Arachin 6b — ערכין ו:

The Gemara challenges this: Rabbi Yannai used to borrow such money and pay it back! Rashi explains that Rabbi Yannai was a gabbai, and he borrowed tzedakah money for his own needs and then repaid it.

Rabbi Yannai is different, because the poor were glad of it. As long as he held back the money, he pressed people to give, and he brought in more for them. Rashi explains that while Rabbi Yannai owed the fund and had nothing to repay with, he would tell the people that there was nothing to give the poor, and he would make them give tzedakah. So the poor gained. The Rambam rules that when the poor gain from the delay, the gabbai may borrow the money and repay it, since tzedakah is not like hekdesh (Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 8:5).

A baraita teaches that a Jew who gave a menorah or a lamp to a beit knesset may not change it.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba thought that it makes no difference whether it is changed for a devar reshut (an ordinary use) or for a devar mitzvah. Rabbeinu Gershom explains that in his view it may not be changed even for pidyon shevuyim (freeing captives).

Rabbi Ami said to him that Rabbi Yochanan said that the baraita speaks only of a devar reshut, but for a devar mitzvah he may change it.

This is learned from what Rabbi Assi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan about a non-Jew who gave a menorah or a lamp to a beit knesset.

As long as the owner's name has not been forgotten from it, it may not be changed. Rashi explains that people still say, "this is the menorah that so-and-so the non-Jew gave." Once the owner's name is forgotten, it may be changed.

For what use? If for a devar reshut, why say a non-Jew? The same would be true even for a Jew. Tosafot add that the Gemara could also have asked why the rule depends on the name being forgotten.

Rather, Rabbi Assi speaks of a devar mitzvah.

And the reason a non-Jew's lamp may not be changed is that he complains. Rashi explains that he will cry out, "why did you change what I gave?" But a Jew does not complain, so changing it for a mitzvah is fine. That shows that Rabbi Yochanan allows a Jew's gift to be changed for a mitzvah. The Rambam rules that a Jew's menorah may be changed for a devar mitzvah even before his name is forgotten, and for a devar reshut once it is forgotten. A non-Jew's may not be changed even for a mitzvah until his name is forgotten, so that he should not say that he gave something to the Jews' shul and they sold it for themselves (Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 8:6–7).

The Gemara brings a story. Shaazrak, an Arab, gave a lamp to the beit knesset of Rav Yehuda.

Rachava changed it, and Rava was upset.

Some say Rava changed it, and Rachava was upset.

And some say the chazanim (the shul attendants) of Pumbedita changed it, and Rachava was upset, and Rabbah was upset.

The one who changed it held that Shaazrak was not often there. Rashi explains that he was a merchant who went from town to town, so he would not be in the town to complain.

The one who was upset held that he may pass through now and then, and he would see that his lamp was changed.

A new Mishnah (Mishnah Arachin 1). A goses (a person in his last moments of life) and one who is going out to be executed are not nidar and not ne'erach: no one can make a neder (promise of money or object) on their value and no one can pledge their erech.

Rabbi Chanina ben Akavya says that a man on his way to execution is ne'erach, because the Torah sets his erech by his age. Rashi explains that the erech is fixed by age in the parsha of arachin. Rabbi Chanina agrees about the goses, since he cannot be stood up before the Kohen, and he agrees that the condemned man has no damim, because nobody would pay money for him and lose it.

Rabbi Yose says that he can make a neder (vow), pledge an erech and make hekdesh, and if he caused damage, he must pay. Rashi explains that he is liable because he has da'at (understanding).

The Gemara asks. Granted that a goses is not nidar, since he has no value, and not ne'erach, since he is not fit to be stood up and valued, as the Torah says in Parshat Bechukotai, "he shall stand him before the Kohen, and the Kohen shall value him."

But the one going to be executed: granted that he is not nidar, since he has no value. But why is he not ne'erach? The Torah has already set his erech by age.

A baraita gives the source. How do we know that one going out to be executed who said "my erech is upon me" has said nothing? The Torah says in Parshat Bechukotai, "kol cherem lo yipadeh," no one who is set apart as cherem can be redeemed. Rabbeinu Gershom explains that one who stands to be killed cannot be redeemed by his erech, so he is not ne'erach.

