Today’s sugya returns to discussing the sanctity of space. After having delimited its geographical contours two weeks ago, we’re now questioning its limits in time.
What remains of the sacred when all is left is its remains?
How do we want to remember, and be remembered?
Those questions poignantly resonate with contemporary moral dilemmas. We shall read from different actors of the Jewish Heritage Preservation in Europe and reflect together or the politics of memory.
(ג) וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת שֶׁחָרַב, אֵין מַסְפִּידִין בְּתוֹכוֹ, וְאֵין מַפְשִׁילִין בְּתוֹכוֹ חֲבָלִים, וְאֵין פּוֹרְשִׂין לְתוֹכוֹ מְצוּדוֹת, וְאֵין שׁוֹטְחִין עַל גַּגּוֹ פֵרוֹת, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ קַפַּנְדַּרְיָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כו), וַהֲשִׁמּוֹתִי אֶת מִקְדְּשֵׁיכֶם, קְדֻשָּׁתָן אַף כְּשֶׁהֵן שׁוֹמֵמִין. עָלוּ בוֹ עֲשָׂבִים, לֹא יִתְלֹשׁ, מִפְּנֵי עָגְמַת נָפֶשׁ:
(3) And Rabbi Yehuda said further: A synagogue that fell into ruin one may not eulogize in it. And nor may one stretch out and repair ropes in it. The wide expanse of the synagogue would have been particularly suitable for this. And nor may one spread animal traps within it. And nor may one spread out produce upon its roof to dry. And nor may one make it into a shortcut. as it is stated: “And I will bring desolation to your sanctuaries” (Leviticus 26:31). their sanctity - even when they are desolate.
However, if grass sprang up of its own accord in the ruined synagogue, although it is not befitting its sanctity, one should not pick it, due to the anguish
קדושתן אף כשהן שוממין. נראה לי דדייק מדלא כתיב ואת מקדשיכם אשומם:
It seems to me that the diuk (inference from a precise reading) comes from the fact that the verse does not say : and your places of worship I will render desolate'
-How does the verse in Leviticus 26:31 serves as a prooftext?
-do not anguish padawan, we'll come back to the mysterious end of the Mishna later in the gemara.
[bonus : if you have extra time]
-The rabbi Yehuda issue:
Our suggya starts with the third mishna of the perek (chapter). Because of how the Talmud is printed nowadays, the flow between mishnayot is not apparent. On the next source you can see the flow between mishna 2 and 3. Something is going to bother Tosfot. It should bother you too! can you spot the logic/inconsistency issue?
(ב) אֵין מוֹכְרִין בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת, אֶלָּא עַל תְּנַאי שֶׁאִם יִרְצוּ יַחֲזִירוּהוּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מוֹכְרִים אוֹתוֹ מִמְכַּר עוֹלָם, חוּץ מֵאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים, לְמֶרְחָץ וּלְבֻרְסְקִי וְלִטְבִילָה וּלְבֵית הַמָּיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ לְשֵׁם חָצֵר, וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה יַעֲשֶׂה:
(ג) וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת שֶׁחָרַב, אֵין מַסְפִּידִין בְּתוֹכוֹ, וְאֵין מַפְשִׁילִין בְּתוֹכוֹ חֲבָלִים, וְאֵין פּוֹרְשִׂין לְתוֹכוֹ מְצוּדוֹת, וְאֵין שׁוֹטְחִין עַל גַּגּוֹ פֵרוֹת, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ קַפַּנְדַּרְיָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כו), וַהֲשִׁמּוֹתִי אֶת מִקְדְּשֵׁיכֶם, קְדֻשָּׁתָן אַף כְּשֶׁהֵן שׁוֹמֵמִין. עָלוּ בוֹ עֲשָׂבִים, לֹא יִתְלֹשׁ, מִפְּנֵי עָגְמַת נָפֶשׁ:
(2) They may sell a synagogue only with a stipulation that if the sellers so desire it, the buyers will return it to them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They may sell a synagogue with a permanent sale for any usage, except the following four things, For a bathhouse, or for a tannery , for immersion, ; or for a lavatory.
