Datasets:

davidr70
/

megilla_sugyot_merged

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 466 rows

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.

id stringlengths 52 55	metadata dict	content stringlengths 171 3.77k
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.4	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.4", "sections": [ "Megillah.27b.14", "Megillah.27b.15", "Megillah.27b.16", "Megillah.27b.17" ] }	A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Nahman: One who prayed should distance himself four cubits from where he was standing, and only then may he urinate. And one who urinated should distance himself four cubits, and only then may he pray. Rav Nahman said to him: Granted, the second clause of the baraita, that one who urinated should distance himself four cubits and only then may he pray, makes sense, as we already learned in a mishna (Berakhot 22b): How far must one distance oneself from urine and excrement? Four cubits. But the first clause of the baraita, that one who prayed should distance himself four cubits from where he was standing and only then may he urinate, why should I require this? How could there be such a halakha? If that is so, you have sanctified all the streets of the city of Nehardea, for people have certainly prayed on every one of its streets. According to this halakha, it should be prohibited to urinate everywhere. The Gemara answers: Emend and teach the baraita as saying not that one should distance himself four cubits, but that one should wait the time it takes to walk four cubits. The Gemara addresses the emended version of the baraita: Granted, its second clause, that one who urinated waits the time it takes to walk four cubits and only then may he pray, makes sense. This is due to the droplets of urine that may still be issuing from him; he should wait until they cease entirely. However, with regard to the first clause, that one who prayed should wait the time it takes to walk four cubits and only then may he urinate, why should I require this? Rav Ashi said: Because for all the time it takes to walk four cubits, his prayer is still arranged in his mouth, and his lips are still articulating them.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.5	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.5", "sections": [ "Megillah.27b.18", "Megillah.27b.19", "Megillah.27b.20" ] }	The Gemara cites a series of Sages who explained the reasons they were blessed with longevity and provides a mnemonic device, indicating the order in which the Sages are cited: Zayin, lamed, peh, nun. Zayin for Rabbi Zakkai; lamed for Rabbi Elazar; peh for Rabbi Perida; nun for Rabbi Nehunya. The Gemara presents the first incident: Rabbi Zakkai was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never urinated within four cubits of a place that had been used for prayer. Nor did I ever call my fellow by a nickname. And I never neglected the mitzva of sanctifying the day of Shabbat over wine. I was meticulous about this mitzva to the extent that I had an elderly mother, and once, when I did not have wine, she sold the kerchief that was on her head, and from the proceeds she brought me wine upon which to do the mitzva of sanctifying the day. It was taught concerning Rabbi Zakkai: When his mother died, she left him three hundred barrels of wine. When he died, he left his sons three thousand barrels of wine. Since they were so meticulous in the mitzva of sanctifying the day of Shabbat with wine, God rewarded them with wealth and an abundance of wine.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.6	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.6", "sections": [ "Megillah.27b.21", "Megillah.27b.22" ] }	In a related incident, it once happened that Rav Huna was girded with a piece of straw [rita] and was standing before Rav. Rav said to him: What is this? Why are you dressed in this way? He said to him: I had no wine for sanctifying the day of Shabbat, so I pawned my belt [hemyanai] , and with the proceeds I brought wine for sanctifying the day. Rav said to him: May it be Gods will that you be enveloped in silk [shiraei] in reward for such dedication. When Rabba, his son, was married, Rav Huna, who was a short man, was lying on his bed, and owing to his diminutive size he went unnoticed. His daughters and daughters-in-law came into the room and removed and threw their silk garments upon him until he was entirely enveloped in silk. With this, Ravs blessing was fulfilled to the letter. When Rav heard about this, he became angry with Rav Huna, and said: What is the reason that when I blessed you, you did not respond in kind and say to me: And likewise to the Master? Had you done so, I would have also benefitted from the blessing.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.7	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.7", "sections": [ "Megillah.27b.23" ] }	The Gemara discusses the second occasion where a Sage explained his longevity: Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never made a shortcut through a synagogue. Nor did I ever stride over the heads of the sacred people, i.e., I never stepped over people sitting in the study hall in order to reach my place, so as not to appear scornful of them. And I never raised my hands in the Priestly Benediction without reciting a blessing beforehand.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.8	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.8", "sections": [ "Megillah.27b.1", "Megillah.27b.24", "Megillah.28a.1", "Megillah.28a.2" ] }	town scholar supervising the handling of the communitys needs, in the town in which the charity was collected. However, if there is a town scholar there, the money should be given to the town scholar, and he may use it as he sees fit. Since, in this case, the money had been given to Rav Huna, the use of the money should be up to his discretion. Rav Huna added: And all the more so in this instance, as both my poor in my town and your poor in your town rely upon me and my collections of charity. Rav Huna was also in charge of distributing charity for the surrounding area. It was certainly proper to leave the money with him, so that he could distribute it among all those in need. On the third occasion, Rabbi Perida was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, no person ever arrived before me to the study hall, as I was always the first to arrive. And I never recited Grace after Meals in the presence of a priest, but rather I gave him the privilege to lead. And I never ate from an animal whose priestly portions, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, had not already been set aside. Another example of Rabbi Peridas meticulous behavior is based on that which Rabbi Yitzhak said that Rabbi Yohanan said: It is prohibited to eat meat from an animal whose priestly portions have not been set aside. And Rabbi Yitzhak said: Anyone who eats meat from an animal whose priestly portions have not been set aside is regarded as if he were eating untithed produce. