(Beraisa #1): If a Nochri donates to Bedek ha'Bayis, we accept from him.

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): We do not accept from him.

Resolution (Rav Ila): Ba'Techilah, we do not accept. Ba'Sof, we accept. (Rashi - during the building, we do not accept, lest this cause slackening (Tosfos - lest he retract). After it is built, to support it, we accept. Rambam - l'Chatchilah we do not accept. If we already accepted from him, we do not return it. R. Gershom - if a Nochri offers to give, we tell him that we will not accept. If he brought a gift, we accept it.)

(Rav Asi): Ba'Techilah we do not accept even water or salt. Ba'Sof, we accept from him, but not something specific. (It will be recognizable, and this is a disgrace. Alternatively, the Nochri will aggrandize himself that he donated it.)

(Rav Yosef): An example of something specific is Kalyah Orev. (It prevents ravens from perching on the Heichal. Rashi - these are spikes, or an iron plate with a sharp edge pointing up. Aruch - it is a scarecrow).

Question (Rav Yosef): It says "v'Igeres El Asaf Shomer ha'Pardes Asher la'Melech"! (Rashi - they accepted from Koresh ba'Techilah for Bayis Sheni. Tosfos - it was decreed (Yeshayah 45:13) that the king will build Bayis Sheni. Rav Yosef asks why they accepted from Asaf.)

Answer (Abaye): The king is different. He does not retract;

(Shmuel): If the king says that he will uproot a mountain, he will do so, he will not retract.

(Rav Yehudah): If a Nochri separated Terumah from his grain, we ask him his intent:

If he separated b'Da'as Yisrael (to be like Terumah that Yisraelim separate. Alternatively, upon a Yisrael's request), it is given to a Kohen;

If not, it requires Genizah (burial), lest he was Makdish it.

Question (Beraisa): If a Nochri donated a beam (for a Beis ha'Keneses) with Hash-m's Name on it, we ask him his intent:

If he donated b'Da'as Yisrael, we cut off the place where Hash-m's Name is. The Name requires Genizah, and the beam may be used;

If not, it requires Genizah, lest he was Makdish it.

Inference: If the beam did not have Hash-m's Name on it, we would not be concerned, and it would not require Genizah!

Answer: No, even without Hash-m's Name it requires Genizah (unless he says that he donated b'Da'as Yisrael);

The Beraisa teaches that even with Hash-m's name, after cutting off the Name the rest may be used. His Name forbids only the place it is written on. (Alternatively, it forbids only when it is part of a verse written on paper.)

(Beraisa): If Hash-m's Name was written on the handle of a Kli or on the legs of a bed, we cut off the Name and we bury it (the rest may be used).

Version #1 (Rav Nachman): If one said "this coin is for Tzedakah", it is permitted to change it (Rambam - replace it with a different coin; Rashi - borrow it and repay it later).

Assumption: One may change it himself. He may not change it with (Rambam - the coin of; Rashi - he may not lend it to) someone else.

(R. Ami): He may change (borrow) it himself, or with (lend it to) another person.

(R. Ze'ira): This is only if he said "Alai". If he said "this", the very coin must be given to Tzedakah.

Objection (Rava): Just the contrary! If he said "this," we want (and therefore allow) him to change (borrow) it, so he will have Acharayus (liability to replace it if it gets lost);

If he said "Alai", he already has Acharayus, so we need not allow him to change it!

Rather, in either case he may change it.

Support (for Rava - Beraisa): Neder is Tzedakah. Hekdesh is not Tzedakah.

Objection: This cannot be! Neither Neder nor Hekdesh is Tzedakah!

Correction: It means, one can transgress Bal Te'acher for (a Neder to give) Tzedakah, but Tzedakah is unlike a Korban, for one may use Tzedakah, but not Hekdesh.

Version #2 - Rav Zevid of Neharda'a - (Rav Nachman): If one said "this coin is for Tzedakah," it is permitted to change it;

Either he or someone else may change it, whether he said "Alai" or "this." (end of Version #2)

(Beraisa): If one said "this coin is for Tzedakah," it is permitted to change it before the Gabai (overseer of Tzedakah) received it, but not afterwards.

Question: R. Yanai was a Gabai, and he used to borrow Tzedakah and repay!

Answer: That benefited the poor. He did so in order to persuade people to give more Tzedakah. (It enabled him to tell them that there is no Tzedakah money to give to the poor)!

