MISHNAH: m.Meg.3.1A-KIf the townspeople sell the town square, they may buy with the proceeds a Synagogue; [if they sell] a Synagogue, they may buy with the proceeds an Ark; [if they sell] an Ark they may buy wrappings [for scrolls]; [if they sell] wrappings b.Meg.26a they may buy scrolls; [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...
GEMARA: If the townspeople sell the town square. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah [BA3] said in the name of R. Johanan [PA2]: This is the view of R. Menahem b. Jose the anonymous author, 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 days and at gatherings of the ma`amad. What say the Rabbis to this? That happens only exceptionally. If [they sell] the Synagogue they may buy an Ark. R. Samuel b. Nahmani [PA3] said in the name of R. Jonathan [T4]: 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, may not be sold, it being regarded as belonging to a wider public. Said R. Ashi [BA6]: As for this synagogue in Matha Mehasia, although people come to it from all parts, since they come at my discretion, I can if I like sell it. An objection was raised: `R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says: It is recorded of the synagogue of the coppersmiths in Jerusalem that they sold it to R. Eliezer [T2 or T5] 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: your possession is defiled by leprosy, but Jerusalem is not defiled by leprosy`. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] 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 [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]] synagogues and houses of study are defiled; and yet why [according to you] should this be, seeing that they belong to the town? I would emend [the above statement to read]: `R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says: I have not heard this rule laid down save in relation to a sanctified place only`. 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, while R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] 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? The Temple mountain, the priestly chambers, and the courts. And what was in the portion of Benjamin? The hall and the sanctuary and the holy of holies. 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. Therefore Benjamin was privileged to become the host of the Shechinah`. The following Tanna, however, held that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any of the tribes, as it has been taught: `People cannot let out houses in Jerusalem as they do not belong to them. R. Eleazar b. Zadok [T2 or T5] says: They may not hire out beds either. Therefore householders [who took in guests] would seize the skins of [visitors`] sacrifices forcibly`. Abaye [BA4] 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 [BA4] said: This rule was meant to apply only where the seven `good men` of the town 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 b.Meg.26b if it was for a drinking place, the transaction holds good. Rabina [BA6] had the ground of a dismantled synagogue. He applied to R. Ashi [BA6] to know whether he could plant seeds there. He replied: Go and buy it from the seven `good men` of the town in the assembly of the townspeople, and you may then sow it.
Rami b. Abba was building a synagogue. There was a certain old synagogue which he wanted to pull down, so as to take bricks and beams from it and use them for the other. He was doubtful, however, how to interpret the dictum of R. Hisda [BA3]; for R. Hisda [BA3] said: A man should not pull down a synagogue until he has built another [to take its place]. The reason there, [he knew] was so that there should be no negligence. But what was the rule in such a case as this? He applied to R. Papa [BA5], who forbade him; to R. Huna [BA2 or PA4], and he also forbade him.
Raba [BA4] said: A synagogue may be exchanged or sold [for secular purposes], but may not be hired or pledged. What is the reason? [In the latter case] its holiness is still adhering to it. Its bricks also, may be exchanged or sold [for secular purposes], but not lent. This rule applies only to old ones, but in the case of new ones there is no objection. And even if we adopt the view that the mere intention [to use a thing for a certain purpose] has a certain force, this would be the case, for instance, with one who weaves a shroud for a dead body, but in this case [the objects in question] are like thread which has still to be woven into cloth, and no authority says [that in such a case there is force in mere intention]. [With regard to a synagogue which has been made] a gift, there is a difference of opinion between R. Aha [PA4] and Rabina [BA6], one forbidding [it to be used for secular purposes] and one permitting. The one who forbade did so on the ground that there is nothing to which its holiness is transferred, while the one who permitted it argued that if he [the giver] did not derive some benefit from the act he would not give it, so that in the end the gift is equivalent to a sale.
Our Rabbis taught: `Accessories of religious observances [when disused] are to be thrown away; accessories of holiness are to be stored away. The following are accessories of religious observances: a sukkah, a lulab, a shofar, fringes. The following are accessories of holiness: large sacks for keeping scrolls of the Scripture in, Tefillin and mezuzoth, a mantle for a sefer torah, and a Tefillin bag and Tefillin straps`. Raba [BA4] said: At first I used to think that the stand [on which the sefer torah is placed] is an accessory to an accessory and that it is permitted. When, however, I saw that the sefer torah is placed actually on it, I came to the conclusion that it is all accessory of holiness and is forbidden. Raba [BA4] further said: At first I used to think that the curtain is an accessory of an accessory. When, however, I observed that it is folded over and a scroll is placed on it, I came to the conclusion that it is itself an accessory of holiness, and forbidden.