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion. Rather, it is permitted to eat meat from such an animal. Nevertheless, Rabbi Perida acted stringently and did not eat from it.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.9	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.9", "sections": [ "Megillah.28a.3", "Megillah.28a.4", "Megillah.28a.5" ] }	The Gemara considers another of Rabbi Peridas actions: He said: And I never blessed Grace after Meals in the presence of a priest, but rather I gave him the privilege to lead. Is this to say that doing so is especially virtuous? But hasnt Rabbi Yohanan said: Any Torah scholar who allows someone else to bless Grace after Meals in his presence, i.e., to lead for him, even if that person is a High Priest who is an ignoramus, then that Torah scholar is liable to receive the death penalty for belittling his own honor? This is as it is stated: All those who hate me, love death (Proverbs 8: 36) . Do not read it as those who hate Me [mesanai] , rather read it as though it said: Those who make Me hated [masniai] . The honor due to a Torah scholar is representative of the honor of God in the world. Therefore, by belittling his own honor, he causes others to fail to respect God, which can ultimately develop into hate. If so, why did Rabbi Perida consider his behavior to be so deserving of praise? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Perida says this, he was speaking of people of equal stature. He was particular to honor the priesthood only when the priest was also a Torah scholar.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.10	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.10", "sections": [ "Megillah.28a.6", "Megillah.28a.7", "Megillah.28a.8", "Megillah.28a.9" ] }	The Gemara discusses the fourth Sage who was blessed with longevity: Rabbi Nehunya ben HaKana was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never attained veneration at the expense of my fellows degradation. Nor did my fellows curse ever go up with me upon my bed. If ever I offended someone, I made sure to appease him that day. Therefore, when I went to bed I knew that no one had any grievances against me. And I was always openhanded with my money. The Gemara clarifies the meaning of his statement: Rabbi Nehunya said: I never attained veneration at the expense of my fellows denigration. This is referring to conduct such as that of Rav Huna, who was carrying a hoe over his shoulder as he returned from his work. Rav Hana bar Hanilai came and, out of respect for his teacher, took the hoe from him to carry it for him. Rav Huna said to him: If you are accustomed to carry such objects in your own city, you may carry it; but if not, then for me to be venerated through your denigration is not pleasing for me. Rabbi Nehunya also said: Nor did I ever allow the resentment caused by my fellows curse to go up with me upon my bed. This is referring to conduct such as that of Mar Zutra. When he would go to bed at night, he would first say: I forgive anyone who has vexed me. Lastly, Rabbi Nehunya said: And I was always openhanded with my money. This is referring to conduct such as that which the Master said: Job was openhanded with his money, as he would always leave at least a peruta of his money with the shopkeeper. He never demanded the change from his transactions.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.11	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.11", "sections": [ "Megillah.28a.10", "Megillah.28a.11" ] }	On a similar occasion, Rabbi Akiva asked Rabbi Nehunya the Great; he said to him: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? Rabbi Nehunyas attendants [gavzei] came and started beating Rabbi Akiva, for they felt that he was acting disrespectfully by highlighting Rabbi Nehunyas old age. Rabbi Akiva ran away from them, and he climbed up and sat upon the top of a date palm. From there, he said to Rabbi Nehunya: My teacher, I have a question about the verse concerning the daily offering that states one lamb (Numbers 28: 4) . If it is stated lamb in the singular, why is it also stated one; isnt this superfluous? Upon hearing Rabbi Akivas scholarly question, Rabbi Nehunya said to his attendants: He is clearly a young Torah scholar, let him be. Rabbi Nehunya then addressed Rabbi Akivas questions. With regard to the second question, he said to him: The word one teaches that the lamb should be the unique one of its flock, i.e., only the best quality lamb should be used.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.12	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.12", "sections": [ "Megillah.28a.12", "Megillah.28a.13", "Megillah.28a.14" ] }	With regard to the original question, Rabbi Nehunya said to him: In all my days I never accepted gifts. Nor was I ever inflexible by exacting a measure of retribution against those who wronged me. And I was always openhanded with my money. The Gemara explains: I never accepted gifts; this is referring to conduct such as that of Rabbi Elazar. When they would send him gifts from the house of the Nasi, he would not take them, and when they would invite him, he would not go there, as he considered hospitality to be a type of gift. He would say to them: Is it not pleasing to you that I should live, as it is written: He that hates gifts shall live (Proverbs 15: 27) ? In contrast, it was reported about Rabbi Zeira that when they would send him gifts from the house of the Nasi, he would not accept them, but when they would invite him, he would go there. He said: They are honored by my presence; therefore my visiting is not considered like I am taking a gift from them. He also said: Nor was I ever inflexible in exacting a measure of retribution against those who wronged me. This is referring to conduct such as that which Rava said: Anyone who overlooks exacting a measure of retribution against those who wronged him, all his transgressions are removed from him, as it is stated: He pardons iniquity and overlooks transgression (Micah 7: 18) , which is homiletically read as saying: For whom does He pardon iniquity? For he who overlooks transgressions that others have committed against him.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.13	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.13", "sections": [ "Megillah.28a.15" ] }	In a similar incident, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to him: Why do you ask me, are you wearied of my long life? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My teacher, it is Torah and so I must learn it. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha said to him: In all my days I never gazed at the likeness of a wicked man, as Rabbi Yohanan said: It is prohibited for a person to gaze in the image of the likeness of a wicked man, as it is stated that the prophet Elisha said to Jehoram king of Israel: Were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judea, I would not look toward you, nor see you (II Kings 3: 14) .
