Arakhin 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

We raise an objection:

One beraita teaches:

a beraita:

A gentile who donated a donation for the repair of the Temple, we accept it from him. And it was taught

in

another

beraita:

We do not accept it

from him; rather, it must be placed in geniza. And the beraitot contradict one another.

And we answer:

Rav Ila said that Rabbi Yohanan said: This is not difficult.

This

beraita that teaches that we do not accept it refers

initially

to the construction of the Temple, as there is concern that he intends to weaken their resolve and delay the construction, as stated above.

This

beraita that teaches that we accept it refers

ultimately

to after the construction has been completed, when the donation comes only to strengthen the repair of the Temple, and in this case there is no longer concern that he intends to weaken their resolve.

And similarly we find

that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Initially

of the construction,

even water and salt,

which are not a specific object,

we do not accept

from them, because of the weakening of their resolve.

Ultimately,

after the construction, when there is no longer concern for this,

a specific object

that is visible in the building,

we do not accept

from gentiles, as this is disgraceful, and the gentiles will also boast about it. But

an object that is not specific

to be fixed into the building, but will instead be sold and its proceeds used,

we accept

from gentiles.

What is an example of a specific object? Rav Yosef said: Such as the cubit-long spike used to ward off ravens.

They would bring iron plates, one cubit by one cubit, with nails in them, and cover the roof of the Sanctuary with them to prevent ravens from settling there [and throwing an impure object—Tosafot in the name of the Arukh].

Rav Yosef raised an objection:

How could we have said that at the beginning of the construction we do not accept from gentiles? Is it not written concerning Nehemiah, who requested from the king:

“And a letter to Asaph, the keeper of the king’s park,”

who would give me wood to roof the gates of the citadel belonging to the Temple”? This was at the beginning of the construction, and he took building materials for the Temple from Cyrus.

And we answer:

Abaye said to him:

Why should you be concerned about the weakening of their resolve?

The monarchy is different,

as there is no concern for this: since it initially intended the matter for the good, we rely on the fact

that it will not retract

from it.

This is like

Shmuel said: If the monarchy says, “I will uproot mountains,”

meaning, even something great and difficult,

it uproots mountains and does not retract from its word.

For it is the way of a monarchy to stand by its word.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A gentile who separated teruma

[according to the tanna who holds that the teruma of a gentile is teruma] from his grain,

his acquaintances,

[from his grain],

examine

him

to determine what he intended.

If he says, “I separated it with the intention of an Israelite,”

meaning, for the same purpose for which an Israelite separates teruma—

it shall be given to a kohen,

as this was his intention.

But if not,

if this has not been clarified to us,

it requires geniza, for we are concerned that in his heart

he intended to consecrate it

to Heaven.

And this refers to the present time, when there is no repair of the Temple; therefore it must be placed in geniza, because consecrated property is forbidden for benefit.

Meytivi,

from that which was taught:

A gentile who donated a beam to a synagogue, and the Name

of Heaven

was written upon it—

they examine him

to determine what he intended.

If he says, “With the intention of an Israelite”

[for the same purpose for which an Israelite donates it]

I separated it—

he cuts off

[cuts]

the place of the Name,

because of the sanctity of the Name present in that place, and it requires geniza,

and he may use the remainder

of the beam for constructing the synagogue.

But if not,

if they did not examine him—

it requires geniza, for we are concerned that perhaps

the intention of his

heart

was to consecrate it

to Heaven.

And we infer:

The reason

that we are concerned that it was consecrated is

because the Name was written upon it,

and from the fact that he wrote the Name of Heaven upon it, it is evident that he intended to consecrate it for the Most High.

If the Name had not been written upon it,

we would not be concerned that he consecrated it, and

it would not require geniza.

This is difficult for Rav, who said that even when a gentile separated teruma from his grain, we are concerned that he intended it for Heaven.

And we answer:

The same law applies: Even though the Name was not written upon it, it also requires geniza,

in accordance with Rav.

And

the reason the tanna mentioned that the Name was written upon it

is to teach us

another novel point.

Even though the Name was written upon it,

the entire object does not acquire the sanctity of the Name; rather,

he cuts off

only the place of the Name

and he may use the remainder

of the beam. Through this it teaches us

that

if he wrote

the Name

on a specific object, the entire object does not become sacred; only the place of the Name does. But

outside its place

of writing

it is not sacred. As it was taught: If the Name was written

on the handles

of utensils or on the legs of a bed, he cuts it off and places it in geniza,

because only the place of the Name is sacred.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: One who says, “This sela is for charity”—

is permitted to change its use

by borrowing it and using it for his own needs, and later returning it.

We initially understood

that it is specifically when he takes it

for himself that it is permitted,

because one may say that he set it aside for charity on the condition that if he needed it, he could borrow it and later pay another coin.

But

to lend it

to another is not permitted

to him, because he did not intend to stipulate such a condition.

And we reject this: This is

what was stated: Rav Ami said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Whether for himself,

he is permitted to change its use,

or for another.

Rabbi Zeira said: They taught

that he is permitted to change its use

only

just

when he said

“Behold, it is

upon me,”

this sela for charity. Since he said “upon me,” he is responsible for it: if it is stolen or lost, he is obligated to pay, and for this reason it is like his own property and is in his possession for purposes of using it.

But if he said, “Behold

this sela

itself”

for charity, and did not say “upon me,” so that he is not responsible for it,

I need

[that very coin]

to give it,

and it is forbidden to borrow it.

Rava challenged this: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable!

If he

said, “Behold,

it is

this,” he may use it,

because it benefits the charity

so that he will become responsible for it,

for otherwise, if it were stolen, he would not be responsible for it; but by using it, he does not become exempt until he gives another coin to charity, since his status is like that of one who sends a hand into a deposit and becomes responsible for it.

But if he said, “It is upon me,”

since he is responsible for it in any event, there is no benefit to the charity from his using it, and in this case

we do not

permit him to borrow it.

And we conclude:

Rather, there is no difference

whether he said, “It is this,” or “It is upon me”; he is permitted to change its use.

It was taught in support of Rava,

for whether he said, “It is this,” or whether he said, “It is upon me,” he is permitted to change its use. For it was taught:

A vow

is

charity, but consecrated property is not charity.

And we discuss this:

What is it saying? Is it not a vow

that goes

to charity, and not consecrated property

that goes

to charity?

Charity is for the poor, whereas consecrated property, as well as an unspecified vow of one who says, “My valuation is upon me,” is for the repair of the Temple.

And we explain:

Rather, is this not what it is saying: Charity is like a vow

with regard to transgressing it

by “do not delay.” And

charity

is not like consecrated property.

For whereas it is forbidden to use consecrated property,

because of misuse of consecrated property,

it is permitted to use charity funds.

This implies that the statement concerns all charity, both when he said, “It is this,” and when he said, “It is upon me,” in accordance with Rava.

Rav Kahana said: I stated this teaching

of Rav Naḥman, that he is permitted to change its use,

before Rav Zevid of Nehardea. He said to me: Do you teach it in this way,

that Rav Naḥman stated it without qualification, and Rav Ami and Rava explained his words?

We teach it as follows: Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said that Rav said: One who says, “This sela is for charity,” is permitted to change its use, whether for himself or for another, whether he said “it is upon me” or whether he said “it is this.”

Everything is explicitly stated in the words of Rav Naḥman himself.

The Sages taught: One who says, “This sela is for charity,” before it has come into the hand of the charity collector is permitted to change its use

by borrowing it for his own needs.

Once it has come into the hand of the charity collector,

it is forbidden

to change its use.