Avodah Zarah 63a (סג.) — the Talmud in English

Behold,

when he has relations with her

[when] he

has relations with her!

the prohibition of a prostitute's wage should retroactively take effect,

since he initially gave it to her on the condition that he would have relations with her afterward?

Rabbi Elazar said:

This is speaking

when she preceded him and offered it

before he had relations with her, and at that time the prohibition of a prostitute's wage had not yet taken effect on it.

The Gemara raises an objection:

What are the circumstances,

in what manner would Rabbi Elazar's answer be effective,

if he said to her, “Acquire

the prostitute's wage

from now,

before intercourse

,” it is obvious that it is permitted. For]]

even though he gave her the prostitute's wage on the condition that he would have relations with her, nevertheless

it is not present at the time of intercourse, and]]

it is not considered payment for intercourse; rather,

it is merely a gift that he gave her.

And if he did not say to her, “Acquire

the prostitute's wage

from now,”]]

but transferred ownership of it to her only at the time of intercourse,

how could she offer it]]

[how could she offer it before intercourse]? After all, a person cannot consecrate something that does not belong to him, as it is stated (Leviticus 27:14):

“When a person consecrates his house as sacred,”]]

and the Sages expounded:

The Merciful One said: Just as his house]]

belongs to a person and stands

within his ownership, so too every]]

thing that he wishes to consecrate must belong to him and

be within his ownership.

If so, in the case under discussion, since the prostitute's wage does not belong to her until the time of intercourse, she cannot offer it?

Rather,

this is speaking of a case in which he

said to her, “Let it remain in your possession]]

[let the prostitute's wage remain under your control]

until the time of intercourse, and if you need it,]]

acquire it from now.”

And the Mishna teaches something new: Although he said to her, “Do not acquire it until the time of intercourse,” nevertheless, since he then went back and said to her, “If you need it, acquire it from now,” if she preceded him and acquired it, it is considered an entirely free gift, and she may offer it.

Rav Hoshaya inquired: If she preceded him and consecrated it

before he had relations with her, but did not offer it until after he had relations with her,

what is the law?

Is she permitted to offer it after he has had relations with her?

The sides of the uncertainty are as follows:

Since the Master said

(Kiddushin 28b):

“His verbal declaration to the Most High is like his transfer to an ordinary person,”]]

if so, already at the time she consecrated the prostitute's wage, it was as though she had handed it over to the consecration, and

it is considered as though she had offered it.

Or perhaps, now, in any event,]]

at the time he had relations with her,

it is standing and present as it is]]

[the prostitute's wage is still in existence],

and the prohibition of a prostitute's wage should take effect retroactively from the time he gave it to her?

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

why does it not

resolve

the uncertainty

from

the words of

Rabbi Elazar

mentioned above?

For

behold,

Rabbi Elazar said that

the beraita is dealing with a case in which she

preceded him and offered it.

It is inferred from his words that

specifically

if she

offered it,

the prohibition of a prostitute's wage did not take effect upon it retroactively,

but if she consecrated it

and did not offer it,

it did not.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Hoshaya was uncertain about the

words

of

Rabbi Elazar himself.

And

this is what he was uncertain about: What

is the matter? Is it

absolutely clear to Rabbi Elazar that “she offered it” is specifically required,]]

and only then does the prohibition of a prostitute's wage not take effect retroactively,

but

if she

consecrated it

and did not offer it,

it does not, since it is present at the time of intercourse.

Or perhaps,

if she

offered it, it is obvious to him

that the prohibition of a prostitute's wage does not take effect upon it

, and]]

if she

consecrated it

and did not offer it until after he had relations with her,

he was uncertain,

as stated above. Therefore, he formulated the beraita in the straightforward case, in which she had already offered it, and then certainly the prohibition of a prostitute's wage did not take effect retroactively.

And he left the uncertainty at

teiku:

We learned in the beraita above:

“If he had relations with her and afterward gave her her prostitute's wage, it is permitted]]

to offer the prostitute's wage as a sacrifice”:

The Gemara raises an objection:

And we contradict this]]

[for we learned the opposite in a beraita]:

“If he had relations with her and afterward gave]]

her, even from now until three years from now, her prostitute's wage, it is forbidden”?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that Rav Ḥisda said: It is not difficult.

This

statement that we say, “Even from now until three years from now it is forbidden,” applies when he

said

to her,

“Have relations with me for this lamb,”]]

which is standing before you. In that case, it is forbidden even if he gives it to her only after three years, since she acquired it from now.

And

this

statement that we say, “If he had relations with her and afterward gave her her prostitute's wage, it is permitted,” applies when he

said to her, “Have relations with me for a lamb,” without specifying one.

In this manner, when he gives her the prostitute's wage after some time, it is not considered a prostitute's wage, since she acquires it only now, and it is permitted.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But when he said to her, “For this lamb,” what difference does that make?]]

That is, why, if he said to her, “Have relations with me for this lamb,” and gave it to her only later, is the lamb forbidden,

when the acquisition by pulling is lacking,]]

and since she did not pull the lamb, she did not acquire it until he actually gave it to her?

And it answers: This is speaking

of a gentile prostitute, who does not acquire by pulling]]

but through money, and she acquired the lamb immediately even if she did not pull it until a long time later.

And if you wish, say

another explanation:

It is always speaking of a Jewish prostitute, and]]

nevertheless she acquired the lamb immediately,

for example, when it was standing]]

[the lamb was standing]

in her courtyard,]]

and she acquired it through acquisition by virtue of her courtyard. The Gemara raises an objection:

If

it is as you say, that the case is one

in which it was standing]]

[the lamb was standing]

in her courtyard,]]

then why did the tanna say

“He had relations with her and afterward gave it to her,”]]

meaning that at the time of intercourse she had not yet acquired the prostitute's wage,

when

according to the answers above, already at the time of intercourse

she had acquired it?

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary]]

to establish the beraita even in a manner in which she had not yet acquired the lamb at the time of intercourse, and nevertheless the designation “prostitute's wage” takes effect upon it, in a case

where he made it]]

[he made the lamb]

a designated asset for collection.

That

is,

he said to her, “If I bring you]]

[if I give you]

money from now until a certain day, that is preferable; but if not, take it]]

[take this lamb]

as your prostitute's wage.”

Therefore, since from the time of intercourse the lamb is pledged for repayment of his debt and is standing in her courtyard, the designation of prostitute's wage takes effect upon it, and it is forbidden.

The Gemara returns to discuss Rabbi Yoḥanan's statement, permitting the members of Rav Yannai's household to borrow seventh-year produce from the poor during the Sabbatical Year and repay them in the eighth year.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection]]

[he objected]

Rav Sheshet,]]

as we learned in the Tosefta: “

A Jew who has ignoramus or gentile workers, whose sustenance is his responsibility, and they come to eat, may not feed them forbidden food. Likewise, he may not give these gentiles wine used for idolatrous libation to drink, because it is found that he is repaying his debt with items from which benefit is forbidden.

Nevertheless,

a person may say to his donkey drivers and to his workers, ‘Go and eat for this dinar; go out and drink for this dinar,’