Temurah 29b — the Talmud in English

The beraita speaks of a case

in which she preceded and sacrificed it

to the lamb that he gave her, even before he had intercourse with her.

And the Gemara discusses the resolution of Rabbi Elazar:

What are the circumstances

, in what manner is the case being discussed?

If you say

, if it is said

that

at the time of the giving

he transferred ownership of it to her

immediately

, he transferred ownership of the lamb to her at once and said to her, “Acquire it from now,” then

it is obvious that it is permitted! For until this point

, until the time of the sacrifice,

he had not had intercourse with her.

Rather

, perhaps you will say that the case is one in which

he said to her: “

I will not transfer ownership of it to you until the time of intercourse,” and the acquisition takes place only at the time of intercourse. And she preceded and sacrificed it before he had intercourse with her, when the designation of payment to a harlot had not yet taken effect upon it,

then it is impossible to establish it in this manner, for there is a difficulty:

It asks:

Can she sacrifice it?

Is she permitted to sacrifice it even if it is not payment to a harlot? But this lamb still does not belong to her, and a person cannot consecrate and sacrifice something that does not belong to him, for

“

When a person consecrates his house as holy to the Lord

”

—the Merciful One said [Leviticus 27], and we expound:

Just as his house is in his possession, so too everything must be in his possession!

And we answer:

It is necessary

; the case is one in which

he said to her: “I will not transfer ownership of it to

you until the time of intercourse. And if you need it

”—if you need it—

“I will transfer ownership of it to you from now!”

Therefore, the lamb is in her possession and she can sacrifice it, since he authorized her to take it for herself.

And the novelty of the beraita is that, since he said to her that the acquisition would take effect at the time of intercourse, it might have been said that it immediately became payment to a harlot, which is forbidden for sacrifice. Therefore the beraita informs us that if she preceded and sacrificed it, it is permitted, since he authorized her to take it for herself before intercourse when necessary, and it is a free gift. But if she did not precede and sacrifice it, it is payment to a harlot.

Rav Oshaya raised a question

: If she did not sacrifice it, but rather

preceded and consecrated it, what is the law?

Is she permitted to sacrifice it? The sides of the question will be explained below.

And we ask:

Let him resolve it for him from Rabbi Elazar. For Rabbi Elazar said: “

She preceded and sacrificed it.”

And one should infer from his words:

“She sacrificed it”—that

it is permitted, since it is not there

, it is not in the world,

at the time of intercourse. But “she consecrated it,” since it is

present itself

, since the payment to a harlot is before us,

it is forbidden

. And what question did Rav Oshaya have?

And we answer: It is impossible to infer from the precision of Rabbi Elazar’s words!

For Rabbi Elazar himself is the subject of Rav Oshaya’s question

: Rav Oshaya was uncertain about the meaning of Rabbi Elazar’s very words—whether, when he said “she sacrificed it,” he meant specifically that she sacrificed it, or even that she consecrated it.

And the uncertainty is: Perhaps we say that only

“she sacrificed it,” since it is not present at the time of intercourse, is permitted. But “she consecrated it,” since it is present at the time of intercourse, is forbidden

, as explained.

Or perhaps

, it is possible to say:

Since we learned

[Kiddushin 28b]:

His declaration concerning the Most High

, when one consecrates something to the Most High, is

like his transfer of it to an ordinary person

, and he can no longer retract it as though he had performed an acquisition, therefore even if

she consecrated it

—

it is permitted. And he had authorized her to use it when necessary.

And all the more so

if

she sacrificed it.

And Rav Oshaya asks whether it was clear to Rabbi Elazar that if she consecrated it, it is forbidden, and therefore he said “she sacrificed it”; or perhaps Rabbi Elazar was uncertain about the case where she consecrated it. Therefore, because he could not decide it, he said “she sacrificed it” .

And we conclude:

Teyku

, the question is not resolved!

The Gemara continues to explain the beraita.