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.14	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.14", "sections": [ "Megillah.28a.16", "Megillah.28a.17", "Megillah.28a.18", "Megillah.28a.19" ] }	Rabbi Elazar said: One who gazes at the likeness of an evil man, his eyes become dim, as it is stated: And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim so that he could not see (Genesis 27: 1) . This happened because he gazed at the wicked Esau. The Gemara asks: Did this cause Isaacs blindness? Didnt Rabbi Yitzhak say: A curse of an ordinary person should not be lightly regarded in your eyes, because Abimelech cursed Sarah, and although he was not a righteous man, his curse was nevertheless fulfilled, albeit in her descendant. As it is stated that Abimelech said to Sarah with regard to the gift that he gave to Abraham: Behold, it is for you a covering of the eyes (Genesis 20: 16) . Do not read it as a covering [kesut] of the eyes, but rather read it as: A blindness [kesiat] of the eyes. Abimelechs words were a veiled curse for Sarah to suffer from blindness. While she herself did not suffer, the curse was apparently fulfilled in the blindness of her son, Isaac. According to Rabbi Yitzhak, Abimelechs curse was the cause of Isaacs blindness, and it was not, as Rabbi Elazar suggested, the fact he gazed at Esau. The Gemara explains: Both this and that jointly caused it. Rava said: The prohibition against gazing at the likeness of a wicked person is derived from here: It is not good to raise the face of the wicked (Proverbs 18: 5) . At the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korhas departure from this world, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My teacher, bless me. He said to him: May it be Gods will that you live to reach to half of my days. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard this, he asked in astonishment: Are you saying that to the entirety of your days I should not reach? Why? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha said to him: Shall those who come after you just tend cattle? If you live as long as me, your sons will never be able to succeed you in the position of Nasi. As such, they will never achieve greatness in Torah, and it will be as if they just tended cattle throughout their lives. It is therefore better that your life not be so prolonged, so that they have the opportunity to rise to eminence.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.15	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.3.15", "sections": [ "Megillah.28a.20", "Megillah.28a.21" ] }	Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi both spoke on this topic: One of them said: May a blessing come to me for I never gazed at a wicked gentile. And the other one said: May a blessing come to me for I never formed a partnership with a wicked gentile, so as not to have any association with a wicked person. The Gemara presents a similar incident: Rabbi Zeira was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I was never angry inside my house with members of my household who acted against my wishes. Nor did I ever walk ahead of someone who was a greater Torah scholar than me. Nor did I ever meditate upon words of Torah in filthy alleyways, as doing so is a disgrace to the Torah. Nor did I ever walk four cubits without meditating on words of Torah or without wearing phylacteries. Nor did I ever sleep in a study hall, neither a deep sleep or a brief nap. Nor did I ever rejoice when my fellow stumbled. Nor did I ever call my fellow by his derogatory nickname [hanikhato] . And some say that he said: I never called my fellow by his nickname [hakhinato] , i.e., even one that is not derogatory.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.m.4.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.m.4.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.28a.22", "Megillah.28a.23", "Megillah.28a.24" ] }	MISHNA: 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.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.28a.1", "Megillah.28a.25", "Megillah.28b.1" ] }	And I never recited Grace after Meals in the presence of a priest, but rather I gave him the privilege to lead. And I never ate from an animal whose priestly portions, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, had not already been set aside. 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; and one may not adorn 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.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.2	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.2", "sections": [ "Megillah.28b.2", "Megillah.28b.3" ] }	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. It will remind them of the disrepair of the synagogue and the need to rebuild 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.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.3	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.3", "sections": [ "Megillah.28b.4", "Megillah.28b.5" ] }	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 communitys 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, Rav Asi means that as a punishment for acting with frivolity people in the community will die, including those who have no family, and so ultimately they will have to keep a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] overnight in the synagogue.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.4	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.4", "sections": [ "Megillah.28b.6" ] }	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.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.5	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.5", "sections": [ "Megillah.28b.7", "Megillah.28b.8" ] }	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 [zilha] 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. Therefore, we are entering the synagogue for the sake of studying Torah, which is certainly permitted. Rav Aha, 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.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.6	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.6", "sections": [ "Megillah.28b.10", "Megillah.28b.11", "Megillah.28b.9" ] }	The Gemara offers another example: Rafram once eulogized his daughter-in-law inside a synagogue. He said: Due to my honor and the honor of the deceased, everyone will come to the eulogy. It will consequently be a public event, and it is therefore permitted to hold it in a synagogue. Similarly, Rabbi Zeira once eulogized a certain Sage inside a synagogue. He said: Whether due to my honor, or whether due to the honor of the deceased, everyone will come to the eulogy. Reish Lakish once eulogized a certain young Torah scholar who was frequently present in Eretz Yisrael and who used to study halakha in the twenty-fourth row of the study hall. He sat so far back because he was not one of the principal scholars. Nevertheless, when he died, Reish Lakish said: Alas, Eretz Yisrael has lost a great man. The baraita continues: And one may offer a eulogy inside them for a Torah scholar if the public attends the eulogy. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a eulogy for the public? Rav Hisda depicted a case: For example, a eulogy for a Torah scholar at which Rav Sheshet is present. Owing to his presence, many people will come. Rav Sheshet himself depicted another case: For example, a eulogy at which Rav Hisda is present.