236 CHAPTER EIGHTand practices, and rabbinic formalism. This is true also of M. Megillah 3.
ThoughnolawintheMishnahcontradictsthehierarchyofsanctitydescribed
in the first Mishnah, the laws that follow interestingly fail to discuss anything
but the synagogue. Though the ark and the Torah wrappings are holier, the
second and thirdmishnayotgive the unmistakable impression, by failing to
discuss them, that there is after all something special about the synagogue—
a status implied not by the Mishnah’s laws but by its rhetoric.
As is often the case, the Tosefta completely subverts this Mishnaic tension
but introduces a new one of its own. First, it presents, in a way that conforms
withtheMishnah’shierarchy,moredetaileddiscussionaboutthesynagogue’s
furniture than about the synagogue itself (T. Megillah 2[3]:13–16). Indeed,
its agenda differs fro mthat ofthe Mishnah. The Tosefta is concerned pri mar-
ilywithlawsof dedication,withthequestionofhowthe actofdonationtrans-
forms common objects into sacred ones, whereas the Mishnah is concerned
with the sanctity of the synagogue. That the synagogue is sacred, the Tosefta
simply assumes.
Infact, theTosefta maygo evenfurther insubverting theMishnah bypres-
enting a view that the synagogue is not really sacred after all or, at any rate,
that the Mishnah’s notion that its sanctity is transferred to the proceeds of the
sale is incorrect: (2[3]:12):
R. Menahe mben R. Yoseh says, “[if they sold] a synagogue, they may not pur-
chase the town square” (this view accords with that of the Mishnah). R. Judah
said, “When does this statement apply? Only if theparnasimof the town have
not made with the townspeople a prior condition [to purchase the square, for
example]; but if theparnasimhave made such a condition, then they can use
[the funds] for anything they wish.”
On the face of it, the statement attributed here to Rabbi Judah utterly con-
tradictsthelawsoftheMishnah,forifthereisahierarchyofsanctityinwhich
thesynagoguerankshigherthanthetownsquare,andiftheprincipleofma’a-
lin baqodeshiscorrect,thenhowcanamerestatementbytheparnasimlegiti-
mate the sale of the synagogue to purchase something less holy? Some medi-
evalcommentators(e.g.,NachmanidesandR.ShlomoibnAdret)arguedthat
Rabbi Judah’s law implied that the synagogue was not sacred in any sense,
that it was a meretashmish mizvah(an ite mused in the perfor mance of a
commandment), comparable to alulav. Others, however, rejected what ap-
pears to be the plain meaning of the Tosefta in an attempt to harmonize it
with the Mishnah and read Judah’s comment as a reaction not to that of R.
Menahe mben R. Yoseh but to the final clause of the first Mishnah (“The
same rules apply to the money remaining”). If this were so, then R. Judah’s
statement would constitute only a small qualification of the Mishnah’s law.
This harmonistic interpretation was preferred by Lieberman, not to mention