Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Megilah, 26

1) MA'ALIN B'KODESH V'LO MORIDIN

QUESTION: The Mishnah states if a Sefer Torah was sold, the money may not be used to buy Sefarim of Nevi'im and Kesuvim. RASHI (DH Aval) explains that the reason is because "Ma'alin b'Kodesh b'Lo Moridin" -- an item of a greater Kedushah must be bought, and not one of a lower Kedushah.

Rashi then cites a Tosefta which brings sources for this principle. "Ma'alin b'Kodesh" is learned from the construction of the Mishkan. Betzalel built the Mishkan, and Moshe Rabeinu -- who was greater than Betzalel -- erected it. "Lo Moridin" is learned from the Machtos (copper pans) used to bring the incense offering by Korach and his accomplices, which were used to make a covering for the Mizbe'ach.
Why do we need two different sources for the principle of "Ma'alin b'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin?" Once we know that we must go up in Kedushah ("Ma'alin b'Kodesh"), that implies that we may not go down ("v'Lo Moridin")! Second, why does Rashi need to cite this Tosefta altogether? The principle of "Ma'alin b'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" is mentioned in many places, but Rashi does not bother to bring the source every time. Why here does Rashi bring the source? (In fact, the Gemara itself cites a source for Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridim, in Menachos 99a, and the Girsa there is somewhat different from the Girsa Rashi cites from the Tosefta.)

ANSWER: The BA'AL HA'ME'OR and the Rishonim are bothered by an apparent contradiction in the Mishnah itself. The beginning of the Mishnah states that if Sefarim of Nevi'im and Kesuvim were sold, then the money may only be used to buy Sifrei Torah (a greater Kedushah). This implies that the money may not be used to buy other Sifrei Nevi'im (an equal Kedushah). However, the end of the Mishnah states that if Sefarim of Nevi'im and Kesuvim are sold, the money may not be used to buy Mitpachos (coverings for a Sefer Torah -- a lesser Kedushah). This implies that the money *may* be used to buy other Sifrei Nevi'im (an equal Kedushah)!

The RAN (based on a Gemara later, 27a) answers that both statements are correct. The beginning of the Mishnah teaches that the money must be used l'Chatchilah to buy something of greater Kedushah and not of equal Kedushah. However, if one buys something of equal Kedushah, the purchase is valid. The end of the Mishnah is saying that the money may *not* be used, even b'Di'eved, to buy items of a lesser Kedushah. If an object of lesser Kedushah is purchased, the sale is repealed. The beginning of the Mishnah is teaching the Halachah l'Chatchilah, while the end of the Mishnah is teaching the Halachah b'Di'eved.

This might be why Rashi found it necessary to explain here that there are two separate rules: (1) We must raise to a higher level of Kedushah, and (2) We may not lower the level of Kedushah. Rashi explains that "Ma'alin b'Kodesh" means that l'Chatchilah, we go up in Kedushah, but b'Di'eved it is acceptable if we remain with an equal Kedushah. "Lo Moridin" means even b'Di'eved we may not lower the Kedushah.

This is what the verses in the Tosefta are teaching. We learn "Ma'alin b'Kodesh" from the fact that Betzalel built the Mishkan and Moshe Rabeinu erected it. The verse does not say that Hashem prohibited Betzalel from erecting it; rather the verse says that Moshe Rabeinu erected it. From there we learn only that l'Chatchilah, it is better to rise in Kedushah, but b'Di'eved it would have been acceptable had Betzalel erected it (staying with the same Kedushah). In the verses of the Machtos of Korach's group, Hashem tells Moshe that it is *prohibited* to use the pans for a non-Kadosh purpose, since they were used already for bringing an offering to Hashem, and that their Kedushah could not be removed in any manner. Moshe was to make them into a covering for the Mizbe'ach for that reason. From there we learn that it is *prohibited* (even b'Di'eved) to go down in Kedushah.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that Binyamin saw that he distressed when he saw that he was not going to have all parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash and Mizbe'ach upon his portion. Upon his portion would be the Mizbe'ach and all parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash to the west of the Mizbe'ach, while Yehudah would receive the land east of the Mizbe'ach, plus a strip right beneath the (southern and) eastern base of the Mizbe'ach. Binyamin was distressed that he would receive only part of the Mizbe'ach and not the entire Mizbe'ach.

As reward for his strong feelings to have all parts of the Mikdash in his portion, Binyamin merited "to become host for the Shechinah." RASHI explains that this means that "the Aron ha'Kodesh was placed in his portion."

