Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Arakhin

Arakhin 6 for kids: Gifts and Promises

ערכין ו׳

🪙 This daf asks when gifts for the Temple or a synagogue may be accepted or used differently. It also asks how promises of charity work, and whether a person sentenced to death can be given a fixed valuation.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Arakhin 6a in Daf QuestOpen Arakhin 6b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Arakhin 6

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Arakhin 6 in simple English

Rashi on Arakhin 6a, in English Tab translation (23)
  1. At the beginning — At the start of construction, donations are not accepted from gentiles, lest they intend to discourage the builders.
  2. At the end — Once the Temple is built, donations for its upkeep are accepted, since there is no concern that they will discourage the builders. Another explanation says that donations were refused at first, when the Jews did not fear the gentiles, but accepted later out of fear. The first explanation is primary: the Jews feared the gentiles throughout the Second Temple period, especially at its beginning. Nor can “at the beginning” mean the First Temple, since the Gemara later challenges this ruling from Nehemiah’s request, which concerned the Second Temple.
  3. A recognizable item — An item whose origin remains visible is not accepted from them, because it is unbecoming and because they may boast about it.
  4. A cubit-wide raven deterrent — Menachot teaches that someone who pledges iron for the Temple must give at least a cubit-by-cubit plate for the raven deterrent. Such iron plates, fitted with cubit-high spikes, covered the Sanctuary roof to drive away ravens. One explanation takes “deterrent” to mean driving them away, like the expression about driving flies from a bed during intercourse for modesty: intercourse in the presence of any living creature is forbidden. Another takes it to mean preventing the ravens, as in “Do not withhold Your mercy” (Psalms 40:12).
  5. A letter to Asaph, keeper of the park — This was at the start of construction, yet Nehemiah obtained material for Temple upkeep from Cyrus.
  6. Does not retract it — Once the government intends to help, it does not change its mind.
  7. From his pile — From grain he himself grew.
  8. If he says, ‘I separated it with the intent of Jews’ — He means that it should go where a Jew’s teruma goes. Another explanation is that a Jew told him to separate it. I learned the first explanation.
  9. It requires interment — It may not be used, since he may have intended to consecrate it to the Temple. This concerns the present era, when consecrated property may not be used. As Bekhorot teaches, one may not consecrate property or make valuation vows now; if someone consecrates an animal, it is left to die, and consecrated produce, clothing, or vessels are left to decay.
  10. It should be cut off — Cut out the section bearing God’s name and inter it; the rest of the beam may be used to build the synagogue.
  11. For Heaven — He may have meant to consecrate it to the Temple, in which case there is no way to use it in the present era.
  12. The reason is that God’s name is written on it — That makes an intention to consecrate it seem likely, for he wrote God’s name on it.
  13. God’s name outside its proper place is not sacred — This means that only the section bearing the name is sacred. Inter that section, and, if he says he intended it like a Jew’s donation, use the rest for the synagogue. Another explanation says that a name written on a beam or vessel is not sacred at all: its proper place is on parchment, within a passage of Scripture. I learned the first explanation, and it is primary.
  14. To change its purpose — He may use the coin for his needs and repay it later.
  15. But for another person — He may not lend it to someone else. He might have set the coin aside for charity on the understanding that he could take it and replace it if needed, but he did not have a loan to another person in mind.
  16. They taught this — Permission to use the coin applies when he says, ‘I owe this sela to charity.’ By saying ‘I owe,’ he accepts responsibility if it is stolen or lost, so it is like his own money.
  17. But if he says, ‘This is for charity’ — Without saying ‘I owe,’ he must give that very coin.
  18. So that he becomes responsible for it — By using the coin, he handles entrusted property as his own and becomes liable to replace it. But if he said ‘I owe,’ he is already responsible for it, so he should not use it.
  19. Rather, there is no difference — In either case, he may use the coin.
  20. He did not make a charity vow — An unspecified vow to give money means a vow to give it to the Temple treasury.
  21. The prohibition against delay — Charity, like a vow, is subject to the prohibition against delaying payment. As the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah teaches, ‘what passes your lips’ includes charity.
  22. The teaching — The discussion of someone who says, ‘This sela is for charity,’ and so on.
  23. You learned it this way — In your version, Rav Nachman permits using the coin without qualification; Rabbi Ami explains that this applies whether for oneself or another; and Rava further explains that it applies whether he says ‘I owe’ or ‘this is.’ We teach the distinction explicitly, and explain it in accordance with Rav Nachman.
