## Megillah Daf 26a

###### Megillah 26a:1
[Megillah 26a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:1)

יִקְחוּ סְפָרִים. סְפָרִים — לוֹקְחִין תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**they may purchase scrolls** of the Prophets and the Writings. If they sold **scrolls** of the Prophets and Writings, **they may purchase a Torah** scroll.


###### Megillah 26a:2
[Megillah 26a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:2)

אֲבָל אִם מָכְרוּ תּוֹרָה — לֹא יִקְחוּ סְפָרִים. סְפָרִים — לֹא יִקְחוּ מִטְפָּחוֹת. מִטְפָּחוֹת — לֹא יִקְחוּ תֵּיבָה. תֵּיבָה — לֹא יִקְחוּ בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת. בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת — לֹא יִקְחוּ אֶת הָרְחוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** the proceeds of a sale of a sacred item may not be used to purchase an item of a lesser degree of sanctity. Therefore, **if they sold a Torah** scroll, **they may not** use the proceeds to **purchase scrolls** of the Prophets and the Writings. If they sold **scrolls** of the Prophets and Writings, **they may not purchase wrapping cloths.** If they sold **wrapping cloths, they may not purchase an ark.** If they sold **an ark, they may not purchase a synagogue.** If they sold **a synagogue, they may not purchase a town square.**


###### Megillah 26a:3
[Megillah 26a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:3)

וְכֵן בְּמוֹתְרֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly,** the same limitation applies **to** any **surplus funds** from the sale of sacred items, i.e., if after selling an item and purchasing something of a greater degree of sanctity there remain additional, unused funds, the leftover funds are subject to the same principle and may be used to purchase only something of a degree of sanctity greater than that of the original item.


###### Megillah 26a:4
[Megillah 26a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁמָּכְרוּ רְחוֹבָהּ שֶׁל עִיר. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בַּר יוֹסֵי סְתִומְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הָרְחוֹב אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna states: **Residents of a town who sold the town square** may purchase a synagogue with the proceeds. Concerning this mishna, **Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei, cited unattributed. However, the Rabbis say: The town square does not have any sanctity.** Therefore, if it is sold, the residents may use the money from the sale for any purpose.


###### Megillah 26a:5
[Megillah 26a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:5)

וְרַבִּי מְנַחֵם בַּר יוֹסֵי, מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ? הוֹאִיל וְהָעָם מִתְפַּלְּלִין בּוֹ בְּתַעֲנִיּוֹת וּבְמַעֲמָדוֹת. וְרַבָּנַן — הַהוּא אַקְרַאי בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei, what is his reason** for claiming that the town square has sanctity? **Since the people pray in** the town square **on** communal **fast days and on** non-priestly **watches,** it is defined as a place of prayer and as such has sanctity. **And the Rabbis,** why do they disagree? They maintain **that** use of the town square **is merely an irregular occurrence.** Consequently, the town square is not to be defined as a place of prayer, and so it has no sanctity.


###### Megillah 26a:6
[Megillah 26a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:6)

בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת — לוֹקְחִין תֵּיבָה. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת שֶׁל כְּפָרִים, אֲבָל בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת שֶׁל כְּרַכִּין, כֵּיוָן דְּמֵעָלְמָא אָתוּ לֵיהּ — לָא מָצוּ מְזַבְּנִי לֵיהּ, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: If they sold **a synagogue, they may purchase an ark.** The Gemara cites a qualification to this *halakha*: **Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said** that **Rabbi Yonatan said: They taught** this **only** with regard to **a synagogue of a village,** which is considered the property of the residents of that village. **However,** with regard to **a synagogue of a city, since** people **come to it from the** outside **world,** the residents of the city **are not able to sell it, because it is** considered to be the property **of the public** at large and does not belong exclusively to the residents of the city.


###### Megillah 26a:7
[Megillah 26a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:7)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי בֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא דְּמָתָא מַחְסֵיָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמֵעָלְמָא אָתוּ לַהּ, כֵּיוָן דְּאַדַּעְתָּא דִּידִי קָאָתוּ — אִי בָּעֵינָא מְזַבֵּינְנָא לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: This synagogue of Mata Meḥasya, although** people **from the** outside **world come to it, since they come at my discretion,** as I established it, and everything is done there in accordance with my directives, **if I wish, I can sell it.**


###### Megillah 26a:8
[Megillah 26a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:8)

מֵיתִיבִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת שֶׁל טוּרְסִיִּים שֶׁהָיָה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁמְּכָרוּהָ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְעָשָׂה בָּהּ כׇּל צְרָכָיו, וְהָא הָתָם דִּכְרַכִּים הֲוָה! הָהִיא, בֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא זוּטֵי הֲוָה, וְאִינְהוּ עַבְדוּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani’s statement, from a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda said:** There was **an incident involving a synagogue of bronze workers [*tursiyyim*] that was in Jerusalem, which they sold to Rabbi Eliezer, and he used it for all his** own **needs.** The Gemara asks: **But wasn’t** the synagogue **there** one **of cities,** as Jerusalem is certainly classified as a city; why were they permitted to sell it? The Gemara explains: **That** one **was a small synagogue, and** it was the bronze workers **themselves** who **built it.** Therefore, it was considered exclusively theirs, and they were permitted to sell it.


