Megillah, Daf Kaf Vav, Part 3
Introduction
Yesterday’s section included the following baraita: "In a house of the land of your possession" (Leviticus 14:34): Your possession is defiled by leprosy, but Jerusalem is not defiled by leprosy. R. Judah said: I have not heard this said except about the area of the Sanctuary alone." Today’s Talmud explains the basis for the dispute in this baraita.
במאי קמיפלגי? תנא קמא סבר: לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים, ורבי יהודה סבר: נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים, ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי, דתניא: מה היה בחלקו של יהודה – הר הבית, הלשכות והעזרות. ומה היה בחלקו של בנימין – אולם והיכל ובית קדשי הקדשים. ורצועה היתה יוצאת מחלקו של יהודה ונכנסת בחלקו של בנימין, ובה מזבח בנוי, והיה בנימין הצדיק מצטער עליה בכל יום לבולעה, שנאמר +דברים ל"ג+ חפף עליו כל היום לפיכך זכה בנימין ונעשה אושפיזכן לשכינה.
On what point do they disagree? The First Tanna holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to [any of] the tribes, while R. Judah holds that it was apportioned to [certain of] the tribes; and they disagree as in the following tannaitic dispute, as it has been taught: What [part of Jerusalem] was in the portion of Judah? The Temple mount, the chambers, and the courtyards. And what was in the portion of Benjamin? The hall, the sanctuary and the holy of holies. A strip went out from the portion of Judah into the portion of Benjamin, and in it the altar [of sacrifice] was built, and every day the righteous Benjamin was distressed over it, wanting to swallow it up, as it says, "Crouching over it all the day" (Deuteronomy 33:12). Therefore Benjamin merited becoming the host of the Shekhinah.
The two tannaim in the baraita from yesterday’s section disagree over whether the city of Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes. R. Judah says that it was and therefore the houses of Jerusalem are subject to the laws of house leprosy. They are part of "your inheritance." The first tanna holds that Jerusalem was not part of any tribe’s inheritance and therefore its houses are not subject to the laws of house leprosy.
The Talmud now cites a baraita which accords with R. Judah’s view, that Jerusalem was appointed to the tribes. Jerusalem is right on the border between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. So part of Jerusalem belongs to Judah and part belong to Benjamin.
The baraita then goes back and describes why Benjamin merited having the best parts of Jerusalem in his territory. There was a strip that went out from Judah’s territory and into Benjamin. This strip belonged to Judah, but Benjamin really wanted it. He "crouched over it all day" a verse that appears in Moses’s blessing of the tribes at the end of the Torah. As a reward for his intense desire, Benjamin merited being the "Host of the Shekhinah" for the Holy Ark was in his territory.
והאי תנא סבר: לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים. דתניא: אין משכירים בתים בירושלים, מפני שאינן שלהן. רבי אליעזר (בר צדוק) +מסורת הש"ס: [בר‘ שמעון]+ אומר: אף לא מטות. לפיכך עורות קדשים – בעלי אושפיזין נוטלין אותן בזרוע. אמר אביי: שמע מינה אורח ארעא למישבק אינש גולפא ומשכא באושפיזיה.
The following Tanna, however, held that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any of the tribes, as it has been taught: It is forbidden to rent out houses in Jerusalem as they do not belong to them. R. Elazar b. Zadok says: It is even forbidden to rent out beds. Therefore householders [who took in guests] would seize the hides of [their visitors ] sacrifices forcibly.
Abaye said: We learn from this that it is proper behavior for a man to leave his [empty] wine-flask and his skin-rug at his guest-house.
The tanna from above who holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any of the tribes agrees with the tanna found in this baraita here. This tanna holds that since Jerusalem belongs to all of the tribes, homeowners cannot rent out their homes for a fee to guests coming to visit Jerusalem. Their homes do not really belong to them. R. Elazar b. Zadok says they may not even rent out beds. Of course, this sounds great free rooms in Jerusalem. But even the baraita admits that such a halakhah can have deleterious consequences. The householders wishing to recoup the cost of hosting guests would actually seize property belonging to their guests, the hides of the sacrifices offered by their visitors. These are valuable items, probably worth more than the cost of renting out a place.
To the economist in me, this little baraita proves the danger in playing with a free market economy. While we would all love free rooms, we probably realize that forcing people to let out their homes for free, or at least preventing them from renting them out for a fee, will not end up in anyone’s benefit.
Abaye learns a normative lesson from here. A person who is a guest at someone’s home should leave the host with some gifts. This is a good lesson, one my mother tried to teach me and I try to teach my children as well.