Rabbi Yochanan vs. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi
Over Shabbos, I learned Megillah 27a (with the chabura). We encountered the following passage:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אֵין מוֹכְרִין סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה וְלִישָּׂא אִשָּׁה.
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: A Torah scroll may be sold only if the seller needs the money in order to study Torah or to marry a woman.
שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תּוֹרָה בְּתוֹרָה שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי תַּלְמוּד, שֶׁהַתַּלְמוּד מֵבִיא לִידֵי מַעֲשֶׂה. אִשָּׁה נָמֵי: ״לָא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״, אֲבָל תּוֹרָה בְּתוֹרָה — לָא.
Learn from this baraita that exchanging one entity of Torah, i.e., a Torah scroll, for another entity of Torah, i.e., Torah study, seems well, and by extension, it should be permitted to sell one Torah scroll to purchase another. The Gemara rejects the proof: Perhaps Torah study is different, as the study of Torah leads to action, i.e., the fulfillment of the mitzvot, and perhaps it is only due to its great importance of Torah study that it is permitted to sell a Torah scroll for it. Similarly, marrying a woman is also of utmost importance, as it is stated with regard to Creation: “He created it not a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). This indicates that marrying and having children fulfills a primary goal of Creation. But selling an old Torah in order to buy a new Torah might not be permitted.
The person reading said it as shani limud, rather than Talmud, which surprised me. This was because I was reading along in a Steinsaltz Hebrew gemara, which had Talmud, while they were reading the Vilna Shas.
As Rav Steinsaltz notes, this was due to the censors, which didn’t want to put in the taboo word Talmud. Even the Venice and Pizaro printings have Talmud, as well as all manuscripts.
In this instance, it is a distinction without a difference. Sometimes, Talmud as opposed to Mishnah or Mikrah refer to a particular level of Torah study. Here, in context, it seems to refer to any Torah study. Still, even that is good to know, that Talmud can potentially have that sense.
Also a bit earlier, 26b, an interesting progression:
(וְאָמַר) רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: מִבֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא לְבֵי רַבָּנַן — שְׁרֵי, מִבֵּי רַבָּנַן לְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא — אֲסִיר. וְרַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מַתְנִי אִיפְּכָא. אָמַר רַב אַחָא:
§ 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:
כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפֵּי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת — מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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.
Now, the way I would understand this is that two of Rava’s disciples, fifth-generation Rav Pappa and Rav Pappi, argued about the correct version of Rava’s statement. One had a shul sold for a beit midrash, and the other had the opposite, best on relative stature. And sixth-generation Rav Acha (situated in Mata Mechasia) said that the most likely version is like Rav Pappi because that we find that version of the statement (attributed to a different, earlier Amora, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi). And so the gemara concludes.
However, the gemara juxtaposes a related sugya, where we can declare Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi self-consistent and thus clarify authorship. Thus:
דָּרַשׁ בַּר קַפָּרָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׂרֹף אֶת בֵּית ה׳ וְאֶת בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֵת כׇּל בָּתֵּי יְרוּשָׁלִַם וְאֶת כׇּל בֵּית גָּדוֹל שָׂרַף בָּאֵשׁ״. ״בֵּית ה׳״ — זֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. ״בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ״ — אֵלּוּ פַּלְטֵרִין שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ. ״וְאֵת כׇּל בָּתֵּי יְרוּשָׁלִַם״ — כְּמַשְׁמָעָן. ״וְאֶת כׇּל בֵּית גָּדוֹל שָׂרַף בָּאֵשׁ״ — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, חַד אָמַר: מָקוֹם שֶׁמְּגַדְּלִין בּוֹ תּוֹרָה, וְחַד אָמַר: מָקוֹם שֶׁמְּגַדְּלִין בּוֹ תְּפִלָּה.
§ Bar Kappara interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And he burnt the house of the Lord, and the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great house he burnt with fire” (II Kings 25:9)? He explained: “The house of the Lord”; this is the Holy Temple. “The king’s house”; these are the king’s palaces [palterin]. “And all the houses of Jerusalem”; as understood in its literal sense. With regard to the final phrase: “And every great house he burnt with fire,” Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree about the meaning of “great house”: One of them said: It is referring to a place where the Torah is made great, i.e., the study hall; and the other one said: It is referring to a place where prayer is made great, i.e., the synagogue.
מַאן דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״ה׳ חָפֵץ לְמַעַן צִדְקוֹ יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר״. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּפִלָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״סַפְּרָה נָּא הַגְּדוֹלוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלִישָׁע״, וֶאֱלִישָׁע דַּעֲבַד — בְּרַחֲמֵי הוּא דַּעֲבַד.
The Gemara explains their respective opinions: The one who said that the reference is to where the Torah is made great bases his opinion on a verse that describes Torah study as great, as it is written: “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). And the one who said that the reference is to where prayer is made great bases his opinion on a verse that describes prayer as great, as it is written: “Tell me, I pray you, all the great things that Elisha has done” (II Kings 8:4), and that which Elisha did, i.e., restored a boy to life, he did through prayer.
תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הוּא דְּאָמַר מָקוֹם שֶׁמְּגַדְּלִין בּוֹ תּוֹרָה, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara comments: Conclude that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who said that “great house” is referring to a place where the Torah is made great, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said elsewhere: It is permitted for a synagogue to be made into a study hall. This ruling indicates that he holds that a study hall has a higher degree of sanctity than a synagogue. It is therefore reasonable that he assumes that “great house” is referring specifically to a study hall. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that he was the one who said the term is referring to a place where the Torah is made great.
This is quite plausible but I’m not sure it is utterly proven. The verse isn’t interpreted to give priority to either prayer or Torah study relative to one another. The question was simply when beit gadol is used, does it refer to X or Y. And there are verses for each. Still, there is often this desire to disambiguate the chad amar A and chad amar B.
