1)

(a)One Beraisa permits accepting a Nedavah for Bedek ha'Bayis from a Nochri - another Beraisa forbids it.

(b)When, to resolve the apparent contradiction, Rebbi Ila Amar Rebbi Yochanan, says 'Ha bi'Techilah, Ha be'Sof', he means that - at the beginning of the construction (when the fear that the Nochrim are trying to sabotage the building exists), it is forbidden; whereas at the end, after the construction is complete (for repairs and suchlike [when that fear no longer exists]), it is permitted.

(c)In support of this distinction, Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that - one may ...

1. ... not accept from a Nochri at the beginning of the construction of the Beis-Hamikdash - even water and salt.

2. ... accept at the end - something unspecified (but not something specific (Davar ha'Mesuyam, which we will explain shortly).

(d)We know that Rebbi Ila does not mean ...

1. ... in the early years of the Beis-Hamikdash, when they were not yet afraid of the Nochrim, and in the later years, when they were, respectively - because the fear of the Nochrim was present throughout the period of the second Beis-Hamikdash, and was if anything, greater at the beginning than it was at the end.

2. ... in the time of the first Beis-Hamikdash, and in the time of the second Beis-Hamikdash, respectively - because then the query from the Pasuk in Nechemyah that we are about to ask would be meaningless, since the Pasuk refers to the second Beis-Hamikdash, whereas the Beraisa on which we are asking would then pertain to the first.

2)

(a)Rav Yosef defines Davar ha'Mesuyam - as Amah Kalya Orev (a thin protective plating made of vertical plates of an Amah by an Amah with spikes one Amah tall sticking out from it all the way along) ...

(b)... to drive away (or to prevent) the ravens from resting on the roof of the Beis-Hamikdash and making it dirty).

3)

(a)It is forbidden to accept a Davar ha'Mesuyam from a Nochri for the Beis-Hamikdash - either because, since it is possible to point to who donated it, it is a disgrace for the Beis-Hamikdash for people to be able to say that a Nochri donated it, or - because Nochrim tend to boast about what they gave.

(b)Rav Yosef queried Rebbi Yochanan from a Pasuk which describes how they accepted from Koresh King of Persia, materials to build the Beis-Hamikdash - to which Rava replied - that a king is different, inasmuch as he always keeps his word (since a promise is a promise), and there is no question of sabotage.

(c)This is based on a statement of Shmuel, who said that if the ruling power undertakes to uproot a mountain - then it will uproot a mountain.

4)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that if a Nochri separates Terumah from his pile of corn, we question him, and if he says that he did it be'Da'as Yisrael, which really means that he intended to do with it what a Yisrael would do with it, then it should be given to a Kohen. Though be'Da'as Yisrael might also mean - on the instructions of a Yisrael.

(b)According to Rav Yehudah, in the event that the Nochri replies that he did not have that in mind at all - it must go into Genizah and be left to rot) ...

(c)... because we suspect that he meant to declare it Hekdesh.

(d)The Beraisa rules, in a similar case, where a Nochri donated a beam to Bedek ha'Bayis with the Name of Hash-m written on it, assuming that he said that he designated it ...

1. ... be'Da'as Yisrael that - the Name should be cut out, and the remainder of the K'li is permitted.

2. ... she'Lo be'Da'as Yisrael - then it must go into Genizah.

(e)This Beraisa appears to clash with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - because the Seifa only forbids the K'li there where it contains the Name of Hash-m (implying that otherwise we would not suspect that the Nochri meant to declare it Hekdesh).

5)

(a)We answer that the Tana really inserted the fact that the Name of Hash-m was written on it (not for the inference, but) - to teach us that despite the Name of Hash-m written on the K'li, once it has been removed, the remainder of the K'li is permitted.

(b)And we support this with a Beraisa, where the Tana rules, that if someone wrote the Name of Hash-m on the handle of a K'li or the leg of a bed - it must be cut out, whereas the K'li and the bed are permitted.

(c)Besides the part of the K'li on which the Shem is not written, Shem she'Lo bi'Mekomo might also mean - a Shem Hash-m that is not written on parchment as part of a text, in the way that it is supposed to be written.

6)

(a)Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah rules that someone who has designated a Sela for Tzedakah - is permitted to borrow the money and pay it back later.

(b)We initially assume that only he is permitted to use it, but nobody else - because that is what he originally had in mind.

(c)Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan clearly refutes that assumption with the statement - 'bein le'Atzmo, bein la'Acharim.

7)

(a)Rebbi Ze'ira qualifies Rav Nachman's statement - by confining it to 'Harei Alai' (because since he is liable, it is as if the Sela still belongs to him), but not to 'Harei Zu' (where he is not).

(b)Rava queries Rebbi Ze'ira's S'vara however - because, he maintains, the opposite is more logical (since by 'Sela Zu', when he uses it, it is as if he has used a Pikadon for himself, in which case, it becomes his as regards payment; whereas by 'Harei Alai', which he is liable anyway, using it does not achieve anything).

(c)In fact - both are permitted.

(d)We support Rava's ruling from a Beraisa, which rules 'Neder Tzedakah, ve'Ein Hekdesh Tzedakah' - which is a problem, seeing as S'tam Neder goes to Bedek ha'Bayis and is neither Tzedakah nor Hekdesh.