The Master said:

If he had intercourse with her and afterward gave it to her, his gift to her is permitted.

And we raise a contradiction from another beraita:

And

this

was taught:

If he had intercourse with her and afterward gave it to her, even up to twelve months later,

his gift to her is forbidden. But in the beraita before us it was said that it is permitted?

Yet the beraita before us says that it is permitted.

And we answer:

Rav Hanan bar Rav Hisda said: It is not difficult! This

, the beraita that said it is forbidden, is speaking of a case

in which he said to her:

“Have intercourse with me in exchange for this lamb”

, designating a particular lamb for her before intercourse, and it would be her payment after intercourse. Since he designated it at the time of intercourse, the prohibition of payment to a harlot takes effect upon it when he gives it, even though the giving took place after a long time [as will be explained below]. But

this

, the beraita that said it is permitted, is speaking of a case

in which he said to her:

“Have intercourse with me in exchange for an unspecified lamb”

, and he did not undertake to give a particular lamb, nor did she acquire it. Therefore, the lamb that he sent her later is an ordinary gift, and not “payment to a harlot.”

And we ask:

And

even

if

he said to her: “Have intercourse with me in exchange for this lamb!”—

does it become forbidden!?

Does it become forbidden with the prohibition of payment to a harlot? But

the pulling is lacking

, and she performed no effective acquisition with it; how was it acquired by her at the time of intercourse?

That is: Granted, if “money acquires,” meaning that the very benefit of intercourse, which is “worth money,” then she properly acquired it as payment to a harlot through a money acquisition, even without an acquisition through pulling. But “money does not acquire,” and only pulling acquires. Therefore it is difficult: She did not perform an acquisition through pulling at the time of intercourse; through what was it acquired by her, and how can the designation of payment to a harlot take effect upon it? And how is it different from an “unspecified lamb”?

And we answer: This beraita speaks of

a gentile prostitute

, a gentile,

who does not acquire

, who does not acquire

through pulling

but through money, and the benefit of intercourse is a money acquisition for her. Therefore the beraita said that it is forbidden because of “payment to a harlot.”

And if you wish, say: Even

if the case is one of

an Israelite prostitute

, she likewise acquired it through the acquisition of a “courtyard,” and the case is

for example, that it was standing in her courtyard

, the lamb was found in her courtyard, as will be explained.

And we ask: If the case is one in which the lamb was found in her courtyard before intercourse,

he had already given it to her

originally!

It was already in her possession, and at the time of intercourse she acquired it through the acquisition of a courtyard; why does the beraita call it “and afterward” he gave it to her?

Furthermore ,

if so,

it is obvious that it is forbidden

, since it is payment to a harlot at the very time of intercourse; what novelty did the beraita teach?

And we conclude: The case is indeed one in which the lamb is standing in her courtyard, but he did not undertake to give her the lamb; rather, he undertook to give her money, and the case is

that he designated it for her as an apotiki

, he gave her the lamb as an apotiki [a pledge in a specific object],

and said to her: “If by a certain day I give you money

—good; but if not, take it

the lamb

as your payment to a harlot!”

Therefore, when that certain day arrived and he did not give her money, it became retroactively clear that the lamb was hers from the time of intercourse, since it was found in her courtyard. Therefore the beraita calls it “afterward,” since it was not hers until then. And this is the novelty of the beraita.

The Gemara discusses concerning which prostitute the Torah prohibited her payment.

Rav said: Both [between]

among

the payment of a male prostitute

, when he had intercourse with a male and gave him payment,

and the payment of all the

the

forbidden sexual relations

mentioned in the Torah—

are forbidden

.

Except for the payment of his menstruant wife.

What is the reason? “

Prostitute

” is written in the Torah in the passage of payment to a harlot [Deuteronomy 23],

but

, and a menstruant—

she is not a prostitute

, but rather the intercourse is prohibited.

And Levi said: Even his menstruant wife

, her payment is forbidden.

