrash sold to be a shul? Can an old sefer Torah be sold to buy a new one? The Gemara brings five sources to try to answer this question but all answers are rejected and there is no conclusion. Money left over from a sale of sanctified items, after a new item has been purchased, has the same status as the whole sum of money. However, there are exceptions to this rule. If a group of people go from one city to another and are asked to give charity, when they leave the city, they can ask for the money back to give to poor people in their city. But this is not the case of an individual. Rabbi Meir holds that an item (or shul) belonging to many cannot be sold to be used for an individual. The rabbis disagree. If one sells a shul, is the sale final or do the original owners have rights to buy it back? If so, why is this not an issue of loaning on interest as when they buy it back for the same price, the seller gets his money back and also had use of the building in the meantime? This is called 鈥tzad eched b鈥檙ibit鈥 鈥 interest that is not definitely going to be collected and according to Rabbi Yehuda this is permitted. A source is brought to prove Rabbi Yehuda holds this way, but the proof is rejected. Laws are brought regarding the sanctity of an area where one prays as regarding using the space as a bathroom. A number of rabbis were asked why they were blessed to have lived a long life and they each list a number of things they did for which they believed they were rewarded.

 

讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转讜 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


It stands to reason to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is permitted for a synagogue to be made into a study hall. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that the opinion of Rav Pappi is correct.


讚专砖 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖专祝 讗转 讘讬转 讛壮 讜讗转 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讜讗转 讻诇 讘转讬 讬专讜砖诇诐 讜讗转 讻诇 讘讬转 讙讚讜诇 砖专祝 讘讗砖 讘讬转 讛壮 讝讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讗诇讜 驻诇讟专讬谉 砖诇 诪诇讱 讜讗转 讻诇 讘转讬 讬专讜砖诇诐 讻诪砖诪注谉 讜讗转 讻诇 讘讬转 讙讚讜诇 砖专祝 讘讗砖 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讙讚诇讬谉 讘讜 转讜专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讙讚诇讬谉 讘讜 转驻诇讛


Bar Kappara interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd he burnt the house of the Lord, and the king鈥檚 house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great house he burnt with fire鈥 (II聽Kings 25:9)? He explained: 鈥淭he house of the Lord鈥; this is the Holy Temple. 鈥淭he king鈥檚 house鈥; these are the king鈥檚 palaces [palterin]. 鈥淎nd all the houses of Jerusalem鈥; as understood in its literal sense. With regard to the final phrase: 鈥淎nd every great house he burnt with fire,鈥 Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree about the meaning of 鈥済reat house鈥: One of them said: It is referring to a place where the Torah is made great, i.e., the study hall; and the other one said: It is referring to a place where prayer is made great, i.e., the synagogue.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讛壮 讞驻抓 诇诪注谉 爪讚拽讜 讬讙讚讬诇 转讜专讛 讜讬讗讚讬专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转驻诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 住驻专讛 谞讗 讛讙讚讜诇讜转 讗砖专 注砖讛 讗诇讬砖注 讜讗诇讬砖注 讚注讘讚 讘专讞诪讬 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚


The Gemara explains their respective opinions: The one who said that the reference is to where the Torah is made great bases his opinion on a verse that describes Torah study as great, as it is written: 鈥淭he Lord was pleased, for His righteousness鈥 sake, to make Torah great and glorious鈥 (Isaiah 42:21). And the one who said that the reference is to where prayer is made great bases his opinion on a verse that describes prayer as great, as it is written: 鈥淭ell me, I pray you, all the great things that Elisha has done鈥 (II聽Kings 8:4), and that which Elisha did, i.e., restored a boy to life, he did through prayer.


转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讙讚诇讬谉 讘讜 转讜专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转讜 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara comments: Conclude that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who said that 鈥済reat house鈥 is referring to a place where the Torah is made great, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said elsewhere: It is permitted for a synagogue to be made into a study hall. This ruling indicates that he holds that a study hall has a higher degree of sanctity than a synagogue. It is therefore reasonable that he assumes that 鈥済reat house鈥 is referring specifically to a study hall. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that he was the one who said the term is referring to a place where the Torah is made great.


讗讘诇 诪讻专讜 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 住驻专讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇诪讻讜专 住驻专 转讜专讛 讬砖谉 诇讬拽讞 讘讜 讞讚砖 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪注诇讬 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 诇注诇讜讬讬 注讬诇讜讬讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬


搂 The mishna states: However, if they sold a Torah scroll, they may not use the proceeds to purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings. Similarly, the proceeds of the sale of any sacred item may not be used to purchase an item of a lesser degree of sanctity. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to sell an old Torah scroll in order to purchase a new one? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: On the one hand, since the proceeds are not raised to a higher degree of sanctity by doing so, maybe it is prohibited; or, perhaps in this case, since there is no possibility of raising it to another, higher degree of sanctity, it seems well and should be permitted?


转讗 砖诪注 讗讘诇 诪讻专讜 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 住驻专讬诐 住驻专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 转讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讬注讘讚 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 诇讻转讞诇讛


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: However, if they sold a Torah scroll, they may not use the proceeds to purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings. One may infer: It is only scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings that may not be purchased with the proceeds, but to purchase a new Torah scroll with the proceeds of an old Torah scroll seems well and is permitted. The Gemara rejects this proof: The mishna discusses the halakha that applies only after the fact that a Torah scroll was sold. Perhaps it is only in that case where the proceeds may be used to purchase another Torah scroll. When the dilemma was raised to us, it was with respect to permitting the sale of one Torah scroll in order to purchase another ab initio.


转讗 砖诪注 讙讜诇诇讬谉 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讜讞讜诪砖讬谉 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讜诇讗 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 住驻专 转讜专讛


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: A Torah scroll may be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah. And scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah may be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for scrolls of the Prophets or Writings, since in each case the wrapping cloths are being used for something with a greater degree of sanctity. However, a scroll of the Prophets or Writings may not be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah, and scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah may not be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for a Torah scroll.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讙讜诇诇讬诐 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 讞讜诪砖讬谉 诪讟驻讞讜转 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讟驻讞讜转 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇讗


The Gemara explains the proof: In any event, the baraita is teaching: A Torah scroll may be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah. One may infer: A Torah scroll may be rolled up only in wrapping cloths that are used for scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah; but to roll it up in wrapping cloths of another Torah scroll, no, it is not permitted. By extension, one Torah scroll may certainly not be sold in order to purchase another.


讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诇讗 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 住驻专 转讜专讛 讛讗 转讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara rejects the proof: If this inference is valid, one should be able to say the latter clause and make a similar inference from it. The latter clause teaches: And scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah may not be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for a Torah scroll. It may be inferred from this that it is prohibited only to roll up scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah in wrapping cloths that are used for a Torah scroll, but to roll up one Torah scroll in the wrapping cloths of another Torah scroll seems well. By extension, one should be permitted to sell a Torah scroll to purchase another. Rather, perforce one must conclude that no inference beyond its basic meaning can be deduced from the baraita, as the inferences are contradictory.


