📜 Arakhin — 6a

§ The Gemara notes that there is an apparent contradiction with regard to the issue of whether or not a gentile may donate for the purpose of Temple maintenance. It was taught in one baraita: In the case of a gentile who pledged a gift for Temple maintenance, one accepts it from him. And it is taught in another baraita: One does not accept it from him. Rabbi Ila says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that the donation is not accepted, is stated with regard to the beginning of the building of the Temple. The donation is refused in order that the Jews not rely upon on the donations of gentiles. That baraita, which states that the donation is accepted, is stated with regard to the end of the building of the Temple, i.e., after it is already built. As Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says with regard to donations of gentiles for Temple maintenance: With regard to the beginning of the building of the Temple, one may not accept even water and salt from them. With regard to the end of the building of the Temple, one may not accept a defined item, i.e., if it will be clear that this was donated by a gentile. But one may accept their gift of an item that is not defined. The Gemara asks: What is considered to be a defined item? Rav Yosef says: For example, the cubit-wide spiked plates placed on the roof of the Sanctuary, which were designed to eliminate the ravens. Rav Yosef raises an objection to the ruling of the baraita as interpreted by Rabbi Yoḥanan, that with regard to the beginning of the building of the Temple nothing is accepted from gentiles. Nehemiah requested from the king of Persia: “And a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king’s park, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the castle that pertains to the house” (Nehemiah 2:8). Here Nehemiah clearly asked for material from gentiles. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Actions taken by the government are different, as the government does not retract its decisions. As Shmuel says: If the government says: I will uproot mountains, it will uproot mountains and not retract what it said. § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to a gentile who separated teruma from his pile of grain, one examines him to determine his intent. If he separated it with the intent that it be like the teruma of Jews, it should be given to a priest. If not, it requires interment, as we are concerned that perhaps his heart was directed toward Heaven, i.e., his intent was to consecrate it to the Temple and he did not want it to be given to a priest. Since there is uncertainty with regard to his intent, nothing can be done with that produce. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a gentile who donated a cross beam and brought it to a synagogue, and the name of God is written on it, one examines him to determine his intent. If he says: I separated it with the intent that it be like the donations of Jews, the name should be cut off [yagod] and interred, and one uses the remainder for a synagogue. And if not, the entire beam requires interment, as we are concerned that perhaps his heart was directed toward Heaven, i.e., his intent was to consecrate it to the Temple, and therefore it may not be used. The Gemara analyzes this baraita: The reason that the beam requires interment is that the name of God is written on it, from which it may be inferred that if God’s name is not written on it, it does not require interment. Why, then, did Rav Yehuda say that if a gentile separated teruma it requires interment? The Gemara answers: Even though the name of God is not written on the beam, the same halakha is true, and the beam requires interment, due to the concern that he might have intended to consecrate it. And as for why the baraita specifically discusses the case where God’s name was written on the beam, this teaches us that if his intention was for it to be used in a synagogue, then even though God’s name is written on it, nevertheless the rest of the beam is not prohibited. Rather, the name should be cut off and interred, and one may use the remainder for a synagogue. The reason is that if God’s name is written on an item, only the place where it is written is sanctified, but that part of the item that is not in its place is not sanctified. As we learned in a baraita: If one of the names of God was written on the handles of vessels or on legs of a bed, one must cut off the name and inter it, and the remainder is permitted. § Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Abbahu says: One who says: I am contributing this sela to charity, is permitted to change its purpose, i.e., to use the money himself and later replace it. The Gemara comments: It was initially understood from this that if one wants to change its purpose for his own benefit, yes, this is permitted, as he originally had this stipulation in mind. But it is not permitted to lend it to another. Yet it was stated that Rav Ami says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is permitted to change its purpose whether for himself or for another. Rabbi Zeira says: They taught this halakha, that one may change the purpose of the coin, only in a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to donate a sela to charity. But if he said: This sela is for charity, then he is required to give the sela to charity as is, and he may not use it and replace it. Rava objects to this: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. In a case where one said: This sela is for charity, it makes sense to allow him to use it, so that he should bear financial responsibility for its loss from that point onward. But if he said: It is incumbent upon me to donate a sela to charity, he should not be allowed to use the sela, as in any event he must donate a sela. Rather, as there is a reason in either situation to permit its use, there is no difference between the cases, and in both cases he may use the sela. The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: A vow is charity, but consecrated property is not charity. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? After all, neither a vow nor consecrated property is charity. Rather, is it not correct that this is what the baraita is saying: Charity is like a vow to consecrate property, in that it is subject to the prohibition of: You shall not delay, which is derived from the verse: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it” (Deuteronomy 23:22). But nevertheless it is not like consecrated property, as in the case of consecrated property it is prohibited to use it, while in the case of charity it is permitted to use it. Since with regard to the option of using the money the baraita does not distinguish between a case where one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate a sela to charity, and a case where he says: This sela is for charity, it evidently supports the opinion of Rava. Rav Kahana said: I said this halakha of Rav Naḥman’s, with regard to one who says: This sela is for charity, along with the accompanying discussion, before Rav Zevid from Neharde’a. He said to me: You teach this halakha in this manner, that Rav Naḥman merely stated that it is permitted to change the purpose of the sela, and the Sages clarified that it is permitted in all cases. But we teach this halakha in this manner, that it was all stated citing Rav Naḥman: Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: One who said: I am contributing this sela to charity, is permitted to change its purpose, whether for himself or for another, and whether he said: It is incumbent upon me, or whether he said: This sela is for charity. § The Sages taught a baraita which further deals with these matters. One who said: This sela is for charity, is permitted to change its purpose and replace it, as long as it has not yet come into the possession of the charity collectors. But once it has come into the possession of the charity collectors it is prohibited to change its purpose.