What is the reason? “

Abomination

” is written [there], “For an abomination of the Lord your God are both of them”;

[there]: “For it is an abomination of the Lord your God; both of them.”

but

, and his menstruant wife—

she is an abomination

, since the prohibition of intercourse with her is stated in the passage of forbidden sexual relations [Leviticus 18], and concerning all the forbidden sexual relations it is written [there], “all these abominations.”

The Gemara clarifies the reason of Rav, who does not expound as Levi does, and of Levi, who does not expound as Rav does.

And the Gemara asks:

And Levi! Also, and

this

is written: “

Prostitute

,” and his menstruant wife is not a prostitute?

And we answer:

Levi can say to you

:

That

, what the Torah wrote “prostitute,” comes to teach us another exposition:

“Prostitute” [with a kamatz]

with the vowel kamatz,

and not “prostitute” [with a segol]; and if she gave him payment for his intercourse, it is not forbidden for sacrifice.

with the vowel segol. If she gave him payment for his intercourse with her, it is not forbidden to offer.

And the Gemara asks:

And Rav! That “

prostitute and not prostitute

—

from where does he derive it

, from where does he know that if she gave him payment, it is not forbidden?

And we answer:

He derives it

from

the exposition

that

was expounded by

Rabbi expounded.

For it was taught

, as we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi says: Payment to a harlot is forbidden only when it is the payment of all the forbidden sexual relations that come to him through transgression

, in which he has no aspect of permissibility at all;

but the payment of his menstruant wife

, who is forbidden to him only until she becomes pure, after which she will be permitted to him; or

when he gave her the payment for her idleness , payment for the work from which she refrained at the time of intercourse and not payment for intercourse; or

payment for having refrained from her work during the intercourse rather than payment for the intercourse, or

when she gave him her payment—

all of them are permitted

. His menstruant wife, because she has an aspect of permissibility; payment for idleness, since it is not payment for intercourse; and the case where she gave him her payment will be explained below—

even though

from the following exposition

there is no proof of the matter

, no conclusive proof that when she gives it to him it is not included as payment to a harlot, nevertheless there is

a supporting indication

, an example of a proof from this verse: The prophet Ezekiel [16], in his rebukes to Israel, compared them to a woman who had gone astray from her husband, and said there, “And there was in you the contrary of women in your harlotries ...

and when you gave payment to a harlot, and no payment was given to you, you became the contrary,”

so that if she gives him payment, it is merely “the contrary,” a reversal of the way of the entire world, and is not called payment to a harlot. And from this exposition Rav learns “prostitute and not prostitute.”

And the Gemara asks:

And Rav, what does he do with this

, with what the Torah said, “

abomination

,” from which Levi expounded to prohibit the payment of his menstruant wife?

What does he do with it?

And we answer:

He needs it

to expound

as

the

exposition of

Abaye

.

For Abaye said:

a.

A gentile prostitute—

her payment is forbidden.

What is the reason?

It is written here, in the passage of payment to a harlot, “

abomination

,” as it is stated, “For it is an abomination of the Lord your God.”

And it is written there, in the passage of forbidden sexual relations [Leviticus 18],

“

For everyone who does any of all these abominations.” And these are learned from one another through a gezera shava:

The two passages are interpreted through a conclusion by identical wording:

Just as there

, as there it speaks of

forbidden sexual relations with which betrothal does not take effect

, since all the forbidden sexual relations listed there are liable for excision, and everyone agrees that betrothal does not take effect with those liable for excision,

so too here

, also with regard to payment to a harlot, it is forbidden only

with a prostitute

with whom betrothal does not take effect

. And with a gentile prostitute, since betrothal does not take effect with her, her payment is forbidden.

b. Abaye also stated another halakha concerning a gentile prostitute:

And when a koen has intercourse with her—

does not receive lashes for her on account of a prostitute

, and he did not transgress the prohibition of [Leviticus 21], “They shall not take a prostitute or a profaned woman.”