转讗 砖诪注 诪谞讬讞讬谉 住驻专 转讜专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 转讜专讛 讜转讜专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讜讞讜诪砖讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讜诇讗 讞讜诪砖讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 转讜专讛


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the Tosefta (Megilla 3:12): A Torah scroll may be placed upon another Torah scroll, and a Torah scroll may be placed upon scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah, and scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah may be placed upon scrolls of the Prophets or Writings. However, scrolls of the Prophets or Writings may not be placed upon scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah, and scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah may not be placed upon a Torah scroll. From the first clause, it is apparent that one Torah scroll may be used for the sake of another. By extension, it should be permitted to sell one Torah scroll to purchase another.


讛谞讞讛 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 讛谞讞讛 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诪讬讻专讱 讛讬讻讬 讻专讻讬谞谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 讬转讬讘 讚驻讗 讗讞讘专讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 砖专讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 砖专讬


The Gemara rejects this proof: Can you say a proof from the halakha of placing one Torah scroll upon another? The halakha of placing scrolls upon one another is different, because it is impossible to place them in any other way, as they must be laid one atop the other when placed in the ark. As, if you do not say so, that it is indeed permitted when in an unavoidable situation, how could we furl a Torah scroll at all? Does one sheet of parchment not rest upon another? Rather, since it is impossible to furl the scroll in any other way, it is permitted. Here too, since it is impossible to place the scrolls in the ark in any other way, it is permitted.


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 住驻专 转讜专讛 讬砖谉 诇讬拽讞 讘讜 讞讚砖


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: As Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: A person may not sell an old Torah scroll in order to purchase a new one.


讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪谞讞 诇讗讬驻专讜拽讬 诪讗讬


The Gemara rejects this proof. There, in the case of the baraita, it is prohibited because of a concern for negligence. The old one might be sold and a new one never bought. However, when we speak, it is of a case where the new scroll is already written and waiting to be redeemed immediately with the proceeds of the sale. Therefore, the question remains: What is the halakha in this case?


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: As Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: A Torah scroll may be sold only if the seller needs the money in order to study Torah or to marry a woman.


砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 砖讛转诇诪讜讚 诪讘讬讗 诇讬讚讬 诪注砖讛 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛 讗讘诇 转讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 诇讗


Learn from this baraita that exchanging one entity of Torah, i.e., a Torah scroll, for another entity of Torah, i.e., Torah study, seems well, and by extension, it should be permitted to sell one Torah scroll to purchase another. The Gemara rejects the proof: Perhaps Torah study is different, as the study of Torah leads to action, i.e., the fulfillment of the mitzvot, and perhaps it is only due to its great importance of Torah study that it is permitted to sell a Torah scroll for it. Similarly, marrying a woman is also of utmost importance, as it is stated with regard to Creation: 鈥淗e created it not a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (Isaiah 45:18). This indicates that marrying and having children fulfills a primary goal of Creation. But selling an old Torah in order to buy a new Torah might not be permitted.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 讜诪讻专 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗讜 讘转讜 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 住讬诪谉 讘专讻讛 诇注讜诇诐:


On the same topic, the Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not sell a Torah scroll, even if he does not need it. Furthermore, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even if a person has nothing to eat, and out of his need he sold a Torah scroll or he sold his daughter to be a maidservant, he never sees a sign of blessing from the proceeds of either sale. Clearly, it is never appropriate to sell a Torah scroll for any purpose.


讜讻谉 讘诪讜转专讬讛谉: 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讻专讜 讜讛讜转讬专讜 讗讘诇 讙讘讜 讜讛讜转讬专讜 诪讜转专


The mishna states: And similarly, the same limitation applies to any surplus funds from the sale of sacred items. Rava said: They taught that the surplus funds have sanctity only in a case where the community sold a sacred object and then used the proceeds to purchase something with a greater degree of sanctity, and there was money left over. However, if the community collected money from its members in order to purchase a sacred object, and there was extra money left over beyond the price of the object, that extra money is permitted to be used for any purpose, as the money was never sanctified.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛转谞讜 讗讘诇 讛转谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讚讜讻住讜住讬讗 诪讜转专


Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: In what case is this statement of the mishna said? When they did not explicitly stipulate that they would do with the surplus funds as they see fit. However, if they made such a stipulation, then even to use the money for a dukhsusya is permitted. The Gemara will explain the meaning of the term dukhsusya.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诪讻专讜 讜讛讜转讬专讜 讻讬 讛转谞讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 砖讙讘讜 讜讛讜转讬专讜 讟注诪讗 讚讛转谞讜 讛讗 诇讗 讛转谞讜 诇讗


Abaye explains the challenge: What are the circumstances of this stipulation? If we say that they sold a sacred object and after using the proceeds to purchase another sacred object there was money left over, then even when they made a stipulation, of what avail is it? How can a stipulation desanctify the money? Rather, the mishna must be referring to a case where they collected money to purchase a sacred object and there was money left over after they made the purchase. In such a case, the reason that it is permitted to use the extra money for any purpose is that they made an explicit stipulation. However, if they did not make a stipulation, no, it would not be permitted.


诇注讜诇诐 砖诪讻专讜 讜讛讜转讬专讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛转谞讜 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 讛转谞讜 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 诇讚讜讻住讜住讬讗 谞诪讬 诪讜转专


Rava rejects this argument: Actually, you can explain that the mishna is referring to a case where they sold a sacred object and there was money left over after purchasing a new one, and this is what the baraita is saying: In what case is this statement of the mishna said? In a case where the seven representatives of the town did not explicitly stipulate that they could use the money as they see fit, in an assembly of the residents of the town. However, if the seven representatives of the town made such a stipulation in an assembly of the residents of the town, then even to use the money for a dukhsusya would also be permitted.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讛讜讛 诪住讚专 诪转谞讬转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 诪讬 砖诪讬注 诇讱 诪专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讚讜讻住讜住讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 驻专砖讗 讚诪转讗


Abaye said to one of the Sages who would arrange the Mishna before Rav Sheshet: Did you hear anything from Rav Sheshet with regard to what the meaning of the term dukhsusya is? He said to him: This is what Rav Sheshet said: It is the town horseman who would serve the townspeople as a sentry and for public dispatches.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讱 讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚砖诪注 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注 驻讬专讜砖讗 诇讬砖讬讬诇讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖讻讬讞 拽诪讬讛 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪谉 讙讘专讗 专讘讛


The Gemara introduces a parenthetical comment: Abaye said: Accordingly, one can learn from this incident that with regard to this young Torah scholar who has heard something and does not know the meaning of it, he should inquire of its meaning before somebody who is frequently before the Sages, as it is impossible that such a person did not hear something about it from some great man.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 砖讛诇讻讜 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 讜驻住拽讜 注诇讬讛谉 爪讚拽讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讻砖讛谉 讘讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诪讛谉 讜诪驻专谞住讬谉 讘讛 注谞讬讬 注讬专谉


Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: In the case of residents of a town who collectively went to another town and, while there, the charity collectors in that town made them pledge a certain sum for charity, they must give the promised sum to the town鈥檚 charity collector, so as not to be suspected of reneging. But when they go home, their money is returned to them, and they bring it back with them, and with it they finance the poor of their own town.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 砖讛诇讻讜 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 讜驻住拽讜 注诇讬讛谉 爪讚拽讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讻砖讛谉 讘讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诪讛谉 讜讬讞讬讚 砖讛诇讱 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 讜驻住拽讜 注诇讬讜 爪讚拽讛 转谞转谉 诇注谞讬讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专