(Beraisa): If a Yisrael donated a candelabra or lamp to a Beis ha'Keneses, one may not change it (for a different purpose, or to sell it).

Assumption (R. Chiya bar Aba): It is forbidden even for the sake of a Mitzvah.

R. Ami: R. Yochanan permits changing it only for the sake of a Mitzvah, but not for Reshus. We learn this from R. Asi:

(R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): If a Nochri donated a candelabra or lamp to a Beis ha'Keneses, one may not change it as long as people mention the donor (for the Nochri will scream if it is changed). Afterwards, it is permitted.

Question: To what change (i.e. for what purpose) does he refer?

It cannot be for Reshus. This is forbidden even if a Yisrael donated it! (We do not descend in Kedushah)! Rosh (Bava Basra 1:29) - once it is forgotten who gave it, it may be changed even to Reshus. People donate based on the will of the Tzibur.)

Answer: He refers to changing for the sake of a Mitzvah;

This is forbidden regarding a Nochri donor, who would scream. It is permitted if a Yisrael donated it.

Shazrak (a Nochri merchant) donated a lamp to Rav Yehudah's Beis ha'Keneses. Rachbah changed it, and Rava was upset. (Some say vice-versa. Some say that the city leaders changed it, and Rachbah and Rava were upset.)

The one who changed it reasoned that it is permitted, for Shazrak is not often in the city, so we are not concerned lest he scream;

The other opinion objected, lest Shazrak come on occasion.

(Mishnah): A Goses or one being led to his execution (via Beis Din of Yisrael) cannot be Nidar or Ne'erach;

R. Chanina ben Akavya says, he can be Ne'erach, because Erchin are fixed. (They do not depend on (slave market) value);

R. Yosi says, he can be Noder, Ma'arich and Makdish. If he damaged, he is liable.

(Gemara) Question: We understand why a Goses cannot be Nidar. He has no Damim (value). He cannot be Ne'erach, for Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah cannot be done;

We understand why one about to be executed cannot be Nidar, for he has no Damim.

However, but why can't he be Ne'erach?

Answer (Beraisa) Question: What is the source that if someone about to be executed said "Erki Alai," his words do not take effect?

Answer: "Kol Cherem... Lo Yipadeh."

Suggestion: Perhaps this applies even before the final verdict!

Rejection: "Min ha'Adam" - not every person (that might be killed) is excluded.

Question: R. Chanina ben Akavya says that he can be Ne'erach. How does he expound "Kol Cherem... Lo Yipadeh"?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben Brokah): We find that people who are Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim get atonement through money - "Im Kofer Yushas Alav."

Suggestion: Perhaps this applies even to one who is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Adam!

Rejection: "Kol Cherem... Lo Yipadeh."

Suggestion: Perhaps this applies only to "severe" capital transgressions, but not for "light" ones, i.e. for which the Torah gives an atonement if done b'Shogeg! (I.e. a Shogeg murderer is exiled to a refuge city, and one who transgressed Chayavei Kerisus brings a Korban Chatas.)

Rejection: "Kol Cherem" teaches that it applies to all.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): He can be Noder, Ma'arich... .

Question: The first Tana agrees with this!

Answer: Indeed, all agree that he can be Noder, Ma'arich and Makdish. They argue only about damage:

The first Tana exempts for damage. R. Yosi obligates.

Version #1 - Question: What do they argue about?

Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): They argue about whether a Milveh Al Peh (a loan without a document) can be collected from heirs. The first Tana says that it cannot, and R. Yosi says that it can. (We are thinking that the obligation to pay for damage is like a Milveh Al Peh, because there is no document.)

Objection (Rava): All agree that a Milveh Al Peh cannot be collected from heirs!

Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, they argue about whether or not Milveh ha'Kesuvah b'Torah (an obligation explicitly written in the Torah) is considered like a Milveh bi'Shtar (with a document). The first Tana says that it is not (hence the heirs are exempt), and R. Yosi says that it is. (In Version #2, the Amora'im argue about a Beraisa.)

Version #2 - (Beraisa): If Reuven was being led to his execution and he damaged, he is liable. If others damaged him, they are exempt;

R. Shimon ben Elazar says, also he is exempt if he damaged. We do not return him to Beis Din to judge his obligation to pay, for this is Inuy (delay of execution).