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.7	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.7", "sections": [ "Megillah.28b.12", "Megillah.28b.13" ] }	In contrast, there was a certain man who used to study halakha, the Sifra, and the Sifrei, and the Tosefta, and he died. People came and said to Rav Nahman: Let the Master eulogize him. He said to them: How can I eulogize him? Should I say: Alas, a basket filled with books is lost? This would not be true. Although the man studied many areas of Torah, he was not proficient in them. The Gemara compares the conduct of Reish Lakish in Eretz Yisrael to that of Rav Nahman in Babylonia. Come and see what the difference is between the harsh scholars of Eretz Yisrael and the saintly ones of Babylonia. Although Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was still more respectful than Rav Nahman, who was known for his saintliness.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.8	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.8", "sections": [ "Megillah.28b.14", "Megillah.28b.15" ] }	We learned in a mishna there (Avot 1: 13): And one who makes use of the crown [taga] of Torah learning will perish from the world. Reish Lakish taught: This is referring to one who allows himself to be served by one who studies halakhot, which is the crown of the Torah. And Ulla said: It is better that a person should be served by one who studies four orders of the Mishna, and he should not allow himself to be served by one who teaches to others four orders of the Mishna, as in that case of Reish Lakish. He was traveling along the road when he reached a deep puddle of water. A certain man came and placed him upon his shoulders and began transferring him to the other side. Reish Lakish said to him: Have you read the Bible? He said to him: I have read it. He then asked: Have you studied the Mishna? He answered him: I have studied four orders of the Mishna. Reish Lakish then said to him: You have hewn these four mountains and yet you bear the weight of the son of Lakish upon your shoulders? It is inappropriate for you to carry me; throw the son of Lakish into the water.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.9	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.9", "sections": [ "Megillah.28b.16", "Megillah.28b.17" ] }	The man said to Reish Lakish: It is pleasing for me to serve the Master in this way. Reish Lakish said to him: If so, learn from me this matter that Rabbi Zeira said. In this way you will be considered my disciple, and it will then be appropriate for you to serve me. Jewish women were strict upon themselves in that even if they see a spot of menstrual blood that is only the size of a mustard seed they wait on its account seven clean days before immersing themselves in a ritual bath to purify themselves. The school of Eliyahu taught: Anyone who studies halakhot every day, he is guaranteed that he is destined for the World-to-Come, as it is stated: His ways [halikhot] are eternal (Habakkuk 3: 6): Do not read the verse as halikhot [ways] ; rather, read it as halakhot. Consequently, the verse indicates that the study of the halakhot brings one to eternal life.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.10	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.10", "sections": [ "Megillah.28b.1", "Megillah.28b.18", "Megillah.29a.1", "Megillah.29a.2" ] }	and one may not adorn 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. The Sages taught in a baraita: One interrupts his Torah study to carry out the dead for burial and to escort a bride to her wedding. They said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, that he would interrupt his Torah study to carry out the dead for burial and to escort a bride to her wedding. The Gemara qualifies this ruling: In what case is this statement said? Only where there are not sufficient numbers of other people available to perform these mitzvot and honor the deceased or the bride appropriately. However, when there are sufficient numbers, additional people should not interrupt their Torah study to participate. The Gemara asks: And how many people are considered sufficient? Rav Shmuel bar Inya said in the name of Rav: Twelve thousand men and another six thousand men to blow horns as a sign of mourning. And some say a different version: Twelve thousand men, among whom are six thousand men with horns. Ulla said: For example, enough to make a procession of people all the way from the town gate [abbula] to the place of burial.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.11	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.11", "sections": [ "Megillah.29a.2", "Megillah.29a.3" ] }	The Gemara asks: And how many people are considered sufficient? Rav Shmuel bar Inya said in the name of Rav: Twelve thousand men and another six thousand men to blow horns as a sign of mourning. And some say a different version: Twelve thousand men, among whom are six thousand men with horns. Ulla said: For example, enough to make a procession of people all the way from the town gate [abbula] to the place of burial. Rav Sheshet said: As the Torah was given, so it should be taken away, i.e., the same honor that was provided when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai should be provided when the Torah is taken through the passing away of a Torah scholar. Just as the Torah was given in the presence of six hundred thousand men, so too its taking should be done in the presence of six hundred thousand men. The Gemara comments: This applies to someone who read the Bible and studied halakhot for himself. But for someone who taught others, there is no limit to the honor that should be shown to him.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.12	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.12", "sections": [ "Megillah.29a.4" ] }	It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: Come and see how beloved the Jewish people are before the Holy One, Blessed be He. As every place they were exiled, the Divine Presence went with them. They were exiled to Egypt, and the Divine Presence went with them, as it is stated: Did I reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt? (I Samuel 2: 27) . They were exiled to Babylonia, and the Divine Presence went with them, as it is stated: For your sake I have sent to Babylonia (Isaiah 43: 14) . So too, when, in the future, they will be redeemed, the Divine Presence will be with them, as it is stated: Then the Lord your God will return with your captivity (Deuteronomy 30: 3) . It does not state: He will bring back, i.e., He will cause the Jewish people to return, but rather it says: He will return, which teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, will return together with them from among the various exiles.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.13	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.13", "sections": [ "Megillah.29a.5" ] }	The Gemara asks: Where in Babylonia does the Divine Presence reside? Abaye said: In the ancient synagogue of Huzal and in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Nehardea. And do not say that the Divine Presence resided here and there, i.e., in both places simultaneously. Rather, at times it resided here in Huzal and at times there in Nehardea. Abaye said: I have a blessing coming to me, for whenever I am within a distance of a parasang from one of those synagogues, I go in and pray there, due to the special honor and sanctity attached to them. It was related that the father of Shmuel and Levi were once sitting in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Nehardea. The Divine Presence came and they heard a loud sound, so they arose and left.