006a – הכל מעריכין – פרק ראשון – ערכין, דף ו ע"א

It was taught in one beraisa: A gentile who donated a gift to the Temple upkeep fund – we accept it from him.^[1]

And it was taught in another beraisa: We do not accept it?

Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: It is not difficult.

This one is at the beginning,

בתחילה - At the beginning of the building we do not accept, for perhaps they intend to weaken [our] hands.^[2]

and this one is at the end.

לבסוף - To strengthen the repair [of the Temple], where one cannot speak of weakening hands, we accept. Another version: at the beginning, when the fear of the gentiles was not upon them, we do not accept; but at the end we accept, because of fear. The first [explanation] is primary, and this one is no reason, for all the days of the Second Temple the fear of the gentiles was upon them, and at its beginning more than at its end. And if you say that this “at the beginning” too refers to the First Temple – if so, why does [Rav Yosef] challenge him below from “And a letter to Asaf” etc., which is about the Second Temple?^[3]

As Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: At the beginning, we do not accept from them even water and salt.

At the end – a conspicuous thing we do not accept,

דבר המסויים - That is seen by the eye; we do not accept it from them, for it is a disgrace, and moreover they take pride in it.

a thing that is not conspicuous – we accept.

What is a case of a conspicuous thing?

Rav Yosef said: For example, a “raven-repelling cubit.”^[4]

אמה כליא עורב - He mentioned “a cubit” because we say in the last chapter of Menachos (107a),^[5] “[One who says,] ‘Iron is upon me,’ may give no less than a cubit by a cubit, for the raven-repeller.” For they would bring iron plates a cubit by a cubit, with spikes a cubit high fixed in them, and cover the top of the roof of the Heichal with them, to drive away the ravens so that they would not settle there. כליא means driving away the ravens, like “he drove away bees, drove away flying things,” said in tractate Niddah (17a, see there),^[6] that he would drive the flies away from his bed at the time of marital relations, for modesty, since it is forbidden to have relations in the presence of any living creature. Another version: כליא עורב – holding back the ravens, as in (Tehillim 40) “do not withhold Your mercy.”^[7]

Rav Yosef raised an objection: (Nechemiah 2:8) “And a letter to Asaf, the keeper of the king’s orchard,” etc.?^[8]

ואגרת אל אסף שומר הפרדס וגו' - And this was at the beginning of the building, and they took the Temple repair [funds] from Koresh.

Abaye said to him: A kingdom is different, for it does not retract.

דלא הדרא בה - Since at the outset it intended good, it will not go back on it.

As Shmuel said: If the kingdom says, “I will uproot mountains,” it uproots mountains and does not retract.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A gentile who separated terumah^[9] from his own grain pile – we examine him: if he separated it with a Jew’s intention, it is given to a kohen; and if not, it requires hiding away, for we are concerned that in his heart he meant it for Heaven.^[10]

מכריו - Of his own grain.

אם אמר בדעת ישראל הפרשתיה - That it should go to the place where a Jew’s terumah goes. Another version: that a Jew told me to separate it. And the first [version] is what I heard.

טעונה גניזה - And it is forbidden for benefit, for we are concerned that in his heart he meant it for Heaven, for hekdesh; therefore it is hidden away. And we are dealing with the present time, when hekdesh is forbidden for benefit, as it is taught in Bechoros (53a):^[11] “We do not consecrate and do not evaluate in the present time; and if one consecrated an animal, it is hamstrung; fruits, garments and vessels are left to rot.”

They raised an objection: “A gentile who donated a beam with the Name written on it – we examine him: if he said, ‘I separated it with a Jew’s intention,’ he cuts away [the Name] and uses the remainder; and if not, it requires hiding away, for we are concerned that in his heart he meant it for Heaven.”^[12]

יגוד - He cuts out the place of the Name and hides the piece away, and uses the remainder and builds it into the synagogue.

לשמים - For hekdesh; and in the present time it has no remedy.

The reason is that the Name is written on it that it requires hiding away; but if the Name is not written on it, it does not require hiding away!

טעמא דשם כתוב עליה - For the matter is evident that in his heart he meant it for Heaven, since he wrote on it the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He.

The same is true that even though the Name is not written on it, it also requires hiding away;

and this is what it teaches us: that even though the Name is written on it, he cuts it away and uses the remainder, for a Name not in its place is not holy.^[13]

שם שלא במקומו אינו קדוש - That is, only the place of the Name is holy, and that piece is hidden away and the rest is built into the synagogue, when he said, “I separated it with a Jew’s intention.” Another version: a Name not in its place – such as on beams and vessels – is not holy, for its place is only on the parchment, written with the verse together with the Name as it was given; but a Name by itself is not in its place and is not holy. The first [version] is what I heard, and it is primary.

