## Arakhin Daf 6b

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

אִינִי? וְהָא רַבִּי יַנַּאי יָזֵיף וּפָרַע! שָׁאנֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי, דְּנִיחָא לְהוּ לַעֲנִיִּים דְּכַמָּה דִּמְשַׁהֵי מְעַשֵּׂה וּמַיְיתֵי לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But Rabbi Yannai,** who was a charity collector, **borrowed** money belonging to charity **and repaid.** The Gemara answers: The case of **Rabbi Yannai is different;** it is **beneficial to the poor** that he be allowed to borrow and repay, **as the longer he leaves** the charity fund empty, the more he **impels** people to give charity, **and** he thereby **brings** more money **to** the poor.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב מְנוֹרָה אוֹ נֵר לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת — אָסוּר לְשַׁנּוֹתָהּ. סָבַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְמֵימָר: לָא שְׁנָא לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת וְלָא שְׁנָא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַמֵּי: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן — לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת, אֲבָל לִדְבַר מִצְוָה מוּתָּר לְשַׁנּוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** a *baraita* that deals with a similar matter: In the case of **a Jew who donated a candelabrum or a lamp to the synagogue,** it is **prohibited to change it** and use it for another purpose. **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba thought to say** that there **is no difference** whether he wishes to change **for a voluntary matter or for a matter** involving **a mitzva,** as in both cases it is prohibited. **Rav Ami said to** Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: **This** is what **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** When the Sages taught the *baraita*, they **taught only** that it is prohibited when he changes it **for a voluntary matter, but** it is **permitted to change it for a matter** involving **a mitzva.**


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

מִדְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גּוֹי שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב מְנוֹרָה אוֹ נֵר לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּקַּע שֵׁם בְּעָלֶיהָ — אָסוּר לְשַׁנּוֹתָהּ, מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁתַּקַּע שֵׁם בְּעָלֶיהָ — מוּתָּר לְשַׁנּוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This *halakha* is derived **from** the fact **that Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **a gentile who donated a candelabrum or a lamp to the synagogue, if** it is **before its owner’s name** has been **forgotten,** i.e., people still remember that he donated the item, it is **prohibited to change it** and use it for another purpose. **Once its owner’s name** has been **forgotten,** it is **permitted to change it.**


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

לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת, מַאי אִירְיָא גּוֹי? אֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **With regard to what** purpose is it stated that one may not change it before the owner’s name was forgotten? **If we say** that it is prohibited to change it **for a voluntary matter, why** does the *baraita* **specifically** mention **a gentile?** It is prohibited to change it in this manner **even** if it was donated by **a Jew.**


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

אֶלָּא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, וְטַעְמָא דְּגוֹי הוּא דְּפָעֵי, אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּלָא פָּעֵי — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* must be dealing with a change **for a matter** involving **a mitzva,** and therefore it is prohibited only if the donor is a gentile and his name has not yet been forgotten. **And the reason** for this *halakha* is **that it is** specifically **a gentile who** would protest and **scream:** Where is the candelabrum that I donated? **But** in the case of **a Jew, who** would **not** protest and **scream** if they used his donation for a different mitzva, one may **well** change it.


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

שַׁעַזְרַק טַיָּיעָא אִינַּדַּב שְׁרָגָא לְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, שַׁנְּיֵיהּ רַחֲבָא וְאִיקְּפֵד רָבָא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: שַׁנְּיֵיהּ רָבָא וְאִיקְּפֵד רַחֲבָא, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: שַׁנְּיֻיהּ חַזָּנֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, וְאִיקְּפֵד רַחֲבָא וְאִיקְּפֵד רַבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Sha’azrak, an Arab [*tayya’a*]** merchant, **donated a candelabrum to Rav Yehuda’s synagogue. Raḥava changed its** purpose before Sha’azrak’s name was forgotten as the donor, and **Rava became angry** at Raḥava for not waiting. **Some say** the opposite: **Rava changed its** purpose, and **Raḥava became angry** at Rava. **And some say** that the **attendants of Pumbedita,** the charity collectors, **changed** its purpose, and **Raḥava became angry** at them, **and Rabba became angry** at them as well.