The Gemara comments: That is also taught in a baraita: In the case of residents of a town who collectively went to another town and, while there, the local charity collectors made them pledge a certain sum for charity, they must give the promised sum to the town鈥檚 charity collector. But when they go home, their money is returned to them, and they bring it back with them. But in the case of an individual who went from his hometown to another town and, while there, the local charity collectors made him pledge a certain sum for charity, he should give it to the poor of that town.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讝专 转注谞讬转讗 注诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘 讞谞讛 讘专 讞谞讬诇讗讬 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 诪转讬讛 专诪讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 爪讚拽讛 讜讬讛讘讜 讻讬 讘注讜 诇诪讬转讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞讜转讘讛 诇谉 诪专 讜谞讬讝讜诇 讜谞驻专谞住 讘讛 注谞讬讬 诪讗转讬谉


The Gemara relates: Rav Huna once decreed a fast day. On the day of the fast, Rav 岣na bar 岣nilai and all the people of his town came to Rav Huna. A certain sum of charity was imposed upon them and they gave it. When they wanted to go home, they said to Rav Huna: May our Master give to us the charity that we gave, and we will go back, and with it we will finance the poor of our own town.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞讬谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讗讬谉 砖诐


He said to them: It was taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that the money is returned when the people leave, said? When there is no


讞讘专 注讬专 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 讞讘专 注讬专 转讬谞转谉 诇讞讘专 注讬专 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚注谞讬讬 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讻讜 注诇讬 住诪讬讻讬:


town scholar supervising the handling of the community鈥檚 needs, in the town in which the charity was collected. However, if there is a town scholar there, the money should be given to the town scholar, and he may use it as he sees fit. Since, in this case, the money had been given to Rav Huna, the use of the money should be up to his discretion. Rav Huna added: And all the more so in this instance, as both my poor in my town and your poor in your town rely upon me and my collections of charity. Rav Huna was also in charge of distributing charity for the surrounding area. It was certainly proper to leave the money with him, so that he could distribute it among all those in need.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 诇讬讞讬讚 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪拽讚讜砖转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 讗祝 诇讗 诪注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诇注讬专 拽讟谞讛:


MISHNA: They may not sell a sacred object belonging to the community to an individual, even if the object will still be used for the same purpose, due to the fact that by doing so they downgrade its degree of sanctity, as an item used by fewer people is considered to have a lower degree of sanctity than one used by many; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to him: If so, by your logic, it should also not be permitted to sell a sacred object from a large town to a small town. However, such a sale is certainly permitted, and therefore it must also be permitted to sell such an object to an individual.


讙诪壮 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诇注讬专 拽讟谞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 拽讚讬砖讗 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 拽讚讬砖讗 诪专讘讬诐 诇讬讞讬讚 诇讬讻讗 拽讚讜砖讛


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Meir, as they provided a rational argument for their opinion. How could Rabbi Meir counter their claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir holds that when a sacred object is transferred from a large town to a small town, there is no significant downgrade in the degree of sanctity, as at the outset it was sacred for a community and now too it is sacred for a community. But when it is transferred from a community to an individual, there is a significant downgrade in the degree of sanctity, as there is no longer the degree of sanctity that existed beforehand.


讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讞砖 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讞砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专讜讘 注诐 讛讚专转 诪诇讱:


And the Rabbis, how could they respond to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 claim? If there is cause to be concerned about the decrease in the number of people who will use the object when it is transferred from a community to an individual, then in a case like this as well, where the object is transferred to a smaller community, there should be cause to be concerned about this due to the principle expressed in the verse: 鈥淚n the multitude of people is the king鈥檚 glory鈥 (Proverbs 14:28). The verse teaches that the larger the assembly involved in a mitzva, the greater the honor to God. However, it is apparent that this principle does not prevent the sale of a synagogue to a smaller community, and therefore it should not prevent the selling of a synagogue to an individual.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗诇讗 注诇 转谞讗讬 砖讗诐 讬专爪讜 讬讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪诪讻专 注讜诇诐 讞讜抓 诪讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 诇诪专讞抓 讜诇讘讜专住拽讬 诇讟讘讬诇讛 讜诇讘讬转 讛诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇砖诐 讞爪专 讜讛诇讜拽讞 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 讬注砖讛:


MISHNA: They may sell a synagogue only with a stipulation that if the sellers so desire it, the buyers will return it to them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They may sell a synagogue with a permanent sale for any usage, except the following four things, which would be an affront to the synagogue鈥檚 previous sanctity: For a bathhouse, where people stand undressed; or for a tannery [burseki], due to the foul smell; for immersion, i.e., to be used as a ritual bath, where people also stand undressed; or for a lavatory. Rabbi Yehuda says: They may sell a synagogue for the generic purpose of serving as a courtyard, and then the buyer may then do with it as he wishes, even if that is one of the above four purposes.


讙诪壮 讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讻讬 讚讬讬专讬 讘讛 讛讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 专讘讬转


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Meir, how may those who purchased the synagogue live in it? Isn鈥檛 living there tantamount to taking interest? If the sellers demand the synagogue鈥檚 return, the payment given for it would be returned to the buyers. Accordingly, in a broad view of things, that sum of money may be considered as a loan that was given from the buyers to the sellers, until the synagogue was demanded back. The buyers benefited from giving that loan by being able to live in the synagogue building. However, gaining any benefit from a loan is prohibited as interest.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 诪讜转专


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Meir stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Uncertain interest, i.e., a transaction that will not certainly result in a situation of interest, is permitted.


讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜注砖讛 诇讜 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专 诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讗住讜专


In the case of the mishna, the sale might never be undone, and then there would be no loan to speak of. It should therefore be permitted as a case of uncertain interest, as it is taught in a baraita: If one had a debt of one hundred dinars against his fellow, and the borrower made a conditional sale of his field because he did not have any money to repay the loan, stipulating that if he later comes into the possession of money with which to repay the loan, the field reverts back to his ownership, then as long as the seller of the field consumes the produce of that field, such an arrangement is permitted. If the buyer consumes the produce, the arrangement is prohibited, as if the sale were to be reverted, then the money given for it would be considered a loan from the buyer to the seller, and therefore any benefit the buyer gains due to that loan should be prohibited as interest.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞谉 砖注砖讛 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讜拽讞


Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the buyer consumes the produce, it is permitted. Since it is possible that the sale might never be undone, in which case there would be no loan to speak of, it is a case of uncertain interest, which is permitted. And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Baitos ben Zunen, who made a conditional sale of his field in a similar arrangement under the direction of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and the buyer was consuming the produce in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 ruling. The Rabbis said to him: Do you seek to bring a proof from there? In that case, it was actually the seller who was consuming the produce and not the buyer.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 诪讜转专 讜诪专 住讘专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗住讜专


The Gemara analyses the dispute: What is the practical difference between them? The permissibility of an uncertain interest agreement is the practical difference between them. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that uncertain interest is permitted and one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that uncertain interest is prohibited.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 专讘讬转 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 专讘讬转 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讜转专 讜诪专 住讘专 讗住讜专:


Rava said a different explanation of the dispute: According to everyone, uncertain interest is prohibited, and here it is the question of the permissibility of interest given on the condition that it will be returned that is the practical difference between them. In addition to the arrangement described in the baraita, the parties in this case agreed that the buyer would consume the produce; if the sale would later be reverted, then the buyer would reimburse the seller for the value of the produce. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that interest that is given on condition that it will be returned is permitted; this is because even if the sale is reverted and the sale becomes a loan retroactively, the buyer-lender will not benefit from that loan since he reimbursed the seller-borrower for the value of the produce. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it is prohibited.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪诪讻专 注讜诇诐 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜转专 诇讗讚诐 诇讛砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 讘转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇 转驻诇讛


搂 The mishna states: And the Rabbis say: They may sell a synagogue with a permanent sale. However, it may not be sold if it will be used for activities that would be an affront to the synagogue鈥檚 previous sanctity. The Gemara considers a related halakha: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted for a person to urinate within four cubits of where one has just offered a prayer, i.e., one may urinate even in the same place as he prays.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇砖讜诐 讞爪专 讜诇讜拽讞 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 讬注砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讚拽讘讬注 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 讗讘诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 诇讗


Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us? We already learned this in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: They may sell a synagogue for the generic purpose of serving as a courtyard, and the buyer may then do with it as he wishes, even if he wishes to make it into a lavatory. And even the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, say their ruling only with regard to a synagogue whose sanctity is permanent. However, with regard to the four cubits of where one happened to stand in prayer, whose sanctity is not permanent, no, even the Rabbis would be lenient.


转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诪转驻诇诇 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪砖转讬谉 讜讛诪砖转讬谉 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪转驻诇诇


A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Na岣an: One who prayed should distance himself four cubits from where he was standing, and only then may he urinate. And one who urinated should distance himself four cubits, and only then may he pray.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讛诪砖转讬谉 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪转驻诇诇 转谞讬谞讗 讻诪讛 讬专讞讬拽 诪讛谉 讜诪谉 讛爪讜讗讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


Rav Na岣an said to him: Granted, the second clause of the baraita, that one who urinated should distance himself four cubits and only then may he pray, makes sense, as we already learned in a mishna (Berakhot 22b): How far must one distance oneself from urine and excrement? Four cubits.


讗诇讗 讛诪转驻诇诇 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪砖转讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讚砖转讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 砖讘讬诇讬 讚谞讛专讚注讗 转谞讬 讬砖讛讛


But the first clause of the baraita, that one who prayed should distance himself four cubits from where he was standing and only then may he urinate, why should I require this? How could there be such a halakha? If that is so, you have sanctified all the streets of the city of Neharde鈥檃, for people have certainly prayed on every one of its streets. According to this halakha, it should be prohibited to urinate everywhere. The Gemara answers: Emend and teach the baraita as saying not that one should distance himself four cubits, but that one should wait the time it takes to walk four cubits.


讘砖诇诪讗 诪砖转讬谉 讬砖讛讛 讻讚讬 讛讬诇讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪砖讜诐 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗诇讗 诪转驻诇诇 讬砖讛讛 讻讚讬 讛讬诇讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖讻诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 转驻诇转讜 住讚讜专讛 讘驻讬讜 讜专讞讜砖讬 诪专讞砖谉 砖驻讜讜转讬讛:


The Gemara addresses the emended version of the baraita: Granted, its second clause, that one who urinated waits the time it takes to walk four cubits and only then may he pray, makes sense. This is due to the droplets of urine that may still be issuing from him; he should wait until they cease entirely. However, with regard to the first clause, that one who prayed should wait the time it takes to walk four cubits and only then may he urinate, why should I require this? Rav Ashi said: Because for all the time it takes to walk four cubits, his prayer is still arranged in his mouth, and his lips are still articulating them.


讝诇驻状鈥幾 住讬诪谉:


搂 The Gemara cites a series of Sages who explained the reasons they were blessed with longevity and provides a mnemonic device, indicating the order in which the Sages are cited: Zayin, lamed, peh, nun. Zayin for Rabbi Zakkai; lamed for Rabbi Elazar; peh for Rabbi Perida; nun for Rabbi Ne岣nya.


砖讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讗转 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讘诪讛 讛讗专讻转 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 讛砖转谞转讬 诪讬诐 讘转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇 转驻诇讛 讜诇讗 讻谞讬转讬 砖诐 诇讞讘讬专讬 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇转讬 拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 讗诪讗 讝拽讬谞讛 讛讬转讛 诇讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 诪讻专讛 讻驻讛 砖讘专讗砖讛 讜讛讘讬讗讛 诇讬 拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐


The Gemara presents the first incident: Rabbi Zakkai was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never urinated within four cubits of a place that had been used for prayer. Nor did I ever call my fellow by a nickname. And I never neglected the mitzva of sanctifying the day of Shabbat over wine. I was meticulous about this mitzva to the extent that I had an elderly mother, and once, when I did not have wine, she sold the kerchief that was on her head, and from the proceeds she brought me wine upon which to do the mitzva of sanctifying the day.


转谞讗 讻砖诪转讛 讛谞讬讞讛 诇讜 砖诇讜砖 诪讗讜转 讙专讘讬 讬讬谉 讻砖诪转 讛讜讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讘谞讬讜 砖诇砖转 讗诇驻讬诐 讙专讘讬 讬讬谉


It was taught concerning Rabbi Zakkai: When his mother died, she left him three hundred barrels of wine. When he died, he left his sons three thousand barrels of wine. Since they were so meticulous in the mitzva of sanctifying the day of Shabbat with wine, God rewarded them with wealth and an abundance of wine.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讛 讗住专 专讬转讗 讜拽讗讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬 拽讬讚讜砖讗 讜诪砖讻谞转讬讛 诇讛诪讬讬谞讗讬 讜讗转讗讬 讘讬讛 拽讬讚讜砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚转讬讟讜诐 讘砖讬专讗讬


In a related incident, it once happened that Rav Huna was girded with a piece of straw [rita] and was standing before Rav. Rav said to him: What is this? Why are you dressed in this way? He said to him: I had no wine for sanctifying the day of Shabbat, so I pawned my belt [hemyanai], and with the proceeds I brought wine for sanctifying the day. Rav said to him: May it be God鈥檚 will that you be enveloped in silk [shira鈥檈i] in reward for such dedication.


讻讬 讗讬讻诇诇 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讙讜爪讗 讛讜讛 讙谞讗 讗驻讜专讬讗 讗转讬讬谉 讘谞转讬讛 讜讻诇转讬讛 砖诇讞谉 讜砖讚讬讬谉 诪谞讬讬讛讜 注诇讬讛 注讚 讚讗讬讟讜诐 讘砖讬专讗讬 砖诪注 专讘 讜讗讬拽驻讚 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专转 诇讬 讻讬 讘专讻转讬讱 讜讻谉 诇诪专


When Rabba, his son, was married, Rav Huna, who was a short man, was lying on his bed, and owing to his diminutive size he went unnoticed. His daughters and daughters-in-law came into the room and removed and threw their silk garments upon him until he was entirely enveloped in silk. With this, Rav鈥檚 blessing was fulfilled to the letter. When Rav heard about this, he became angry with Rav Huna, and said: What is the reason that when I blessed you, you did not respond in kind and say to me: And likewise to the Master? Had you done so, I would have also benefitted from the blessing.


砖讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讘诪讛 讛讗专讻转 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 注砖讬转讬 拽驻谞讚专讬讗 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜诇讗 驻住注转讬 注诇 专讗砖讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讗 谞砖讗转讬 讻驻讬 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛


The Gemara discusses the second occasion where a Sage explained his longevity: Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never made a shortcut through a synagogue. Nor did I ever stride over the heads of the sacred people, i.e., I never stepped over people sitting in the study hall in order to reach my place, so as not to appear scornful of them. And I never raised my hands in the Priestly Benediction without reciting a blessing beforehand.


