והא דכרכים והא דכפרים
and this baraita, which states that a synagogue does not become impure, is referring to synagogues in large cities. Since those synagogues attract people from different places, the building is not the property of the local residents but that of the public. And that baraita, which states that a synagogue becomes impure, is referring to synagogues in villages, which belong solely to the residents of the village, and their status if like that of a house owned by partners.
ודכרכים אין מטמא בנגעים והתניא אחוזתכם אחוזתכם מטמאה בנגעים ואין ירושלים מטמאה בנגעים אמר ר' יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקדש בלבד הא בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מטמאין בנגעים ואע"ג דכרכים נינהו אימא אמר רבי יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקודש בלבד
The Gemara asks: And do the synagogues in large cities not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34); the land of your possession becomes ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy, and the city of Jerusalem does not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy, since it belongs to all the Jewish people rather than to a specific tribe? Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard that it is only the site of the Temple [mikdash] alone that does not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy. It can be inferred that in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even synagogues and study halls in Jerusalem become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy, and that is the case even though they are synagogues in large cities. The Gemara rejects this; rather, one must emend the baraita and say that Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard that it is only a sacred [mekudash] site alone. That definition includes synagogues and study halls.
במאי קא מיפלגי תנא קמא סבר ירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים ורבי יהודה סבר ירושלים נתחלקה לשבטים
§ The Gemara explains the dispute in the baraita that was cited: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree? The first tanna holds: Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes but belonged to all of the Jewish people, and as such it does not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy. Rabbi Yehuda holds: Jerusalem was divided between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Therefore, the same halakhot of impurity apply there as apply in all other cities in Eretz Yisrael.
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 יוצאה מחלקו של יהודה ונכנסת לחלקו של בנימין ובה היה מזבח בנוי ובנימין הצדיק היה מצטער עליה לבלעה בכל יום
The Gemara states: And that dispute corresponds to the dispute between these tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: What part of the Temple was located in the portion of the tribe of Judah? It was the part including the entire Temple Mount, excluding those areas in the portion of Benjamin, the chambers, and the courtyards. And what part of the Temple was in the portion of the tribe of Benjamin? It was the part including the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, and the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies. And a strip of land emerges from the portion of Judah and enters the portion of Benjamin on which the altar is built. And Benjamin the righteous would suffer longing to engulf it every day. The tribe of Benjamin was disappointed that the strip belonging to the tribe of Judah intersected its tribal land and wanted Judah to transfer ownership so that the land with the altar would belong to Benjamin.
שנאמר (דברים לג, יב) חופף עליו כל היום לפיכך זכה בנימין הצדיק ונעשה אושפיזכן לגבורה שנאמר ובין כתפיו שכן
An allusion to this is that which is stated in Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: “Ever does he protect him and he rests between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12), like one who is unable to abide something stuck between his shoulders and constantly rubs it to remove it. Therefore, Benjamin the righteous was privileged to serve as host [ushpizekhan] to the Almighty, as it is stated: “And he rests between his shoulders,” alluding to the fact that the Holy of Holies was located in the territory of Benjamin. According to this baraita, Jerusalem was divided among the tribes.
והאי תנא סבר ירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים דתניא אין משכירין בתים בירושלים לפי שאינה שלהן ר' אלעזר בר (צדוק) אומר אף לא מטות לפיכך עורות קדשים בעלי אושפזיכנין נוטלין אותן בזרוע אמר אביי שמע מינה אורח ארעא למישבק איניש גולפא ומשכא לאושפיזיה
And this tanna holds: Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes at all, as it was taught in a baraita: Homeowners did not let their houses in Jerusalem because the houses were not actually theirs. Residents of Jerusalem did not own their residences, as the city belonged to the entire Jewish people. Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: Even beds were not rented. Therefore, with regard to hides of consecrated animals of the Festival peace-offerings, which the pilgrims to Jerusalem would give as gifts to their hosts, the hosts were not really entitled to them. This is why the hosts would take them by force. Abaye said: Learn from it that it is customary for a guest to leave his empty wine jug and hides from sacrificial animals and give them to his host.
