Arachin 6a — ערכין ו.

The perek turns to gifts to the Beit HaMikdash from a non-Jew. A baraita teaches that when a non-Jew offers a nedavah (a voluntary gift) for bedek habayit, the upkeep of the Beit HaMikdash, we accept it from him.

A second baraita teaches that we do not accept it. Tosafot ask why the Gemara does not answer that one baraita follows Rabbi Meir and the other Rabbi Yehuda, who argue on Arachin 5b about a non-Jew's erech for bedek habayit. They answer that their argument there is whether the gift becomes holy, while these two baraitot ask only whether we take it, so both of them hold like Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Ila says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the two baraitot do not contradict each other. One speaks of the beginning, and the other speaks of the end.

As Rabbi Assi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, at the beginning we do not take from them even water and salt. Rashi explains that the beginning means the time when the building was started. Then the gift might be meant for rifyon yadayim (to weaken the hands of the builders), as the Gemara said of the nations in Sefer Ezra on Arachin 5b. Rabbeinu Gershom adds that water and salt are surely bought to be used up, and they will never be seen in the building, and still we do not take them.

At the end, we do not take a davar hamesuyam (a thing that stands out and can be seen), but a thing that does not stand out we do take. Rashi explains that at the end the gift comes to strengthen the house, so there is no fear of weakening the builders. A thing that can be seen is still refused, since it is a disgrace for us and they would boast of it. Rabbeinu Gershom explains the beginning and the end in another way. If the non-Jew says first, "I want to give," we tell him that we do not accept it; once he has already given it, we take it. He adds a second reason for refusing a thing that can be seen: the giver may regret his gift later and ask for it back.

What is a thing that stands out? Rav Yosef gives an example: the amah of kalya orev (the cubit that keeps the ravens away). Rashi explains, from Menachot 107a, that these were iron plates, a cubit square, with spikes a cubit high fixed in them, set over the roof of the Heichal to drive away the ravens. Tosafot bring the Aruch, who explains that in the first Beit HaMikdash the Shechinah rested there and the birds did not fly over it. In the second Beit HaMikdash they were afraid that birds would fly over and drop something tamei, so they made this form to scare them away.

Rav Yosef raises a difficulty from Sefer Nechemiah (Nechemiah 2:8). Nechemiah asked the king for "a letter to Asaf," the guard of the royal forest, that he should give him wood for the beams of the gates. So the Jews did take from a non-Jew at the start of the building, and wood for gates is a thing that can be seen. Rashi explains that this was at the start of the building work, and they took for bedek habayit from the king.

Abaye answered him that a kingdom is different, because it does not go back on its word. Rashi explains that since the king meant it for good from the start, he will not take it back.

This is Shmuel's teaching: when the kingdom declares that it will tear up mountains, it tears them up and never retreats. Tosafot disagree with Rashi. The king himself paid for the whole building, as Yeshayahu had foretold that he would build the city of Hashem, so that raised no question. The question is from Asaf, an officer far from the king, whose wood was not truly the king's own but was given on the king's order, and there one could fear weakening or a later claim.

Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav that when a non-Jew separates terumah (the portion given to a Kohen) from his own pile of grain, we ask him what he meant.

If he says that he separated it the way a Jew does, it is given to a Kohen. Rabbeinu Gershom explains his words this way: "I want it to be used as a Jew's terumah is used."

If not, it must be put away in genizah, since we fear that in his heart he gave it to Heaven (meaning hekdesh, not for a Kohen). Rabbeinu Gershom explains that he may have meant it to be holy for the Beit HaMikdash, to buy an olah that goes up entirely to Hashem, and not to be eaten by a Kohen. Rashi explains that this speaks of our time, when hekdesh may not be used and there is no way to redeem it, as the Gemara says in Bechorot 53a. The Rambam rules this (Hilchot Terumot 4:15), and he limits it to Eretz Yisrael.

The Gemara raises a difficulty from a baraita. A non-Jew gave a beam as a gift, and Hashem's Name was written on it.

We ask him what he meant. If he says, "I set it apart the way a Jew does," he cuts out the place of the Name and uses the rest. Rashi explains that the piece with the Name is put away, and the remaining wood goes into the building of the beit knesset (shul).