砖讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讗转 专讘讬 驻专讬讚讗 讘诪讛 讛讗专讻转 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 拽讚诪谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖


On the third occasion, Rabbi Perida was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, no person ever arrived before me to the study hall, as I was always the first to arrive.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Megillah 27

讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转讜 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


It stands to reason to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is permitted for a synagogue to be made into a study hall. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that the opinion of Rav Pappi is correct.


讚专砖 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖专祝 讗转 讘讬转 讛壮 讜讗转 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讜讗转 讻诇 讘转讬 讬专讜砖诇诐 讜讗转 讻诇 讘讬转 讙讚讜诇 砖专祝 讘讗砖 讘讬转 讛壮 讝讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讗诇讜 驻诇讟专讬谉 砖诇 诪诇讱 讜讗转 讻诇 讘转讬 讬专讜砖诇诐 讻诪砖诪注谉 讜讗转 讻诇 讘讬转 讙讚讜诇 砖专祝 讘讗砖 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讙讚诇讬谉 讘讜 转讜专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讙讚诇讬谉 讘讜 转驻诇讛


Bar Kappara interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd he burnt the house of the Lord, and the king鈥檚 house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great house he burnt with fire鈥 (II聽Kings 25:9)? He explained: 鈥淭he house of the Lord鈥; this is the Holy Temple. 鈥淭he king鈥檚 house鈥; these are the king鈥檚 palaces [palterin]. 鈥淎nd all the houses of Jerusalem鈥; as understood in its literal sense. With regard to the final phrase: 鈥淎nd every great house he burnt with fire,鈥 Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree about the meaning of 鈥済reat house鈥: One of them said: It is referring to a place where the Torah is made great, i.e., the study hall; and the other one said: It is referring to a place where prayer is made great, i.e., the synagogue.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讛壮 讞驻抓 诇诪注谉 爪讚拽讜 讬讙讚讬诇 转讜专讛 讜讬讗讚讬专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转驻诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 住驻专讛 谞讗 讛讙讚讜诇讜转 讗砖专 注砖讛 讗诇讬砖注 讜讗诇讬砖注 讚注讘讚 讘专讞诪讬 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚


The Gemara explains their respective opinions: The one who said that the reference is to where the Torah is made great bases his opinion on a verse that describes Torah study as great, as it is written: 鈥淭he Lord was pleased, for His righteousness鈥 sake, to make Torah great and glorious鈥 (Isaiah 42:21). And the one who said that the reference is to where prayer is made great bases his opinion on a verse that describes prayer as great, as it is written: 鈥淭ell me, I pray you, all the great things that Elisha has done鈥 (II聽Kings 8:4), and that which Elisha did, i.e., restored a boy to life, he did through prayer.


转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讙讚诇讬谉 讘讜 转讜专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转讜 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara comments: Conclude that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who said that 鈥済reat house鈥 is referring to a place where the Torah is made great, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said elsewhere: It is permitted for a synagogue to be made into a study hall. This ruling indicates that he holds that a study hall has a higher degree of sanctity than a synagogue. It is therefore reasonable that he assumes that 鈥済reat house鈥 is referring specifically to a study hall. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that he was the one who said the term is referring to a place where the Torah is made great.


讗讘诇 诪讻专讜 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 住驻专讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇诪讻讜专 住驻专 转讜专讛 讬砖谉 诇讬拽讞 讘讜 讞讚砖 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪注诇讬 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 诇注诇讜讬讬 注讬诇讜讬讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬


搂 The mishna states: However, if they sold a Torah scroll, they may not use the proceeds to purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings. Similarly, the proceeds of the sale of any sacred item may not be used to purchase an item of a lesser degree of sanctity. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to sell an old Torah scroll in order to purchase a new one? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: On the one hand, since the proceeds are not raised to a higher degree of sanctity by doing so, maybe it is prohibited; or, perhaps in this case, since there is no possibility of raising it to another, higher degree of sanctity, it seems well and should be permitted?


转讗 砖诪注 讗讘诇 诪讻专讜 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 住驻专讬诐 住驻专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 转讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讬注讘讚 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 诇讻转讞诇讛


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: However, if they sold a Torah scroll, they may not use the proceeds to purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings. One may infer: It is only scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings that may not be purchased with the proceeds, but to purchase a new Torah scroll with the proceeds of an old Torah scroll seems well and is permitted. The Gemara rejects this proof: The mishna discusses the halakha that applies only after the fact that a Torah scroll was sold. Perhaps it is only in that case where the proceeds may be used to purchase another Torah scroll. When the dilemma was raised to us, it was with respect to permitting the sale of one Torah scroll in order to purchase another ab initio.


转讗 砖诪注 讙讜诇诇讬谉 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讜讞讜诪砖讬谉 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讜诇讗 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 住驻专 转讜专讛


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: A Torah scroll may be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah. And scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah may be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for scrolls of the Prophets or Writings, since in each case the wrapping cloths are being used for something with a greater degree of sanctity. However, a scroll of the Prophets or Writings may not be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah, and scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah may not be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for a Torah scroll.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讙讜诇诇讬诐 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 讞讜诪砖讬谉 诪讟驻讞讜转 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讟驻讞讜转 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇讗


The Gemara explains the proof: In any event, the baraita is teaching: A Torah scroll may be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah. One may infer: A Torah scroll may be rolled up only in wrapping cloths that are used for scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah; but to roll it up in wrapping cloths of another Torah scroll, no, it is not permitted. By extension, one Torah scroll may certainly not be sold in order to purchase another.


讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诇讗 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讘诪讟驻讞讜转 住驻专 转讜专讛 讛讗 转讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara rejects the proof: If this inference is valid, one should be able to say the latter clause and make a similar inference from it. The latter clause teaches: And scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah may not be rolled up in wrapping cloths that are used for a Torah scroll. It may be inferred from this that it is prohibited only to roll up scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah in wrapping cloths that are used for a Torah scroll, but to roll up one Torah scroll in the wrapping cloths of another Torah scroll seems well. By extension, one should be permitted to sell a Torah scroll to purchase another. Rather, perforce one must conclude that no inference beyond its basic meaning can be deduced from the baraita, as the inferences are contradictory.


转讗 砖诪注 诪谞讬讞讬谉 住驻专 转讜专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 转讜专讛 讜转讜专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讜讞讜诪砖讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讜诇讗 讞讜诪砖讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 转讜专讛


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the Tosefta (Megilla 3:12): A Torah scroll may be placed upon another Torah scroll, and a Torah scroll may be placed upon scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah, and scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah may be placed upon scrolls of the Prophets or Writings. However, scrolls of the Prophets or Writings may not be placed upon scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah, and scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah may not be placed upon a Torah scroll. From the first clause, it is apparent that one Torah scroll may be used for the sake of another. By extension, it should be permitted to sell one Torah scroll to purchase another.


