Avodah Zarah

R. Hoshaia asked: How is it if she dedicated [the animal to the Sanctuary] beforehand?  Since a Master has said that a declaration  in connection with the Divine service is like the act of delivery in a secular transaction, is she like one who has actually offered it,  or perhaps [the animal] is after all still in existence [at the time of intercourse]?  But why not solve the question from the statement of R. Eleazar who said: Only if she actually offered it beforehand is the offering [lawful] but not if she merely dedicated it? On this statement of R. Eleazar itself the question is to be asked: Is it clear to R. Eleazar that only if she had actually offered it [is it permitted] but not if she merely dedicated it because it is [in her possession] at the time of intercourse; or perhaps he is clear in the circumstance where it had been offered but doubtful when it had only been dedicated? The question remains unanswered. [It was stated:] If he had intercourse with her and subsequently gave it to her, her hire is permitted. Against this I quote: If he had intercourse with her and subsequently gave it to her, even after the lapse of three years, her hire is prohibited! — R. Nahman b. Isaac said in the name of R. Hisda: There is no contradiction, the latter teaching referring to the circumstance where he said to her, 'Have intercourse with me for this lamb,' and the former teaching to the circumstance where he said to her, 'Have intercourse with me for a lamb.'9  And if he did use the phrase 'for this lamb' what of it, inasmuch as the act of drawing towards oneself is lacking!  — [It deals here] with a gentile harlot who does not acquire an object by the act of drawing it towards herself.  Or if you wish I can say that it surely deals with an Israelite harlot when, e.g., it is standing in her courtyard.  But if it was standing in her courtyard, [how can it be taught that] he had intercourse with her and subsequently presented it to her, seeing that she already had possession of it! — No, it is necessary [to suppose a case] where he used it as a pledge, saying to her, 'If I bring you a certain number of zuz by such a date, well and good; otherwise take [the lamb] for your hire.' R. Shesheth quoted in objection:  A man can say to his ass-drivers and workmen,  'Go and eat for this denar, go out and drink for this denar,' and he need not be concerned