Kreuzberg Kollel 4.1

Welcome to the first source sheet of the fourth semester of the Kollel!

Our first (and main) task for the day is to read all of the Mishnayot (sections) of our Perek (chapter). It's an interesting and diverse chapter. Some questions to consider:

-What are the themes of this chapter? If you had to give this chapter a title, what would you give it?

-What is your first emotional response to this chapter? What does it make you think or feel as a gut emotional reaction?

-What are some ways that some of these things being discussed in the Mishnah are still relevant today?

After going through the Mishnahs and encountering these questions, we can go on to the first section of our Gemara, which clarifies some of the ideas in the Mishnah. IF you still have time, you can go on to some of the other texts at the bottom which (I think) are in conversation with some of the ideas in our Mishnah. But maybe I'm wrong!

(א) בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁמָּכְרוּ רְחוֹבָהּ שֶׁל עִיר, לוֹקְחִין בְּדָמָיו בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת. בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת, לוֹקְחִין תֵּבָה. תֵּבָה, לוֹקְחִין מִטְפָּחוֹת. מִטְפָּחוֹת, לוֹקְחִין סְפָרִים. סְפָרִים, לוֹקְחִין תּוֹרָה. אֲבָל אִם מָכְרוּ תוֹרָה, לֹא יִקְחוּ סְפָרִים. סְפָרִים, לֹא יִקְחוּ מִטְפָּחוֹת. מִטְפָּחוֹת, לֹא יִקְחוּ תֵבָה. תֵּבָה, לֹא יִקְחוּ בֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת, לֹא יִקְחוּ אֶת הָרְחוֹב. וְכֵן בְּמוֹתְרֵיהֶן. אֵין מוֹכְרִין אֶת שֶׁל רַבִּים לְיָחִיד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ מִקְּדֻשָּׁתוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם כֵּן, אַף לֹא מֵעִיר גְּדוֹלָה לְעִיר קְטַנָּה:

(1) Residents of a town who sold the town square, may purchase a synagogue with the proceeds of the sale. If they sold a synagogue, they may purchase an ark in which to house sacred scrolls. If they sold an ark, they may purchase wrapping cloths for the sacred scrolls. If they sold wrapping cloths, they may purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings. If they sold scrolls of the Prophets and Writings, they may purchase a Torah scroll. However, if they sold a Torah scroll, they may not use the proceeds to purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings. If they sold scrolls of the Prophets and Writings, they may not purchase wrapping cloths. If they sold wrapping cloths, they may not purchase an ark. If they sold an ark, they may not purchase a synagogue. If they sold a synagogue, they may not purchase a town square. And similarly, the same limitation applies to any surplus funds from the sale of sacred items. They may not sell a sacred object belonging to the community to an individual, even if the object will still be used for the same purpose, due to the fact that by doing so they downgrade its degree of sanctity, as an item used by fewer people is considered to have a lower degree of sanctity than one used by many; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Rabbis said to him: If so, by your logic, it should also not be permitted to sell a sacred object from a large town to a small town. However, such a sale is certainly permitted, and therefore it must also be permitted to sell such an object to an individual.

(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:

(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, which would be an affront to the synagogue’s previous sanctity: For a bathhouse, where people stand undressed; or for a tannery [burseki], due to the foul smell; for immersion, i.e., to be used as a ritual bath, where people also stand undressed; 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, even if that is one of the above four purposes.

(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 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. 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. The halakha that a synagogue in disrepair still may not be used for mundane purposes is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And I will bring desolation to your sanctuaries” (Leviticus 26:31). The fact that the word “sanctuaries” appears after the word “desolation” indicates that their sanctity remains upon them 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 that it will bring to those who see it. It will remind them of the disrepair of the synagogue and the need to rebuild it.

(ד) רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, קוֹרִין בְּפָרָשַׁת שְׁקָלִים (שמות ל). חָל לִהְיוֹת בְּתוֹךְ הַשַּׁבָּת, מַקְדִּימִין לְשֶׁעָבַר וּמַפְסִיקִין לְשַׁבָּת אַחֶרֶת. בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, זָכוֹר (דברים כה). בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית, פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה (במדבר י״ט:ב׳). בָּרְבִיעִית, הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם (שמות יב). בָּחֲמִישִׁית, חוֹזְרִין לִכְסִדְרָן. לַכֹּל מַפְסִיקִין, בְּרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים, בַּחֲנֻכָּה וּבְפוּרִים, בַּתַּעֲנִיּוֹת וּבַמַּעֲמָדוֹת וּבְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים:

(4) On four Shabbatot during and surround-ing the month of Adar, a Torah portion of seasonal significance is read. When the New Moon of Adar occurs on Shabbat, the congregation reads the portion of Shekalim on that Shabbat. If the New Moon occurs during the middle of the week, they advance the reading of that portion to the previous Shabbat, and, in such a case, they interrupt the reading of the four portions on the following Shabbat, which would be the first Shabbat of the month of Adar, and no additional portion is read on it. On the second Shabbat, the Shabbat prior to Purim, they read the portion: “Remember what Amalek did” (Deuteronomy 25:17–19), which details the mitzva to remember and destroy the nation of Amalek. On the third Shabbat, they read the portion of the Red Heifer [Para] (Numbers 19:1–22), which details the purification process for one who became ritually impure through contact with a corpse. On the fourth Shabbat, they read the portion: “This month [haḥodesh] shall be for you” (Exodus 12:1–20), which describes the offering of the Paschal lamb. On the fifth Shabbat, they resume the regular weekly order of readings and no special portion is read. For all special days, the congregation interrupts the regular weekly order of readings, and a special portion relating to the character of the day is read. This applies on the New Moons, on Hanukkah, and on Purim, on fast days, and on the non-priestly watches, and on Yom Kippur.

(ה) בְּפֶסַח קוֹרִין בְּפָרָשַׁת מוֹעֲדוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (ויקרא כב). בַּעֲצֶרֶת, שִׁבְעָה שָׁבֻעוֹת (דברים טז). בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ (ויקרא כג). בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, אַחֲרֵי מוֹת (שם טז). בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חָג קוֹרִין בְּפָרָשַׁת מוֹעֲדוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (ויקרא כג), וּבִשְׁאָר כָּל יְמוֹת הֶחָג בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הֶחָג (במדבר כט):

(5) On the first day of Passover, the congregation reads from the portion of the Festivals of Leviticus (Leviticus 22:26–23:44). On Shavuot they read the portion of “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9–12). On Rosh HaShana they read the portion of “And on the seventh month on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:23–25). On Yom Kippur they read the portion of “After the death” (Leviticus 16). On the first Festival day of Sukkot they read from the portion of the Festivals of Leviticus (Leviticus 22:26–23:44), and on the other days of Sukkot they read selections from the portion of the offerings of Sukkot (Numbers 29:12–39).

(ו) בַּחֲנֻכָּה, בַּנְּשִׂיאִים (שם ז). בְּפוּרִים, וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק (שמות יז). בְּרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים, וּבְרָאשֵׁי חָדְשֵׁיכֶם (במדבר כח). בַּמַּעֲמָדוֹת, בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְּרֵאשִׁית (בראשית א). בַּתַּעֲנִיּוֹת, בְּרָכוֹת וּקְלָלוֹת (ויקרא כו). אֵין מַפְסִיקִין בַּקְּלָלוֹת, אֶלָּא אֶחָד קוֹרֵא אֶת כֻּלָּן. בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי וּבְשַׁבָּת בַּמִּנְחָה, קוֹרִין כְּסִדְרָן, וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהֶם מִן הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג), וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי יְיָ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִצְוָתָן שֶׁיְּהוּ קוֹרִין כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בִּזְמַנּוֹ:

(6) On each day of Hanukkah they read selections from the portion of the dedication of the altar by the tribal princes (Numbers 7). On Purim they read the portion of “And Amalek came” (Exodus 17:8–16). On the New Moon they read the portion of “And in the beginnings of your months” (Numbers 28:11–15). And in the non-priestly watches they read the act of Creation (Genesis 1:1–2:3). (explanatory note: The Jewish people were divided into twenty-four watches. Each week, it would be the turn of a different watch to send representatives to Jerusalem to be present in the Temple to witness the sacrificial service. Those remaining behind would fast during the week, from Monday to Thursday, offer special prayers, and read the account of Creation from the Torah.) On fast days, they read the portion of blessings and curses (Leviticus, chapter 26). One should not interrupt the reading of the curses by having two different people read them. Rather, one person reads all of them. On Mondays, and on Thursdays, and on Shabbat during the afternoon service, they read in accordance with the regular weekly order. However, these readings are not counted as a progression in the reckoning of reading the Torah portions, i.e., they do not proceed on Monday to read the section that immediately follows the section read on Shabbat during the afternoon, and then the following section on Thursday. Rather, until the reading on the following Shabbat morning, they return to and read the same first section of the Torah portion that follows the portion that was read on the previous Shabbat morning. On Festivals and holidays, they read a portion relating to the character of the day, as it is stated: “And Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44), which indicates that part of the mitzva of the Festivals is that the people should read the portion relating to them, each one in its appointed time.

The Gemara!

גְּמָ׳ בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁמָּכְרוּ רְחוֹבָהּ שֶׁל עִיר אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בַּר יוֹסֵי סְתִומְתָּאָה אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים הָרְחוֹב אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשָּׁה וְרַבִּי מְנַחֵם בַּר יוֹסֵי מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ הוֹאִיל וְהָעָם מִתְפַּלְּלִין בּוֹ בְּתַעֲנִיּוֹת וּבְמַעֲמָדוֹת וְרַבָּנַן הַהוּא אַקְרַאי בְּעָלְמָא:
GEMARA: The mishna states: Residents of a town who sold the town square may purchase a synagogue with the proceeds. Concerning this mishna, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei, cited unattributed. However, the Rabbis say: The town square does not have any sanctity. Therefore, if it is sold, the residents may use the money from the sale for any purpose. And Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei, what is his reason for claiming that the town square has sanctity? Since the people pray in the town square on communal fast days and on non-priestly watches, it is defined as a place of prayer and as such has sanctity. And the Rabbis, why do they disagree? They maintain that use of the town square is merely an irregular occurrence. Consequently, the town square is not to be defined as a place of prayer, and so it has no sanctity.

We go up in holiness, we don't go down

אָמַר עוּלָּא: פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ תְּרֵי אָמוֹרָאֵי בְּמַעְרְבָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זְבִידָא. חַד אָמַר טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי כְּנֶגֶד יָמִים הַנִּכְנָסִין, וְטַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל כְּנֶגֶד יָמִים הַיּוֹצְאִין. וְחַד אָמַר טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי כְּנֶגֶד פָּרֵי הַחַג, וְטַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל דְּמַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין.
Ulla said: There were two amoraim in the West, Eretz Yisrael, who disagreed with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida. One said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the incoming days, i.e., the future. On the first day, eight days remain in Hanukkah, one kindles eight lights, and on the second day seven days remain, one kindles seven, etc. The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the outgoing days. Each day, the number of lights corresponds to the number of the days of Hanukkah that were already observed. And one said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the festival of Sukkot: Thirteen were sacrificed on the first day and each succeeding day one fewer was sacrificed (Numbers 29:12–31). The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Therefore, if the objective is to have the number of lights correspond to the number of days, there is no alternative to increasing their number with the passing of each day.
אין מוכרין את של רבים ליחיד כו': ואין הלכה כרבי יהודה:
אין קורין עם כל אחד פחות מג' פסוקים שנים קורין ג' ג' ואחד קורא ד' ואיזה מהם שקרא ד' הרי זה משובח:
Each person does not read less than 3 verses. Two read 3 each, and one reads 4, and whichever one of them it is who reads 4, behold this one is praiseworthy.
ואיזה מהם. כלומר דמי שקרא יותר משובח יותר ואם הראשון קרא ד' משובח דמצינו לעולם החשוב חשוב קודם ובמנורה מצינו שאמצעי משובח ואם אחרון קרא ד' י"ל דמעלין בקדש ואין מורידין וא"ת גבי נרות חנוכה דאמרי' דוק' בראשון מדליק א' ומוסיף והולך ואמרינן דמעלין בקודש ולא מורידין ולא אמרינן דראשון משובח וי"ל דבחד גבר' יש לו להעלות בקדש אבל הכא תלתא גברי נינהו ואין תולין זה בזה:

Which is to say, one who reads more is more praiseworthy...

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיוֹסֵף בֶּן אִלֵּם בְּצִיפּוֹרִי שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמִינּוּהוּ תַּחְתָּיו, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: רִאשׁוֹן — חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, שֵׁנִי — אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֹא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְלֹא לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל — מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה. כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מִשּׁוּם מַעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין.
Rabbi Yosei said as proof for his opinion: There was an incident involving the priest Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when a reason for disqualification befell a High Priest, the priests appointed him in his stead. After the cause of the disqualification was resolved, the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to hatred, jealousy and bitterness that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of a common priest.
שמעלין בקודש ולא מורידין ואחד של זהב מבפנים שעליו לחם הפנים תמיד
The reason the shewbread is placed on a gold table when it is removed, rather than on a marble or silver table, is that one elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since it is set on the gold shewbread Table all week, it cannot be downgraded to a marble or silver table upon its removal. And there was one Table of gold within the Sanctuary, upon which the shewbread is always found.
ומנלן דמעלין אמר רבי אחא בר יעקב דאמר קרא (במדבר יז, ג) את מחתות החטאים האלה בנפשותם ועשו אותם רקועי פחים ציפוי למזבח כי הקריבום לפני ה' ויקדשו ויהיו לאות לבני ישראל בתחילה תשמישי מזבח ועכשיו גופו של מזבח
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states with regard to the coal pans of the men of Korah’s assembly, in which they burned incense before they were consumed by a fire: “The coal pans of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives, and let them be made beaten plates for a covering of the altar, for they have become sacred because they were brought before the Lord, that they may be a sign to the children of Israel” (Numbers 17:3). Initially the coal pans had the status of articles used in the service of the altar, as they contained the incense, and now that they have been made into a covering for the altar their status has been elevated to that of the altar itself.

Some thoughts on Public Space

Feminist theory and Hannah Arendt’s concept of public space

Seyla Benhabib

Hannah Arendt’s major theoretical work, The Human Condition, is usually, and not altogether unjustifiably, treated as an anti-modernist political work. By ’the rise of the social’ Arendt means the institutional differentiation of modern societies into the narrowly political realm on the one hand and the economic market and the family on the other. As a result of these transformations, economic processes which had hitherto been confined to the ’shadowy realm of the household’ emancipate themselves and become public matters. The same historical process which brought forth the modern constitutional state also brings forth ’society’, that realm of social interaction which interposes itself between the ’household’ on the one hand and the political state on the other (Arendt, 1973: 38~9). Arendt sees in this process the occluding of the political by the ’social’ and the transformation of the public space of politics into a pseudo-space of interaction in which individuals no longer ’act’ but ’merely behave’ as economic producers, consumers and urban city-dwellers

From the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:

The social value of public space is wide ranging and lies in the contribution it makes to ‘people’s attachment to their locality and opportunities for mixing with others, and in people’s memory of places’ (Dines and Cattell et al., 2006). Places can provide opportunities for social interaction, social mixing and social inclusion, and can facilitate the development of community ties.

Sacred Architecture and Public Space under the Conditions of a New Visibility of Religion

Jakob Helmut Deibl

The starting point of our reflections was the decision or simply the contingent historical development through which a religion achieves presence and visibility in cities by means of architecture. In doing so, it exposes itself to the complex conditions of how cities work (cf. Wenzel 2013): The sacred buildings that are built in the wake of that decision have a share in the filtering function of the cities, position themselves in their streams and reflect their peculiar temporality. They cannot avoid the question as to their contribution to public space, especially as to how its tendency to erode is to be counteracted. In order to understand their meaning, i.e., to set in motion the process mentally grasping them, images are needed that can be connected to various discourses and accomplish a work of translation but can also be dismissed again if they prove to no longer be helpful. The motif of the ark that ended up in urban space has accompanied our explanations serving precisely as such a metaphor. In the following section, where I will try to bring together the threads that I have picked up so far and ask about the potential contribution of sacred buildings to contemporary cities, I will focus on the aesthetic dimension of public space. What is at issue is thus not the subject that moves in public space and visits a synagogue, church, mosque or temple with the aim of acquiring knowledge or with the urgency to act but the subject that feels and experiences itself in its dealings with public space and its sacred buildings.