## Arakhin Daf 6a

###### Arakhin 6a:1
[Arakhin 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:1)

תָּנָא חֲדָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב נְדָבָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת מְקַבְּלִים הֵימֶנּוּ, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין מְקַבְּלִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Arakhin 6a:2
[Arakhin 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — בַּתְּחִילָּה, הָא — בַּסּוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 6a:3
[Arakhin 6a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:3)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּתְחִילָּה, אֲפִילּוּ מַיִם וּמֶלַח אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶם. בַּסּוֹף, דָּבָר הַמְסוּיָּים אֵין מְקַבְּלִין, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְסוּיָּים מְקַבְּלִין. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי דָּבָר הַמְסוּיָּים? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּגוֹן אַמָּה כָּלְיָא עוֹרֵב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Arakhin 6a:4
[Arakhin 6a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:4)

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: ״וְאִיגֶּרֶת אֶל אָסָף שׁוֹמֵר הַפַּרְדֵּס אֲשֶׁר לַמֶּלֶךְ וְגוֹ׳״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵּי: שָׁאנֵי מַלְכוּתָא דְּלָא הָדְרָא בַּיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אִי אָמַר מַלְכוּתָא ״עָקַרְנָא טוּרֵי״, עָקַר טוּרֵי וְלָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 6a:5
[Arakhin 6a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:5)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: גּוֹי שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה מִכִּרְיוֹ, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, אִי בְּדַעַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הִפְרִישָׁהּ — תִּינָּתֵן לַכֹּהֵן, וְאִם לָאו — טְעוּנָה גְּנִיזָה, חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא בְּלִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Arakhin 6a:6
[Arakhin 6a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:6)

מֵיתִיבִי: גּוֹי שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב קוֹרָה, וְשֵׁם כָּתוּב עָלֶיהָ — בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, אִם אָמַר: ״בְּדַעַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הִפְרַשְׁתִּיהָ״ — יָגוֹד וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּמּוֹתָר, וְאִם לָאו — טְעוּנָה גְּנִיזָה, חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא בְּלִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 6a:7
[Arakhin 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:7)

טַעְמָא דְּשֵׁם כָּתוּב עָלֶיהָ, דְּבָעֲיָא גְּנִיזָה; הָא אֵין שֵׁם כָּתוּב עָלֶיהָ — לָא בָּעֲיָא גְּנִיזָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Arakhin 6a:8
[Arakhin 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:8)

הוּא הַדִּין דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאֵין שֵׁם כָּתוּב עָלֶיהָ נָמֵי בָּעֲיָא גְּנִיזָה, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּשֵׁם כָּתוּב עָלֶיהָ, יָגוֹד וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּמּוֹתָר, דְּשֵׁם שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לָאו קָדוֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Arakhin 6a:9
[Arakhin 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:9)

דִּתְנַן: הָיָה כָּתוּב עַל יְדוֹת הַכֵּלִים וְעַל כַּרְעֵי הַמִּטָּה — הֲרֵי זֶה יָגוֹד וְיִגְנוֹז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 6a:10
[Arakhin 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:10)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבָהוּ: הָאוֹמֵר ״סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה״ — מוּתָּר לְשַׁנּוֹתָהּ. סְבוּר מִינַּהּ: לְעַצְמוֹ — אִין, לְאַחֵר — לָא. אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֵּין לְעַצְמוֹ בֵּין לְאַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.**


###### Arakhin 6a:11
[Arakhin 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי זְעֵירָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ״ — בְּעֵינַאּ בָּעֵי לְמִיתְּבַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 6a:12
[Arakhin 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:12)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִיסְתַּבְּרָא — אָמַר ״זוֹ״ מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיחַיַּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתַהּ, אֲבָל אָמַר ״עָלַי״ — לָא! אֶלָּא, לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


###### Arakhin 6a:13
[Arakhin 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:13)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: נֶדֶר צְדָקָה, וְאֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ צְדָקָה. מַאי קָאָמַר? לָא נֶדֶר וְלָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ צְדָקָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Arakhin 6a:14
[Arakhin 6a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:14)

אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: צְדָקָה הֲרֵי הִיא בְּבַל תְּאַחֵר, וְאֵינָהּ כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, דְּאִילּוּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֲסִיר לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בֵּיהּ, וְאִילּוּ צְדָקָה שְׁרֵי לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 6a:15
[Arakhin 6a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:15)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אַמְרִיתָא לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב זְבִיד מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא, אָמַר: אַתּוּן הָכִי מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ, אֲנַן הָכִי מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ — אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: הָאוֹמֵר ״סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה״ מוּתָּר לְשַׁנּוֹתָהּ, בֵּין לְעַצְמוֹ בֵּין לְאַחֵר, בֵּין אָמַר ״עָלַי״ בֵּין אָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 6a:16
[Arakhin 6a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6a:16)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה״ — עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתָה לְיַד גַּבַּאי, מוּתָּר לְשַׁנּוֹתָהּ; מִשֶּׁבָּאתָה לְיַד גַּבַּאי, אָסוּר לְשַׁנּוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.