Rabbi Yehuda says: They may sell a synagogue for the generic purpose of serving as a courtyard, and then the buyer may then do with it as he wishes
(3) And Rabbi Yehuda said further: A synagogue that fell into ruin still may not be used for a mundane purpose. Therefore, one may not eulogize in it. And nor may one stretch out and repair ropes in it. And nor may one spread animal traps within it. And nor may one spread out produce upon its roof to dry. And nor may one make it into a shortcut - as it is stated: “And I will bring desolation to your sanctuaries” (Leviticus 26:31). even when they are desolate. However, if grass sprang up of its own accord in the ruined synagogue, although it is not befitting its sanctity, one should not pick it, due to the anguish
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת אֵין נוֹהֲגִין בָּהֶן קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ אֵין אוֹכְלִין בָּהֶן וְאֵין שׁוֹתִין בָּהֶן
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to synagogues: One may not act inside them with frivolity. Therefore, one may not eat in them; nor may one drink in them
וְאֵין נֵיאוֹתִין בָּהֶם וְאֵין מְטַיְּילִין בָּהֶם וְאֵין נִכְנָסִין בָּהֶן בַּחַמָּה מִפְּנֵי הַחַמָּה וּבַגְּשָׁמִים מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים וְאֵין מַסְפִּידִין בָּהֶן הֶסְפֵּד שֶׁל יָחִיד אֲבָל קוֹרִין בָּהֶן וְשׁוֹנִין בָּהֶן וּמַסְפִּידִין בָּהֶן הֶסְפֵּד שֶׁל רַבִּים אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֵימָתַי בְּיִשּׁוּבָן אֲבָל בְּחוּרְבָּנָן מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן וְעוֹלִין בָּהֶן עֲשָׂבִים וְלֹא יִתְלוֹשׁ מִפְּנֵי עׇגְמַת נֶפֶשׁ עֲשָׂבִים מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמַיְיהוּ חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי וּמְכַבְּדִין אוֹתָן וּמַרְבִּיצִין אוֹתָן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלוּ בָּהֶן עֲשָׂבִים אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֵימָתַי בְּיִשּׁוּבָן אֲבָל בְּחוּרְבָּנָן מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן לַעֲלוֹת עָלוּ בָּהֶן עֲשָׂבִים לֹא יִתְלוֹשׁ מִפְּנֵי עׇגְמַת נֶפֶשׁ
and one may not ???(neoitin ) oneself inside them; nor may one wander about inside them; nor may one enter them in the sun for protection from the sun, or in the rain to find shelter from the rain; nor may one offer a eulogy inside them for an individual, which is a private event. However, one may read the Bible inside them, and one may study halakhot inside them, and one may offer a eulogy inside them for a Torah scholar, if the public attends the eulogy. Rabbi Yehuda said: When does this apply? When the synagogues are occupied by the people using them. But when they are in a state of ruin, they should be left alone so that grass will sprout up inside them. And that grass should not be picked and removed, due to the anguish that it will bring to those who see it.
the Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Yehuda discuss the halakha about grass? Who mentioned anything about it? The Gemara explains: The text of the baraita is incomplete and is teaching the following: And among the other things that may be done in synagogues, they should also be sure to sweep them and to sprinkle their floors with water, in order that grass not sprout up in them. Rabbi Yehuda said: When does this apply? When the synagogues are occupied by the people using them, but when they are in a state of ruin, they should be left alone so that grass will sprout up inside them. If grass did sprout up, it should not be removed, due to the anguish that this will bring to those who see it.
Why could you have thought you couldn't learn Torah within ruins?
how do you understand 'מִפְּנֵי עָגְמַת נָפֶשׁ' - due to the anguish that this will cause one's soul ? What is chazal (the sages) trying to accomplish here? what's your take on it?
How do those questions resonate with contemporary issues regarding preservation of Jewish architectural heritage in Europe?
ואין ניאותין - ואין מתקשטין לתוכו ואין מטיילין שם:
and one should not neitim - one should not adourn oneself within it neither take walks within it.
Jewish spaces, German obligation, World Heritage?
Susanne Urban, director of the Association of ShUM Cities on the Rhine
'As in Speyer and Worms, the tourists who visit the Jewish cemetery in Mainz and regard the memorial stone there for the 11-century scholar Gershom ben Jehudacan’t help but recognize that Jewish history in Germany is founded on a thousand-year-old-tradition.That is all well and good. But the narratives fashioned for tourists and other visitors often reflect a skewed perception of history.
