Megillah

The statement of R. Papi is the more probable, since R. Joshua b. Levi said: It is permissible to make a synagogue into a beth hamidrash. This seems conclusive. Bar Kappara gave the following exposition. ‘What is the meaning of the verse, And he burnt the house of the Lord and the king's house and all the houses of Jerusalem even every great man's house burnt he with fire?1 ‘The house of the Lord’: this is the Temple. ‘The king's house’: this is the royal palace. ‘All the houses of Jerusalem’: literally. ‘Even every great man's house burnt he with fire’:2 R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi gave different interpretations of this. One said, it means the place where the Torah is magnified; the other, the place where a prayer is magnified. The one who says Torah bases himself on the verse, The Lord was pleased, for his righteousness’ sake to make the torah great and glorious.3 The one who says prayer bases himself on the verse, Tell me, I pray thee, the great things that Elisha has done;4 and what Elisha did, he did by means of prayer. It may be presumed that it was R. Joshua b. Levi who said, ‘the place where Torah is magnified’, since R. Joshua b. Levi said that a synagogue may be turned into a beth ha-midrash; which is a clear indication. BUT IF THEY SELL A [SEFER] TORAH THEY MAY NOT BUY SCROLLS. The question was raised: What is the rule about selling an old sefer torah to buy a new one? Do we say that since we do not thus go to higher grade [in the use of the money] it is forbidden, or are we to say that since there is no higher grade to go to, there is no objection? Come and hear: BUT IF THEY SELL, A [SEFER] TORAH THEY MAY NOT BUY SCROLLS; it is scrolls that they may not buy, but to buy a [sefer] torah with the money of a [sefer] torah is unobjectionable! [No.] But the Mishnah speaks of some thing already done, we ask whether it may be done in the first instance? — Come and hear: A sefer torah may be rolled up in the wrappings of a humash, or a humash in the wrappings of a scroll of prophets and hagiographa, but prophets and hagiographa may not be rolled up in the wrappings of a humash, nor a humash in the wrappings of a sefer torah.5 Now it states here at any rate that a sefer torah may be rolled up in the wrappings of a humash; [as much as to say], in the wrappings of a humash it may be, but in those of [another] sefer torah it may not be?6 — Look at the succeeding clause: ‘But a humash may not be rolled up in the wrappings of a sefer torah’, which would imply that there is no objection against wrapping a sefer torah in those of another sefer torah? — The fact is that from this statement no conclusion can be drawn. Come and hear: ‘A [sefer] torah may be laid on another [sefer] torah, and a [sefer] torah on separate humashim, and separate humashim on scrolls of the prophets and hagiographa, but scrolls of the prophets and hagiographa may not be placed on humashim, nor humashim on a [sefer] torah’! — You speak here of laying; laying is different, because it is impossible to avoid it; for if you do not suppose this, [we may ask,] how are we allowed to roll up the scrolls, seeing that in so doing we lay one sheet on another? The fact is that since this cannot be avoided,it is permitted; and so here also, since it cannot be avoided,7 it is permitted. Come and hear, since Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan, who had it from Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: A man should not sell an old [sefer] torah in order to buy a new one with the proceeds! — There the reason is lest he should [afterwards] neglect to do so; here we speak of a case where the new one is written and waiting to be paid for. What is the rule [in such a case]? — Come and hear, since R. Johanan said in the name of R. Meir: A man should not sell a sefer torah save in order to study the Torah and to marry a wife. From this we may conclude [may we not] that there is no objection against buying one sefer torah with the proceeds of another? — Perhaps study comes under a different rule, since study leads on to practice. Marrying also [is permitted because it says], He created it not a waste, he formed it to be inhabited,’8 but to buy a sefer torah with the proceeds of another is still not permitted. Come and hear: ‘A man should not sell a sefer torah even though he does not require it. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel went further and said: Even if a man has no food and he sells a sefer torah or his daughter, he will never have any luck9 [from that money]’. THE SAME APPLIES TO ANY MONEY LEFT OVER. Raba said: This is the rule only if they had money left over from a sale; but if they had money left over from a collection, it is permitted [to use it for any purpose]. Abaye cited the following in objection to this: ‘When does this rule apply? If they made no stipulation; but if they made a stipulation, they may even give it to the duchsusia’.10 Now how are we to understand this? Shall we say that they [the seven good men] sold [a holy article] and had money left over [after purchasing a new one]? Then even if they made a stipulation [that they could do what they liked with it], what does it avail?11 We must say therefore that they collected money and had some left over, and the reason is given that ‘they made a stipulation’, but if they made no stipulation they cannot? — I still maintain that [what is meant is] that they sold and had something left, and the statement should run thus: ‘When does this rule apply? When the seven "good men" of the town did not make any stipulation in the assembly of the townspeople; but if the seven good men of the town made a stipulation in the assembly of the townspeople, it may be used even for paying a duchsusia’. Abaye said to a Rabbinical student who used to repeat12 the Mishnah in the presence of R. Shesheth: Have you ever heard from R. Shesheth what is meant by duchsusia? — He replied: This is what R. Shesheth said: The town horseman.13 Abaye thereupon observed: This shows that a Rabbinical student who has heard something of which he does not know the meaning should ask one who is frequently in the company of the Rabbis, since he is almost certain to have heard the answer from some great man. R. Johanan said in the name of R. Meir: If the representatives of one town14 go [on a visit] to another town and they are there rated for a charity contribution, they should pay it and on leaving they should bring the money with them15 to assist with it the poor of their own town. It has been taught to the same effect: ‘If the men of one town go to another town and are there rated for a charity contribution, they should pay it, and when they leave they should bring the money back with them. If an individual, however, goes to another town and is there rated for a charity contribution, it is given to the poor of that town R. Huna once proclaimed a fast day. R. Hana b. Hanilai and all the [leading] men of his place happened to visit him [on that day], and they were called upon for a charity contribution, and they gave it. When they were about to leave, they said to him [R. Huna], Kindly return it to us so that we may go and assist with it the poor of our own town. He replied to them: We have learnt: ‘When does this rule apply? When there is no another is being read from. representatives; v. Maim. Mat. ‘Aniyim VII, 14].