Tosafot on Arakhin 6a, in English Tab translation (10)
  1. A gentile who donated to Temple maintenance — Why not explain the two teachings as a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, in a case where accepting the gift would not weaken the builders’ resolve, such as a gift from a king? If that were the dispute, the teachings should say whether the gift becomes sacred, not whether it is accepted.
  2. A gentile who donated to Temple maintenance: one does not accept it from him — Why not say that one teaching follows Rabbi Meir and the other Rabbi Yehuda? If so, the question should be whether the gift becomes sacred. Saying that it is not accepted for Temple maintenance implies that it does become sacred, so both teachings appear to follow Rabbi Yehuda.
  3. One teaching concerns the beginning, and the other the end — Rashi explains that a gentile gift could weaken the builders’ resolve at the start, but not at the end. Another explanation is that, early in construction, donors might later claim a share in the Temple. Even after construction, one refuses a distinctive gift, lest it bring the donors renown; an indistinct gift can be accepted because the Temple has already been built and they can no longer claim a share. This also explains the answer below about a government: it does not retract its decision, so there is no concern about a later claim.
  4. Such as the cubit-wide raven deterrent — The Arukh explains that birds did not fly over the First Temple because the Divine Presence dwelt there. Fearing that birds might fly over the Second Temple and drop something impure, they put a bird-scaring figure on its roof. But Moed Katan implies that Solomon’s Temple also had such a feature. Solomon may have installed it in case the Temple did not attain that sanctity, then removed it when its sanctity became evident.
  5. An objection: ‘And a letter to Asaph, keeper of the park’ — This was at the start of construction. Rashi explains the objection as accepting Temple building materials from Cyrus. But the entire building was financed by Cyrus, as several verses indicate, and that presents no difficulty: his decree had been foretold by Isaiah, ‘He shall build My city.’ The request to Asaph is different. Asaph was far from Cyrus, and the timber was not Cyrus’s own; the king was ordering those under his rule to supply it. Here there could be concern that the gift would weaken the builders’ resolve or lead to a later claim, as explained above.
  6. If he says, ‘I separated it with the intent of a Jew’ — This implies that a gentile can separate teruma from his own produce, as Gittin also indicates. Zevaḥim says otherwise, but the matter is disputed by the tanna’im: one teaching says a gentile’s teruma makes a mixture forbidden and carries the additional fifth payment, while Rabbi Shimon exempts it.
  7. Cut off the name and use what remains — One must cut away the part of the beam bearing God’s name and not benefit from that piece: the name sanctifies at least the place where it is written. Likewise, when writing a Torah scroll or tefillin, if the place bearing God’s name has been scraped away, one should not write on that spot.
  8. But charity money may be used — This applies whether he said ‘This sela is for charity’ or ‘I owe a sela to charity.’ The ruling follows Rav Naḥman: in either case, he may use the money himself or lend it to someone else. ‘Change its use’ here means borrow it.
  9. Before it reaches the charity treasurer, one may change its use — Rabbeinu Barukh explains that one may redirect a pledged coin to another mitzvah, even if it was pledged for the poor. But an account preserved in the Tosafot of Rabbi Moshe of Évreux argues that ‘change its use’ means borrow it, as it does above and in the discussion of Rabbi Yannai’s borrowing. On this reading, redirecting the gift is forbidden even before it reaches the treasurer; borrowing it is permitted only until then. Townspeople may redirect a charity fund with their consent, but a treasurer may not do so alone. Rabbi Yitzḥak says townspeople may even redirect it to a communal need that is not a mitzvah. One should not borrow town charity money once it reaches the treasurer, even with the community’s permission, because a loan is not a communal need.
  10. Once it reaches the charity treasurer, one may not change its use — This restriction applies to an individual. Townspeople may redirect a charity fund, though this comment limits that permission to a mitzvah. The rule that Purim collections must be used for Purim and a town’s collections for that town concerns a treasurer acting alone. In another case, a man pledged his half-zuz payment to the poor, then wanted to use it for his own recovery. Rav Yosef told him the poor had already acquired it. The man could not simply revoke a charity pledge; he must have meant to borrow the money and repay it later. Rav Yosef, as treasurer, already held it, so borrowing was forbidden. Alternatively, the man thought the poor had no claim until they took possession, and Rav Yosef taught that they had acquired it, as in a transfer made in the presence of three parties.
Rashi on Arakhin 6b, in English Tab translation (26)