ShUM is distant. The descriptions of the Crusades from the 11 century or the pogroms in the 14 century seem far away in space and time; their horrors are overshadowed by the Shoah.
I feel there is a crossroad here, where we can clearly appreciate the divergent ways of viewing history.For example, the story about the reconstruction of the medieval Worms’ synagogue in the late 1950s (after it was burnt down in November 1938 and finallydestroyed in 1941-42) is often recounted as a success story of early post-World War II German-Jewish reconciliation. But there are other aspects to this story, whichin my eyes are equally important: they tell about the Jews who opposed this reconstruction because nothing would ever be the same again after the Shoah andpretending otherwise would be a sham. These opponents did not prevail, and the Worms synagogue is “whole again.” But for decades it was a deracinated wholeness. The Jewish space in the ShUMsynagogues and mikvaot, the landscape around the monuments and within the cemeteries in Worms and Mainz were long presented as primarily a historical,ethnographic space, administered by cities, tourism offices, archives, and other professional institutions.There are no doubts about the well-meant interest in preserving the remains, educating students and let tourists stroll there. There are no doubts about honestefforts in researching Jewish history and researching the life of Shoah victims and survivors. But…but…. sometimes these efforts ended in a sort of self-referential“Vergangenheitsbewältigung”, or “coming to terms with the past,” without much contact or connection to – or even, I would say, interest in — the living Jewish present.“Learning from history” was the headline. But the reconstruction and preservation didn’t mean that Jewish spaces were filled again with Jewish life. These space sfor decades were transformed into — and are still used and seen as — what Eszter B. Gantner has described as an overall “symbolic topography” that coexists on as a separate level with the concrete connection many Jews feel when visiting the ShUM-monuments and spaces.'
POLAND JEWISH HERITAGE
RUTH ELLEN GRUBER
For me, I continued, “their impact iseven more powerful than that of the mu-seums and monuments at Auschwitz andother death camps, where the vastness ofthe crimes can almost be too much, and tooimpersonal, for the mind to grasp. At the very least, Poland’s Jewish relics serve asan important complement to the church-es, castles and historic buildings more nor-mally seen on tourist routes.”
The Jewish Religious Heritage in Europe: Value and Preservation
by Sergey R. Kravtsov
A few monuments of Jewish architecture in eastern Europe are undergoing reconstruction owing to the efforts of wealthy investors, the so-called ‘oligarchs’. In these cases, the decision-making and conservation policies are often shrouded in mystery, under which ‘faits accomplis’ are created in the field where independent expertise and broad public discussion, involving foreign descendants of the pre-war congregants, are indispensable. Reconstructed Great Synagogue in Sataniv (Ukraine) may serve as an evocative case of this kind (...)
An outstanding case is the White Stork Synagogue in Wrocław (Poland), where the Jewish community conditionally allowed non-Jewish organizations to maintain the building and use it as a cultural centre for all citizens. Restoration of dilapidated synagogues by non-Jewish society is successful in Slovakia: a modernist synagogue in Žilina, designed by noted German architect Peter Behrens and built in 1928‒31, then an abandoned cinema theatre, is being restored since 2011 by non-Jewish volunteers as a cultural space. Not only volunteers care about restoration of abandoned synagogues: in the Czech Republic a governmental plan for reconstruction of ten designated synagogues over a controlled period of time facilitates preservation of the Jewish heritage in accordance with established cultural priorities and conservation standards.
Protection of the Jewish heritage in countries not affected by the Holocaust has its own problems. The Jewish population, which once had lived in cramped central urban areas, is resettling in suburbs and other prestigious neighbourhoods. As a result, the historical synagogues are no longer situated at walking distance from the Jewish residential quarters, and thus cannot be attended on the Sabbath and holidays. These abandoned synagogues are preserved as monuments only wherever public opinion demands such a policy and financial means could be acquired from beyond the narrow group of congregants. Otherwise, synagogues are razed, adjusted to other purposes, and are converted into churches and mosques.