The MAHARSHA (Zevachim 53b) asks that if Binyamin saw that he was going to get most of the Mizbe'ach, except for one small strip extending from Yehudah's portion to the east of the Mizbe'ach, that means that he knew that the Mizbe'ach and the area to the west of it would all be in his portion. If so, he already knew that the Aron would be in his portion! What, then, does the Gemara mean that Binyamin was rewarded for his feelings of distress by having the Aron in his portion? He already had the Aron in his portion! He was missing only the strip coming into his portion from Yehudah's portion!

ANSWERS:

(a) Hashem revealed to Binyamin that both he and Yehudah would get parts of the Mizbeach. He did not see, however, how exactly this distribution would be executed. All he saw was that he would share the Mizbe'ach with Yehudah. Since he was distressed about it, he merited to get the area to the side of the Mizbe'ach that contained the Aron as well.

(b) The TORAH TEMIMAH in Parshas Zos ha'Berachah (Devarim 33:12) gives a different explanation for what the Gemara means when it says that Binyamin merited "to become host for the Shechinah."

The Gemara in Zevachim (118b) says that the Shechinah dwelt amidst the Jewish people in three places: Shilo, Nov v'Gidon, and in the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. All three of those places were in the portion of Binyamin. Binyamin foresaw that he would have the Aron in his portion in the *Beis ha'Mikdash*, while Yehudah would have only a strip from the Mizbe'ach in his portion. As a result of being distressed about that strip that would not be in his portion, Binyamin merited that the *other* places in which the Aron resided would be in his portion as well! (It could be that this is the intention of Rashi here as well.)

26b

QUESTION: Ravina wanted to sow an area of his property on which stood the ruins of a Beis ha'Keneses. Rav Ashi advised him that if he wanted to sow it, he should purchase the Beis ha'Keneses from the "seven leaders of the city, before the assembly of the entire city." The Gemara tells us a few lines later that one may sell or barter a Beis ha'Keneses, because the Kedushah of the Beis ha'Keneses will be transferred to the money or object which is received in return (Rashi, DH Chilufei). This implies that when one sells a Beis ha'Keneses, its Kedushah is removed from it and is transferred to the money with which it was purchased. This Gemara must be discussing a situation when the Beis ha'Keneses was *not* sold by the seven leaders before the entire city, since under such circumstances the Kedushah is not transferred to the money at all; rather, the Kedushah of the Beis ha'Keneses simply "leaves by itself," leaving no Kedushah behind at all, neither on the Beis ha'Keneses nor on the funds used to purchase it, as the Gemara said on the bottom of 26a ("even beer may be purchased with the money..."). The Gemara that discusses the transferal of Kedushah, then, must be discussing a Beis ha'Keneses that was sold only by the seven leaders, or only by the other people of the city, but not by both.

If so, why was it necessary for Ravina to purchase the Beis ha'Keneses before the seven leaders *and* the entire city. All he wanted to do was use the Beis ha'Keneses for other purposes, by transferring its Kedushah onto money. He didn't care whether the money used to purchase it could also be used for all purposes! (See GILYON HA'SHAS on Rashi, 26a)

ANSWERS:

(a) The RAMBAN and RITVA explain that the Beis ha'Keneses really did not have to be sold by the seven leaders before the entire city. However, Rav Ashi realized that the people of the town would not be interested in selling it if they could not use the money they received for it except for purchasing Sifrei Torah etc., since they had no need for new Sifrei Torah. He therefore advised having it sold by the seven leaders before the entire city, so that the funds generated by the sale could be used for any purpose. (Alternatively, adds the Ritva, perhaps Rav Ashi said to have it sold by the seven leaders "before the entire city" only to emphasize the fact that if he does not purchase it in *some* manner, Ravina would not be permitted to sow it.)

According to this, Kedushah is indeed transferred from the Beis ha'Keneses even when *not* sold by the seven leaders before the entire city. However, this does not conform to Rashi, who says clearly (end of 26a) that the Kedushah is transferred from the Beis ha'Keneses only when sold by the seven leaders before the entire city.

(b) The ROSH and RAN (based on RAMBAM Hil. Tefilah 11:17) also explain that Kedushah is transferred from the Beis ha'Keneses even when *not* sold by the seven leaders before the entire city. However, sowing a Beis ha'Keneses is especially disrespectful to it. It is in the same category as making it into a bathhouse, which the Chachamim prohibit even after Kedushah is transferred from it (Daf 27b). If it is sold by the seven leaders before the entire city, it may even be sown or made into a bathhouse. That is why Rav Ashi advised having it sold by the seven leaders before the entire city.

From Rashi (ibid.), however, it would appear that *no* Kedushah is transferred from the Beis ha'Keneses if it is not sold by the seven leaders before the entire city. If it is not sold by the seven leaders before the entire city, it may not be used for *any* purpose other than as a Beis ha'Keneses. He must have answered this question differently.