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.14	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.14", "sections": [ "Megillah.29a.6", "Megillah.29a.7", "Megillah.29a.8" ] }	It was further related that Rav Sheshet was once sitting in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Nehardea, and the Divine Presence came but he did not go out. The ministering angels came and were frightening him in order to force him to leave. Rav Sheshet turned to God and said before Him: Master of the Universe, if one is wretched and the other is not wretched, who should defer to whom? Shouldnt the one who is not wretched give way to the one who is? Now I am blind and wretched; why then do you expect me to defer to the angels? God then turned to the angels and said to them: Leave him. The verse states: Yet I have been to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they have come (Ezekiel 11: 16) . Rabbi Yitzhak said: This is referring to the synagogues and study halls in Babylonia. And Rabbi Elazar said: This is referring to the house of our master, i.e., Rav, in Babylonia, from which Torah issues forth to the entire world. Rava interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations (Psalms 90: 1) ? This is referring to the synagogues and study halls. Abaye said: Initially, I used to study Torah in my home and pray in the synagogue. Once I heard and understood that which King David says: Lord, I love the habitation of Your house (Psalms 26: 8) , I would always study Torah in the synagogue, to express my love for the place in which the Divine Presence resides.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.15	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.15", "sections": [ "Megillah.29a.10", "Megillah.29a.9" ] }	Bar Kappara interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: Why do you look askance [teratzdun] , O high-peaked mountains, at the mountain that God has desired for His abode (Psalms 68: 17) ? A Divine Voice issued forth and said to all the mountains that came and demanded that the Torah be given upon them: Why do you seek [tirtzu] to enter into a legal dispute [din] with Mount Sinai? You are all blemished in comparison to Mount Sinai, as it is written here: High-peaked [gavnunnim] and it is written there, with regard to the blemishes that disqualify a priest: Or crookbacked [gibben] or a dwarf (Leviticus 21: 20) . Rav Ashi said: Learn from this that one who is arrogant is considered blemished. The other mountains arrogantly insisted that the Torah should be given upon them, and they were therefore described as blemished. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar says: In the future, the synagogues and the study halls in Babylonia will be transported and reestablished in Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: Surely, like Tabor among the mountains, and like Carmel by the sea, so shall he come (Jeremiah 46: 18) . There is a tradition that these mountains came to Sinai at the giving of the Torah and demanded that the Torah should be given upon them. And are these matters not inferred through an a fortiori argument: Just as Tabor and Carmel, which came only momentarily to study Torah, were relocated and established in Eretz Yisrael in reward for their actions, all the more so should the synagogues and study halls in Babylonia, in which the Torah is read and disseminated, be relocated to Eretz Yisrael.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.16	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.16", "sections": [ "Megillah.29a.11", "Megillah.29a.12", "Megillah.29a.13" ] }	The mishna teaches that even if a synagogue fell into ruin, it may not be made into a kappendarya. The Gemara asks: What is meant by kappendarya? Rava said: A shortcut, as implied by its name. The Gemara clarifies: What do you mean by adding: As implied by its name? It is like one who said: Instead of going around the entire row of houses [makkifna addari] to get to the other side, thereby lengthening my journey, I will enter this house and walk through it to the other side. The word kappendarya sounds like a contraction of makkifna addari. This is what Rava meant by saying: As implied by its name. Rabbi Abbahu said: If a public path had initially passed through that location, before the synagogue was built, it is permitted to continue to use it as a shortcut, for the honor due to a synagogue cannot annul the publics right of access to the path. Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: With regard to one who enters a synagogue without intending to make it into a shortcut, when he leaves he is permitted to make it into a shortcut for himself, by leaving through the exit on the other side of the building. And Rabbi Helbo said that Rav Huna said: With regard to one who enters a synagogue to pray, he is permitted to make it into a shortcut for himself by leaving through a different exit, and it is fitting to do so, as it is stated: And when the people of the land shall come before the Lord in the appointed seasons, he that enters by way of the north gate to bow down shall go forth by the way of the south gate (Ezekiel 46: 9) . This indicates that it is a show of respect not to leave through the same entrance through which one came in; it is better to leave through the other side.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.17	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.4.17", "sections": [ "Megillah.29a.14", "Megillah.29a.15", "Megillah.29a.16" ] }	The mishna teaches: If grass sprang up in a ruined synagogue, although it is not befitting its sanctity, one should not pick it, due to the anguish that it will cause to those who see it. It will remind them of the disrepair of the synagogue and the need to rebuild it. The Gemara asks: But isnt it taught in a baraita: One may not pick the grass and feed it to ones animals, but he may pick it and leave it there? The Gemara answers: When we learned the prohibition against picking the grass in the mishna as well, we learned only that it is prohibited to pick it and feed it to ones animals, but it is permitted to leave it there. The Sages taught in a baraita: In a cemetery, one may not act with frivolity; one may not graze an animal on the grass growing inside it; and one may not direct a water channel to pass through it; and one may not gather grass inside it to use the grass as feed for ones animals; and if one gathered grass for that purpose, it should be burnt on the spot, out of respect for the dead. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the phrase: Out of respect for the dead, to which clause of the baraita does it refer? If we say it is referring to the last clause, that if one gathered grass that it should be burnt out of respect for the dead, then one could ask: Since the grass is burnt on the spot, and not publicly, what respect for the dead is there in this act? Rather, the phrase must be referring to the first clause of the baraita, and it explains why it is prohibited to act with frivolity.