We might think it applies even before the court has finished his case. So the Torah says in the same place "min ha'adam" (from man): from man, and not all of man. That is, not everyone who may be put to death, only one whose verdict is already final. Tosafot explain that we cannot say he is left out simply because he has no value, since a menuval and one covered with boils, who have no value, still have an erech (Arachin 2a). The Rambam rules that a goses has neither an erech nor a value, since most gosesim die and he is like a dead man. The same is true of one sentenced to death by a Jewish court: he owes nothing for his erech or his value, whether he pledged it or someone else did (Hilchot Arachin 1:13).

Rabbi Chanina ben Akavya holds that a man on his way to execution is ne'erach, since the Torah set his erech. How does he read "kol cherem"?

He learns what a baraita teaches in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka.

We find that people who deserve death at the hands of Heaven can give money and be forgiven, as the Torah says in Parshat Mishpatim, "if a kofer (ransom) is set on him." Rashi explains that this is the man whose ox killed a person, of whom the Torah says "and its owner too shall die." His death is by Heaven, since a court does not kill a man for what his ox did, as the Gemara learns in Sanhedrin 15b.

We might think the same holds for death by a human court. So the Torah says "kol cherem lo yipadeh": one who is sentenced by a court cannot buy his life with money. Rabbeinu Gershom explains that one who stands to be put to death by the court has no redemption.

From the pasuk I would know this only about the severe death penalties, where one who sins by mistake has no atonement. Rashi gives as examples one who curses Hashem's Name and one who curses his father: if he did it by mistake, he brings no korban and does not go into exile.

Where do we learn the lighter death penalties, where one who sins by mistake does have an atonement? The Torah says "kol cherem," every cherem. Rashi gives as examples a murderer, who goes into exile if he killed by mistake, and one who serves avodah zarah, breaks Shabbat or commits an ervah (a forbidden relationship), who brings a chatat if he did it by mistake.

Now the Gemara looks at the last part of the Mishnah: "Rabbi Yose says he can vow and pledge an erech…"

Does the Tanna Kamma (the first, unnamed view) say that he cannot? The Tanna Kamma said only that no one can pledge on him, not that he cannot pledge for others.

Rather, about vowing, pledging an erech and making hekdesh, everyone agrees that he can. Rashi explains that his vow is a vow and his hekdesh is hekdesh, since he has da'at.

They argue about the case where he caused damage. The Tanna Kamma holds that if he caused damage, he does not have to pay.

Rabbi Yose holds that if he caused damage, he must pay. The Rambam rules like Rabbi Yose, that if one going to be executed pledged the erech or the value of others, or caused damage, he must pay, and it is collected from his property (Hilchot Arachin 1:14).

What is the root of their argument? Rav Yosef says that it turns on a milveh al peh, a loan made by word of mouth with no shtar (written loan document): can the lender claim it from the borrower's heirs? Rashi explains that the damage he did is like such a loan, since he never stood trial for it before he was put to death. So whatever he owes would have to come from his heirs.

In the Tanna Kamma's view, the heirs do not have to pay a loan made by word of mouth.

In Rabbi Yose's view, the lender can claim such a loan from the borrower's heirs.

Rava says that all agree the heirs owe nothing on a loan made by word of mouth.

They argue about a milveh ketuvah baTorah, a debt the Torah itself imposes. Rashi explains that the Torah itself sets the payment for damages, so by Torah law he is bound to pay even against his will.

The Tanna Kamma holds that a debt the Torah imposes does not count as a debt backed by a shtar.

Rabbi Yose holds that it does count like a debt with a shtar, so the heirs must pay it.

Some teach the argument of Rav Yosef and Rava on a different baraita.

One going out to be executed who injured others must pay. Others who injured him are exempt. Rashi explains that he has no value.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that even he, if he injured others, is exempt, because a man in his state is never returned to court to be judged again. Rabbeinu Gershom explains that once his verdict is final, we do not bring him back for the injury, since we may not drag out his judgment. Once he is sentenced to death, the sentence is carried out right away, so he does not suffer.