Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Megilah, 29

1) HALACHAH: BURYING THE DEAD OVERRIDES LEARNING TORAH

OPINIONS: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which says that we are Mevatel Talmud Torah for the sake of burying the dead and for the sake of escorting a bride. The Beraisa adds that it was said about Rebbi Yehudah bar Rebbi Ila'i that it was his practice to to be Mevatel his Talmud Torah for the sake of burying the dead. The Gemara explains that the greater Talmid Chacham the Mes was, the larger the number of people that is required to attend the funeral.

Does this mean that one who is learning Torah is obligated to be Mevatel his learning in order to be involved with Hotza'as ha'Mes, or that he is only *permitted* to be Mevatel his learning, but he is not required to do so?

(a) The RAN and other Rishonim assert that there is no obligation to be Mevatel one's learning for Hotza'as ha'Mes; it is merely permitted to do so. They prove this from the fact that the Beraisa says that Rebbi Yehudah bar Rebbi Ila'i used to be Mevatel Talmud Torah for Hotza'as ha'Mes. If there is an obligation to do so, what is so special about Rebbi Yehudah bar Rebbi Ila'i that the Beraisa needs to tell us that he following this obligation? Rather, it must be that it is not an obligation, and yet Rebbi Yehudah bar Rebbi Ila'i conducted himself stringently and treated it like an obligation upon himself.

These Rishonim also adduce proof from the Gemara earlier (3b), which says that one must be Mevatel Talmud Torah for the sake of burying a Mes Mitzvah. This implies that the only obligation is to be Mevatel Talmud Torah to bury a Mes Mitzvah, but there is no obligation to be Mevatel Talmud Torah for any other Mes.

(b) Other Rishonim, such as TOSFOS (3b, DH Mes Mitzvah) and the ROSH (Kesuvos 2:5), maintain that one is *obligated* to be Mevatel Talmud Torah for Hotza'as ha'Mes. They explain that when the Gemara earlier (3b) says that one must be Mevatel Talmud Torah for the sake of burying a Mes Mitzvah, it does not mean only for a Mes Mitzvah, but for any other Mes as well. It mentions Mes Mitzvah only because the rest of the Sugya there discusses other Mitzvos which are pushed aside for burying a Mes Mitzvah.

Regarding why special mention is made of the conduct of Rebbi Yehudah bar Rebbi Ila'i in this matter, the Rosh (in Kesuvos) explains that the Beraisa is merely demonstrating the importance of the obligation to be Mevatel Talmud Torah for Hotza'as ha'Mes -- if the great Tana, Rebbi Yehudah bar Rebbi Ila'i, whose learning of Torah was his only occupation in life, always did it, then certainly everyone else must also fulfull this obligation. This is also the approach of the SHITAH MEKUBETZES there in the name of the RITVA.

(The KORBAN NESANEL there (#40), however, explains that even though there is an obligation for most people to be Mevatel Talmud Torah for Hotza'as ha'Mes, there is no obligation for someone whose learning of Torah is his only occupation. The Beraisa here is saying that even though Rebbi Yehudah bar Rebbi Ila'i was exempt, he nevertheless acted within the letter of the law. The BEIS SHMUEL (EH 65:3), though, rules in accordance with the Rosh cited above, that one whose learning of Torah is his only occupation is still obligated to be Mevatel his Talmud Torah for Hotza'as ha'Mes.)

HALACHAH: Although the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 361:1) rules in accordance with this Gemara, that we are Mevatel Talmud Torah for Hotza'as ha'Mes, he does not say explicitly whether one is permitted, or obligated, to do so. The SHACH adds that we follow those Rishonim who say that one is *obligated* to do so, and not just permitted.

QUESTION: The Mishnah (28a) states that we may not walk through a synagogue in order to use it as a shortcut. The Beraisa there (28b) states similarly that we may not enter a synagogue in order to protect ourselves from the rain. The Gemara there implies that there are not circumstances under which it would be permitted to enter a synagogue in order to protect oneself from the rain; only if one's learning is disturbed by the rain may one enter the synagogue. Indeed, the MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 151:4, and in Sha'ar ha'Tzion #2) writes that one may not enter the synagogue to escape from the rain even if he sits down inside and reads a verse or learns a Halachah.

The Gemara here, though, gives several conditions under which it would be permitted to walk though a synagogue as a shortcut. For example, if a path existed there before the synagogue was built, or if one entered the synagogue in order to learn or Daven there, he may walk out the other side of the synagogue, making it a shortcut. Similarly, says the Gemara, if one tarries a moment in the synagogue, reading a verse or learning a Halachah, he may use the synagogue as a shortcut.

What is the difference between using a synagogue as a shortcut, which is permitted under certain circumstances, and using a synagogue as an umbrella, which is never permitted?

ANSWERS:

(a) It could be that when one enters a synagogue to use it as a shortcut, by entering the synagogue he has not yet used the synagogue for an inappropriate purpose. By sitting down and reading a verse or learning a Halachah, he shows honor to the holy place and it is as if he entered without intention to use the synagogue as a shortcut.

However, when he enters the synagogue to escape from the rain, at the very first moment that he enters the synagogue he has already used the holy place for an inappropriate purpose, and therefore it does not help to sit down and read a verse. (Rav Yosef ben Arza in YOSEF DA'AS)

(b) Alternatively, when one enters a synagogue to use it as a shortcut, he is not using the actual building itself, but the area upon which the synagogue is built. He would get the same benefit from walking along that path even if the synagogue had not been built there. It is only prohibited to make a shortcut because it *appears* to be an inappropriate usage of the synagogue, but it is not actually an abuse of the Kedushah of the synagogue (and that is why it is permitted if one reads a verse or learns a Halachah). In contrast, when one enters a synagogue to escape from the rain, he is benefitting from the actual building itself.

(Even though the land upon which a synagogue is built also has Kedushah, it seems that simply walking there is not considered an actual inappropriate *usage* of the land.) (YOSEF DA'AS)

29b