Temurah — Daf 29b

שקדמה והקריבתו היכי דמי אי נימא דאקניה ניהליה לאלתר פשיטא דמותר דעד כאן לא בא עליה

ואלא דאמר לה לא ניקני ליך עד שעת ביאה מי מציא מקרבה ליה (ויקרא כז, יד) איש כי יקדיש את ביתו קדש לה' אמר רחמנא מה ביתו ברשותו אף כל ברשותו

לא צריכא דאמר לה לא מקניה לך עד שעת ביאה ואי מצטריך לך ניקני לך מעכשיו

בעי רב אושעיא קדמה והקדישתו מאי תפשוט ליה מדרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר קדמה והקריבתו הקריבתו היא דהא ליתיה בשעת ביאה אבל הקדישתו אסור

היא גופה קמיבעיא ליה הקריבתו והא ליתיה בשעת ביאה מותר אבל הקדישה בשעת ביאה אסור

או דלמא כיון דתנן אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט הקדישתו מותר וכל שכן הקריבתו תיקו

בא עליה ואחר כך נתן לה אתננה מותר והתניא בא עליה ונתן לה ואפי' עד שנים עשר חדש אתננה אסור

אמר רב חנן בר רב חסדא לא קשיא הא דאמר לה הבעלי לי בטלה זה הא דאמר לה הבעלי לי בטלה סתם

טלה זה והא מחוסר משיכה בזונה עובדת כוכבים דלא קניא במשיכה ואיבעית אימא אפי' בזונה ישראלית כגון דקאי בחצרה

הא יהבית לה מעיקרא דשוויה לה אפותיקי ואמר לה אם עד יום פלוני יהיבנא לך זוזי מוטב ואם לאו טלה באתננך

אמר רב אחד אתנן זכר ואחד אתנן כל עריות אסור חוץ מאתנן אשתו נדה

מ"ט (דברים כג, יט) זונה כתיב והא לאו זונה היא

ולוי אמר אפילו אשתו נדה מאי טעמא (דברים כג, יט) תועבה כתיב והא תועבה היא

ולוי נמי והכתיב זונה אמר לך ההיא זונה ולא זונה ורב ההיא זונה ולא זונה מנא לי'

נפקא ליה מדרבי דתניא רבי אומר אין אתנן אסור אלא כל אתנן הבאות לו בעבירה אבל אתנן אשתו נדה ושנתן לה שכר להפקעתה ושנתנה לו באתננו מותרין

אף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר (יחזקאל טז, לד) ובתתך אתנן ואתנן לא ניתן [לך] (לה) ותהי להפך

ורב האי תועבה מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה כדאביי דאמר אביי זונה עובדת כוכבים אתננה אסור

מ"ט כתיב הכא תועבה וכתיב התם (ויקרא יח, כט) כי כל אשר יעשה מכל התועבות האל מה להלן עריות שאין קדושין תופסין בה ה"נ אין קדושין תופסין בה

וכהן שבא עליה אין לוקה עליה משום זונה מ"ט דאמר קרא (ויקרא כא, טו) לא יחלל זרעו מי שזרעו מיוחס אחריו יצא עובדת כוכבים דאין זרעו מיוחס אחריו

זונה ישראלית אתננה מותר מה טעם דהא קדושין תופסין בה וכהן שבא עליה לוקה משום זונה מ"ט דהא זרעו מיוחס אחריו

ורבא אמר אחד זה ואחד זה אתננה אסור וכהן הבא עליה לוקה משום זונה מ"ט ילפי מהדדי מה זונה ישראלית בלאו אף זונה עובדת כוכבים בלאו ומה אתנן זונה עובדת כוכבים אסור אף אתנן זונה ישראלית אסור

מיתיבי אחד זונה עובדת כוכבים ואחד זונה ישראלית אתננה אסור תיובתא דאביי אמר לך אביי הא מני ר' עקיבא היא דאמר אין קדושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין

והא קמשמע לן דכל זונה לא תפסי בה קדושין דומיא דאלמנה דלא תפסי בה קידושין

ולרבא מאי שנא דקתני כגון אלמנה לכ"ג דומיא דאלמנה מה אלמנה לא לקי עד דמתרי בה אף זונה עד דאמר הא לך

לאפוקי מדרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר פנוי הבא על הפנויה שלא לשם אישות עשאה זונה אבל היכא דזונה מעיקרא ה"נ דאסור

ל"א כי קתני הא בעריות שאין קדושין תופסין בה

והא קתני סיפא אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט אתננה אסור והא הני קדושין תופסין בהן הא מני

[We are dealing with a case] where she offered [the lamb] before [intercourse]. How are we to understand this? Shall we say that he gave her immediate possession [of the lamb]?1 Surely it is obvious that it is legitimate for the altar,2 since so far he has had no intercourse with her!3 Shall we then suppose that he said: Do not acquire ownership of it [the lamb] until the time of intercourse?4 But can she in such conditions offer it, Seeing that the Divine Law says: And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the Lord,5 [and we infer] just as ‘his house’6 is in his possession,7 So all things must be in his possession?8 — No. It is necessary9 where he said: ‘[The lamb] shall not be acquired by you until the time of intercourse, but if you need it,10 let it be acquired by you from now’.11 R. Oshaia asked: What is the ruling if she dedicated the lamb before [the intercourse]? — But why not solve this from the teaching of R. Eleazar, since R. Eleazar said [above]: Where she offered [the lamb] before [the intercourse]? Now [he says] that where she offered it, it is legitimate [for the altar] because it is not in existence at the time of the intercourse, implying that where she dedicated it, [since the animal is in existence at the time of the intercourse],12 it is forbidden [for the altar]?13 — This itself is the inquiry of R. Oshaia:14 [Do we say that] where she offered it, since it is not in existence at the time of the intercourse, the animal is legitimate [for the altar], but where she dedicated it at the time of the intercourse, the animal is forbidden [for the altar],15 or perhaps since we have learnt: The word of mouth is in dedication what delivery is in private transaction,16 [if she] dedicated it, it is legitimate [for the altar], and all the more is it legitimate [for the altar] if she offered it?17 — Let it remain undecided. [The Master said:]18 ‘If he had intercourse with her and then he gave her her hire, it is legitimate for the altar’. But has it not been taught: If he had intercourse with her and he gave her a lamb, even after twelve months,19 the hire is forbidden [for the altar]? — Said R. Hanan son of R. Hisda: There is no difficulty. Here20 we suppose that he said to her: ‘Submit to intercourse for this lamb,’21 and there22 that he said to her: ‘Submit to intercourse for a lamb’, without specifying.23 [And24 if he said to her: ‘Submit to intercourse] for this animal’, is the animal forbidden for the altar? Is not meshikah25 still wanting?26 — We are dealing with a non-Israelitish harlot who does not acquire possession by meshikah.27 And if you prefer [another solution] I may say that we are even dealing with an Israelitish harlot,28 where e.g., the animal is standing in her courtyard.29 If so, surely he gave it to her at the beginning?30 [And, moreover, surely the animal is forbidden in such a case!]31 — We suppose that he assigned to her the animal as security and said to her: ‘If I give you your money on a certain day, well and good. And if not, the [whole] lamb will be your hire’.32 Said Rab: The law of [harlot's] hire applies to a male33 and to all forbidden relations, except the hire of his wife when she is a niddah.34 What is the reason? It is written: ‘A harlot’,35 and a niddah is not a harlot. Levi, however, says: Even of his wife when a niddah. What is the reason? It is written: An abomination,36 and this is also an abomination. But as to Levi, is it not written: ‘A zonah [harlot]’?37 — He can answer you: [It is to intimate] zonah but not zoneh.38 And whence will Rab infer [the limitation of] zonah but not zoneh? — He would derive it from the dictum of Rabbi. For it has been taught: Rabbi said, Hire is forbidden only when it comes to him through a transgression.39 But the hire of his wife when a niddah,40 or payments for her loss of time,41 or if she [the harlot] gave him a lamb for hire — these are legitimate [for the altar]. And although there is no proof for it in the Bible,42 there is an indication of it,43 [Scripture saying:] And in that thou givest