As we learned in a Mishnah: “If it was written on the handles of vessels or on the legs of a bed, he cuts it away and hides it.”^[14]

Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: One who says, “This sela is for charity,” is permitted to change it.^[15]

לשנותה - For his own needs, and later he will pay.

They understood from this: for himself – yes; for another – no.

אבל לאחר - To lend it to his fellow – no; for regarding himself one can say that on this condition he set it aside for charity, that if he needs it he will take it and pay another; but his fellow did not enter his mind.

It was stated: Rav Ami said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Both for himself and for another.

Rabbi Zeira said: They taught this only where he said “upon me”;^[16] but if he said “this one,” he must give it as it is.

לא שנו - That it is permitted to change it – only where he said, “This sela is upon me for charity”; for since he said “upon me” and accepted responsibility for it with regard to theft and loss, it is like his own.

אבל אמר הרי זו - And did not say “upon me” – he must give it as it is.

Rava challenged it: On the contrary, the opposite is more logical! If he said “this one,” he may use it, so that he becomes liable for it; but if he said “upon me” – no!

כי היכי דליחייב באחריותה - For since he uses it, he is like one who misappropriates a deposit,^[17] and it enters his domain with regard to payment; but if he said “upon me,” since he is liable for it anyway, he should not use it.

Rather, there is no difference.

אלא ל"ש - And it is permitted.

It was taught in a beraisa in accordance with Rava: “A vow is charity, and hekdesh is not charity.”^[18]

What is it saying? Charity is neither a vow nor hekdesh!

לא נדר צדקה - For an ordinary vow is “My value is upon me” for the Temple upkeep.

Rather, is it not saying this: charity is subject to (Devarim 23) “do not delay,”^[19] but it is not like hekdesh; for hekdesh may not be used, whereas charity may be used.

בבל תאחר - And this is the meaning: charity is a vow, for “do not delay” applies to it like a vow, as it is said in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (6a):^[20] “‘With your mouth’ – this is charity.”

Rav Kahana said: I reported this teaching before Rav Zevid of Neharde’a.

לשמעתא - The teaching “One who says, ‘This sela is for charity’” etc.

He said: You teach it this way; we teach it this way: Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha in the name of Rav: “One who says, ‘This sela is for charity,’ is permitted to change it, whether for himself or for another, whether he said ‘upon me’ or said ‘this one’.”^[21]

אתון הכי מתניתו לה - For Rav Nachman said “it is permitted to change it” without specifying, and Rabbi Ami explained it, “whether for himself or for another,” and then Rava explained it, “whether ‘upon me’ or ‘this one’”; we teach it explicitly etc., and its explanation is as Rav Nachman [said].

The Rabbis taught: “‘This sela is for charity’ – before it has come into the hand of the gabbai, it is permitted to change it; once it has come into the hand of the gabbai, it is forbidden to change it.”^[22]

Tosfos

תני חדא עובד כוכבים שהתנדב לבדק הבית - And the reason [the Gemara] does not explain it as the dispute of the Tannaim, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir,^[23] in a case where there is no weakening of hands, such as [a gift] from the king – because if so, it should not have spoken of “we accept” and “we do not accept”; rather, it should have asked whether it is holy or not holy.

תני חדא עובד כוכבים שהתנדב לבדק הבית אין מקבלין ממנו כו' - And if you say: let it answer, “This is Rabbi Meir and this is Rabbi Yehuda” – one can answer that if so, it should have asked whether it is holy or not holy; for “we do not accept from him for the Temple upkeep” [implies that it is holy], and implies that both hold like Rabbi Yehuda.

הא לכתחילה הא לבסוף - Rashi explained: at the beginning “weakening of hands” applies, and at the end it does not. And our master further explained: at the beginning, at the start of the building, there is concern that they may go back and contest, saying, “We have a share in the Holy Temple”;^[24] at the end, a conspicuous thing we do not accept, lest it serve [their] name and glory, while a non-conspicuous thing we accept, for contesting no longer applies, since the Temple has already been built. And with this, what is said shortly, “A kingdom is different, for it does not retract,” fits well – there is no need to fear contesting.

כגון אמה כליא עורב - The Aruch^[25] explained, in these words: Because in the First Temple its holiness was [felt] by the whole congregation and the Shechinah rested in it, birds did not fly over it; but in the Second Temple, since its holiness was not like that of the First, they feared that birds might fly over the Temple and drop something impure there; so they made a figure to scare the birds from the roof of the Heichal and called it “raven-repeller,” meaning: this keeps the ravens from flying over the roof of the Heichal – a figure like those that guards of seed-fields make nowadays. End of his words. And some ask: it is said in Moed Katan (9a)^[26] regarding Shlomo, “He should have left the raven-repelling cubit,” and it answers, “The raven-repelling cubit is a need of the building” – evidently it existed in the First Temple. One can answer that Shlomo feared that holiness might not rest on [the Temple], and when they saw that it was holy, they removed it.