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.m.5.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.m.5.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.29a.17", "Megillah.29a.18", "Megillah.29a.19" ] }	MISHNA: On four Shabbatot during and surrounding 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: 1719) , 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: 122) , 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 [hahodesh] shall be for you (Exodus 12: 120) , 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.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.29a.1", "Megillah.29a.20", "Megillah.29b.1", "Megillah.29b.2", "Megillah.29b.3", "Megillah.29b.4" ] }	One interrupts his Torah study to carry out the dead for burial and to escort a bride to her wedding. They said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, that he would interrupt his Torah study to carry out the dead for burial and to escort a bride to her wedding. The Gemara qualifies this ruling: In what case is this statement said? Only where there are not sufficient numbers of other people available to perform these mitzvot and honor the deceased or the bride appropriately. However, when there are sufficient numbers, additional people should not interrupt their Torah study to participate. GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 1: 1): On the first of Adar they make a public announcement concerning the forthcoming collection of half-shekels. The money is used for the communal offerings in the Temple in the coming year. And a public announcement is made concerning the need to uproot any instances of diverse kinds that have grown in the fields. The Gemara asks: Granted, an announcement is made concerning the need to uproot diverse kinds, as the beginning of the month of Adar is a time of sowing. Instances of diverse kinds are already noticeable, and therefore it is a fitting time to deal with the matter. But with regard to the announcement concerning the half-shekels, from where do we derive that it should be made at this point in the year? Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiyya said: It is as the verse states: This is the burnt-offering of each New Moon in its renewal throughout the months of the year (Numbers 28: 14) . The Torah says: There is a month in which you must begin to renew and bring the daily and additional offering from animals purchased with the new collections of half-shekels collected that year. Each year a collection is made with which to finance the purchase of communal offerings for the following year. Offerings during that year may be purchased only from collections made for that year. Elsewhere it is derived through a verbal analogy that the yearly cycle begins with the month of Nisan. And since starting from and during the month of Nisan the offerings must be brought from the new collections of half-shekels, it is necessary to make the collection in the preceding month, i.e., in Adar. Therefore, they advance the reading of Shekalim, and they read it on the first of Adar, in order that the people will be reminded to bring the half-shekels to the Temple in good time.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.2	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.2", "sections": [ "Megillah.29b.5", "Megillah.29b.6" ] }	The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna taught? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, for if someone would suggest that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, one could counter: Didnt he say that two weeks is a sufficient period of preparation? As it is taught in a baraita: We begin to inquire into the halakhot of Passover thirty days before Passover. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: We begin to inquire only two weeks before Passover. As such, it should be sufficient to announce the collection of half-shekels from two weeks before Nisan, and there should be no need to advance the announcement to the beginning of Adar, as stated in the mishna. Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is possible that even he agrees that the announcement concerning the collection of the half-shekels should be made on the first of Adar, since the Master said: On the fifteenth of Adar money-changing tables for collecting the half-shekels are set up throughout the country, and on the twenty-fifth of Adar they are set up in the Temple. Because of the possibility to donate the half-shekels at the tables already from the fifteenth, they advance the reading of Shekalim to inform people of that possibility and read it two weeks earlier, on the first of Adar.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.3	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.3", "sections": [ "Megillah.29b.10", "Megillah.29b.7", "Megillah.29b.8", "Megillah.29b.9" ] }	The Gemara answers: The selection of that portion is in accordance with the explanation of the portion that Rav Yosef taught: The three instances of the word: Contribution, in that portion teach that there were three contributions of half-shekels: The contribution of the altar is for the purchase of communal offerings to be sacrificed on the altar; and the contribution of the sockets is for constructing the sockets; and the contribution of the Temple maintenance is for the Temple maintenance. Therefore, according to Rav Yosef, it is understandable why the portion of When you take the count is read. It deals explicitly with the collection of half-shekels. The Gemara clarifies which passage is read: What is this portion of Shekalim? Rav said: It is the portion of Command the children of Israel, and say to them: My offering, the provision of My offerings made by fire (Numbers 28) , which details the daily and additional offerings. And Shmuel said: It is the portion of When you take the count (Exodus 30: 1116) . Granted, according to the one who said that it is the portion of When you take the count, this is the reason that it is called the portion of Shekalim, for the obligation to give half-shekels is written in that portion. However, according to one who said that it is the portion of My offering, the provision of My offerings, why should that portion be read? Is there anything written about the half-shekels here? The Gemara answers: Yes. What is the reason that they are collected in Adar? As per the explanation of Rabbi Tavi, the half-shekels are collected to be used for the coming years daily and additional offerings. Therefore, reading the portion concerning those offerings will serve well as a reminder for people to donate. Granted, according to the one who said that it is the portion of Command the children of Israel: My offering, the provision of My offerings, it is logical to read that portion, because the offerings that will be purchased with the half-shekels are written there, as per the explanation of Rabbi Tavi. However, according to one who said that it is the portion of When you take the count, why should that portion be read? Is anything about the offerings written in that portion? The collection of half-shekels for use in the construction of the sockets of the Tabernacle are the only thing written in that portion. What does that have to do with the collection of half-shekels for the purchase of offerings that is held in the month of Adar?
