Megillah, Daf Kaf Vav, Part 2
Introduction
This sugya is about selling a synagogue. It brings up an interesting issue is a synagogue to which many people come considered as if it belongs to the public, and therefore cannot be sold under any conditions.
בית הכנסת לוקחין תיבה, אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן: לא שנו אלא בית הכנסת של כפרים, אבל בית הכנסת של כרכין, כיון דמעלמא אתו ליה – לא מצו מזבני ליה, דהוה ליה דרבים. אמר רב אשי: האי בי כנישתא דמתא מחסיא. אף על גב דמעלמא אתו לה, כיון דאדעתא דידי קאתו – אי בעינא מזבנינא לה.
If [they sell] the synagogue they may buy an ark.
R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Yonatan: This rule applies only to a synagogue in a village, but a synagogue in a town, since people from all parts come to it, it may not be sold, for it belongs to the public.
R. Ashi said: As for this synagogue in Matha Mehasia, although people come to it from all parts, since they come at my discretion, I can if I like sell it.
The mishnah allowed a community to sell a synagogue as long as they use the proceeds to buy a Torah ark (or something of greater sanctity). But R. Yonatan limits this to a synagogue found in a village. A synagogue in a larger town cannot be sold under any circumstance because it really belongs to the public and there would simply be no way to get their permission.
R. Ashi says that he can sell the synagogue in his town, although people stream to it from all over (who wouldn’t miss the opportunity to pray with R. Ashi!). It is in essence his choice because Jews from all over come to pray near him. Humble guy, this R. Ashi!
מיתיבי, אמר רבי יהודה: מעשה בבית הכנסת של טורסיים שהיה בירושלים שמכרוה לרבי אליעזר, ועשה בה כל צרכיו. והא התם דכרכים הוה! – ההיא בי כנישתא זוטי הוה, ואינהו עבדוה.
An objection was raised: R. Judah says: It happened with synagogue of the coppersmiths in Jerusalem that they sold it to R. Eliezer and he used it for his own purposes.
And yet that was one in a large town?
That was a very small synagogue, and they themselves had made it.
The baraita seems to say that it is permitted to sell a synagogue even in a large town such as Jerusalem. This would reject the statement of R. Yonatan from above. The Talmud resolves the difficulty by saying that although the synagogue was in a large town, it was a small synagogue built by private individuals.
It is interesting to note the existence of a synagogue of "coppersmiths." Did people divide up by profession to pray?
מיתיבי: +ויקרא י"ד+ בבית ארץ אחזתכם – אחוזתכם מיטמא בנגעים, ואין ירושלים מיטמא בנגעים. אמר רבי יהודה: אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקדש בלבד. הא בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מיטמאין, אמאי? הא דכרכין הוו! – אימא: אמר רבי יהודה: אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקודש בלבד.
They objected: "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.
We thus see that [according to R. Judah] synagogues and houses of study are defiled; and yet why, seeing that they belong to the town?
I would emend [the above statement to read]: R. Judah says: I have not heard said except about a sanctified place alone.
This baraita is a midrash on the passage in Leviticus that discusses some sort of "leprosy" that occurs to houses. The first opinion says that none of Jerusalem can be considered to have this "leprosy." The Talmud will explain this more deeply later on. R. Judah says that this is true only of the Sanctuary itself. The rest of Jerusalem, including the synagogues and study houses can be defiled, even though they belong to the town, for many people come there. Thus we can see that there is no consideration of "general ownership" for public synagogues. Their status is the same as that of the houses both are subject to leprosy defilement.
The Talmud emends the baraita so that R. Judah says that any sanctified place, including the synagogue is not subject to the laws of leprosy. This implies that synagogues belong to the public, and therefore could not be sold.