Arakhin 6a — the Talmud in English

We ask:

One tana taught

a beraita:

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

in

another

beraita:

They do not accept it

from him; rather, it is to be stored away. And the beraitot contradict one another.

And we answer:

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

This

that was taught, that they do not accept it, refers

to the beginning

of the construction of the Temple, for there is concern that they intend to weaken the hands and delay the construction, as above.

This

that was taught, that they accept it, refers

to the end

of the construction, after it has already been built, and the donation then comes only to strengthen the repair of the Temple; and in this there is no longer concern for weakening the hands.

And likewise we find

that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: At the beginning

of the construction

even water and salt,

which are not a distinct object,

they do not accept

from them, because of weakening the hands.

At the end

of the construction, when there is no longer concern for this, nevertheless

a distinct object

that is visible in the construction,

they do not accept

from gentiles, for it is disgraceful, and the gentiles also boast of it. But

an object that is not distinct

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

they accept

from gentiles.

What are the circumstances of a distinct object? Rav Yosef said: Such as the cubit of the crow-deterrent.

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

Rav Yosef raised an objection:

How did we say that at the beginning of the construction they do not accept from gentiles? Yet it is written concerning Nehemiah, who requested of the king:

“And a letter to Asaph, keeper of the park

of the king, that he should give me timber to roof the gates of the fortress belonging to the House,” and this was at the beginning of the construction, and he took timber for the construction of the House from Cyrus.

And we answer:

Abaye said to him:

Why should you be concerned? About weakening the hands!

The monarchy is different,

for there is no concern for this, since, because it intended good at the beginning, we rely

that it does not retract

from it.

As

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

“I will uproot mountains from their places”—that is, even something great and difficult—

it uproots mountains and does not retract.

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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A gentile who separated teruma [A0077][according to the tana who says that the teruma of a gentile is]

teruma]

from his acquaintances, [A0080][from his produce]

[from his grain],

they examine

him,

what was in his mind.

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

that is, for the same purpose for which an Israelite separates teruma—

it shall be given to a priest,

for this is what he intended.

But if not,

if this has not become clear to us,

it requires being stored away, for we are concerned that perhaps in his heart

he intended to dedicate it

to Heaven.

And this concerns the present time, when there is no repair of the Temple; therefore it is to be stored away, because an object dedicated to Heaven is forbidden for benefit.

A refutation was raised from that which was taught:

A beraita:

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

of Heaven

was written upon it—

they examine him,

what was in his mind.

If he says, “with the intention of an Israelite [A0107][for the same purpose for which an Israelite donates]

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

I separated it,”—

he shall cut off [A0110][cut]

[cuts]

the place of the Name,

because of the sanctity of the Name present in this place, and it requires being stored away,

and he may use the remainder

of the beam for the construction of the synagogue.

But if not,

if they did not examine him—

it requires being stored away, for we are concerned that perhaps

the intention of

his heart

was to dedicate it

to Heaven.

And we infer:

The reason

that they are concerned about a dedication

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 it as a dedication for the Most High.

If the Name was not written upon it,

we are not concerned about a dedication, and

it does not require being stored away.

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

And we answer:

The same law applies: although the Name was not written upon it, it also requires being stored away,

as Rav says.

And this

that the tana mentioned that the Name was written upon it

comes to teach us

another novelty through this.

Although the Name was written upon it,

the entire object does not become sacred with the sanctity of the Name; rather,

he shall cut off

only the place of the Name

and he may use the remainder

of the beam. And through this it informs us

that

if he wrote

a Name

on a distinct object, the entire object did not become sacred, but only the place of the Name; whereas

outside its place

of the writing ,

it is not sacred. As it was taught:

the Name was written

on the handles

of vessels or on the legs of a bed—he shall cut it off and store it away,

for only the place of the Name is sacred.

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

it is permitted to alter it

by lending it and using it for his needs, and afterward returning it.

We understood from this

that specifically when taking

for himself, yes,

it is permitted, for one may say that he set it aside for charity on this condition: that if he needs it, he will borrow it and repay with another.

But

to lend it

to another, no,

we will not permit him, because he did not intend to stipulate this.

And we reject: Thus

it was stated: Rav Ami said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Both for himself

it is permitted to alter it

and for another.

Rabbi Zeira said: They taught

that it is permitted to alter it

only

just

when he says

“Behold,

upon me

this sela” for since he said “upon me,” he is liable for it: if it is stolen or lost, he becomes obligated to pay. Therefore it is like his own and is in his authority to use it.

But if he said, “Behold

this

one

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

the actual one [A0252][that one itself]

[that very coin]

he must give

and it is forbidden to lend it.

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

If

he said “Behold,

this

one,” he uses it,

which is beneficial for the charity,

so that he will be liable for it,

for without this, if it is stolen he is not liable for it; and by using it he will not be exempt until he gives another for charity, because his status is like that of one who sends a hand into a deposit, who is liable for it.

But if he said, “Upon me,”

since in any event he becomes liable for it, there is no benefit to the charity in his using it, and in such a case

we will not

permit him to borrow it.

And we conclude:

Rather, there is no difference

between whether he said, “This one,” and whether he said, “Upon me”; it is permitted to alter it.

It was taught in accordance with Rava,

for whether he said, “This one,” or said, “Upon me,” it is permitted to alter it. For it was taught:

A vow

is

charity, but a dedication is not charity.

And we examine it:

What is it saying? But a vow does not

go

to charity, nor a dedication

go

to charity.

For charity is for the poor, whereas a dedication, and an ordinary vow of one who says, “My valuation is upon me,” are 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 concerning it

“Do not delay.” And

charity

is not like a dedication.

For whereas it is forbidden to use a dedication,

because of misuse,

whereas it is permitted to use charity.

And it implies that the matter concerns all charity, whether he said, “This one,” or whether he said, “Upon me,” which is in accordance with Rava.

Rav Kahana said: I stated the teaching

of Rabbi Nahman, that it is permitted to alter it,

before Rabbi Zevid of Nehardea. He said to me: You teach it this way,

that Rav Nahman said it without specification, and Rav Ami and Rava explained his words.

We teach it this way: Rav Nahman said that Rabbah bar Avuha said that Rav said: One who says, “This sela is for charity,” may alter it both for himself and for another, whether he said “upon me” or whether he said “this one.”

And everything is explicit in Rabbi Nahman’s own words.

Our Rabbis taught: One who says, “This sela is for charity”—before it came into the hand of the charity collector, it is permitted to alter it

by lending it for his needs;

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

it is forbidden

to alter it.