Raba [BA4] further said: When an ark is falling asunder, to make it into a smaller ark is permitted, but to make it into a stand is forbidden. Raba [BA4] further said: When a curtain is worn out, to make it into a mantle for a [whole] scroll of the Law is permitted, but for a single humash is forbidden. Raba [BA4] further said: These bags for humashim and boxes for scrolls are accessories of holiness and must be stored away [when disused]. Is not this obvious? You might think that these are used not out of respect [for the scrolls] but merely for protection. Therefore we are told [that this is not so]. There was a synagogue of the Roman Jews which opened out into a room where a dead body was deposited. The kohanim wanted to go in there to pray, and they came and asked Raba [BA4] [what they should do]. He said: Take the ark and put it down there, since it is a wooden vessel which is meant to be stationary, and every wooden vessel which is meant to be stationary is immune from defilement and forms a partition to prevent the passage of defilement. Said the Rabbis to Raba: But sometimes it is moved while a scroll of the law is resting on it, and thus it becomes a vessel which is moved both when full and when empty? If that is so [he said], there is no remedy.
Mar Zutra [BA6] said: Wrappings of scrolls which are worn out may be used for making shrouds for a meth mizwah; and this act constitutes their `storing away`.
Raba [BA4] also said: A scroll of the law which is worn out may be buried by the side of a talmid hakam, even though he be one who only repeats halachoth. R. Aha b. Jacob [BA4] said: It should be put in an earthenware vessel, as it says, And put them in an earthen vessel that they may continue many days.
R. Papi said in the name of Raba: To turn a synagogue into a college is permitted; to turn a college into a synagogue is forbidden. R. Papa [BA5], however, also reporting Raba, states the opposite. R. Aha [PA4] said: b.Meg.27a The statement of R. Papi is the more probable, since R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] said: It is permissible to make a synagogue into a beth hamidrash. This seems conclusive. Bar Kappara [T6] 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? `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`: R. Johanan [PA2] and R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] 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. The one who says prayer bases himself on the verse, Tell me, I pray thee, the great things that Elisha has done; and what Elisha did, he did by means of prayer. It may be presumed that it was R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] who said, `the place where Torah is magnified`, since R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] 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. 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? 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, it is permitted. Come and hear, since Rabbah b. Bar Hanah [BA3] said in the name of R. Johanan [PA2], who had it from Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel [T1 or T4]: 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 [PA2] said in the name of R. Meir [T4]: 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,` 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 [T1 or T4] 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 luck [from that money]`. The same applies to any money left over. Raba [BA4] 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 [BA4] 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`. 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? 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 [BA4] said to a Rabbinical student who used to repeat the Mishnah in the presence of R. Shesheth [BA3]: Have you ever heard from R. Shesheth [BA3] what is meant by duchsusia? He replied: This is what R. Shesheth [BA3] said: The town horseman. Abaye [BA4] 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 [PA2] said in the name of R. Meir [T4]: If the representatives of one town 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 them 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 [BA2 or PA4] 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 [BA2 or PA4]], 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 b.Meg.27b town scholar in charge there; but if there is a scholar in control there, it should be given to the town scholar, and all the more so in this case, seeing that both my poor and your poor depend upon me.
MISHNAH: m.Meg.3.1L-N[A Synagogue] belonging to a community should not be sold to a private person because its sanctity is [thereby] lowered. So R. Meir [T4]. They said to him: if so, it should not be allowed to sell from a larger town to a smaller one.
GEMARA: That was a sound objection raised by the Rabbis against R. Meir [T4], [was it not]? What says R. Meir [T4] to this? [To sell] from a large town to a small one [is unobjectionable], because if it was holy to begin with, it is still holy now. But if it passes from a community to an individual, there is no holiness left. [And what is the reply of] the Rabbis [to this]? If that raises a scruple [in this case], in the other case also it raised a scruple, because `in the multitude of people is the king`s glory`.