Avodah Zarah 63a — the Talmud in English

Behold,

“for you”

[when]

he has intercourse with her ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the prohibition of etnan should retroactively take effect upon it,

for he gave it initially on the condition that he would have intercourse with her afterward?

Rabbi Elazar said:

it is speaking

when she preceded and offered it

before he had intercourse with her, and at that time the prohibition of etnan had not yet taken effect upon 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 for yourself

the etnan

from now,

before the intercourse

,” it is obvious that it is permitted. For

even though he gave her the etnan on the condition that he would have intercourse with her, nevertheless,

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

it is not considered the payment for intercourse, but

it is merely a gift that he gives her.

And if he did not say to her, “Acquire for yourself

the etnan

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 the intercourse]? For a person cannot consecrate something that is not his, as it is stated (Leviticus 27:14):

“And when a man consecrates his house as sacred,”

and the Sages expounded:

The Merciful One said: Just as his house

belongs to a person and stands

in his possession, so too every

thing that he wishes to consecrate must be his and

in his possession.

And if so, in our case, since the etnan is not acquired by her until the time of intercourse, she cannot offer it?

Rather,

it is speaking of a case

where he said to her, “Let it be with you

[let the etnan remain in your possession]

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

acquire it from now.”

And the novel point of the Mishna is that even though he said to her, “Do not acquire it until the time of intercourse,” nevertheless, since he returned and said to her, “If you need it, acquire it from now,” if she preceded and acquired it, it is like a gratuitous gift, and she may offer it.

Rav Hoshaya inquired: If she preceded and consecrated it

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

what is the law?

Is it permitted for her to offer it after he had intercourse with her?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Since the master said (Kiddushin 28b)

(Kiddushin 28b),

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

if so, already at the time she consecrated the etnan, it is as though she transferred it to the possession of the consecration, and

it is considered as though she offered it.

Or perhaps, now in any event,

at the time he had intercourse with her,

it is standing and exists as it is

[behold, the etnan exists in its physical form],

and the prohibition of etnan will retroactively take effect upon it from the time he gave it to her?

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

why 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 and offered it.

It follows from his words:

specifically

if she

offered it,

then the prohibition of etnan did not take effect upon it retroactively,

but if she consecrated it

and did not offer it,

no.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Hoshaya was uncertain about the

words of

Rabbi

Elazar himself. And

he was inquiring, what

is the matter: Is it absolutely clear to Rabbi Elazar that “she offered it” specifically,

Is it

and only then does the etnan not take effect retroactively,

but

if she

if she

consecrated it

and did not offer it,

no, for it is present at the time of intercourse.

Or perhaps,

if she

offered it, it is obvious to him

that the prohibition of etnan did not take effect upon it

, and

if she

consecrated it

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

it is uncertain to him,

as above; therefore he established the beraita in the simpler manner, that she had already offered it, in which case certainly the prohibition of etnan did not take effect retroactively.

And he left the uncertainty at

teyku:

We learned in the beraita above:

“He had intercourse with her, and afterward gave her her payment, it is permitted

to offer the etnan as an offering”:

The Gemara raises an objection:

And we have a contradiction

[for we learned in a beraita] to the contrary:

“He had intercourse with her and afterward gave

her, even from now until three years, his payment is forbidden”?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said in the name of Rav Hisda: It is not difficult.

This

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

said

to her

“Have intercourse with me for this lamb”

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

And

this

that we say, “he had intercourse with her and afterward gave her her payment, it is permitted,” is when he

said to her, “Have intercourse for a lamb,” without specification.

And in this manner, when he gives her the etnan after some time, it is not considered an etnan, for only now did she acquire it, and it is permitted.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But when he said to her, “for this lamb,” what of it?

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

it lacks pulling,

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

And it answers: It is speaking

of a gentile prostitute, who does not acquire through pulling

but through money, and she acquired the lamb immediately even if she pulled it only after a long time.

And if you wish, say

another manner:

it is always a Jewish prostitute, and

nevertheless she acquired the lamb immediately,

for example, it was standing

[the lamb was standing]

in her courtyard,

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

If

according to your words, that it is speaking in a case where

it was standing

[the lamb was standing]

in her courtyard,

if so, why did the tanna say

“he had intercourse with her and afterward gave it to her,”

meaning that at the time of intercourse she had not yet acquired the etnan,

when

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

she acquired it?

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary

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

where he made it for her

[he made the lamb]

a designated asset for repayment.

That

is:

He said to her, “If I bring you

[if I give you]

money from now until a certain day, it is good; and if not, take it

[take this lamb]

as your payment.”

And therefore, since from the time of intercourse the lamb is encumbered for the repayment of his debt and is standing in her courtyard, the designation etnan takes effect upon it, and it is forbidden.

The Gemara returns to discuss Rabbi Yohanan’s words, that he permitted the sons of Rav Yannai to borrow seventh-year produce from the poor during the seventh year and repay them in the eighth year.

Rav Sheshet objected,

[he raised an objection]

Rav Sheshet,

we learned in the Tosefta: “

An Israelite who has ignorant or gentile workers, and their food is his responsibility, and they come to eat, is forbidden to feed them something forbidden; and likewise, it is forbidden to give these gentiles libation wine to drink, because it turns out 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,’