Temurah

R. Eleazar, who said: If an unmarried man has intercourse with an unmarried woman without the intention thereby of making her his wife, he makes her a harlot.1 If [the Baraitha] represents the opinion of R. Eleazar, why take the case of a widow for a High Priest?2 Why not take the case of an unmarried woman? — It was necessary to take the case of a widow [for a High Priest]. [For otherwise] you might think that since this3 is the typical case4 the [other cases] are not forbidden. [The Baraitha] informs us [that it is not so]. IF ONE SAYS TO HIS FELLOW: HERE IS THIS LAMB FOR YOU etc. But is not a bondwoman permitted for a slave?5 — Said R. Huna: [The Mishnah means] for himself,6 and the reason why it Says, MY SLAVE is because it is a more refined expression to use. If this is so, what is the reason of R. Meir?7 — Said Samuel son of R. Isaac:8 One can still say that the Mishnah actually means, MY SLAVE, and it refers to a Hebrew slave. If this is so, what is the reason of the Rabbis, since a bondwoman is permitted for a Hebrew slave? — The case here is where he does not possess a wife and children. For it has been taught: If a Hebrew slave does not possess a wife and children, his master cannot hand over a Canaanitish slave to him,9 but if he possesses a wife and children, his master can hand over a Canaanitish slave to him. MISHNAH. AND WHAT IS MEANT BY THE PRICE OF A DOG?10 IF ONE SAYS TO HIS FELLOW, HERE IS THIS LAMB INSTEAD OF [THIS] DOG.11 AND LIKEWISE IF TWO PARTNERS DIVIDED [AN ESTATE] AND ONE TOOK TEN LAMBS AND THE OTHER NINE AND A DOG, ALL THOSE TAKEN INSTEAD OF THE DOG ARE FORBIDDEN [FOR THE ALTAR],12 BUT THOSE TAKEN WITH A DOG ARE LEGITIMATE [FOR THE ALTAR]. THE HIRE OF A DOG13 AND THE PRICE OF A HARLOT14 ARE LEGITIMATE [FOR THE ALTAR], SINCE IT SAYS: [FOR EVEN] BOTH [OF THESE]15 ‘BOTH’ BUT NOT FOUR.16 THEIR ISSUE17 ARE LEGITIMATE [FOR THE ALTAR SINCE IT SAYS]: [BOTH OF THESE,] IMPLYING THEY18 BUT NOT THEIR ISSUE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught: ‘A mekir of a dog’,19 this refers to that taken in exchange for a dog. And likewise it says:20 Thou sellest thy people for naught and hast not set high their price. 21 And why not say [that mekir means] the hire [of a dog]?22 — The text ‘both’ implies, but not three.23 But did we suggest the hire and the price of a dog; what we suggested is that [it means] the hire and not the price? — If so, let Scripture say: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot and a dog. Since Scripture says: The hire of a harlot or the price of a dog, you can prove from here [that it means the price but not the hire of a dog]. PARTNERS WHO DIVIDED [THEIR ESTATE] AND ONE TOOK etc. But why not take out [one lamb] for the dog, and all the remaining [lambs] should then be legitimate [for the altar]? — We are dealing here with a case where the value of the dog was greater than the value of any one [of the corresponding lambs] and this additional amount is distributed over all [the corresponding lambs]. 24 THE HIRE OF A DOG AND THE PRICE OF A HARLOT ARE LEGITIMATE etc. Said Raba of Parzakia25 to R. Ashi: regarded it as typical, and said that only where there is no prohibition as regards intercourse is the hire forbidden, but where intercourse is prohibited hire is not forbidden, and therefore in the case of a widow for a High Priest etc. the hire is not forbidden. The Baraitha therefore takes as example the case of a widow for a High Priest, etc. is not a harlot's hire, does not however agree to this and holds that even if the Hebrew slave has no wife and children, his master can hand over a Canaanitish slave to him. dog and price of a harlot would be to make four cases. extended to each of the opposite lambs. E.g., suppose that each of the corresponding lambs was worth a denar, making altogether ten denars and each of the nine lambs with the dog was worth a denar minus a ma'ah (v. Glos.), the dog thus being worth one denar plus nine ma'ah. Then nine of the opposite lambs are regarded as possessing something of the value of the dog, while the tenth lamb just corresponds to what is left of it. The Jerushalmi explains this as follows: If the ten lambs are each worth four zuz and a tenth, making a total of forty-one zuz, and the dog is worth five zuz, then the nine remaining lambs with it are worth thirty-six zuz or four zuz each, one tenth of a zuz less than each of the others. Hence each lamb in one set is the equivalent of each of the nine opposite lambs plus the tenth of a zuz, and this tenth is the equivalent of a portion of the dog and therefore causes them all to be forbidden for the altar as ‘the price of a dog’.