讛谞讞讛 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 讛谞讞讛 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诪讬讻专讱 讛讬讻讬 讻专讻讬谞谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 讬转讬讘 讚驻讗 讗讞讘专讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 砖专讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 砖专讬


The Gemara rejects this proof: Can you say a proof from the halakha of placing one Torah scroll upon another? The halakha of placing scrolls upon one another is different, because it is impossible to place them in any other way, as they must be laid one atop the other when placed in the ark. As, if you do not say so, that it is indeed permitted when in an unavoidable situation, how could we furl a Torah scroll at all? Does one sheet of parchment not rest upon another? Rather, since it is impossible to furl the scroll in any other way, it is permitted. Here too, since it is impossible to place the scrolls in the ark in any other way, it is permitted.


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 住驻专 转讜专讛 讬砖谉 诇讬拽讞 讘讜 讞讚砖


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: As Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: A person may not sell an old Torah scroll in order to purchase a new one.


讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪谞讞 诇讗讬驻专讜拽讬 诪讗讬


The Gemara rejects this proof. There, in the case of the baraita, it is prohibited because of a concern for negligence. The old one might be sold and a new one never bought. However, when we speak, it is of a case where the new scroll is already written and waiting to be redeemed immediately with the proceeds of the sale. Therefore, the question remains: What is the halakha in this case?


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: As Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: A Torah scroll may be sold only if the seller needs the money in order to study Torah or to marry a woman.


砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 砖讛转诇诪讜讚 诪讘讬讗 诇讬讚讬 诪注砖讛 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛 讗讘诇 转讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 诇讗


Learn from this baraita that exchanging one entity of Torah, i.e., a Torah scroll, for another entity of Torah, i.e., Torah study, seems well, and by extension, it should be permitted to sell one Torah scroll to purchase another. The Gemara rejects the proof: Perhaps Torah study is different, as the study of Torah leads to action, i.e., the fulfillment of the mitzvot, and perhaps it is only due to its great importance of Torah study that it is permitted to sell a Torah scroll for it. Similarly, marrying a woman is also of utmost importance, as it is stated with regard to Creation: 鈥淗e created it not a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (Isaiah 45:18). This indicates that marrying and having children fulfills a primary goal of Creation. But selling an old Torah in order to buy a new Torah might not be permitted.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 讜诪讻专 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗讜 讘转讜 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 住讬诪谉 讘专讻讛 诇注讜诇诐:


On the same topic, the Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not sell a Torah scroll, even if he does not need it. Furthermore, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even if a person has nothing to eat, and out of his need he sold a Torah scroll or he sold his daughter to be a maidservant, he never sees a sign of blessing from the proceeds of either sale. Clearly, it is never appropriate to sell a Torah scroll for any purpose.


讜讻谉 讘诪讜转专讬讛谉: 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讻专讜 讜讛讜转讬专讜 讗讘诇 讙讘讜 讜讛讜转讬专讜 诪讜转专


The mishna states: And similarly, the same limitation applies to any surplus funds from the sale of sacred items. Rava said: They taught that the surplus funds have sanctity only in a case where the community sold a sacred object and then used the proceeds to purchase something with a greater degree of sanctity, and there was money left over. However, if the community collected money from its members in order to purchase a sacred object, and there was extra money left over beyond the price of the object, that extra money is permitted to be used for any purpose, as the money was never sanctified.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛转谞讜 讗讘诇 讛转谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讚讜讻住讜住讬讗 诪讜转专


Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: In what case is this statement of the mishna said? When they did not explicitly stipulate that they would do with the surplus funds as they see fit. However, if they made such a stipulation, then even to use the money for a dukhsusya is permitted. The Gemara will explain the meaning of the term dukhsusya.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诪讻专讜 讜讛讜转讬专讜 讻讬 讛转谞讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 砖讙讘讜 讜讛讜转讬专讜 讟注诪讗 讚讛转谞讜 讛讗 诇讗 讛转谞讜 诇讗


Abaye explains the challenge: What are the circumstances of this stipulation? If we say that they sold a sacred object and after using the proceeds to purchase another sacred object there was money left over, then even when they made a stipulation, of what avail is it? How can a stipulation desanctify the money? Rather, the mishna must be referring to a case where they collected money to purchase a sacred object and there was money left over after they made the purchase. In such a case, the reason that it is permitted to use the extra money for any purpose is that they made an explicit stipulation. However, if they did not make a stipulation, no, it would not be permitted.


诇注讜诇诐 砖诪讻专讜 讜讛讜转讬专讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛转谞讜 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 讛转谞讜 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 诇讚讜讻住讜住讬讗 谞诪讬 诪讜转专


Rava rejects this argument: Actually, you can explain that the mishna is referring to a case where they sold a sacred object and there was money left over after purchasing a new one, and this is what the baraita is saying: In what case is this statement of the mishna said? In a case where the seven representatives of the town did not explicitly stipulate that they could use the money as they see fit, in an assembly of the residents of the town. However, if the seven representatives of the town made such a stipulation in an assembly of the residents of the town, then even to use the money for a dukhsusya would also be permitted.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讛讜讛 诪住讚专 诪转谞讬转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 诪讬 砖诪讬注 诇讱 诪专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讚讜讻住讜住讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 驻专砖讗 讚诪转讗


Abaye said to one of the Sages who would arrange the Mishna before Rav Sheshet: Did you hear anything from Rav Sheshet with regard to what the meaning of the term dukhsusya is? He said to him: This is what Rav Sheshet said: It is the town horseman who would serve the townspeople as a sentry and for public dispatches.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讱 讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚砖诪注 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注 驻讬专讜砖讗 诇讬砖讬讬诇讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖讻讬讞 拽诪讬讛 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪谉 讙讘专讗 专讘讛


The Gemara introduces a parenthetical comment: Abaye said: Accordingly, one can learn from this incident that with regard to this young Torah scholar who has heard something and does not know the meaning of it, he should inquire of its meaning before somebody who is frequently before the Sages, as it is impossible that such a person did not hear something about it from some great man.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 砖讛诇讻讜 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 讜驻住拽讜 注诇讬讛谉 爪讚拽讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讻砖讛谉 讘讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诪讛谉 讜诪驻专谞住讬谉 讘讛 注谞讬讬 注讬专谉


Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: In the case of residents of a town who collectively went to another town and, while there, the charity collectors in that town made them pledge a certain sum for charity, they must give the promised sum to the town鈥檚 charity collector, so as not to be suspected of reneging. But when they go home, their money is returned to them, and they bring it back with them, and with it they finance the poor of their own town.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 砖讛诇讻讜 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 讜驻住拽讜 注诇讬讛谉 爪讚拽讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讻砖讛谉 讘讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诪讛谉 讜讬讞讬讚 砖讛诇讱 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 讜驻住拽讜 注诇讬讜 爪讚拽讛 转谞转谉 诇注谞讬讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专


The Gemara comments: That is also taught in a baraita: In the case of residents of a town who collectively went to another town and, while there, the local charity collectors made them pledge a certain sum for charity, they must give the promised sum to the town鈥檚 charity collector. But when they go home, their money is returned to them, and they bring it back with them. But in the case of an individual who went from his hometown to another town and, while there, the local charity collectors made him pledge a certain sum for charity, he should give it to the poor of that town.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讝专 转注谞讬转讗 注诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘 讞谞讛 讘专 讞谞讬诇讗讬 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 诪转讬讛 专诪讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 爪讚拽讛 讜讬讛讘讜 讻讬 讘注讜 诇诪讬转讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞讜转讘讛 诇谉 诪专 讜谞讬讝讜诇 讜谞驻专谞住 讘讛 注谞讬讬 诪讗转讬谉