8)

(a)We therefore interpret 'Neder Tzedakah' to mean that Neder is the Tzedakah which is subject to the La'av of Bal Te'acher; whereas 've'Lo Hekdesh Tzedakah' means that - unlike Hekdesh, one is permitted to use it.

(b)Rav Z'vid from Neherda'a cites Rav Nachman Amar Rebbi Avuhu's statement (to which he adds 'Amar Rav') as follows 'ha'Omer Zela Zu li'Tzedakah Mutar Leshanosah, bein le'Atzmo, bein la'Acherim, bein Amar Alai, bein Amar Harei Zu'. What he has gained with that is - merging the statements of both Rebbi Ami and Rava into the initial statement of Rav Nachman, thereby circumventing the queries that prompted their comments.

9)

(a)The Beraisa draws a distinction between a Sela that is designated for Tzedakah that reached the hands of the Gabai, and one that did not - by permitting a Yachid (see Tosfos DH Mi'she'ba'as) to use the former, but not the latter.

(b)The problem we have with this from Rebbi Yanai, who was a Gabai Tzedakah is that - he used to borrow the money that was placed under his jurisdiction.

(c)And we answer that Rebbi Yanai was different, because the people were pleased that he borrowed the money - since, when there was no money in the Tzedakah-fund, he would exhort people to give, and would therefore end up with more money than what he owed (to the Aniyim's advantage).

10)

(a)The Beraisa forbids borrowing a Menorah (a candelabra) or a lamp that someone donated to the Shul and giving another one later. Rebbi Chiya bar Aba - forbids it even for a D'var Mitzvah (see Rabeinu Gershom).

(b)Rav Ami quoting Rebbi Yochanan however - confines it to a D'var R'shus (but for a D'var Mitzvah, he permits it).

(c)And the source for this is a statement that he made permitting one to borrow the Menorah or a lamp that a Nochri donated to the Shul - only after the name of the donor has been long forgotten.

(d)We know that he is referring to borrowing it for a D'var Mitzvah - because if it was for a D'var R'shus, the prohibition would extend to the donation of a Yisrael, too.

11)

(a)We can now extrapolate from Rebbi Asi's ruling that - one is permitted to borrow an article that has been donated to the Shul, if it is to use for a D'var Mitzvah.

(b)When Shezrak the Arab donated a Menorah to Rav Yehudah's Shul - Rachbah borrowed it for a D'var Mitzvah, but before the donor's name had been forgotten) making Rabah angry (some say that Rabah or the Gaba'im of the town did it, and it was Rachbah or Rabah, respectively, who became angry).

(c)Rachbah, on the other hand, borrowed the Menorah because he considered it highly unlikely for Shezrak the Arab - who was constantly away on business, to appear in town.

(d)Whereas Rabah thought that - the off-chance that he would appear unexpectedly always existed.

12)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah precludes a Goseis (a dying man) and a Yotzei Lehareg (someone who is being taken out to be executed) from being both Nidar and Ne'erach. Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel precludes the latter from the ruling - since he has a fixed Erech.

(b)He concedes to the Tana Kama however, that ...

1. ... a Yotzei Lehareg is precluded from Damim - because he has no intrinsic value.

2. ... a Goseis is precluded from being Ne'erach too - because he is not subject to Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah.

(c)In the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Kol Cherem asher Yocharam min ha'Adam Lo Yipadeh Mos Yumas", the Tana Kama learns from the words ...

1. ... "Kol Cherem ... Lo Yipadeh" that - a Yotzei Lehareg is precluded from being Ne'erach.

2. ... " ... min ha'Adam ... " that - this does not apply to a case where the death-sentence has not yet been announced.

(d)Rebbi Chanina ben Akavya learns the Pasuk "Kol Cherem ... Lo Yipadeh" like Rebbi Yishmael b'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, who uses it to differentiate between those who killed at the Hand of Hash-m and those who are killed at the hand of Beis-Din - with reference to someone whose Beheimah that is a Mu'ad (that gored already three times) killed a person, who is Chayav Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim, but who can redeem himself by paying [Kofer]).

(e)He now learns from ...

1. ... "Lo Yipadeh" that - someone who is Chayav Misah at the hand of Beis-Din is not subject to Kofer.

2. ... "Kol Cherem" that - this applies, not only to cases of Chiyuv Misah whose Shogeg has no Kaparah (such as Megadef or someone who curses his father), but also to cases whose Shogeg brings a Chatas.

13)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Yossi's statement 'Noder u'Ma'arich u'Makdish' is that - the Tana did not say otherwise (indeed, both a Goseis and a Yotzei Lehareg have Da'as, and there is no reason to suggest that).

(b)And their bone of contention concerns where he damaged, in which case - the Tana Kama holds 've'Im Hizik Patur' and Rebbi Yossi holds that he 'Chayav'.

(c)Rav Yosef learns that the basis of their Machlokes is whether - Milveh al Peh Govah min ha'Yorshin (Rebbi Yossi) or not (the Tana Kama).

(d)According to Rabah, they are arguing over whether Milveh ha'Kesuvah ba'Torah ki'Chesuvah bi'Sh'tar (Rebbi Yossi) or not (the Tana Kama), but with regard to Milveh al Peh - they both hold Eino Govah min ha'Yorshin.