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.4	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.4", "sections": [ "Megillah.29b.11", "Megillah.29b.12", "Megillah.29b.13", "Megillah.29b.14", "Megillah.29b.15" ] }	The Gemara asks further: Granted, according to the one who said that it is the portion of When you take the count, this is what is different about this New Moon of Adar and other New Moons when they occur on Shabbat. On the New Moon of Adar, When you take the count is read because it describes the collection of half-shekels. On other New Moons, when they occur on Shabbat, the portion of Command the children of Israel is read because it mentions the additional offerings brought on Shabbat and the New Moon. However, according to the one who said that Command the children of Israel, and say to them: My offering, what is different about the portion read on the New Moon of Adar and the portion read on other New Moons when they occur on Shabbat, for the same portion is read in all cases? The Gemara answers: They are different: For on other New Moons, when they occur on Shabbat, six people read from the regular weekly portion of the matter of the day and one reads from the portion for the New Moon, whereas now, on the New Moon of Adar, if it occurs on Shabbat, all seven read from the portion of the New Moon. The Gemara asks: This answer works out well according to the one who said that when the mishna states that on the fifth Shabbat, we resume the regular order of readings. The intention is that one resumes the regular weekly order of Torah portions. This implies that on the previous four Shabbatot, the regular portion was not read at all. Rather, only the special portions delineated in the mishna were read. Therefore, it makes sense to say that all seven people read from the special portion. However, according to the one who says that the mishnas intention is that one resumes the regular order of concluding readings from the Prophets [haftarot] , and on the previous Shabbatot one also reads from the regular portion of the matter of the day, then the original question stands: What is different about the portion read on the New Moon of Adar and the portion read on other New Moons when they occur on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: They are different: For whereas on other New Moons, when they occur on Shabbat, six people read from the regular weekly portion of the matter of the day and one reads from the portion for the New Moon, now, on the New Moon of Adar, if it occurs on Shabbat, three people read from the regular weekly portion of the matter of the day and four read from the portion for the New Moon.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.5	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.5", "sections": [ "Megillah.29b.16", "Megillah.29b.17", "Megillah.29b.18", "Megillah.29b.19", "Megillah.29b.20", "Megillah.29b.21" ] }	The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (Megilla 3: 1): When the New Moon of Adar occurs on Shabbat, they read the Torah portion of Shekalim, and they read as the haftara the story involving Jehoiada the priest (II Kings 12: 117) . Granted, according to the one who said that Shekalim is the portion of When you take the count, this is the reason that they read as the haftara the story involving Jehoiada the priest: Because it is comparable in content to the Torah reading, as it is written in the story of Jehoiada: The money of his assessment of persons (II Kings 12: 5) , which is referring to his collection of the half-shekels, and the haftara should always contain a theme similar to the Torah reading. However, according to the one who said that My offering, the provision of My offerings is read as the portion of Shekalim, is the haftara comparable to that portion? It is comparable, as per the explanation of Rabbi Tavi: It is appropriate to read the portion about offerings because the collection of half-shekels is for that purpose. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If the New Moon of Adar occurs on the Shabbat on which the portion to be read for the regular weekly reading is adjacent to the portion read as Shekalim, whether on the Shabbat preceding the Shabbat on which Shekalim will be read as part of the weekly reading or following it, then they read and repeat Shekalim on both Shabbatot, one time as the special portion Shekalim and the other as part of the regular order. Granted, according to the one who said that the portion of When you take the count is read as Shekalim, this is how it is possible: That portion could occur at that time in the yearlong cycle of the order of readings. In the regular order of reading, When you take the count is often read during the beginning of Adar. However, according to the one who said that the portion of Command the children of Israel, and say to them, My offering is read as Shekalim, does that portion ever occur at that time of the year? That portion usually occurs much later in the year, in the summer. The Gemara answers: Yes, it sometimes occurs that this portion is read during the beginning of Adar, for the people of the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, who complete the cycle of reading the Torah not in one year but in three years. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: When the New Moon of Adar occurs on Shabbat, they read the portion of When you take the count, and they read as the haftara the story involving Jehoiada the priest.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.6	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.6", "sections": [ "Megillah.29b.22", "Megillah.29b.23", "Megillah.29b.24" ] }	Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha said: When the New Moon of Adar occurs on Shabbat, the congregation takes out three Torah scrolls from the ark and reads from them. From the first one, they read the portion of the regular weekly reading of the matter of the day; and from the second one they read the portion for the New Moon; and from the third one they read Shekalim, which begins with When you take the count. And Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha further said: When the New Moon of Tevet, which always falls during Hanukkah, occurs on Shabbat, they bring three Torah scrolls and read from them. From the first one, they read the portion of the regular cycle of reading of the matter of the day; and from the second one, they read the portion for the New Moon; and from the third one, they read the portion for Hanukkah. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha to state the halakha in both cases, as, if it had been stated only with regard to the New Moon of Tevet, one could have mistakenly thought that only with regard to that case does Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha state that three Torah scrolls are used. But with regard to the New Moon of Adar, one might think that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who said that the portion of Shekalim is the portion of My offering, the provision of My offerings, and two Torah scrolls will therefore suffice, since the same portion is used both for the portion for the New Moon and for the portion of Shekalim. Therefore, he teaches us that three Torah scrolls are used even on the New Moon of Adar. The Gemara asks: But, based on that logic, let Rabbi Yitzhak just say the halakha with respect to this case of the New Moon of Adar, and there would be no need to state that case of the New Moon of Tevet. The Gemara answers: Indeed, one was stated from the other by inference, i.e., Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha stated the halakha explicitly only with regard to the New Moon of Adar, and it was inferred that the same is true of the New Moon of Tevet.