Megillah 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

If they sold

cloths—

they may purchase

with their proceeds

books

of the Prophets and Writings .

If they sold

books—

they may purchase

with their proceeds a

Torah scroll .

However,

one may not lower the level of sanctity. Therefore:

If

they sold

a

Torah scroll—

they may not purchase

with its proceeds

books.

Likewise, if they sold

books—

they may not purchase

with their proceeds

cloths.

If they sold

cloths—

they may not purchase

with their proceeds

a Torah ark.

If they sold

a Torah ark—

they may not purchase a synagogue.

If they sold

a synagogue—

they may not purchase the city square.

And likewise—

the same law applies—

to their surplus.

For example, if they sold books and purchased a Torah scroll with their proceeds, and money from the sale of the books still remained, they may not purchase with it an object of lesser sanctity.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

The residents of the city who sold the city square.

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: This—

the statement in our Mishna that if they sold a square, they may purchase with its proceeds specifically an object possessing sanctity—

is the statement of Rabbi Menahem bar Yosei the Anonymous

.

But the Sages say: The square—

does not possess sanctity,

and they may use its proceeds for whatever they wish .

We inquire:

And Rabbi Menahem bar Yosei, what is his reason?

And we explain:

Since the people pray there [

in the square]

on fast days and on the days of the ma'amadot,

therefore it possesses sanctity.

And the Sages

could say to you:

That

prayer in the square

is merely occasional,

as it is not frequent: the ma'amadot did not recur until six months later, and the fasts were likewise not frequent. Therefore, the square does not possess sanctity.

We learned in our Mishna:

A synagogue—

they may purchase a Torah ark.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: They taught

that they may sell a synagogue

only

in a

village synagogue,

where only the local residents pray.

But in a city synagogue, since people come there even from elsewhere

as well,

they come to it,

and it is not used exclusively by the residents of that place,

they cannot

the residents of the city

sell it,

because

it is

a synagogue

of the public,

and it does not belong only to the residents of the city, since those who come from elsewhere also contribute toward its construction and other needs .

Rav Ashi said: This synagogue of Mata Meḥasya, although people come to it from elsewhere, since they come with the intention of attending to my needs,

and they give the money to the synagogue for me to use as I see fit ,

if I wish—

I may sell it .

An objection was raised: Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the synagogue of the coppersmiths [

coppersmiths]

that was in Jerusalem, which they sold

those coppersmiths

to Rabbi Eliezer, and he used it for all his needs.

But there

the synagogue

was a city synagogue,

and nevertheless they sold it!?

And we answer:

That synagogue was small [

small]

and they—

the coppersmiths—

made it

alone, and people who came from elsewhere did not participate in it [ since people cannot tolerate coppersmiths, who are foul-smelling like tanners, and therefore they had a synagogue of their own ].

An objection was raised:

It is written: “And I place a plague of leprosy

in a house in the land of your possession,”

and we derive:

Your possession becomes impure through plagues—

but Jerusalem does not become impure through plagues,

because it is not a possession, as this tanna maintains that Jerusalem was not apportioned among the tribes [as will be explained below].

Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard

that it does not become impure through plagues

except for the site of the Temple alone,

because with regard to plagues it is written: “And he who owns the house shall come,” indicating that the house must have an owner. But the Temple belongs to the sacred domain and has no owner .

But the other houses in Jerusalem do become impure through plagues, because Rabbi Yehuda maintains that Jerusalem was apportioned among the tribes, and the verse “your possession” applies to it.

In any event, we see that Rabbi Yehuda says that specifically the Temple does not become impure through plagues,

whereas the synagogues and study halls

in Jerusalem

do become impure!

And

why? They were city synagogues,

and we said above that the residents of the city are not their owners!?

And the Sages likewise disagreed only because they maintain that Jerusalem was not apportioned among the tribes. This implies that if it had been apportioned among the tribes, even its study halls would become impure. Yet they stand in a city synagogue!?

And we answer: Do not state that Rabbi Yehuda said “the site of the Temple”; rather,

say

this:

Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard only about a “sanctified” place,

which includes synagogues as well.

With regard to what do

the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree?

The first tanna maintains: Jerusalem was not apportioned among the tribes.

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Jerusalem was apportioned among the tribes.

And their dispute is parallel to the dispute between these tannaim

below.

As it was taught in a beraita: What was in the portion of Judah?

All the unoccupied area from the eastern entrance of

the Temple Mount

and

the chambers

within the rampart,

and

the three

courtyards.

That is: the Women's Courtyard and the Israelites’ Courtyard, which were eleven cubits into which Israelites could enter from inside the gate, and the Priests’ Courtyard, which extended eleven cubits from there westward, up to the outer altar.

And what was in the portion of Benjamin?

The Entrance Hall, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies,

which were on the western side.

There still remained thirty-two cubits of the outer altar itself, and twenty-two cubits between the Entrance Hall and the altar, whose ownership had not yet been clarified. The tanna now explains:

And a strip extended from the portion of Judah and entered the portion of Benjamin, and the altar was built upon it.

That is, in the portion of Judah there was also a one-cubit width along the entire eastern side of the altar [apart from the cubit at the southeastern corner]. Likewise, there was a one-cubit width along the entire southern side of the altar [apart from the cubit at the southwestern corner]. This was the strip that entered from the portion of Judah southward into the portion of Benjamin, and it contained the cubit on the southern side of the altar.

But the rest of the altar, as well as the twenty-two cubits between the Entrance Hall and the altar, was in the portion of Benjamin [as explained by Rashi in Zevahim 53b. See there].

And the righteous Benjamin

foresaw through ruaḥ ha-kodesh that this would eventually be so, and

was distressed over it—

over that strip—

every day, wishing to swallow it. As it is stated: “He hovers over him all day” [

for a person who is distressed rubs and chafes against his garments].

Therefore

Benjamin merited and became a host

to the Divine Presence,

because the ark was in his portion .

[

.