A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why must proceeds from selling a synagogue buy an ark, and ark proceeds buy Torah (תורה) scrolls? Megillah 25b establishes the principle ma'alin bekodesh v'lo moridin - sacred money must purchase items of equal or greater sanctity. The machloket between the Magen Avrohom and Gra reveals whether this reflects the inherent kedushah of the money itself or concerns for kavod hamitzvah.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Gemara (גמרא) Megillah 25b, focusing on the fundamental principle of ma'alin bekodesh v'lo moridin (we elevate in holiness and do not diminish). The Gemara discusses the Mishna's ruling that residents of a city (bnei ha'ir) who sell a street where they pray (rechov ir) must use the proceeds to purchase a synagogue, which has greater sanctity. The hierarchical order continues: synagogue proceeds must purchase an ark (teiva), ark proceeds for Torah (תורה) coverings (mitpachot), coverings for Torah scrolls (sfarim), and scroll proceeds for a complete Sefer Torah. Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary, citing a Tosefta, explains that this entire framework derives from the principle ma'alin bekodesh lo moridin - once something has sanctity, it cannot be exchanged for something of lesser holiness. The source for this principle comes from two biblical precedents: Moshe Rabbeinu's construction of the Mishkan (rather than allowing others to build it) and the fashioning of the mizbeach's covering from the brass mirrors of the sinful women, demonstrating that sacred items must maintain or increase their level of sanctity.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Megillah 25b
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
