Megillah 27b — the Talmud in English

He said to them: We learned: In what case is this statement said

that when they return to their city, they bring the charity funds with them —

when there is no

in the city to which they went,

a communal trustee,

that is, a Torah scholar who attends to communal needs.

But

if

there is a communal trustee there —

the funds are given to the communal trustee.

All the more so

in a case such as this,

as my poor

as well as

your poor —

depend upon me,

for there is no reason to return the charity funds to your city.

Mishna:

They may not sell the

synagogue

of the community —

to an individual, because they thereby lower it from its sanctity. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

They said to him: If so, they should not even

sell it

from a large city to a small city!?

Gemara:

And we raise an objection:

Did the Rabbis not state a sound argument to Rabbi Meir!?

And Rabbi Meir

would say to you: It is not comparable.

From a large city to a small city —

they do not diminish its sanctity, for

initially it was sacred,

and

now too it is sacred.

That is not the case with a sale

from the community to an individual,

for they diminish its sanctity. For by selling it to an individual,

there is no sanctity , ,

since one does not recite a matter of sanctity in the presence of fewer than ten.

And the Rabbis

would say to you:

If there is cause for concern

whether it is a matter of greater or lesser extent,

in a case such as this,

when they sell it from a large city to a small city —

there is likewise cause for concern, because “In the multitude of the people is the king’s glory.”

For by selling it to the small city, they diminish “the multitude of the people.”

Rather, you are forced to say that we are not concerned about anything. Since the purchaser pays money and elevates it to a higher level of sanctity, whatever the purchaser wishes to do, he may do , except for the four matters taught in the following Mishna [Rashi].

Mishna:

They may not sell a synagogue,

even from one community to another,

except on condition that, if they wish,

they may take it back.

This is because an irrevocable sale is a dishonor, as it demonstrates that it is considered worthless in their eyes.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir .

And the Sages say: They may sell it in an irrevocable sale.

Except for

these four matters:

the bathhouse, the tannery, immersion, and the laundry house

for laundering. Alternatively: a place for urination. Rashi.

[для стирки. Или же: для дома отхожих мест. Раши].

Rabbi Yehuda says: They may sell it for use as a courtyard. And the purchaser may do whatever he wishes

with it.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to Rabbi Meir, how do the purchasers reside in it,

the purchasers who bought that synagogue, when

it would be interest

when they return it? For the purchasers resided in it in return for the seller’s waiting for the money until he retracted his sale and purchased it back from them!?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Meir stated his opinion according to the method of Rabbi Yehuda —

who said: A transaction involving one side of interest —

is permitted.

As it is taught in a beraita: If a person was owed one hundred dinars by another, and the borrower made

his field

a sale,

that is, the borrower sold his field to the lender for the loan money, so that if he did not repay him, the field would be sold to him in exchange for the loan,

when the seller eats

the

produce

of the field —

it is permitted.

But if

the purchaser eats the produce —

it is prohibited.

For if he repays him, the produce that the lender ate will have constituted interest, since he ate it in return for the waiting period for the money.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even

if the

purchaser eats

the

produce —

it is permitted, because it is a transaction involving one side of interest,

for it is interest only if he repays him. But if he does not repay him, it is a complete sale and there is no interest .

And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Beitus ben Zunen, who made his field a sale on the advice of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and

there

the purchaser was eating the produce,

and nevertheless Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya permitted him to sell it!

They said to him: Is this a proof?

There

the seller was eating the produce, not the purchaser,

and therefore it is permitted.

What is the difference between them,

over what do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree?

A transaction involving one side of interest —

is the difference between them.

One

— Rabbi Yehuda —

holds: A transaction involving one side of interest —

is permitted.

And the other holds: A transaction involving one side of interest —

is prohibited.

Here too, when they sell the synagogue on condition, it is a transaction involving one side of interest. For only if they take it back does the residence in the building in the interim constitute interest.

Rava said:

In truth,

everyone

holds that

a transaction involving one side of interest —

is prohibited. But here, interest on condition of returning

is the matter that

is the difference between them.

Here the case is one in which the borrower sold the field to the lender on condition that if the field would not remain a sale—that is, if the borrower repaid him his money—the purchaser would return the field to the seller, as well as the produce that he had eaten .

One

— Rabbi Yehuda —

holds: Interest on condition of returning

is permitted.