###### Megillah 26a:9
[Megillah 26a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:9)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחוּזַּתְכֶם״, אֲחוּזַּתְכֶם מִיטַּמָּא בִּנְגָעִים, וְאֵין יְרוּשָׁלָיִם מִיטַּמָּא בִּנְגָעִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֲנִי לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מִקְדָּשׁ בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from another *baraita*: The verse states with regard to leprosy of houses: “And I put the plague of leprosy **in a house of the land of your possession”** (Leviticus 14:34), from which it may be inferred: **“Your possession,”** i.e., a privately owned house, **can become ritually impure with leprosy, but** a house in **Jerusalem cannot become ritually impure with leprosy,** as property there belongs collectively to the Jewish people and is not privately owned. **Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard** this distinction stated **only** with regard to **the site of the Temple alone,** but not with regard to the entire city of Jerusalem.


###### Megillah 26a:10
[Megillah 26a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:10)

הָא בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת מִיטַּמְּאִין, אַמַּאי? הָא דִּכְרַכִּין הָווּ! אֵימָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֲנִי לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מְקוּדָּשׁ בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: From Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, it is apparent that only the site of the Temple cannot become ritually impure, **but synagogues and study halls** in Jerusalem **can become ritually impure. Why** should this be true given **that they are** owned by the **city?** The Gemara answers: Emend the *baraita* and **say** as follows: **Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard** this distinction stated **only** with regard to **a sacred site,** which includes the Temple, synagogues, and study halls.


###### Megillah 26a:11
[Megillah 26a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:11)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: לֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לִשְׁבָטִים, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: נִתְחַלְּקָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לִשְׁבָטִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to what** principle do the first *tanna* and Rabbi Yehuda **disagree? The first *tanna* holds** that **Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes,** i.e., it was never assigned to any particular tribe, but rather it belongs collectively to the entire nation. **And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes,** and it is only the site of the Temple itself that belongs collectively to the entire nation.


###### Megillah 26a:12
[Megillah 26a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:12)

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: They each follow a different opinion **in the dispute** between **these *tanna’im*:**


###### Megillah 26a:13
[Megillah 26a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:13)

דְּתַנְיָא: מָה הָיָה בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יְהוּדָה — הַר הַבַּיִת, הַלְּשָׁכוֹת, וְהָעֲזָרוֹת. וּמָה הָיָה בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין — אוּלָם, וְהֵיכָל, וּבֵית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One *tanna* holds that Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **What** part of the Temple **was in the** tribal **portion of Judah? The Temple mount, the** Temple **chambers, and the** Temple **courtyards. And what was in the** tribal **portion of Benjamin? The Entrance Hall, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies.**


###### Megillah 26a:14
[Megillah 26a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:14)

וּרְצוּעָה הָיְתָה יוֹצֵאת מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יְהוּדָה וְנִכְנֶסֶת בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין, וּבָהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בָּנוּי, וְהָיָה בִּנְיָמִין הַצַּדִּיק מִצְטַעֵר עָלֶיהָ בְּכׇל יוֹם לְבוֹלְעָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חוֹפֵף עָלָיו כׇּל הַיּוֹם״, לְפִיכָךְ זָכָה בִּנְיָמִין וְנַעֲשָׂה אוּשְׁפִּיזְכָן לַשְּׁכִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And a strip** of land **issued forth from the portion of Judah and entered into the portion of Benjamin, and upon** that strip **the altar was built, and** the tribe of **Benjamin, the righteous, would agonize over it every day** desiring **to absorb it** into its portion, due to its unique sanctity, **as it is stated** in Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: **“He covers it throughout the day,** and he dwells between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12). The phrase “covers it” is understood to mean that Benjamin is continually focused upon that site. **Therefore, Benjamin was privileged by becoming the host [*ushpizekhan*] of the** Divine Presence, as the Holy of Holies was built in his portion.


###### Megillah 26a:15
[Megillah 26a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:15)

וְהַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לִשְׁבָטִים. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מַשְׂכִּירִים בָּתִּים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁלָּהֶן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר (בַּר צָדוֹק) אוֹמֵר: אַף לֹא מִטּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ, עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים — בַּעֲלֵי אוּשְׁפִּיזִין נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָן בִּזְרוֹעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And this** other ***tanna* holds** that **Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One may not rent out houses in Jerusalem, due to** the fact **that** the houses **do not belong to** those occupying them. Rather, as is true for the entire city, they are owned collectively by the nation. **Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: Even beds may not** be hired out. **Therefore,** in the case of the **hides of** the renter’s **offerings** that the innkeepers take in lieu of payment, the **innkeepers** are considered to be **taking them by force,** as they did not have a right to demand payment.


###### Megillah 26a:16
[Megillah 26a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:16)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְמִישְׁבַּק אִינָשׁ גּוּלְפָּא וּמַשְׁכָּא בְּאוּשְׁפִּיזֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apropos the topic of inns, the Gemara reports: **Abaye said: Learn from** this *baraita* that **it is proper etiquette** for **a person to leave** his wine **flask and** the **hide** of the animal that he slaughtered **at his inn,** i.e., the inn where he stayed, as a gift for the service he received.


###### Megillah 26a:17
[Megillah 26a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/26a:17)

אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא מָכְרוּ שִׁבְעָה טוֹבֵי הָעִיר בְּמַעֲמַד אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר, אֲבָל מָכְרוּ שִׁבְעָה טוֹבֵי הָעִיר בְּמַעֲמַד אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר, אֲפִילּוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns its discussion of the mishna: **Rava said: They taught** that there is a limitation on what may be purchased with the proceeds of the sale of a synagogue **only when the seven representatives of the town** who were appointed to administer the town’s affairs **had not sold** the synagogue **in an assembly of the residents of the town. However,** if **the seven representatives of the town had sold** it **in an assembly of the residents of the town,** then **even**