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.7	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.7", "sections": [ "Megillah.29b.25", "Megillah.29b.26", "Megillah.29b.27", "Megillah.29b.28" ] }	An amoraic dispute was stated: When the New Moon of Tevet occurs on a weekday, what Torah portion is read? Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha said: Three people read from the portion for the New Moon, and one reads from the portion for Hanukkah. And Rav Dimi of Haifa said: Three read from the portion for Hanukkah, and one reads from the portion for the New Moon. Rabbi Mani said: It stands to reason to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha, for it is already an established principle that when a frequent practice and an infrequent practice conflict, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. Since the portion for the New Moon is read more frequently than the portion for Hanukkah, it should be given greater prominence. Rabbi Avin said: It stands to reason to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rav Dimi, for the following reason: What caused the fourth person to come and read from the Torah? The New Moon, as on the other days of Hanukkah only three people read from the Torah. Therefore, it is only logical that the fourth person should read from the portion for the New Moon. The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Yosef said: We do not concern ourselves with making the portion for the New Moon the primary reading. Rather, three people read from the portion for Hanukkah, and only the fourth reads the portion for the New Moon. And Rabba said: We do not concern ourselves with making the portion for Hanukkah the primary reading. Rather, three people read from the portion for the New Moon, and only the fourth reads the portion for Hanukkah. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we do not concern ourselves with making the portion for Hanukkah the primary reading, and therefore the portion for the New Moon is primary.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.8	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.8", "sections": [ "Megillah.29b.1", "Megillah.29b.29", "Megillah.30a.1", "Megillah.30a.2", "Megillah.30a.3", "Megillah.30a.4", "Megillah.30a.5", "Megillah.30a.6" ] }	And a public announcement is made concerning the need to uproot any instances of diverse kinds that have grown in the fields. An amoraic dispute was stated: If the Shabbat on which the portion of Shekalim is to be read occurs on the Shabbat in which the regular weekly portion is And you shall command (Exodus 27: 2030: 10) , what should be done? Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha said: Six people read from the portion And you shall command, until but not including the weekly portion of When you take the count (Exodus 27: 2030: 10) , and one person reads the portion of Shekalim from When you take the count, until but not including the verse: And you shall make a copper laver (Exodus 30: 1116) . Abaye said: Since Shekalim is read from the portion in the Torah immediately following the regular weekly Torah reading, people will mistakenly say that they merely extended the regular reading and then halted there, and they will not realize that the last reading was actually for the sake of Shekalim. Rather, Abaye said: Six people read from And you shall command until but not including And you shall make a copper laver, which concludes with the portion used for Shekalim. And then one person repeats and reads Shekalim from When you take the count until but not including And you shall make a copper laver. The repetition of this portion serves to highlight the fact it was read for the sake of Shekalim. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If the Shabbat on which Shekalim is to be read occurs on the Shabbat on which the portion to be read for the regular weekly reading is adjacent to Shekalim, whether on the Shabbat preceding that Shabbat or following it, then they read and repeat Shekalim. Granted, according to the opinion of Abaye, it works out well, for the conclusion of the baraita, that we repeat Shekalim, supports his opinion. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha, it is difficult. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha could have said to you: And according to Abaye, does it really work out well? The reference of the baraita to a case where the Shabbat on which Shekalim is read precedes the Shabbat on which that portion will be read as part of the weekly reading works out well, since it can indeed occur. However, with regard to the reference to that Shabbat following the Shabbat on which that portion is read as part of the weekly reading, under what circumstances can this case be found? It never occurs like that. Rather, perforce, what have you to say? That when the baraita refers to repeating Shekalim when the Shabbat on which Shekalim is read follows the Shabbat on which it is read as the regular weekly reading, it means that one repeats it by reading it on two successive Shabbatot. Similarly, here too, when the baraita refers to repeating Shekalim when the Shabbat on which Shekalim is read precedes the Shabbat on which it is read as the regular weekly reading, it means that one repeats it by reading it on two successive Shabbatot.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.9	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.4.g.5.9", "sections": [ "Megillah.30a.7", "Megillah.30a.8", "Megillah.30a.9" ] }	The Gemara considers a similar case: If the Shabbat on which Shekalim is to be read occurs on the Shabbat on which the regular portion itself begins with When you take the count, what should be done? Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha said: Six people read from And you shall make a copper laver until but not including the portion of And he assembled (Exodus 30: 1734: 35) . This is the entire regular weekly portion of When you take the count without the opening passage, which is also the portion of Shekalim. And then one person goes back and reads the portion of Shekalim from When you take the count until but not including And you shall make a copper laver. Abaye strongly objects to this: Now people will mistakenly say that they are reading the regular weekly portion out of sequence, and they will not realize that the last reading was actually for the sake of the portion of Shekalim. Rather, Abaye said: Six people read the entire portion of When you take the count until but not including the portion of And he assembled (Exodus 30: 1134: 35) , and then one person repeats and reads the portion of Shekalim from When you take the count until but not including And you shall make a copper laver. The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: If the Shabbat on which Shekalim is to be read occurs on the Shabbat on which the regular portion itself is When you take the count, the first part of that portion is read once as part of the weekly reading and then repeated as the portion of Shekalim.