Resources for Megillah 26

Rabbi Yitzchok Gutterman

1. The משנה says that one may only sell דברים שבקדושה for higher level קדושה What about selling something for equal קדושה such as a Shul for a Shul? See theר"ן here in דף ז ד"ה אבל who brings the בעל המאור who quotes the רבינו אפרים as saying that our משנה has contradictory משמעותות. The רישא sounds like it must go up in קדושה and the סיפא sounds like the only issues is that it can’t go down קדושה. Therefore, one cannot be מדייק from there. However, one can be מדייק from the גמרא on the next דף that asks whether one can sell an old ספר תורה for a new one and says the question is- Do we say that since it is not going to a higher קדושה one cannot sell it or do we say that since a ספר תורה can’t go higher, it’s ok to sell it. It seems clear that for anything other than a ספר תורה there would be no question that it must go higher. Consequently, the רישא must be the עיקר and the סיפא is אגב the רישא. However, see the טורי אבן ד"ה אבל who is מדייק from רש"י who only comments ואין   מעלין בקודש  מורידין  when explaining the סיפא that he holds the סיפא is the עיקר and only a lesser קדושה is an issue but equal קדושות are fine. He does not know how רש"י would answer the דיוק from the גמרא later on.
2. The גמרא says that you can’t sell a בית הכנסת של כרכים since "מעלמא אתו ליה". See תוספות ד"ה כיוןwho gives two explanations what that means. The first explanation is that since it was built with people from all over the world in mind, it has קדושה חמורה.  The second explanation is that since people from other locations have donated money to the shul, you can’t sell it without their permission. The ריטב"א, רשב"א, ורא"ש all write that since it was made with the broader public in mind, you need their permission to sell it since it was made על דעתם (even if they didn’t pay any money for it). It is unclear whether that answer is different than what תוספות meant when he said it has קדושה חמורה. See the שו"ת חתם סופר, חו"ם סימן קכ"ג who says that תוספות meant the same as the other ראשונים and he didn’t mean that the issue was one of levels of קדושה but rather it was הוקדש על דעת רבים. Otherwise, why would the גמרא say that if רב אשי lived in their town then they could sell it since everyone would have given the money על דעתו—if the issue is how much קדושה it has, that would not be relevant. See the פּרי מגדים in משבצות זהב סימן קנ"ג ס"ק ו who points out several נפקא מינהs if you assume that תוספות’s first פּשט  is a separate answer from the other ראשונים. For example, can you sell a city’s mikvah? If the issue is just one of "קדושה חמורה", then a mikvah has no קדושה and the city people could sell it even if many people from the world use it. According to the second answer of תוספות and the ריטב"א, רשב"א, ורא"ש, then you still need their permission. Also, if they built a second shul, then selling the city’s first shul would only be a problem if there was an issue of "קדושה חמורה", but according to the other reasons there would be no issue since everyone would agree to do it since they built a new one. See the אגרות משה, או"ח חלק א סימן נ who explains beautifully that תוספות means that the more people that daven there, the more קדושה it has. Therefore, one group of people can’t be מבטל the קדושה created by the other people who daven there.
3. The גמרא says that one can use מטפּחות ספרים that got worn out as תכריכין למת. There is an important ט"ז in סימן קנ"ד ס"ק ז that says the only time there is an issue of אין מורידין is when the item is still ראוי for higher קדושות. However, if it is no longer usable for that, then it is better to use it for a lower קדושה rather than just burying it. We see this from our גמרא that allows you to use מטפּחות ספרים that got worn out as תכריכין למת when it would certainly have been forbidden to use it for that purpose if the מטפּחות had not been worn out. See the קע"ד נודע ביהודה תנינא יו"ד סימן  who asks on this ט"ז that the גמרא in ל"ב מנחות  that says you cannot use a worn out ספר תורה ותפילין to make a מזוזה. This seems to be a clear contradiction to what the ט"ז He answers that even the ט"ז only said his דין by תשמישי קדושה and not be קדושה itself.

*******************************

Click here to download Shaklya v’Tarya Summary by Rabbi Chaim Smulovitz (in PDF)