Parallel
יומא 12:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
, the first teaching referring to big cities, the second to villages. But are synagogues in big cities really not subject to uncleanness from house plagues? Has it not been taught: ‘In the house of the land of your possession,’ i.e., the house of the land of your possession could become defiled through leprosy, but Jerusalem could not become defiled through leprosy. R. Judah said: I have heard that only the place of the Sanctuary is unaffected by the law of leprosy? Now does not that imply that synagogues and houses of learning are subject to the law of leprosy even though they be in large cities? — Read R. Judah said: I have heard that only sacred places are not subject to the law of leprosy. What principle are they disputing? — The first Tanna holds Jerusalem was not divided amongst the tribes and R. Judah holds Jerusalem was divided among the tribes, the basis of their difference being the principle on which these Tannaim differ, for it has been taught: What lay in the lot of Judah? The Temple mount, the cells, the courts. And what lay in the lot of Benjamin? The Hall, the Temple and the Holy of Holies. And a strip of land went forth from Judah's lot and went into Benjamin's territory, and on this the Temple was built — Benjamin the Righteous was longing to swallow it every day as it is written: He coveteth him all day, therefore he obtained the privilege of becoming the host of the Omnipotent, as it is said: And He dwelleth between his shoulders . The following Tanna holds that Jerusalem was not divided amongst the tribes, for it has been taught: One does not rent houses in Jerusalem, because it [the city] does not belong to them, [the inhabitants]. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok said: Nor any beds. Therefore the innkeepers take the skin of the sacrificial animals by force. Abaye said: We may learn from this that it is usual for a man to leave to his host the empty wine pitcher and the hide. But are the synagogues of the villages subject to the laws of leprosy? Has it not been taught: As a possession, i.e., until they conquer it. If they have conquered but not yet divided it among the tribes, or even divided it among the tribes but not divided it among the families, or even divided it among the families but before each man knows where his lot is, whence do we know [that the laws of leprosy do not apply yet]? To teach us that Scripture says: ‘Then he who has the house to him’ i.e., he to whom alone the house is belonging, excluding these [houses] which do not belong to him [the owner] alone. — It is more correct as we have answered at first. AND ANOTHER PRIEST IS PREPARED FOR HIM: It is obvious that if any disqualifying mishap occurred to the high priest before the morning [daily] offering, that one initiates the other priest with the morning burnt-offering. But if the mishap should have occurred after the morning sacrifice, how could he be initiated? — R. Adda b. Ahabah said: With the girdle. That will be in accord with him who holds that the girdle of the high priest is identical with that of the common priest, but according to the opinion that the girdle of the high priest was not the same as that of the common priest, what can be said? — Abaye said: He would put on the eight garments and turn with the hook, in accordance with what R. Huna said. For R. Huna said: If a non-priest turns with the hook, he incurs penalty of death. R. Papa said:
—