(c) TOSFOS RID (Mahadura Tinyana) suggests that the Beis ha'Keneses was one that had originally belonged to a major city. Although it is normally prohibited to sell such Batei Keneses (26a), it is permitted to purchase them from the seven leaders before the entire city.

(d) The RAN cites a Girsa that says that when a Beis ha'Keneses is sold by the seven leaders before the entire city, "it is permitted to drink beer and spread out fruits to dry *inside* the area of the Beis ha'Keneses." This Girsa might answer our question, since according to this, when sold by the seven leaders before the entire city the Gemara is lenient regarding the *Kedushah of the Beis ha'Keneses*, and not regarding the *funds* received through the sale. If so, perhaps the Kedushah of the Beis ha'Keneses is transferred to the money even when it is sold by the seven leaders before the entire city, and that is the case to which the Gemara is referring when discusses (26b) the transferal of Kedushah when selling, trading, or giving away a Beis ha'Keneses -- as the RIF there seems to say (see Ran).

When sold by *just* the seven leaders, *not* before the entire city, Kedushah remains on both the Beis ha'Keneses and the money received for it. When sold by the seven leaders before the entire city, Kedushah remains only on the money received for it, but not on the Beis ha'Keneses itself -- which is why Ravina needed to buy the Beis ha'Keneses from the seven leaders before the entire city.

This answer, too, does not conform to Rashi, who explains clearly that the Gemara is lenient regarding the Kedushah of the Beis ha'Keneses, *and* regarding the Kedushah of the funds received through its sale. However, Rashi may learn that the funds lose their Kedushah only through a two-step process, as the RAN suggests (26b). First, Kedushah is transferred from the Beis ha'Keneses to the money, making their Kedushah lesser than that of the Beis ha'Keneses itself. Second, the seven leaders before the entire city are authorized to simply "remove" this lesser Kedushah from the money. If so, when the Gemara discusses "transferring" the Kedushah of the Beis ha'Keneses by selling or bartering it (26b), it means that when it is sold *by the seven leaders, before the entire city*, the Kedushah is *first* transferred to the money, and then is *removed* from the money by the authority of the seven leaders standing before the entire city. (M. Kornfeld)

OPINIONS: Rava says that the covers of Chumashim and of Sifrei Torah are considered Tashmishei Kedushah, and therefore when they wear out, they may not be used for other purposes or discarded, but they must be put into Genizah. The Gemara asks that it is obvious that they are Tashmishei Kedushah; what is Rava teaching us? The Gemara answers that we might have thought that these coverings are not made to give honor to the Sefarim, but rather merely to protect them, and consequently they are not considered Tashmishei Kedushah. Therefore, Rava must teach us that they are Tashmishei Kedushah.

What exactly is the Gemara's conclusion? Is Rava teaching us that these coverings are indeed made to give honor to the Sefarim and that is why they are Tashmishei Kedushah? Or is he teaching that even though they are *only* made to protect the Sefarim, they are still considered Tashmishei Kedushah?

(a) The OR ZARU'A, cited by the HAGAHOS ASHIRI and MORDECHAI, explains that Rava is teaching that these coverings are made to give honor to the Sefarim.

According to this explanation, the Or Zaru'a rules that an Aron, the ark in which the Torah is kept, which is formed by making an indentation in the wall of the synagogue for the purpose of protecting the Sefer Torah, is not considered a Tashmish Kedushah, since its main purpose is to protect the Sefer Torah and not to honor it.

(b) The BI'UR HALACHAH (OC 154, DH Aval Aron) cites other Rishonim (the ME'IRI, RABEINU YERUCHAM) who explain that the Gemara means that even though these coverings are made only for the purpose of protecting the Sefarim, nevertheless they are considered Tashmishei Kedushah.

According to this explanation, it could be that an Aron that is built into the wall of the synagogue must be treated like any other Tashmish Kedushah, since something which is made to protect a Sefer Torah is also considered a Tashmish Kedushah.

HALACHAH: The REMA (OC 154:3) rules like the Or Zaru'a with regard to an Aron formed by an indentation in the wall of the synagogue. The MISHNAH BERURAH (154:16), however, points out that if a nice Aron is built in that indentation, that is certainly for the sake of giving honor to the Torah, and that Aron is considered a Tashmish Kedushah. (The Rema's ruling seems to apply to the common practice in many Yeshivos and Batei Midrash in Eretz Yisrael to use a large steel safe as the Aron for the Sefer Torah, since it seems that this "Aron" is not considered to be giving honor to the Sefer Torah, but it only protects it (and is therefore not considered a Tashmish Kedushah).)