  1. Rabbi Yannai — He was a charity collector who borrowed charity money for his own use and repaid it.
  2. The longer he delays — The poor benefit when Rabbi Yannai has no money with which to repay the fund.
  3. For he presses — Rabbi Yannai tells the community that he has no money to distribute to the poor and presses them to give charity. The poor thus gain.
  4. Candelabrum — A candelabrum in the ordinary sense.
  5. Lamp — A silver or gold oil lamp.
  6. As Rabbi Asi said — Rabbi Asi speaks of a gentile because he might protest, “Why did you change the use of what I donated?” This implies that a Jew’s donation may be changed for a mitzva. Otherwise, there would be no reason to specify a gentile.
  7. Before its owner’s name has been forgotten — People still say, “This is the candelabrum donated by that gentile.”
  8. It is prohibited to change it — Because the donor might protest.
  9. For what purpose — For what kind of change does Rabbi Asi say it is prohibited? If you say it is for a voluntary purpose, and so on.
  10. Sha’azrak — He was a gentile.
  11. He was not commonly present — Sha’azrak was a merchant who traveled among towns, so he was rarely in the city to protest.
  12. Mishna: One who is moribund or being taken to be executed — The Gemara explains the reason for this ruling.
  13. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya — He disagrees only about one being taken to be executed. He agrees about a dying person, for the verse says, “He shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him,” and a dying person cannot be set before the priest for valuation.
  14. Because his valuation is fixed — The Torah sets valuation amounts. But Rabbi Ḥanina agrees that he cannot be the object of a vow to donate his market value: that would require a market appraisal, and no one would buy him only to lose the money.
  15. He may make vows and vows of valuation, and so on — The Gemara explains what Rabbi Yosei means to add. The first tanna said only that a condemned person cannot be the object of a vow; he did not say that the person cannot pledge someone else’s value.
  16. Gemara: But why is he not valuated? — His valuation is fixed by the Torah.
  17. Anything dedicated shall not be redeemed — One who is liable to be condemned and executed cannot be redeemed.
  18. Those put to death by Heaven — For example, the owner of an ox in the verse, “The ox shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death.” This cannot mean execution by a human court: as taught in Sanhedrin, a person is executed for murder he commits, not for a killing committed by his ox.
  19. Whose inadvertent acts are not given a means of atonement — For example, one who blasphemes or curses his father: if he does so inadvertently, he brings neither a sin offering nor an exile.
  20. Lesser death penalties — Lesser in this respect: an inadvertent act has a means of atonement. An accidental killer goes into exile; one who inadvertently commits idolatry, desecrates Shabbat, or has forbidden sexual relations brings a sin offering.
  21. Everyone agrees — His vow is valid, his consecration takes effect, and he may pledge another person’s valuation, because he is mentally competent.
  22. An oral debt — For example, a person caused damage but the case was not heard in court before his death. The Torah requires payment for damage, and by Torah law his property is subject to that obligation even against his will.
  23. And some teach it differently — They give this teaching of Rav Yosef and Rabba in another version.
  24. Liable — Because he is mentally competent.
  25. Exempt — Because he has no monetary value and is already facing bodily harm. All these cases concern someone being executed by a Jewish court.
  26. Returning to stand before the court — You cannot bring him back to court to stand trial for an injury he inflicted, because his execution must not be delayed.
Tosafot on Arakhin 6b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. If we say it is for an ordinary purpose — Why specify a gentile? It would be prohibited even if the donor were a Jew. The Gemara could likewise have asked: Why specify that the donor’s name has not been forgotten? It would be prohibited even after his name was forgotten.
  2. From where do we know that a person being taken to be executed who says, ‘My valuation is upon me,’ has said nothing? — He cannot be excluded simply because he has no monetary value, since the disfigured and those afflicted with boils were included above (Arakhin 2a).
  3. They disagree when he causes damage — They do not disagree when he consecrates property, because the consecration takes effect immediately, unlike a loan. But why do they not disagree when he makes a vow or vows a valuation? The answer is that the Mishnah mentions damage because it speaks of liability to pay, implying that their disagreement concerns damage alone. A vow or valuation may take effect immediately, with payment collected from the heirs. The Mishnah needed to mention vows and valuations: one might have thought that since he cannot be the subject of a vow or valuation, he cannot make such commitments either. It teaches that he can make vows, vow valuations, and consecrate property like anyone else.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Arachin, Erchin 6.