hire, and no hire is given unto thee, thus thou art contrary.44 And what does Rab do with the text: ‘An abomination’?45 — He needs it for the teaching of Abaye. For Abaye said: The hire of a heathen harlot is forbidden for the altar. What is the reason? Here it is written: ‘An abomination’, and there Scripture says: For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations.46 [We therefore argue,] just as there the reference is to forbidden relations where betrothal has no effect, similarly here [in the case of a harlot] we are dealing with a case where betrothal has no legal effect. And a priest who has intercourse with her is not punished with lashes for [having intercourse with] a zonah. What is the reason? Since Scripture says: And he shall not profane his seed,47 implying such seed as is attributed to him, to the exclusion of a heathen women whose seed is not attributed to him.48 The hire of an Israelitish harlot is legitimate [for the altar]. What is the reason? Because betrothal has effect with her. And a priest who has intercourse with her is punishable [with lashes] for [having intercourse with] a zonah. What is the reason? Because his seed is attributed to him.49 Raba, however, says: In both cases50 her hire is forbidden for the altar, and a priest who has intercourse with her is punishable [with lashes] for [having intercourse with] a zonah. What is the reason? We infer one from the other:51 Just as in the case of an Israelitish harlot there is a negative command,52 similarly there is a negative command in connection with a heathen harlot. And just as the hire of a heathen harlot is forbidden [for the altar], similarly the hire of an Israelitish harlot is also forbidden [for the altar]. An objection was raised: The hire of either a heathen harlot or an Israelitish harlot is forbidden [for the altar]. Shall we say that this refutes Abaye?53 — Abaye can answer you: This54 will represent the view of R. Akiba who holds that betrothal takes no effect in relationships involving the infringement of a negative command.55 [But56 does not the Baraitha say in a later clause, as e.g., a widow for a High Priest and a divorcee or one who has performed halizah for a common priest, her hire is forbidden?]57 This is what [the Baraitha] informs us, that [in the case of any harlot with whom betrothal takes no effect] as is the case with a widow [for a High Priest], the hire is forbidden. 58 And according to Raba, why does [the Baraitha] say: ‘As e.g., the case of a widow for a High Priest’?59 — [The Baraitha means:] It is like the case of a widow [for a High Priest]: Just as a widow for a High Priest is not punishable with lashes until she is warned, similarly with a harlot there is no prohibition until he said to her: ‘Here is [the hire]’,60 thus excluding the teaching of R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: If an unmarried man had intercourse with an unmarried woman without the intention thereby of making her his wife, he makes her a harlot. Where, however, she is already a harlot, even if he gave her a lamb [without giving the reason, Raba also agrees that] it is forbidden for the altar. Another version: [The Baraitha] above refers to forbidden relations, where betrothals take no effect.61 But does not the latter clause say: As e.g., a widow for a High Priest, a divorcee or one who has performed halizah for a common priest, her hire is forbidden? Now in these cases betrothals take effect!62 — [The Baraitha] will represent the opinion of she legitimately offer it beforehand? since he said to her that the lamb is only hers at the time of intercourse, the Baraitha therefore needs to inform us that it is not a hire if she hurried and offered it before the act of intercourse. if she did not receive it till twelve months later, it is forbidden for the altar (v. Sh. Mek.). intercourse with her and then gave the lamb to her? the time of the act of intercourse. Nevertheless the Baraitha rightly says: ‘And then he gave her the animal’, since it was not hers till that particular day arrived. The Baraitha therefore needs to inform us that in such circumstances the animal is forbidden for the altar. abomination, for it is mentioned in connection with illicit relations and with reference to all these relations the Bible says: For all these abominations (Lev. XVIII, 27). is forbidden. forbidden though the relationships involve no infringement of a negative command! a High Priest? her ‘this is your hire’, what he gives her is considered a mere gift.