מיתיבי ואגרת אל אסף שומר הפרדס - “And this was at the beginning of the building, and they took the Temple repair from Koresh” – the words of the Kuntres.^[27] This does not seem right, for the whole building was from Koresh, and there are several verses [showing this]; it is also written, “And whatever they need, young bullocks,” etc. It seems to me that certainly about this [the Gemara] is not particular, for so it was decreed, as it says through Yeshayahu (Yeshayahu 45),^[28] “He shall build My city”; but Asaf the keeper of the orchard was far from Koresh and was not truly his, but [Koresh] would decree that they give for the needs of the Temple repair, which was imposed on them because he ruled the whole world; in this there is reason to fear either weakening of hands or contesting, as I explained.

אם אמר בדעת ישראל הפרשתיה - This implies that a gentile can separate terumah from his own [produce], and so it is implied in the second chapter of Gittin (23b); and what is said in Zevachim, chapter Beis Shammai (45a), that he cannot separate terumah from his own, is no difficulty, for it is a dispute of Tannaim in the second chapter of Kiddushin (41b), as we learned: “A gentile’s terumah creates a forbidden mixture, and one is liable for the fifth on it; and Rabbi Shimon exempts.”^[29]

יגוד וישתמש במותר - This implies [that he may use it] by cutting the beam and not benefiting from the piece opposite the Name, for in its own place the Name did confer holiness. And one must be careful, when writing a Sefer Torah or tefillin and the place of the Name was scraped away, not to write in its place.^[30]

ואילו צדקה שרי לאשתמושי ביה - He understood that it speaks of both “this one” and “upon me.” And so is the ruling, like Rav Nachman: “One who says, ‘This sela is for charity,’ is permitted to change it, whether for himself or for another, whether he said ‘upon me’ or said ‘this one’”; and “to change it” means to borrow it.

עד שלא באתה ליד גבאי מותר לשנותה - Rabbeinu Baruch explained “permitted to change it” literally – for another mitzvah: if a person vowed a sela to charity for the poor, he may use it for another mitzvah as long as it has not come into the hand of the gabbai. But the expression “to change it” does not imply this. So I found written in the Tosafos of Rabbi Moshe of Evreux, from his brother’s writing;^[31] and he explained that “to change it” does not mean for another mitzvah, for above it says, “permitted to change it, whether he or another,” which means to borrow it; and further, since it says, “But Rabbi Yannai would borrow,” it implies that it speaks of borrowing. Therefore it seems right to say that it speaks of borrowing; but to change it [to another purpose] is certainly forbidden even before it comes into the hand of the gabbai; rather it speaks of borrowing, and once it has come into the hand of the gabbai it is forbidden to borrow it. And what is said in the first chapter of Bava Basra (8b),^[32] “The townspeople are permitted to make the fund into a soup kitchen” – that is with the townspeople’s permission, but the gabbai himself is forbidden. And the Ri says that there they are permitted to change it even not for a mitzvah, as long as it is for public needs. And one must be careful not to borrow the town’s charity money once it has come into the hand of the gabbai, even with the community’s permission, since this is not a public need. So I found written.

משבאת ליד גבאי אסור לשנותה - And this is only an individual; but the townspeople are permitted, as is implied in Bava Basra (8b): “And the townspeople are permitted to make the soup kitchen into a fund and the fund into a soup kitchen,” and to change it for whatever they wish – but only for a mitzvah, as we say at the end of the discussion (on side b)^[33] regarding a Jew who donated a candelabrum or a lamp to the synagogue. And what is said in the chapter Ha-socher es ha-umanin (Bava Metzia 78b),^[34] “Collection for Purim [goes] to Purim, and the collection of that town to that town” – specifically, and outside the town it is forbidden to change it (but for the town’s needs they are permitted) – there it speaks of the gabbai. And with this reason one can explain what we say at the beginning of Shor she-nagach (Bava Kamma 36b):^[35] (Chanan the wicked) [a certain man] struck (a certain man) [his fellow, and they told him,] “Give him half a zuz.” He said, “Since it is half a zuz, I do not want it; let it be given to the poor.” Then he said, “I will go and revive myself with it.” Rav Yosef said [to him], “The poor have already acquired it.” And one may wonder: how could he retract even if the poor had not acquired it – did we not say in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (6a), “‘With your mouth’ – this is charity”? Rather, one can say that he wanted to borrow it, change it and repay it later, and Rav Yosef told him that it had come into his hand and he was the gabbai, so it was forbidden to change it. Alternatively, one can say that he thought it was not charity at all, since [the poor] had not taken hold of it, and Rav Yosef teaches that the poor acquired it, as with “the presence of all three.”^[36]

