Megillah

THEY MAY BUY SCROLLS;1 [IF THEY SELL] SCROLLS THEY MAY BUY A [SEFER] TORAH. BUT IF THEY SELL A [SEFER] TORAH THEY MAY NOT BUY WITH THE PROCEEDS SCROLLS; IF [THEY SELL] SCROLLS THEY MAY NOT BUY WRAPPINGS; IF [THEY SELL] WRAPPINGS THEY MAY NOT BUY AN ARK; IF [THEY SELL] AN ARK THEY MAY NOT BUY A SYNAGOGUE; IF [THEY SELL] A SYNAGOGUE THEY MAY NOT BUY A TOWN SQUARE. THE SAME APPLIES TO ANY MONEY LEFT OVER.2 GEMARA. IF THE TOWNSPEOPLE SELL THE TOWN SQUARE. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This is the view of R. Menahem b. Jose the anonymous author,3 but the Sages say that no sanctity attaches to the square. What is the reason of R. Menahem b. Jose? — Because the people pray in it on fast days4 and at gatherings of the ma'amad.5 What say the Rabbis to this? — That happens only exceptionally. IF [THEY SELL] THE SYNAGOGUE THEY MAY BUY AN ARK. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: This rule applies only to a synagogue in a village, but a synagogue in a large town, since people from all parts come to it,6 may not be sold, it being regarded as belonging to a wider public. Said R. Ashi: As for this synagogue in Matha Mehasia,7 although people come to it from all parts, since they come at my discretion,8 I can if I like sell it. An objection was raised: ‘R. Judah says: It is recorded of the synagogue of the coppersmiths9 in Jerusalem that they sold it to R. Eliezer and he used it for his own purposes’. And yet that was one in a large town? — That was a very small synagogue, and they themselves had made it. The following was further raised in objection: ‘In a house of the land of your possession:10 your possession is defiled by leprosy, but Jerusalem is not defiled by leprosy’.11 R. Judah said: I have not heard this laid down save with respect to the area of the Sanctuary alone. We thus see that [according to R. Judah] synagogues and houses of study are defiled; and yet why [according to you] should this be, seeing that they belong to the town?12 — I would emend [the above statement to read]: ‘R. Judah says: I have not heard this rule laid down save in relation to a sanctified place only’. 13 On what point do these [two authorities] join issue? — The First Tanna is of opinion that Jerusalem was not apportioned to [any of] the tribes,14 while R. Judah was of opinion that it was apportioned to [certain of] the tribes; and their difference is the same as that of the following Tannaim, as it has been taught: What [part of Jerusalem] was in the portion of Judah?15 The Temple mountain,16 the priestly chambers,17 and the courts.18 And what was in the portion of Benjamin? The hall19 and the sanctuary20 and the holy of holies.21 A strip projected from the portion of Judah into the portion of Benjamin, and in it the altar [of sacrifice] was built, and every day the righteous Benjamin fretted over it, desiring to swallow it up, as it says, Crouching over it all the day.22 Therefore Benjamin was privileged to become the host of the Shechinah’.23 The following Tanna, however, held that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any of the tribes, as it has been taught: ‘People cannot let out houses24 in Jerusalem as they do not belong to them. R. Eleazar b. Zadok says: They may not hire out beds either.25 Therefore householders [who took in guests] would seize the skins of [visitors’] sacrifices forcibly’.26 Abaye remarked: We may see from this that it is good manners for a man to leave his [empty] wine-flask and his skin-rug at his guest-house. Raba said: This rule27 was meant to apply only where the seven ‘good men’ of the town28 did not sell in the assembly of the townspeople. But if the seven ‘good men’ of the town sold in the assembly of the townspeople, even authorities, v. Rashi. Krauss, Synagogale Altertumer, p. 201, they are identical with the synagogue of Alexandrians (cf. the parallel passage in the Jerusalem Talmud Megillah III, 1) who had brought over with them to Palestine the industry in Tarsian carpets — an industry which flourished greatly in Egypt; v. also T.A. II, 625]. retained its holiness.