ודכפרים מי מטמא בנגעים והתניא לאחוזה עד שיכבשו אותה כבשו אותה ולא חלקוה לשבטים חלקו לשבטים ולא חלקו לבית אבות חלקו לבית אבות ואין כל אחד מכיר את שלו מניין
After discussing the status of Jerusalem, the Gemara addresses the matter of synagogues in villages. The Gemara asks: And do the synagogues in villages become impure with the impurity of leprosy? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita as follows? It is written: “When you enter the land of Canaan that I give you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34). The term: “For a possession,” means until you conquer it and it becomes entirely yours. However, in a case where they conquered it but did not divide it among the tribes, or where they divided it among the tribes but did not distribute it to the patrilineal families; or where they distributed it to the patrilineal families, but every one of them does not recognize his individual portion, from where is it derived that it does not become impure?
ת"ל (ויקרא יד, לה) ובא אשר לו הבית מי שמיוחד לו יצא אלו שאין מיוחדין לו אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא
The verse states: “And the one whom the house is his will come” (Leviticus 14:35); one whom the house is designated for him and who is certain of his ownership, excluding those houses which are not designated for him. Apparently, the legal status of synagogues in villages is that of communal property, as the portion of each individual is not clearly identifiable, and therefore they cannot become impure. Rather, there is no distinction in this regard between synagogues in large cities and those in villages. And with regard to the original question, it is clear as we responded initially with alternative resolutions to the contradiction between the baraitot.
ומתקינין לו כהן אחר פשיטא אירע בו פסול קודם תמיד של שחר מחנכין אותו בתמיד של שחר אלא אירע בו פסול אחר תמיד של שחר במה מחנכין אותו
§ It was taught in the mishna: And they would designate another priest in the High Priest’s stead, lest a disqualification due to impurity prevent his entering the Temple on Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that if disqualification befell the incumbent High Priest prior to the sacrifice of the daily morning offering on Yom Kippur, that one initiates the replacement by dressing him in the eight garments of the High Priest with the daily morning offering, which renders him acting High Priest. However, if disqualification befell the incumbent High Priest after the daily morning offering, how does one initiate the replacement? After the daily morning offering, the High Priest begins the Yom Kippur service clothed in the four linen garments unique to the day, which are the same as the tunic, trousers, turban, and belt of the common priest. How is it evident that he is the acting High Priest?
אמר רב אדא בר אהבה באבנט הניחא למאן דאמר אבנטו. של כהן גדול זה הוא אבנטו של כהן הדיוט אלא למאן דאמר אבנטו של כהן גדול לא זהו אבנטו של כהן הדיוט מאי איכא למימר
Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is evident by means of his belt. The belt worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur was made of linen, unlike that of the common priest, which was a mixture of the diverse kinds of linen and wool. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said: Throughout the rest of the year, the belt of the High Priest, which the Torah clearly states is made of a mixture of diverse kinds, is identical to the belt of the common priest, whereas on Yom Kippur, the belt is made of linen. When the replacement priest dons the linen belt he is initiated as the acting High Priest. However, according to the one who said: The belt of the High Priest is not identical to the belt of the common priest, what can be said? According to this approach, throughout the year the High Priest wears a belt of blue and purple wool and linen, while the belts of common priests are made of white linen like the rest of their clothes. Therefore, on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest dons a belt of white linen, his belt is identical to that of a common priest. If so, what initiates the replacement as acting High Priest?
אמר אביי לובש שמונה ומהפך בצינורא וכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא זר שהפך בצינורא חייב מיתה ורב פפא אמר
Abaye said: Before the replacement begins serving on Yom Kippur with the four linen garments, he is initiated and promoted to the High Priesthood by donning the eight garments of the High Priest and turning over one of the limbs on the altar with a fork, thereby accelerating the burning of the daily morning offering. By performing part of the service while wearing the garments of the High Priest, he is initiated as acting High Priest. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: A non-priest who turns over part of the offering on the altar with a fork is liable to receive the death penalty because he engaged in Temple service restricted to priests. And Rav Pappa said: