מפת הסוגיא — מגילה כ״וSugya map — Megillah 26

משנה: בני העיר שמכרו את רחוב העיר — קונים בכספו בית כנסת (שקדושתו גדולה יותר); מכרו בית כנסת — קונים תיבה (ארון לספרי קודש); תיבה — קונים מטפחות (יריעות לכריכת הספרים); מטפחות —

MISHNA: Residents of a town who sold the town square, which was at times used for public prayer and therefore attained a certain degree of sanctity, may use the proceeds of the sale only to purchase something of a greater degree of sanctity. They may therefore 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,

קונים ספרים (נביאים וכתובים); ספרים — קונים ספר תורה. הכלל: עולים בקדושה, ולא מורידים.

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.

אבל אם מכרו ספר תורה — לא יקנו בכספו ספרים (נביאים וכתובים, שקדושתם פחותה); ספרים — לא יקנו מטפחות; מטפחות — לא יקנו תיבה; תיבה — לא יקנו בית כנסת; בית כנסת — לא יקנו רחוב. אין מורידים מקדושה לחולין.

However, the proceeds of a sale of a sacred item may not be used to purchase an item of a lesser degree of sanctity. Therefore, 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.

וכן הדין במותר הדמים — אם נשאר עודף כסף לאחר הקנייה, אף בו עולים בקדושה ואין מורידים.

And similarly, the same limitation applies to any surplus funds from the sale of sacred items, i.e., if after selling an item and purchasing something of a greater degree of sanctity there remain additional, unused funds, the leftover funds are subject to the same principle and may be used to purchase only something of a degree of sanctity greater than that of the original item.

גמרא: על דברי המשנה ׳מכרו רחובהּ של עיר׳ — אמר רבה בר בר חנה בשם רבי יוחנן: זו דעת רבי מנחם בר יוסי בלבד (שנשנתה סתם), אבל חכמים אומרים: אין ברחוב העיר קדושה כלל (ולכן מותר להשתמש בדמיו לכל דבר).

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.

ומה טעם רבי מנחם בר יוסי שיש ברחוב קדושה? הואיל והעם מתפללים בו בתעניות ובמעמדות. וחכמים סוברים: אותה תפילה אינה אלא מקרית, ולכן אין הרחוב נחשב מקום תפילה קבוע ואין בו קדושה.

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.

על ׳בית הכנסת — לוקחין תיבה׳: אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני בשם רבי יונתן — לא שנו (שמותר למכור) אלא בית כנסת של כפר, שהוא של בני הכפר בלבד; אבל בית כנסת של כרך (עיר גדולה), הואיל ובאים אליו אנשים מכל מקום — אין בני העיר יכולים למכרו, שהוא של רבים.

§ The mishna states: If they sold a synagogue, they may purchase an ark. The Gemara cites a qualification to this halakha: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: They taught this only with regard to a synagogue of a village, which is considered the property of the residents of that village. However, with regard to a synagogue of a city, since people come to it from the outside world, the residents of the city are not able to sell it, because it is considered to be the property of the public at large and does not belong exclusively to the residents of the city.

אמר רב אשי: בית הכנסת של מתא מחסיא — אף על פי שבאים אליו מכל מקום, הואיל ועל דעתי הם באים (שאני ייסדתיו) — אם ארצה, אני יכול למכרו.

Rav Ashi said: This synagogue of Mata Meḥasya, although people from the outside world come to it, since they come at my discretion, as I established it, and everything is done there in accordance with my directives, if I wish, I can sell it.

מקשים מברייתא: אמר רבי יהודה — מעשה בבית הכנסת של התרסיים (אומני נחושת) שהיה בירושלים, שמכרוהו לרבי אליעזר ועשה בו כל צרכיו; והרי ירושלים כרך הוא (וכיצד מכרו)?! מתרצים: אותו היה בית כנסת קטן, והם עצמם בנאוהו (ולכן היה שלהם בלבד).

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani’s statement, from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving a synagogue of bronze workers [tursiyyim] that was in Jerusalem, which they sold to Rabbi Eliezer, and he used it for all his own needs. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t the synagogue there one of cities, as Jerusalem is certainly classified as a city; why were they permitted to sell it? The Gemara explains: That one was a small synagogue, and it was the bronze workers themselves who built it. Therefore, it was considered exclusively theirs, and they were permitted to sell it.

מקשים מברייתא נוספת: נאמר ׳בבית ארץ אחוזתכם׳ — ׳אחוזתכם׳ (רכוש פרטי) מיטמא בנגעים, ואין ירושלים מיטמאה בנגעים (שכן אינה רכוש פרטי). אמר רבי יהודה: לא שמעתי שאינו מיטמא אלא מקום המקדש בלבד.

The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: The verse states with regard to leprosy of houses: “And I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34), from which it may be inferred: “Your possession,” i.e., a privately owned house, can become ritually impure with leprosy, but a house in Jerusalem cannot become ritually impure with leprosy, as property there belongs collectively to the Jewish people and is not privately owned. Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard this distinction stated only with regard to the site of the Temple alone, but not with regard to the entire city of Jerusalem.

משמע שבתי כנסת ובתי מדרש שבירושלים כן מיטמאים בנגעים — ואמאי, הרי של רבים (של כרך) הם?! מתרצים: אֵימָא (תקן) שכך אמר רבי יהודה — לא שמעתי שאינו מיטמא אלא מקום מקודש בלבד (ובכלל זה גם בתי כנסת ומדרש).

The Gemara explains: From Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, it is apparent that only the site of the Temple cannot become ritually impure, but synagogues and study halls in Jerusalem can become ritually impure. Why should this be true given that they are owned by the city? The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita and say as follows: Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard this distinction stated only with regard to a sacred site, which includes the Temple, synagogues, and study halls.

במה נחלקו התנא קמא ורבי יהודה? תנא קמא סובר: לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים (אלא היא של כל האומה); ורבי יהודה סובר: נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים (ורק מקום המקדש הוא של כולם).

With regard to what principle do the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The first tanna holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, i.e., it was never assigned to any particular tribe, but rather it belongs collectively to the entire nation. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes, and it is only the site of the Temple itself that belongs collectively to the entire nation.

ומחלוקתם תלויה במחלוקת תנאים אחרת (בענין חלוקת ירושלים לשבטים):

The Gemara notes: They each follow a different opinion in the dispute between these tanna’im:

דתניא: מה היה בחלקו של שבט יהודה — הר הבית, הלשכות והעזרות; ומה היה בחלקו של שבט בנימין — האולם וההיכל ובית קדשי הקדשים (תנא זה סובר שנתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים).

One tanna holds that Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes, as it is taught in a baraita: What part of the Temple was in the tribal portion of Judah? The Temple mount, the Temple chambers, and the Temple courtyards. And what was in the tribal portion of Benjamin? The Entrance Hall, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies.

ורצועת קרקע היתה יוצאת מחלקו של יהודה ונכנסת לחלקו של בנימין, ובה היה המזבח בנוי; ובנימין הצדיק היה מצטער עליה בכל יום לבולעהּ (לצרפהּ לחלקו), שנאמר ׳חופף עליו כל היום׳; לפיכך זכה בנימין ונעשה אכסניא (מארח) לשכינה (שבית קדשי הקדשים בחלקו).

And a strip of land issued forth from the portion of Judah and entered into the portion of Benjamin, and upon that strip the altar was built, and the tribe of Benjamin, the righteous, would agonize over it every day desiring to absorb it into its portion, due to its unique sanctity, as it is stated in Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: “He covers it throughout the day, and he dwells between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12). The phrase “covers it” is understood to mean that Benjamin is continually focused upon that site. Therefore, Benjamin was privileged by becoming the host [ushpizekhan] of the Divine Presence, as the Holy of Holies was built in his portion.

והתנא האחר סובר: לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים, דתניא: אין משכירים בתים בירושלים מפני שאינם שלהם (אלא של כל האומה); רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק אומר: אף לא מיטות; לפיכך עורות הקרבנות — בעלי האכסניות נוטלים אותם בזרוע (בעל כורחם, שאין רשאים לתבוע שכר).

And this other tanna holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, as it is taught in a baraita: One may not rent out houses in Jerusalem, due to the fact that the houses do not belong to those occupying them. Rather, as is true for the entire city, they are owned collectively by the nation. Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: Even beds may not be hired out. Therefore, in the case of the hides of the renter’s offerings that the innkeepers take in lieu of payment, the innkeepers are considered to be taking them by force, as they did not have a right to demand payment.

אמר אביי: למד מכאן שדרך ארץ היא שיניח אדם את כלי-יינו (גולפא) ואת העור (משכא) של בהמתו לבעל האכסניה ששירת אותו (כתשלום על הכנסת אורחים).

Apropos the topic of inns, the Gemara reports: Abaye said: Learn from this baraita that it is proper etiquette for a person to leave his wine flask and the hide of the animal that he slaughtered at his inn, i.e., the inn where he stayed, as a gift for the service he received.

אמר רבא: לא שנו (שיש הגבלה על דמי מכירת בית הכנסת) אלא כשלא מכרו שבעת טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר; אבל אם מכרו שבעת טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר — אפילו

§ The Gemara returns its discussion of the mishna: Rava said: They taught that there is a limitation on what may be purchased with the proceeds of the sale of a synagogue only when the seven representatives of the town who were appointed to administer the town’s affairs had not sold the synagogue in an assembly of the residents of the town. However, if the seven representatives of the town had sold it in an assembly of the residents of the town, then even

לשתות בדמיו שיכר — מותר (לטובי העיר ובהסכמת הציבור יש כוח לבטל את קדושת בית הכנסת לגמרי).

to drink beer with the proceeds seems well and is permitted. The seven representatives have the authority to annul the sanctity of the synagogue, and therefore the proceeds of its sale do not retain any sanctity.

רבינא היו לו חורבות (תילא) של בית כנסת בשדהו. בא לפני רב אשי ושאלו: מהו לזרוע שם? אמר לו: לך קנה אותם משבעת טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר, ואז זרע.

The Gemara relates: Ravina had a certain piece of land on which stood a mound of the ruins of a synagogue. He came before Rav Ashi and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to sowing the land? He said to him: Go, purchase it from the seven representatives of the town in an assembly of the residents of the town, and then you may sow it.

רמי בר אבא היה בונה בית כנסת. היה שם בית כנסת ישן שרצה לסתרו ולהביא ממנו לבנים וקורות לבניין החדש. ישב והסתפק בדברי רב חסדא שאמר: לא יסתור אדם בית כנסת עד שיבנה אחר; שם הטעם משום פשיעה (שמא לא יבנה) — אבל כאן (שהלבנים עצמן עוברות לחדש) מהו? בא לפני רב פפא ואסר לו, ולפני רב הונא ואסר לו.

Rami bar Abba was once building a synagogue. There was a certain old synagogue that he wished to demolish, and bring bricks and beams from it, and bring them to there, to construct a new synagogue. He sat and considered that which Rav Ḥisda said, as Rav Ḥisda said: One should not demolish a synagogue until one has built another synagogue. Rami bar Abba reasoned that Rav Ḥisda’s ruling there is due to a concern of negligence, as perhaps after the first synagogue is demolished, people will be negligent and a new one will never be built. However, in a case like this, where the new synagogue is to be built directly from the materials of the old one, what is the halakha? He came before Rav Pappa to ask his opinion, and he prohibited him from doing so. He then came before Rav Huna, and he also prohibited him from doing so.

אמר רבא: בית כנסת זה — להחליפו (בבניין אחר) או למכרו (בכסף) — מותר, אבל להשכירו או למשכנו — אסור. מה הטעם? בהשכרה ומשכון הוא נשאר בקדושתו (ומשתמשים בו לחול), ואילו במכר וחליפין עוברת קדושתו לדמים או לבניין האחר.

Rava said: With regard to this synagogue, exchanging it for a different building or selling it for money is permitted, but renting it out or mortgaging it is prohibited. What is the reason for this? When a synagogue is rented out or mortgaged, it remains in its sacred state. Therefore, it is prohibited to rent it out or mortgage it, because it will then be used for a non-sacred purpose. However, if it is exchanged or sold, its sanctity is transferred to the other building or to the proceeds of the sale, and therefore the old synagogue building may be used for any purpose.

וכן הלבנים (של בית כנסת) — להחליפן או למכרן מותר, להשכירן אסור. ודברים אלו דווקא בלבנים ישנות (שכבר שימשו בבית כנסת), אבל בחדשות (שרק יועדו לכך) — אין בכך כלום (מותר אף להשכיר).

The same halakha is also true of the bricks of a synagogue; exchanging them or selling them is permitted, but renting them out is prohibited. The Gemara comments: This applies to old bricks that have already been part of a synagogue, but as for new bricks that have only been designated to be used in a synagogue, we have no problem with it if they are rented out for a non-sacred purpose.

ואפילו לדעת הסובר ׳הזמנה (ייעוד) מילתא היא׳ (שהייעוד כבר מקדש) — זה דווקא כשנעשה הדבר מתחילתו לשם כך, כגון האורג בגד במיוחד לכריכת המת; אבל כאן הלבנים כטווי שעדיין לא נארג (חומר גלם שרק יועד) — ובזה אין מי שיאמר שהזמנה מקדשת.

And even according to the one who said that mere designation is significant, i.e., although a certain object was not yet used for the designated purpose, the halakhic ramifications of using it for that purpose already take hold, this applies only in a case where it was created from the outset for that purpose, for example, one who weaves a garment to be used as shrouds for a corpse. However, here the bricks are comparable to already spun thread that was then designated to be used to weave burial shrouds. Concerning such designation, where nothing was specifically created for the designated purpose, there is no one who said that the designation is significant.

לתת בית כנסת במתנה (כדי שיוחזר לחול) — נחלקו בה רב אחא ורבינא: אחד אוסר ואחד מתיר. האוסר: במה תיפקע קדושתו (הרי לא ניתן כנגדו דבר שתעבור אליו הקדושה)?! והמתיר: אילולא היתה לו הנאה מן המתנה לא היה נותנהּ, ונמצא שהמתנה כמכירה (וקדושתו עוברת להנאה).

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree about whether it is permitted to give away a synagogue as a gift to then be used for a non-sacred purpose. One of them prohibited it, and the other one permitted it. The one who prohibits it says: Is it possible that with this act of giving alone its sanctity is removed? This cannot be the case. Since the synagogue was not exchanged for anything else, there is nothing to which the sanctity may be transferred. Consequently, the synagogue remains sacred. And the one who permitted it does so because he reasons that if the donor did not receive any benefit from giving the synagogue, he would not have given it. Therefore, the gift has reverted to being like a sale, and the sanctity is transferred to the benefit received.

תנו רבנן: תשמישי מצוה — נזרקים (לאחר השימוש, שלא נתקדשו), ותשמישי קדושה — נגנזים (בכבוד). אלו הם תשמישי מצוה: סוכה, לולב, שופר, ציצית; ואלו הם תשמישי קדושה: נרתיקי ספרים, תפילין ומזוזות, תיק של ספר תורה, ונרתיק של תפילין ורצועותיהן.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Articles used in the performance of a mitzva may be thrown out after use. Although these items were used in the performance of a mitzva, they are not thereby sanctified. However, articles associated with the sanctity of God’s name, i.e. articles on which God’s name is written, and articles that serve an article that has God’s name written on it, even after they are no longer used, must be interred in a respectful manner. And these items are considered articles of a mitzva: A sukka; a lulav; a shofar; and ritual fringes. And these items are considered articles of sanctity: Cases of scrolls, i.e. of Torah scrolls; phylacteries; and mezuzot; and a container for a Torah scroll; and a cover for phylacteries; and their straps.

אמר רבא: בתחילה הייתי אומר — הכיסא (הסטנדר שעליו קוראים) תשמיש דתשמיש הוא (הספר אינו מונח עליו אלא על מטפחת), ומותר לזרקו; כיוון שראיתי שלפעמים מניחים עליו ספר תורה ממש — אמרתי: תשמיש קדושה הוא, ואסור.

Rava said: Initially, I used to say that this lectern in the synagogue upon which the Torah is read is only an article of an article of sanctity, as the Torah scroll does not rest directly upon the lectern but rather upon the cloth that covers it. And the halakha is that once an article of an article of sanctity is no longer used, it is permitted to throw it out. However, once I saw that the Torah scroll is sometimes placed directly upon the lectern without an intervening cloth. I said that it is an article used directly for items of sanctity, and as such it is prohibited to simply discard it after use.

ועוד אמר רבא: בתחילה הייתי אומר — הפרוכת (הוילון על הארון) תשמיש דתשמיש הוא; כיוון שראיתי שלפעמים מקפלים אותה ומניחים עליה ספר — אמרתי: תשמיש קדושה הוא, ואסור.

And Rava similarly said: Initially, I used to say that this curtain, which is placed at the opening to the ark as a decoration, is only an article of an article of sanctity, as it serves to beautify the ark but is not directly used for the Torah scroll. However, once I saw that sometimes the curtain is folded over and a Torah scroll is placed upon it. I said that it is an article used directly for items of sanctity and as such it is prohibited to simply discard it after use.

ואמר רבא: ארון (תיבה) שנשבר — לעשות ממנו תיבה קטנה מותר (שווה בקדושה), אך לעשות ממנו כיסא (פחות בקדושה) אסור; ופרוכת שבלתה — לעשותה מטפחת לספרי תורה מותר, אך לחומשים (פחות בקדושה) אסור.

And Rava further said: With regard to this ark that has fallen apart, constructing a smaller ark from its materials is permitted, as both have the same level of sanctity, but to use the materials to construct a lectern is prohibited because the lectern has a lesser degree of sanctity. And Rava similarly said: With regard to this curtain used to decorate an ark that has become worn out, to fashion it into a wrapping cloth for Torah scrolls is permitted, but to fashion it into a wrapping cloth for a scroll of one of the five books of the Torah is prohibited.

ואמר רבא: סלים של חומשים (זבילי) ותיבות של ספרי תורה (קמטרי) — תשמישי קדושה הם ונגנזים. ומקשים: פשיטא! ומתרצים: סלקא דעתך לומר שאינם עשויים לכבוד אלא רק לשמירה (ולכן אינם קדושים) — קא משמע לן שאף הם קדושים.

And Rava also said: With regard to these cases for storing scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah and sacks for storing Torah scrolls, they are classified as articles of sanctity. Therefore, they are to be interred when they are no longer in use. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since these items are not made for the honor of the scrolls but rather are made merely to provide protection, they should not be classified as articles of sanctity, Rava therefore teaches us that although they are indeed made to protect the scrolls, they also provide honor and are therefore to be classified as articles of sanctity.

מעשה בבית כנסת של הרומאים (יהודי רומי) שהיה פתוח לחדר שהיה בו מת, ורצו הכהנים להיכנס להתפלל שם (ונמנעו מחמת טומאה). אמר להם רבא: הגביהו את התיבה (הארון) והניחוהָ בפתח — שהיא כלי עץ העשוי לנחת (לעמוד במקומו), וכלי עץ העשוי לנחת אינו מקבל טומאה וחוצץ בפני הטומאה.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain synagogue of the Jews of Rome that opened out into a room in which a corpse was lying, thereby spreading the ritual impurity of the corpse throughout the synagogue. And the priests wished to enter the synagogue in order to pray there. However, it was prohibited for them to do so because a priest may not come in contact with ritual impurity of a corpse. They came and spoke to Rava, about what to do. He said to them: Lift up the ark and put it down in the opening between the two rooms, as it is a wooden utensil that is designated to rest in one place and not be moved from there, and the halakha is that a wooden utensil that is designated to rest is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and therefore it serves as a barrier to prevent ritual impurity from spreading.

אמרו לו רבנן לרבא: והרי לפעמים מטלטלים את התיבה כשספר תורה מונח בתוכה, ונמצא שהיא ׳מיטלטל מלא וריקם׳ (מיטלטלת בין מלאה בין ריקה — ולכן מקבלת טומאה ואינה חוצצת)! אמר להם: אם כן — אי אפשר לתקן.

The Rabbis said to Rava: But isn’t the ark sometimes moved when a Torah scroll is still resting inside it, and therefore it is a utensil that is moved both when it is full and when it is empty; such a utensil is susceptible to ritual impurity and cannot prevent ritual impurity from spreading. He said to them: If so, if it is as you claim, then it is not possible to remedy the situation.

אמר מר זוטרא: מטפחות ספרים שבלו — עושים אותן תכריכים למת מצוה, וזו היא גניזתן הראויה.

Mar Zutra said: With regard to wrapping cloths of Torah scrolls that have become worn out, they may be made into shrouds for a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], and this is their most appropriate manner for being interred.

ואמר רבא: ספר תורה שבלה — גונזים אותו אצל תלמיד חכם (קוברים בקברו), ואפילו תלמיד חכם ששונה הלכות בלבד. אמר רב אחא בר יעקב: ובכלי חרס (נותנים את הספר בקבר), שנאמר ׳ונתתם בכלי חרש למען יעמדו ימים רבים׳.

And Rava said: A Torah scroll that became worn out is interred and buried next to a Torah scholar, and in this regard, a Torah scholar is defined even as one who only studies the halakhot in the Mishna and the baraitot but is not proficient in their analysis. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: And when it is buried, it is first placed in an earthenware vessel, as it is stated: “And put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for many days” (Jeremiah 32:14).

אמר רב פפי בשם רבא: להפוך בית כנסת לבית מדרש — מותר (שקדושת בית המדרש גדולה יותר), אך מבית מדרש לבית כנסת — אסור; ורב פפא בשם רבא שונה להפך. אמר רב אחא:

§ And Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: To convert a building from a synagogue into a study hall is permitted, but from a study hall into a synagogue is prohibited, as he holds that a study hall has a higher degree of sanctity than a synagogue. And Rav Pappa in the name of Rava teaches the opposite, as he holds that a synagogue has a higher degree of sanctity than a study hall. Rav Aḥa said:

כדברי רב פפי מסתבר, שאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: מותר לעשות בית כנסת בית מדרש (משמע שבית המדרש קדוש יותר). שמע מינה (כך ההלכה).

It stands to reason to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is permitted for a synagogue to be made into a study hall. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that the opinion of Rav Pappi is correct.