The Gemara relates: Rav Huna once decreed a fast day. On the day of the fast, Rav 岣na bar 岣nilai and all the people of his town came to Rav Huna. A certain sum of charity was imposed upon them and they gave it. When they wanted to go home, they said to Rav Huna: May our Master give to us the charity that we gave, and we will go back, and with it we will finance the poor of our own town.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞讬谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讗讬谉 砖诐


He said to them: It was taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that the money is returned when the people leave, said? When there is no


讞讘专 注讬专 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 讞讘专 注讬专 转讬谞转谉 诇讞讘专 注讬专 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚注谞讬讬 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讻讜 注诇讬 住诪讬讻讬:


town scholar supervising the handling of the community鈥檚 needs, in the town in which the charity was collected. However, if there is a town scholar there, the money should be given to the town scholar, and he may use it as he sees fit. Since, in this case, the money had been given to Rav Huna, the use of the money should be up to his discretion. Rav Huna added: And all the more so in this instance, as both my poor in my town and your poor in your town rely upon me and my collections of charity. Rav Huna was also in charge of distributing charity for the surrounding area. It was certainly proper to leave the money with him, so that he could distribute it among all those in need.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 诇讬讞讬讚 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪拽讚讜砖转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 讗祝 诇讗 诪注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诇注讬专 拽讟谞讛:


MISHNA: They may not sell a sacred object belonging to the community to an individual, even if the object will still be used for the same purpose, due to the fact that by doing so they downgrade its degree of sanctity, as an item used by fewer people is considered to have a lower degree of sanctity than one used by many; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to him: If so, by your logic, it should also not be permitted to sell a sacred object from a large town to a small town. However, such a sale is certainly permitted, and therefore it must also be permitted to sell such an object to an individual.


讙诪壮 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诇注讬专 拽讟谞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 拽讚讬砖讗 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 拽讚讬砖讗 诪专讘讬诐 诇讬讞讬讚 诇讬讻讗 拽讚讜砖讛


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Meir, as they provided a rational argument for their opinion. How could Rabbi Meir counter their claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir holds that when a sacred object is transferred from a large town to a small town, there is no significant downgrade in the degree of sanctity, as at the outset it was sacred for a community and now too it is sacred for a community. But when it is transferred from a community to an individual, there is a significant downgrade in the degree of sanctity, as there is no longer the degree of sanctity that existed beforehand.


讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讞砖 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讞砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专讜讘 注诐 讛讚专转 诪诇讱:


And the Rabbis, how could they respond to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 claim? If there is cause to be concerned about the decrease in the number of people who will use the object when it is transferred from a community to an individual, then in a case like this as well, where the object is transferred to a smaller community, there should be cause to be concerned about this due to the principle expressed in the verse: 鈥淚n the multitude of people is the king鈥檚 glory鈥 (Proverbs 14:28). The verse teaches that the larger the assembly involved in a mitzva, the greater the honor to God. However, it is apparent that this principle does not prevent the sale of a synagogue to a smaller community, and therefore it should not prevent the selling of a synagogue to an individual.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗诇讗 注诇 转谞讗讬 砖讗诐 讬专爪讜 讬讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪诪讻专 注讜诇诐 讞讜抓 诪讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 诇诪专讞抓 讜诇讘讜专住拽讬 诇讟讘讬诇讛 讜诇讘讬转 讛诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇砖诐 讞爪专 讜讛诇讜拽讞 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 讬注砖讛:


MISHNA: They may sell a synagogue only with a stipulation that if the sellers so desire it, the buyers will return it to them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They may sell a synagogue with a permanent sale for any usage, except the following four things, which would be an affront to the synagogue鈥檚 previous sanctity: For a bathhouse, where people stand undressed; or for a tannery [burseki], due to the foul smell; for immersion, i.e., to be used as a ritual bath, where people also stand undressed; or for a lavatory. Rabbi Yehuda says: They may sell a synagogue for the generic purpose of serving as a courtyard, and then the buyer may then do with it as he wishes, even if that is one of the above four purposes.


讙诪壮 讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讻讬 讚讬讬专讬 讘讛 讛讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 专讘讬转


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Meir, how may those who purchased the synagogue live in it? Isn鈥檛 living there tantamount to taking interest? If the sellers demand the synagogue鈥檚 return, the payment given for it would be returned to the buyers. Accordingly, in a broad view of things, that sum of money may be considered as a loan that was given from the buyers to the sellers, until the synagogue was demanded back. The buyers benefited from giving that loan by being able to live in the synagogue building. However, gaining any benefit from a loan is prohibited as interest.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 诪讜转专


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Meir stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Uncertain interest, i.e., a transaction that will not certainly result in a situation of interest, is permitted.


讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜注砖讛 诇讜 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专 诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讗住讜专


In the case of the mishna, the sale might never be undone, and then there would be no loan to speak of. It should therefore be permitted as a case of uncertain interest, as it is taught in a baraita: If one had a debt of one hundred dinars against his fellow, and the borrower made a conditional sale of his field because he did not have any money to repay the loan, stipulating that if he later comes into the possession of money with which to repay the loan, the field reverts back to his ownership, then as long as the seller of the field consumes the produce of that field, such an arrangement is permitted. If the buyer consumes the produce, the arrangement is prohibited, as if the sale were to be reverted, then the money given for it would be considered a loan from the buyer to the seller, and therefore any benefit the buyer gains due to that loan should be prohibited as interest.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞谉 砖注砖讛 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讜拽讞


Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the buyer consumes the produce, it is permitted. Since it is possible that the sale might never be undone, in which case there would be no loan to speak of, it is a case of uncertain interest, which is permitted. And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Baitos ben Zunen, who made a conditional sale of his field in a similar arrangement under the direction of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and the buyer was consuming the produce in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 ruling. The Rabbis said to him: Do you seek to bring a proof from there? In that case, it was actually the seller who was consuming the produce and not the buyer.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 诪讜转专 讜诪专 住讘专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗住讜专


The Gemara analyses the dispute: What is the practical difference between them? The permissibility of an uncertain interest agreement is the practical difference between them. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that uncertain interest is permitted and one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that uncertain interest is prohibited.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 专讘讬转 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 专讘讬转 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讜转专 讜诪专 住讘专 讗住讜专:


Rava said a different explanation of the dispute: According to everyone, uncertain interest is prohibited, and here it is the question of the permissibility of interest given on the condition that it will be returned that is the practical difference between them. In addition to the arrangement described in the baraita, the parties in this case agreed that the buyer would consume the produce; if the sale would later be reverted, then the buyer would reimburse the seller for the value of the produce. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that interest that is given on condition that it will be returned is permitted; this is because even if the sale is reverted and the sale becomes a loan retroactively, the buyer-lender will not benefit from that loan since he reimbursed the seller-borrower for the value of the produce. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it is prohibited.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪诪讻专 注讜诇诐 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜转专 诇讗讚诐 诇讛砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 讘转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇 转驻诇讛


搂 The mishna states: And the Rabbis say: They may sell a synagogue with a permanent sale. However, it may not be sold if it will be used for activities that would be an affront to the synagogue鈥檚 previous sanctity. The Gemara considers a related halakha: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted for a person to urinate within four cubits of where one has just offered a prayer, i.e., one may urinate even in the same place as he prays.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇砖讜诐 讞爪专 讜诇讜拽讞 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 讬注砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讚拽讘讬注 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 讗讘诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 诇讗


Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us? We already learned this in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: They may sell a synagogue for the generic purpose of serving as a courtyard, and the buyer may then do with it as he wishes, even if he wishes to make it into a lavatory. And even the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, say their ruling only with regard to a synagogue whose sanctity is permanent. However, with regard to the four cubits of where one happened to stand in prayer, whose sanctity is not permanent, no, even the Rabbis would be lenient.


