Arakhin

One [Baraitha] taught: If an idol-worshipper offers a freewill- gift towards Temple repairs ‘one accepts it from him, whilst another [Baraitha] taught: One does not accept it from him. Said R. Ela in the name of R. Johanan: This is no difficulty: The first applies to the beginning,1 the latter to the end.2 For R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: In the beginning one should not accept from them even salt or water, whereas at the end one may not accept a thing that can be easily identified,3 but something that cannot easily be identified one may accept. What is a ‘thing that can be easily identified’? — R. Joseph said: Like the cubit [of metal] keeping off the raven.4 R. Joseph raised an objection: And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's park [that he may give me timber to make beams, etc.]?5 — Abaye said: It is different with the government because it will not retract. For Samuel has said: If the government said, I will uproot a mountain, it will uproot the mountain and not retract! Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If an idol-worshipper separated the terumah6 from his pile [of produce], then we examine him. If he said:7 I have separated it with the same intention as an Israelite, it is to be handed to the priests but if not, it must be hidden, because we consider the possibility of his having in his heart intended it for the Lord.8 An objection was raised [against that]: If an idol-worshipper had dedicated a beam to the Sanctuary upon which the Name [of God] is inscribed, he is to be examined. If he said: I have separated it with the same intention as an Israelite, then one should cut off [the part containing the Name of God] and use the rest. But if [he does] not [offer this explanation], it must be hidden away, because we fear his heart [intention] may have been [to dedicate it] to the Lord. The reason then [for this decision] is because the Name [of God] is inscribed thereon, and only therefore does it require to be hidden away, but if the Name [of God] were not inscribed thereupon, then indeed, it would not have to be hidden away!9 — [No!] Even if the Name [of God] were not inscribed thereupon it would likewise have to be hidden away, and it is exactly this that we are told, that although the Name [of God] is thereon inscribed, he need but cut off that portion and use the rest For the Name of God not in its proper place is not considered sacred.10 For it was taught: If it [the Name of God] was written upon the handles of a vessel, or upon the props of a bed, behold, it shall be cut off and hidden.11 R. Nahman said in the name of R. Abbuha: If one says, This sela’ is dedicated to charity, he is permitted to exchange it. Now it was assumed that this is permitted only for himself, but not for anybody else;12 but it was stated that R. Ammi said in the name of R. Johanan that it is permitted both for oneself and for someone else. R. Ze'ira said: We have learnt that only where he said: [I take] upon myself [generally], but if he said: [I take] upon myself to [give] this, then he is obliged to give this [sela’]. Whereupon Raba demurred: On the contrary! The opposite is logical. If he said: Behold this [sela’ I take upon myself to pay], then he may use it for himself, so that he may be responsible for it, but when he said: [I take] upon myself [a sela’], he should not [be permitted to exchange it]? But the fact is it makes no difference.13 It was taught in accord with Raba: Vows are [like] charity, but consecrations [to the sanctuary] are not like charity. What does that mean? Neither vows nor dedications are charity. Is it not rather this that is meant: Charity [is like vows] in respect of the prohibition ‘Thou shalt not delay it’,14 but is not like a consecration [to the sanctuary] because anything so consecrated one must not use, whereas [money dedicated to] charity one may [meantime] use for oneself! R. Kahana said: I reported this teaching before R. Zebid of Nehardea whereupon he said: This is how you stated it;15 we, however, state it thus: R. Nahman in the name of R. Abbuha based on Rab said: If one said, This sela’ is [dedicated to] charity, he may exchange it both for himself, or for someone else independent of whether he had said: [I take it] upon myself [in general], or [I take it upon myself to pay] this [sela’]. Our Rabbis taught: [If one said:] This sela’ shall be for charity, then before it has reached the hand of the [charity] treasurer, it is permitted to exchange it, but after it has come into the treasurer's hand, it is forbidden to exchange it. give them entry into the building programmed which they plan to interfere with or delay. But according to the law they may be accepted for Temple repairs, hence the ruling of R. Judah. beginning of the building. Jew's terumah goes, one may accept it from him and give it to the priest, who is permitted to receive it. Rashi: The reference is to the present day when there is no sanctuary, and when consequently things dedicated to the sanctuary must be hidden away, v. Bek. 53a. would be parchment, or paper, everything else is not normally fit to have the name inscribed thereon. lend it to his neighbour, for it may be argued reasonably that he meant to use it meantime for himself, whilst conscious of his obligation to pay it later into the Temple treasury. But he surely did not, in his intention to use it, include ally benefit to his neighbour such as a loan to him of this sum. thereby has become its property, and by using it one has incurred the obli gation, not only moral but legal, of restoring that property; whereas in the case of a general vow (I accept it upon myself to give a sela’) a different argument is to be made. At any rate, since both claims have support, we recognize no practical difference between the one form and the other.