Notes

1. 1. Bedek habayis: the fund for the repair and upkeep of the Temple building. This continues the discussion on the previous amud [Arachin 5b] of a gentile’s donation to the Temple upkeep.
2. 2. “Weakening of hands”: their aim is to discourage the builders, as the enemies of Yehudah and Binyamin offered to build with the returned exiles in order to delay the work (Ezra 4).
3. 3. That is, “at the beginning” cannot refer to the First Temple, since Rav Yosef’s objection from the letter to Asaf concerns the Second Temple.
4. 4. The “raven-repeller”: iron plates with spikes set on the roof of the Heichal to keep ravens off (Rashi). It stands out to the eye, so it counts as a “conspicuous thing.”
5. 5. [Menachos 107a]: the Mishnah there: one who pledges iron gives no less than a cubit by a cubit.
6. 6. [Niddah 17a]. כייל – drives away: he drove away bees and other flying things.
7. 7. [Tehillim 40:12]: “You, Hashem, do not withhold Your mercy from me.”
8. 8. [Nechemiah 2:8]: Nechemiah asked the king for a letter to Asaf, keeper of the king’s forest, to supply timber for the building – so they did accept from the king at the start of the building.
9. 9. Terumah: the portion of produce separated for a kohen, forbidden to a non-kohen. A gentile is not obligated to separate it, so his intention is examined.
10. 10. That is, perhaps he meant it as hekdesh; since nowadays hekdesh has no remedy, it is hidden away (Rashi).
11. 11. [Bechoros 53a]: nowadays, with no Temple, one does not consecrate, since nothing can be done with hekdesh.
12. 12. “The Name”: the Divine Name written on the beam. “He cuts away”: he cuts out the place of the Name and hides it away, and uses the rest of the beam.
13. 13. A Name “not in its place”: the Divine Name written outside a sacred scroll, e.g. on a beam or a vessel; its holiness does not extend to the rest of the beam, only to the place of the Name (Rashi).
14. 14. So only the place of the Name is hidden away, and the rest of the vessel is permitted.
15. 15. “To change it”: to use it for his own needs and later pay another coin to charity (Rashi).
16. 16. “Upon me”: he took an obligation upon himself and is responsible if the coin is lost; “this one”: he designated this particular coin.
17. 17. One who misappropriates a deposit: a custodian who uses the deposit without permission becomes like a robber and is liable for it even in an accident.
18. 18. Hekdesh: property consecrated to the Temple; it may not be used, and one who benefits from it commits me’ilah.
19. 19. [Devarim 23:22]: “When you make a vow to Hashem your God, do not delay paying it.”
20. 20. [Rosh Hashanah 6a]: there “which you spoke with your mouth” (Devarim 23:24) is expounded: “with your mouth” – this is charity.
21. 21. That is, in Neharde’a they taught Rav Nachman’s ruling explicitly for every case, not as the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Zeira and Rava.
22. 22. Gabbai: the official who collects and distributes charity. The discussion continues on the next amud [Arachin 6b].
23. 23. The dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda about a gentile, in the Mishnah and Gemara on the previous amud [Arachin 5b].
24. 24. “Contesting”: that they later claim a share in the Temple.
25. 25. The Aruch: the Talmudic lexicon of Rabbi Nasan of Rome.
26. 26. [Moed Katan 9a]: there, regarding Shlomo’s building of the First Temple, the raven-repelling cubit is mentioned.
27. 27. The Kuntres: Rashi’s commentary. “And whatever they need” – [Ezra 6:9]: the royal decree to supply the needs of the offerings from the king’s treasury.
28. 28. [Yeshayahu 45:13]: the prophecy about Koresh: “He shall build My city.”
29. 29. Creates a forbidden mixture: terumah that falls into ordinary produce forbids the mixture to non-kohanim. The fifth: a non-kohen who ate terumah unintentionally repays it plus a fifth. [Gittin 23b] [Zevachim 45a] [Kiddushin 41b]
30. 30. That is, the place of the Name became holy, so nothing else may be written there after it was erased.
31. 31. Rabbi Moshe of Evreux: one of the Tosafists, of Evreux in France. Rabbeinu Baruch: also one of the Tosafists.
32. 32. [Bava Basra 8b]. Kuppah: the charity fund collected for the town’s poor; tamchui: the food collection given to any poor person.
33. 33. [Arachin 6b]: later in this discussion, on the next amud.
34. 34. [Bava Metzia 78b]: money collected for Purim may not be diverted to another purpose.
35. 35. [Bava Kamma 36b]: one who strikes his fellow with a teki’ah (a blow on the ear) pays him half a zuz.
36. 36. “The presence of all three”: when one tells his debtor, in the third party’s presence, “Give the hundred you hold of mine to so-and-so,” the third party acquires it without a formal act of acquisition.