What is the reason?

Because

the verse says [there], “

And he shall not profane his offspring

.”

And we expound: With which prostitute is he forbidden, one

whose offspring is attributed to him—

excluding a gentile, whose offspring is not attributed to him

, since the sons and daughters born to them are not called his sons and daughters, but rather her sons and daughters, as explained in Tractate Yevamot [23a].

c. And concerning an Israelite woman, Abaye says:

An Israelite prostitute

, an unmarried woman—

her payment is permitted.

What is the reason?

Since betrothal takes effect with her, and we learn from “abominations” that only forbidden sexual relations with which betrothal does not take effect have forbidden payment.

d.

And when a koen has intercourse with her,

, with an Israelite prostitute,

receives lashes on account of a prostitute.

What is the reason?

Since his offspring is attributed to him.

And Rava said: This one and that one,

the payment is forbidden, and a priest who has intercourse with her is flogged on account of a prostitute.

What is the reason?

They derive them from one another: the gentile woman and the Israelite woman are learned from one another with regard to the liability for flogging of a priest and with regard to the payment.

What

we find with

an Israelite prostitute,

a priest who has intercourse with her transgresses

a negative commandment,

as it is said, “And he shall not profane his offspring,” with regard to one whose offspring is ascribed after him.

So too, a gentile prostitute is subject to a negative commandment.

And just as the payment of a gentile prostitute is forbidden, so too, the payment of an Israelite prostitute is forbidden.

And Rav answers that for this exposition of Abaye [and also of Rava!] the Torah said “abomination.”

And in summary: with actual forbidden relations—it is certainly the case that her payment is forbidden. And Rav and Levi disagreed: Rav held, all forbidden relations except intercourse with one’s menstruating wife. And Levi held, all forbidden relations, even intercourse with one’s menstruating wife.

With a gentile prostitute—the payment is forbidden according to everyone.

And with an unmarried Israelite prostitute, Abaye and Rava disagreed. Abaye holds that her payment is permitted, and Rava holds that it is forbidden.

And they further disagreed with regard to a priest: with an Israelite prostitute, everyone holds that he is flogged. And with a gentile prostitute, Abaye holds that he is not flogged, and Rava holds that he is flogged.

Meytivi

to Abaye, from what we learned in a beraita:

both a gentile prostitute and an Israelite prostitute—

the payment is forbidden.

A refutation of Abaye!

Abaye can say to you:

the beraita is not speaking of the payment for intercourse for which one is not liable to karet, such as that of an unmarried woman who is not a forbidden relation to him [and is called a “prostitute” because she is available to everyone, or because in a previous intercourse she had intercourse with one of the forbidden relations for which one is liable to karet]. Rather,

when

it teaches this,

with what did the beraita say, in the case of which Israelite prostitute did it say that the payment is forbidden?

With forbidden relations with whom betrothal does not take effect,

with actual forbidden relations, for intercourse with whom one is liable to karet, and he gave her a payment for this intercourse—and this payment is indeed forbidden.

That is, what the beraita said, “prostitute,” does not refer to a woman who has the designation “prostitute” with regard to the prohibition applying to priesthood, but to prostitution for which one is liable to karet, and the intercourse is called an abomination.

And we raise an objection:

but it teaches in the latter clause,

of the beraita:

for example,

a widow to a High Priest, a divorced woman and a woman released through halitza to an ordinary priest—

the payment is forbidden.

But these,

behold, with regard to these women disqualified from priesthood,

betrothal does take effect with them,

and the latter clause indeed explains the first clause, and it is proven that they too are defined as prostitutes and their payments are forbidden; and this is difficult for Abaye, who holds that anything with which betrothal takes effect has its payment permitted?

And we answer: this beraita indeed holds that even the payment of an unmarried woman is forbidden, and the Torah forbade every payment that is not to his completely established wife, for

whose teaching is this

this beraita—who taught it?