Rav Asi said: Synagogues in Babylonia are built from the outset with a stipulation that they not have the full sanctity of a synagogue, in order that it be permitted to use them for the community’s general needs. But nevertheless, one should not act inside them with frivolity. The Gemara explains: What is meant by this? One should not make business calculations in a synagogue. Rav Asi said: With regard to a synagogue in which people make business calculations, they will eventually keep a corpse inside it overnight. The Gemara questions the wording of this dictum: Can it really enter your mind to say that they will ever actually keep a corpse inside it overnight? Could it really be that there will not be any other alternative? Rather, ultimately they will have to keep a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] overnight in the synagogue.
some context - what's 'met mitvsa'?
'A “met mitzvah” is a body that is found and there is no one to bring it to a proper burial. Taking care of a “met mitzvah” is an extremely important mitzvah in Judaism, and it takes precedence even over the study of Torah. A Torah scholar who is walking on his way, learning Torah and encounters a met mitzvah, must immediately stop learning Torah to bring the body to burial.The same is true for helping a bride enter a canopy, meaning attending a wedding. Helping the bride and groom rejoice at their wedding also takes precedence over the study of Torah.' Dr Josh Kulp - daf shevui.
With this context: what do you make of the parallel established between business calculations and the corpse being left overnight in the beit knesset?
וְאֵין נֵיאוֹתִין בָּהֶן אָמַר רָבָא חֲכָמִים וְתַלְמִידֵיהֶם מוּתָּרִין דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מַאי בֵּי רַבָּנַן בֵּיתָא דְרַבָּנַן: וְאֵין נִכְנָסִין בָּהֶן בַּחַמָּה מִפְּנֵי הַחַמָּה וּבַגְּשָׁמִים מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים כִּי הָא דְּרָבִינָא וְרַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה הֲווֹ קָיְימִי וְשָׁאֲלִי שְׁאֵילְתָּא מֵרָבָא אֲתָא זִילְחָא דְמִיטְרָא עָיְילִי לְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא אָמְרִי הַאי דְּעָיְילִינַן לְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם מִיטְרָא אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁמַעְתָּא בָּעֲיָא צִילּוּתָא כְּיוֹמָא דְאִסְתָּנָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי אִי אִצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְאִינִישׁ לְמִיקְרֵי גַּבְרָא מִבֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא מַאי אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן הוּא לֵימָא הִלְכְתָא וְאִי תַּנָּא הוּא לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין וְאִי קָרָא הוּא לֵימָא פְּסוּקָא וְאִי לָא לֵימָא לֵיהּ לְיָנוֹקָא אֵימָא לִי פְּסוּקָיךְ אִי נָמֵי נִישְׁהֵי פּוּרְתָּא וְנֵיקוּם:
§ The baraita taught: And one may not adorn oneself inside them. Rava said: The prohibition applies only to laypeople, but Torah scholars and their disciples are permitted to do so, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of the term: Bei of the Sages, which is used to describe a study hall? It is a shortened form of house [beita] of the Sages. In order to facilitate the constant presence of the Torah scholars in the study hall, it is permitted for them to use the hall as though it were their home. The baraita continued: And nor may one enter them in the sun for protection from the sun, or in the rain to find shelter from the rain. The Gemara explains: This is similar to that case of Ravina and Rav Adda bar Mattana. They were standing and asking a question of Rava, when a shower [zilḥa] of rain began to fall upon them. They all entered the synagogue, saying: Our having entered the synagogue is not due to the rain, that we stay dry; rather, it is due to the fact that the halakha we were discussing requires clarity like the day the north wind [istena] blows and the sky is perfectly clear. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If a person needs to summon an individual from inside a synagogue, what should he do, since it is not permitted to enter a synagogue just for that purpose? Rav Ashi said to him: If he is a young Torah scholar, let him recite a halakha upon entering the synagogue; and if he is a tanna who memorizes large numbers of mishnayot, let him recite various mishnayot; and if he is an expert in the Bible, let him recite a verse; and if he is not able to do even this, let him say to a child: Recite for me a verse that you have learned today. Alternatively, he should remain in the synagogue for a short time and only afterward stand up and leave.
We're once again witnessing our sages cutting corners (but not being over on Payos!) for themselves. Quick recap: what other exemples have we seen together since the beginning of the semester? Do you know other exemple from rabbinic literature? Are some more legitimate than others ?