If not, the beam must be put away, since we fear that in his heart he gave it to Heaven (meaning hekdesh).

The Gemara reads the baraita closely. The reason the beam must be put away is that the Name was written on it. Rashi explains that the Name shows his heart was set on Heaven. This implies that without the Name, the beam would not need genizah, which goes against Rav's ruling about the terumah.

The Gemara replies that the law is the same even with no Name on it: it needs genizah.

The baraita mentions the Name (of Hashem) to teach something else. Even with the Name written on it, if he gave it the way a Jew does, he cuts out the Name and uses the rest, because a Name written where it does not belong has no kedushah. Rashi explains that only the spot of the Name is holy, and not the remaining wood. He also brings a second reading: a Name on beams or vessels is never in its proper spot, since its place is on parchment, together with the pasuk. Rashi says that the first explanation is the main one. Tosafot add that the spot of the Name is holy, so a person may not use that piece. From here they warn a sofer (scribe) that if the Name was scraped off a sefer Torah or tefillin, he should not write anything else on that spot.

As we learned, if Hashem's Name is found on a vessel's handles or on a bed's legs, he cuts the Name out and puts it away. The rest of the vessel may be used.

Rav Nachman says in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha that a person who says "this sela (coin) goes to tzedakah" may change it. Rashi and Rabbeinu Gershom explain that "change it" means to borrow it for his own needs and pay it back later.

They understood from this that he may borrow it for himself, but he may not lend it to another person. Rashi explains that when he set the coin aside, he may have planned to borrow it if he needed it and give another coin, but he did not have his friend in mind. Rabbeinu Gershom gives another reason: he will not hold back the tzedakah, but his friend does not care and may hold it back.

It was stated that Rabbi Ami says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that he may borrow it himself and may also lend it out.

Rabbi Zeira says that this was taught only when he said "alai" (upon me). Rashi explains that with "alai" he took on full responsibility, even for theft and loss, so the coin is like his own.

But if he said "harei zo" (this one), he must give that very coin.

Rava disagrees. On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. If he said "this one," he should use the coin, so that he becomes responsible for it. Rashi explains that by using it he is like one who takes a deposit for himself, and from then on he must pay for it if it is lost.

But if he said "alai," he is already responsible, so there is no reason for him to use it.

Rather, Rava concludes that both wordings are the same: either way he may use it.

A baraita supports Rava. It says: "neder tzedakah, ve'ein hekdesh tzedakah."

What does that mean? That tzedakah is not a vow and not hekdesh?

Rather, it must mean this: tzedakah is a vow, and the law of bal te'acher (do not delay) applies to it, from Parshat Ki Teitzei. Rashi points to Rosh Hashanah 6a, where "with your mouth" in that pasuk is read as tzedakah.

But tzedakah is not like hekdesh. Hekdesh may not be used, and tzedakah may be used. The baraita makes no difference between "this one" and "alai," like Rava. Tosafot rule like Rav Nachman, that one who says of a coin, "this sela goes to tzedakah," may borrow it himself or lend it, and his wording, "alai" or "this one," makes no difference.

Rav Kahana says that he told this teaching before Rav Zevid of Nehardea, and Rav Zevid said to him that this is how you learn it, but we learn it another way. Rashi explains that in their version, Rav Nachman spoke in general, Rabbi Ami added that it may also be lent out, and Rava added "alai or this one." In Rav Zevid's version, all of it is said at once.

Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha in the name of Rav that whoever says "this sela goes to tzedakah" may change it. He may borrow it or lend it to someone else, and it makes no difference if he said "alai" or "harei zo."

A baraita teaches about a person who sets aside a coin with the words "this sela goes to tzedakah." Before it reaches the gabbai (the collector of tzedakah), he may change it.

Once it reaches the gabbai, he may not change it. (Haggahot Ya'avetz deletes the opening words "a baraita teaches," so this rule is the end of Rav Zevid's version.) Tosafot bring two views on "change it." Rabbeinu Baruch explains it as using the coin for a different mitzvah. Others in Tosafot explain it as borrowing, as above. The Rambam rules that a person who said "this sela goes to tzedakah," or who took a sela for tzedakah on himself and set one aside, may exchange it for another coin; once it reaches the gabbai, he may not (Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 8:4).