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

מַאן דְּשַׁנְּיֵיהּ סָבַר דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ, וּמַאן דְּאִיקְּפֵד סָבַר זִמְנִין דְּמִקְּרֵי וְאָתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The **one who changed** its purpose **holds that** it was permitted to change it, **as** it was **not common** for Sha’azrak to be in the city and it was unlikely that he would protest the change. **And** the **one who became angry holds** that even so, they should not have changed it, as **sometimes he happens to come** there.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הַגּוֹסֵס וְהַיּוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג — לֹא נִידָּר וְלֹא נֶעֱרָךְ. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא אוֹמֵר: נֶעֱרָךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָיו קְצוּבִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: נוֹדֵר וּמַעֲרִיךְ וּמַקְדִּישׁ, וְאִם הִזִּיק — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who is moribund and one who is taken to be executed** after being sentenced by the court **is neither** the object of **a vow nor valuated. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya says:** He is not the object of a vow, because he has no market value; but **he is valuated, due to** the fact **that one’s value is fixed** by the Torah based on age and sex. **Rabbi Yosei says:** One with that status **vows** to donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury, **and takes** vows of **valuation, and consecrates** his property; **and if he damages** the property of others, he is **liable** to pay compensation.


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

**גְּמָ׳** בִּשְׁלָמָא גּוֹסֵס לֹא נִידָּר — דְּלָאו בַּר דָּמִים הוּא, וְלֹא נֶעֱרָךְ — דְּלָאו בַּר הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה הוּא, אֶלָּא יוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג, בִּשְׁלָמָא לֹא נִידָּר — דְּלָאו בַּר דָּמִים הוּא, אֶלָּא לֹא נֶעֱרָךְ אַמַּאי לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Granted,** it makes sense that **one who is moribund is not** the object of **a vow, as he has no monetary** value. **And** it also stands to reason that he **is not valuated,** as **he is not subject to setting,** i.e., standing, **and** therefore is not subject to **valuation.** The verse states: “Then he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him” (Leviticus 27:8). This teaches that anyone who cannot stand, such as one who is dying, is not included in the *halakha* of valuation. **But** with regard to **one who is taken to be executed, granted,** he **is not** the object of **a vow, as he has no monetary** value, since no one would purchase him. **But** with regard to the mishna’s statement that he is **not valuated, why not?**


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

דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן הַיּוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג וְאָמַר ״עֶרְכִּי עָלַי״, שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר כְּלוּם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם לֹא יִפָּדֶה״. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִן הָאָדָם״, וְלֹא כׇּל הָאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that the reason is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived that in the case of **one who** is being **taken to be executed and** who **said: My valuation is upon me** to donate to the Temple, **that he did not say anything,** and the valuation is not collected from his estate? **The verse states: “Anything dedicated [*ḥerem*],** that may be dedicated of men, **shall not be redeemed”** (Leviticus 27:29). This teaches that with regard to one who is worthy of excommunication [*ḥerem*], i.e., condemned to death, one cannot redeem him, i.e., pay his valuation. One **might** have thought that this applies **even before his verdict is issued,** i.e., that this *halakha* applies even if one issued this statement before being sentenced to death. Therefore, **the verse states: “Of men,” and not all men,** i.e., only some men destined to be executed have no valuation, and not all of them.


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

וּלְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא, דְּאָמַר נֶעֱרָךְ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָיו קְצוּבִין, הַאי ״כׇּל חֵרֶם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And with regard to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya, who says** in the mishna that even a person taken to be executed **is valuated, due to** the fact **that one’s value is fixed, what does he do** with the phrase **“anything dedicated”?**


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

לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ לַמּוּמָתִים בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לָהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אִם כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו״, יָכוֹל אַף בִּידֵי אָדָם כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כׇּל חֵרֶם לֹא יִפָּדֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that he requires it **for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: Since we found with regard to those executed at the hand of Heaven that they give money and their** sins **are atoned, as it is stated** in the case of the owner of a forewarned ox that killed a person: “The ox shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death. **If there be laid upon him a ransom,** then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him” (Exodus 21:29–30), one **might** have thought that **even** with regard to those liable to receive the death penalty **at the hands of man** it is **so,** that one can pay in lieu of execution. Therefore, **the verse states: “Anything dedicated** that may be dedicated of men, **shall not be redeemed”** (Leviticus 27:29).


