We'll start by re-reading our Mishnah together, because understanding our Mishnah is the KEY to understanding what is really happening in the Gemara!
We read in our Mishnah a series of items that can be purchases with the sale of other items, beginning with the sale of the synagogue. The first part of our Gemara today will deal with the sale of the synagogue.
The Gemara will use a common tactic here---which is to derive law via Rabbinical anecdote. The anecdote, or, as the Hassidim would say, the story (ma'aseh), is a powerful device in delivering a message.
Here we will read three stories, and then two conversations/explanations following those stories. All of them are trying to determine to what extent the synagogue maintains its sanctity. Is the building holy forever? Are the bricks holy? Is the land holy? These are especially important questions given how the church views 'consecrated space.' (For more on this, check out this article on Haggia Sophia: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-12/why-is-hagia-sophia-turning-into-mosque-causing-controversy/12446528)
And actually, something INCREDIBLE is happening here---which is, the Gemara is completely re-reading our Mishnah! How is this happening? What is the Gemara doing which is changing how the Mishnah rules?
§ 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 to drink beer with the proceeds seems well and is permitted.
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.
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. 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. 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.
Our Gemara is now going to take a small detour. It is going to quote a Baraita (a Mishnaic era text not included in the Mishnah, but usually in the Tosefta) that relates to the sanctity of different items. In many ways, this Baraita is a commentary on what has happened so far in our text. How is that so?
We then get a series of 5 statements from Rava relating to this Baraita. Rava is a 4th generation Amora, which means he is living about 150 years after the Baraita. But he sure has a lot to say about it! Finally, we get a somewhat different story involving Rava and an Ark and a dead person.
The Gemara is doing something funny here----it will then go on to quote every piece of Gemara it can find about Rava and the holiness of objects. What can we learn about Rava and his world? How does Rava view the sanctity of synagogues, of ritual objects? Does Rava seem to agree or disagree with the Mishnah?
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Articles used in the performance of a mitzva may be thrown out after use. 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.
And now, some interesting biographical snippets from the life of Rava! These are totally optional texts!