转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诪转驻诇诇 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪砖转讬谉 讜讛诪砖转讬谉 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪转驻诇诇


A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Na岣an: One who prayed should distance himself four cubits from where he was standing, and only then may he urinate. And one who urinated should distance himself four cubits, and only then may he pray.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讛诪砖转讬谉 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪转驻诇诇 转谞讬谞讗 讻诪讛 讬专讞讬拽 诪讛谉 讜诪谉 讛爪讜讗讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


Rav Na岣an said to him: Granted, the second clause of the baraita, that one who urinated should distance himself four cubits and only then may he pray, makes sense, as we already learned in a mishna (Berakhot 22b): How far must one distance oneself from urine and excrement? Four cubits.


讗诇讗 讛诪转驻诇诇 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪砖转讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讚砖转讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 砖讘讬诇讬 讚谞讛专讚注讗 转谞讬 讬砖讛讛


But the first clause of the baraita, that one who prayed should distance himself four cubits from where he was standing and only then may he urinate, why should I require this? How could there be such a halakha? If that is so, you have sanctified all the streets of the city of Neharde鈥檃, for people have certainly prayed on every one of its streets. According to this halakha, it should be prohibited to urinate everywhere. The Gemara answers: Emend and teach the baraita as saying not that one should distance himself four cubits, but that one should wait the time it takes to walk four cubits.


讘砖诇诪讗 诪砖转讬谉 讬砖讛讛 讻讚讬 讛讬诇讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪砖讜诐 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗诇讗 诪转驻诇诇 讬砖讛讛 讻讚讬 讛讬诇讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖讻诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 转驻诇转讜 住讚讜专讛 讘驻讬讜 讜专讞讜砖讬 诪专讞砖谉 砖驻讜讜转讬讛:


The Gemara addresses the emended version of the baraita: Granted, its second clause, that one who urinated waits the time it takes to walk four cubits and only then may he pray, makes sense. This is due to the droplets of urine that may still be issuing from him; he should wait until they cease entirely. However, with regard to the first clause, that one who prayed should wait the time it takes to walk four cubits and only then may he urinate, why should I require this? Rav Ashi said: Because for all the time it takes to walk four cubits, his prayer is still arranged in his mouth, and his lips are still articulating them.


讝诇驻状鈥幾 住讬诪谉:


搂 The Gemara cites a series of Sages who explained the reasons they were blessed with longevity and provides a mnemonic device, indicating the order in which the Sages are cited: Zayin, lamed, peh, nun. Zayin for Rabbi Zakkai; lamed for Rabbi Elazar; peh for Rabbi Perida; nun for Rabbi Ne岣nya.


砖讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讗转 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讘诪讛 讛讗专讻转 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 讛砖转谞转讬 诪讬诐 讘转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇 转驻诇讛 讜诇讗 讻谞讬转讬 砖诐 诇讞讘讬专讬 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇转讬 拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 讗诪讗 讝拽讬谞讛 讛讬转讛 诇讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 诪讻专讛 讻驻讛 砖讘专讗砖讛 讜讛讘讬讗讛 诇讬 拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐


The Gemara presents the first incident: Rabbi Zakkai was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never urinated within four cubits of a place that had been used for prayer. Nor did I ever call my fellow by a nickname. And I never neglected the mitzva of sanctifying the day of Shabbat over wine. I was meticulous about this mitzva to the extent that I had an elderly mother, and once, when I did not have wine, she sold the kerchief that was on her head, and from the proceeds she brought me wine upon which to do the mitzva of sanctifying the day.


转谞讗 讻砖诪转讛 讛谞讬讞讛 诇讜 砖诇讜砖 诪讗讜转 讙专讘讬 讬讬谉 讻砖诪转 讛讜讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讘谞讬讜 砖诇砖转 讗诇驻讬诐 讙专讘讬 讬讬谉


It was taught concerning Rabbi Zakkai: When his mother died, she left him three hundred barrels of wine. When he died, he left his sons three thousand barrels of wine. Since they were so meticulous in the mitzva of sanctifying the day of Shabbat with wine, God rewarded them with wealth and an abundance of wine.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讛 讗住专 专讬转讗 讜拽讗讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬 拽讬讚讜砖讗 讜诪砖讻谞转讬讛 诇讛诪讬讬谞讗讬 讜讗转讗讬 讘讬讛 拽讬讚讜砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚转讬讟讜诐 讘砖讬专讗讬


In a related incident, it once happened that Rav Huna was girded with a piece of straw [rita] and was standing before Rav. Rav said to him: What is this? Why are you dressed in this way? He said to him: I had no wine for sanctifying the day of Shabbat, so I pawned my belt [hemyanai], and with the proceeds I brought wine for sanctifying the day. Rav said to him: May it be God鈥檚 will that you be enveloped in silk [shira鈥檈i] in reward for such dedication.


讻讬 讗讬讻诇诇 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讙讜爪讗 讛讜讛 讙谞讗 讗驻讜专讬讗 讗转讬讬谉 讘谞转讬讛 讜讻诇转讬讛 砖诇讞谉 讜砖讚讬讬谉 诪谞讬讬讛讜 注诇讬讛 注讚 讚讗讬讟讜诐 讘砖讬专讗讬 砖诪注 专讘 讜讗讬拽驻讚 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专转 诇讬 讻讬 讘专讻转讬讱 讜讻谉 诇诪专


When Rabba, his son, was married, Rav Huna, who was a short man, was lying on his bed, and owing to his diminutive size he went unnoticed. His daughters and daughters-in-law came into the room and removed and threw their silk garments upon him until he was entirely enveloped in silk. With this, Rav鈥檚 blessing was fulfilled to the letter. When Rav heard about this, he became angry with Rav Huna, and said: What is the reason that when I blessed you, you did not respond in kind and say to me: And likewise to the Master? Had you done so, I would have also benefitted from the blessing.


砖讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讘诪讛 讛讗专讻转 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 注砖讬转讬 拽驻谞讚专讬讗 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜诇讗 驻住注转讬 注诇 专讗砖讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讗 谞砖讗转讬 讻驻讬 讘诇讗 讘专讻讛


The Gemara discusses the second occasion where a Sage explained his longevity: Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never made a shortcut through a synagogue. Nor did I ever stride over the heads of the sacred people, i.e., I never stepped over people sitting in the study hall in order to reach my place, so as not to appear scornful of them. And I never raised my hands in the Priestly Benediction without reciting a blessing beforehand.


砖讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讗转 专讘讬 驻专讬讚讗 讘诪讛 讛讗专讻转 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 拽讚诪谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖


On the third occasion, Rabbi Perida was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, no person ever arrived before me to the study hall, as I was always the first to arrive.

Scroll To Top