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

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִיתוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה שִׁגְגָתָן לְכַפָּרָה, מִיתוֹת קַלּוֹת, שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה שִׁגְגָתָן לְכַפָּרָה, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I have** derived **only** that one cannot give payment in lieu of execution with regard to **severe** prohibitions punishable by the **death** penalty, e.g., blasphemy or cursing one’s father, **for which no atonement is designated** in the Torah **for their unwitting** violation. **From where** is it derived that the same applies to **less severe** prohibitions punishable by the **death** penalty, e.g., violating Shabbat or killing, **for which atonement** of an offering or exile **is designated** in the Torah **for their unwitting** violation? **The verse states: “Anything dedicated,”** to include all prohibitions punishable by court-administered execution.


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

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: נוֹדֵר וּמַעֲרִיךְ כּוּ׳. וְתַנָּא קַמָּא מִי קָאָמַר דְּלָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches, with regard to one who is taken to be executed, that **Rabbi Yosei says:** Such a person **vows** to donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury, **and takes** vows of **valuation,** and consecrates his property; and if he damages the property of others, he is liable to pay compensation. The Gemara asks: **And does the first *tanna* say** that such a person does **not** vow to donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury and take vows of valuation, such that Rabbi Yosei could be understood as disputing his opinion? The first *tanna* merely said that such an individual is not subject to vows and valuations. What is the difference between their opinions?


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

אֶלָּא, בְּנוֹדֵר וּמַעֲרִיךְ וּמִקַּדִּישׁ — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְלִיגִי — בְּאִם הִזִּיק. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: אִם הִזִּיק — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: אִם הִזִּיק — חַיָּיב בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, with regard to** whether or not one who is taken to be executed can **vow** to donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury, **and take** vows of **valuation, and consecrate** his property, **everyone,** including the first *tanna*, **agrees** that he can. **When they disagree,** it is **in** a case **where** he **causes damage. The first *tanna* holds** that **if** he **causes damage** he is **not liable for payment, and Rabbi Yosei holds** that **if** he **causes damage** he is **liable to pay** compensation.


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

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּמִלְוָה עַל פֶּה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין קָמִיפַּלְגִי, תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: מִלְוָה עַל פֶּה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: מִלְוָה עַל פֶּה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do** these *tanna’im* **disagree,** as it is an accepted principle that one who causes damage must pay? **Rav Yosef said:** They **disagree** as to whether the payment can be collected from his estate. This depends on the question of whether or not one who is owed money from **a loan by oral** agreement, i.e., a loan given without a document that places a lien on the land, can **collect from the heirs. The first *tanna* holds** that one who is owed money from **a loan by oral** agreement **cannot collect from the heirs, and Rabbi Yosei holds** that one who is owed money from **a loan by oral** agreement can **collect from the heirs.**


###### Arakhin 6b:17
[Arakhin 6b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6b:17)

רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִלְוָה עַל פֶּה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין, וְהָכָא בְּמִלְוָה כְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי, תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: מִלְוָה כְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה לָאו כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** In fact, **everyone** agrees that one who is owed money from **a loan by oral** agreement **cannot collect from the heirs; and here** the *tanna’im* **disagree with regard to** the status of **a loan that is written in the Torah,** i.e., a financial obligation decreed by Torah law, such as paying damages. **The first *tanna* holds** that **a loan that is written in the Torah is not** considered **as though it is written in a document,** and may not be collected from the heirs. **Rabbi Yosei holds** that such a loan **is** considered **as though it is written in a document,** and therefore it may be collected from the heirs.


###### Arakhin 6b:18
[Arakhin 6b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/6b:18)

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַהָא: הַיּוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג, הוּא שֶׁחָבַל בַּאֲחֵרִים — חַיָּיב, אֲחֵרִים שֶׁחָבְלוּ בּוֹ — פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף הוּא אִם חָבַל בַּאֲחֵרִים — פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן לַחֲזָרַת עֲמִידַת בֵּית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are those who teach** the dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef **with regard to this** *baraita*: In the case of **one who is taken to be executed** after being sentenced by the court, if **he injured another** he is **liable** for payment. But if **others injured him** they are **exempt,** as they would be if they injured a dead person. **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if** it was **he** who **injured others,** he is **exempt, as** he **cannot be brought back to stand** before **the court** for judgment, since he must be executed without delay.