Regardless, I noticed that this sugya seemed to undermine the preceding sugya. For, if we really say that it is indeed a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi — not just as to the meaning of beit gadol, but as to which is relatively greater than the other, such that it accords with a halachic position of what can be sold for the other — well, then, who says that Rava said his position in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Perhaps (as I think is often the case) Rava agrees with Rabbi Yochanan!
Then, I saw Tosafot’s statement:
כוותיה דרב פפי מסתברא - מהכא משמע דהלכה כר' יהושע בן לוי לגבי דר' יוחנן מדמייתי ראיה דהלכה כרב פפי משום דרבי יהושע בן לוי קאי כוותיה אע"ג דרבי יוחנן פליג עליה:
From here, it implies that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi generally wins over Rabbi Yochanan, from the fact that it brought a proof that the halacha is like Rav Pappa from the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi establishes like him, despite Rabbi Yochanan arguing on him.
If so, this is a pivotal sugya, for resolving many other sugyot in which the two argue. For instance, Berachot 4b, where they argue about juxtaposing geulah letefillah even during Maariv. (Rif there says we hold like Rabbi Yochanan because a brayta supports him.)
However, I’m not convinced by the argument. At issue is whether sixth-generation Rav Acha (bar Rava) was thinking at all about the dispute, and that Rabbi Yochanan argued. Nothing in the sugya at that point indicates that this is part of the calculation. Indeed, I suggested that it was just that the position was echoed elsewhere, so if one had to select one variant reported in Rava’s name, it should be that one. Because Rava only said one thing. It is almost like a tanya demesayaya leih. It wasn’t a matter of choosing Rav Pappi’s halachic position over Rav Pappa’s because he has a stronger support. And if it were so, the sugya should have made that overt.
Meanwhile, analysis in the following sugya is entirely anonymous, and perhaps later than Rav Acha and Ravina. Yes, you can logically follow inferences that, then, Rabbi Yochanan holds opposite, but it isn’t made overt at all, in the sense of the previous statement. This could be due to lack of clarity that one contradicts the other, then an endorsement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi over Rabbi Yochanan.
Meanwhile, if we want to know Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion, a good place to look is the Yerushalmi, put together by his students. There is the great Yerushalmi Matchup resource. There, we see Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi but, I might think significantly, nothing is mentioned of Rabbi Yochanan.
Quoting now:
(f) מהו למכור בית הכנסת וליקח בית המדרש
Question: May one sell a Beis ha'Keneses and buy a Beis Midrash?
מילתיה דר' יהושע בן לוי אמרה שרי
(g) Answer: From R. Yehoshua ben Levi's words, we find that it is permitted;
דא"ר יהושע בן לוי [מלכים ב כה ט] וישרף את בית ה' זה בית המקדש ואת בית המלך זה פלטין של צדקיהו ואת כל בתי ירושלים אלו ד' מאות ושמונים בתי כניסיות שהיו בירושלים
(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): "Va'Yisrof Es Beis Hash-m" - this is the Beis ha'Mikdash; "v'Es Beis ha'Melech" - this is Tzidkiyahu's palace; "v'Es Kol Batei Yerushalayim" - these are 480 Batei Kenesiyos that were in Yerushalayim (together with the Beis ha'Mikdash, this is the Gematriya of Maleisi in the verse "Maleisi Mishpat";
דא"ר פינחס בשם ר' הושעיה ארבע מאות ושמונים בתי כניסיות היו בירושלם וכל אחת ואחת היה לה בית ספר ובית תלמוד בית ספר למקרא ובית תלמוד למשנה וכולהם עלה אספסיינוס
(R. Pinchas citing R. Hoshayah): There were 480 Batei Kenesiyos in Yerushalayim, and each had a Beis Sefer and a Beis Talmud - a Beis Sefer for teaching Tanach, and a Beis Talmud for Mishnah, and Aspasyainus destroyed all of them.
Note: The verse discusses Nevuzaradan, who destroyed Bayis Rishon. Korban ha"Edah says that presumably, the same applies to Bayis Sheni. Why should we assume so? There were much fewer people in Bayis Sheni (Bava Metzi'a 28a)! Perhaps it is reasonable that people wanted to re-establish everything that was destroyed in the first Churban, and Aspasyainus destroyed everything. Alternatively, a Drashah teaches that the verse alludes to Churban Sheni, or there was a tradition that there were 480 (R. Lieber Shlita). Or, Kabalah teaches that the severity of both Churbanos was the same (R. Meir Eliyahu Shlita).
ואת כל בית הגדול שרף באש זה מדרשו של רבן יוחנן בן זכיי ששם היו מתנין גדולותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא כגון [שם ח ד] ספרה נא לי את כל הגדולות אשר עשה אלישע
"V'Es Kol Beis Gadol Saraf ba'Esh" is the Beis Midrash of R. Yochanan ben Zakai, that there they taught the wonders of ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu, e.g. [we find that Gadol refers to wonders -] "Saprah Na Li Es Kol ha'Gedolos Asher Asah Elisha." (This connotes that a Beis Midrash is more Kadosh than a Beis ha'Keneses, since it is called "Gadol". Alei Tamar - the verse refers to the Beis Midrash of the Gedol ha'Dor; in Bayis Sheni, it was R. Yochanan ben Zakai.)
End quote:
Besides note mentioning Rabbi Yochanan, I would also note that unlike our Bavli, they don’t have Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explicitly saying it. Rather, they derive from the overall midrash on the pasuk, together with beit gadol mentioned at the end, referring to the study hall, while (contra the Bavli’s account where they were plain houses) the houses of Yerushalayim refer to synagogues.