Resources for Megillah 28

Rabbi Yitzchok Gutterman

1. The גמרא says that if a ת"ח allows a כהן עם הארץ to bentch instead of him, he is חייב מיתה since he causes people to not respect Torah. See the טורי אבןwho asks why can’t we apply the principle of הרב שמחל על כבודו, כבודו מחול? He answers that a ת"ח can be מוחל on his כבוד in terms of people standing up for him, but he cannot give that כבוד to someone else who is not deserving of it as that causes people to view Torah as something that does not deserve respect. He also bring aריב"ש who quotes a ראב"ד that even though a ת"ח can be מוחל on his כבוד, he can’t be מוחל on his בזיון. He even extends this to a father, but the טורי אבן does not agree that it applies to a father.
2. The גמרא lists many things that אמוראים said they did or didn’t do which caused them to live long lives. Many of the things listed sound like absolute חיובים, and the ראשונים and אחרונים (e.g. תוספות,רשב"א, טורי אבן) all try to explain why each one was not a חיוב גמור but only a מדת חסידות. There are a few exceptions. For example, see the מהרש"א in תענית דף כּ': ד"ה ולא קראתי who says that most of the items mentioned are "עברות גדולות" and the only reason these אמוראים were נתפּאר that they kept these מצוות is because most people were נכשל in them. Nonetheless, he tries to find a way to make it a מדת חסידות where he can. The מרומי שדה in our סוגיא seems to agree with this approach as well.
3. The גמרא says shuls in חו"ל are built על תנאי. It is unclear in the גמרא what this  תנאי is meant to permit.רש"י and the אור זרוע quoted in the הגהות אשרי here says explicitly that one can do anything in a shul even while it is built for any reason as long as it isn’t a בזיון. The fact that רבינא ורב אדא בר מתנה would only go into the shul when it rained if they had an issue of שמעתא בעי צילותא was just their own personal חומרא. On the other extreme, תוספות in ד"ה בתי as well as the רא"ש in אות ז say that תנאי only works after the shul is בחורבנה but not while it is still standing. That is the reason that רבינא ורב אדא בר מתנה would not have gone into the shul had they not needed it for learning. The middle שיטה is the רמב"ן quoted here by the ר"ן in ד"ה בתי כניסיות who says that while the תנאי helps even while the shul is still standing, it only helps if there is a serious דוחק like you need a place to house the poor people. Since rain is not such a דוחק, the אמוראים would not have come in if they didn’t need it for their learning.

The גמרא also says that a ת"ח is allowed to use a בית מדרש since it is like his home. Therefore, he can eat and sleep there. What about a בית הכנסת? The simple reading of the גמרא sounds like it was speaking about a בית הכנסת since it is referring to our משנה, yet רש"י explains that it refers to a בית מדרש. See the רמב"ם inהלכות תפילה פּרק י"א הל' ו who says explicitly that the היתר for ת"ח goes on both a בית מדרש and a בית הכנסת, but only מדוחק (similar to the שיטה of the רמב"ןmentioned above). See the ר"ן in ד"ה רבינא who says that the היתר is only for a בית מדרש. However, it is permissible for a ת"ח to use it even without a דוחק. See theמגן אברהם in סימן קנ"א ס"ק ב who explains that even for תלמידי חכמים, they cannot use the בית מדרש if they aren’t actually learning there. They are just as obligated in מורא מקדש as anyone else! The only reason they can eat in a בית מדרש is because they would otherwise need to leave and would therefore lose time from their learning. Consequently, only אכילה ושתיה is allowed but not coming in from the rain.

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

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