Therefore, in such a case it is permitted. But if they did not stipulate that he may eat the produce on condition of returning it, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it is prohibited.

And the other

— the first tanna —

holds:

Interest on condition of returning —

is prohibited,

because ultimately, at the time when the purchaser ate the produce, he was consuming interest and committing a transgression.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And the Sages say: They may sell it in an irrevocable sale, etc.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: It is permitted for a person to urinate within four cubits of a place of prayer

[the place where he prayed].

Rav Yosef said: What does this teach us?

It is

already taught

in our Mishna! For we learned:

Rabbi Yehuda says: They may sell it for use as a courtyard, and the purchaser may do whatever he wishes —

with it.

And even the Rabbis said

that one may not turn it into a lavatory

only

with regard to

a synagogue, whose sanctity is fixed. But the four cubits

of prayer,

whose sanctity is not fixed —

no!

A tanna taught before Rav Naḥman: One who prays must distance himself four cubits

from the place where he prayed

and urinate.

And one who urinates must distance himself four cubits

from that place

and pray.

Rav Naḥman said to him

— Rav Naḥman said to the tanna:

Granted,

that

one who urinates distances himself four cubits and prays —

we learned

this, as we learned:

How far must he distance himself from them

[from urine]

and from feces —

four cubits.

But

what you said, that

one who prays distances himself four cubits —

and urinates, what need is there for this

distance?

If so, you have sanctified all the roads of Nehardea,

for there is no four-cubit area in Nehardea in which travelers have not prayed!?

And we answer:

Teach

it this way: One who prays

must wait

the time required to walk four cubits, and then urinate.

We inquire about this:

Granted, one who urinates,

the reason that he

must wait the time required to walk four cubits

before praying is

because of the drops,

so that his garments will not be soiled by drops of urine from his organ.

But

what of the statement that

one who prays must wait the time required to walk four cubits,

what is the purpose of

this waiting?

Rav Ashi said:

Because

all

the time required to walk

four cubits

after he finishes his prayer,

his prayer is still arranged in his mouth, and

still

his lips are murmuring.

Zalpan is a mnemonic

The students of Rabbi Zakkai asked him: By what

merit

did you live a long life ?

He said to them: In all my days I never urinated within four cubits of a place of prayer ,

and I never gave my fellow a nickname,

not even a non-derogatory nickname [Tosafot].

And I never neglected the sanctification of the day .

I had an elderly mother. Once she sold the head covering

[a scarf]

that was on her head, and brought me

with its proceeds

the sanctification of the day .

It was taught: When she died, she left him three hundred barrels of wine .

When he himself died

[Rabbi Zakkai],

he left his sons three thousand barrels of wine.

Rav Huna was wearing a reed belt

[he was girded with a type of reed],

and he was standing before Rav.

He said to him: What is this

that you are girded with such a thing?

He said to him: I had no

wine for

the kiddush ,

and I mortgaged my belt

[my girdle],

and with it I came to perform the sanctification of the day.

He said to him: May it be the will [of Heaven] that you be covered

[that you be closed and covered]

with silk.

When

[he entered the wedding canopy]

Rabba, his son,

of Rav Huna,

was married, Rav Huna was a short man ,

and

he slept on a bed

[he was sleeping on a bed].

His daughters and daughters-in-law came,

and because Rav Huna was short, they did not see that he was lying on the bed.

They removed [their garments] and threw them on him

[they took off their garments and cast them over him] —

until he was covered with silk.

Rav heard

about that incident —

and became angry.

He said

to Rav Huna:

Why did you not say to me when

[when]

I blessed you, “And likewise to the Master,”

that is, may you too be blessed with this, for perhaps that moment when I blessed you was a time of favor, and the blessing would have been fulfilled even for me!

The students of Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua asked him: By what merit did you live a long life?

He said to them: In all my days I never used a synagogue as a shortcut,

that is, I never shortened my route by passing through a synagogue .

And I never stepped over the heads of the holy people,

that is, when the students were sitting on the ground in the beit-midrash, I would not walk to my place, because it would appear as though I were stepping over their heads.

And I never raised my hands

in the priestly benediction of the kohanim —

without a blessing .

The students of Rabbi Perida asked him: By what merit did you live a long life ?

He said to them: In all my days no person ever preceded me to the beit-midrash,