Commentary for Avodah Zarah 45:3
אלא לאו ש"מ שאני לן בין לכתחלה לדיעבד ממאי דלמא לעולם אימא לך אפילו דיעבד נמי לא והכא היינו טעמא דמתיירא משום הפסד ממונו
Does this not prove that we differentiate between ab initio and ex post facto? But how would you know this! Perhaps I could say to you that the prohibition applies even after it happened, but here the reason is that the non-Jew will be afraid to lose his money!
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
The Talmud rejects the broad conclusion that ex post facto we are not concerned with sexual sin (bestiality or fornication). The reason why the imprisoned woman is permitted to her husband is not that this is an ex post facto question. Rather, she is permitted because the non-Jew will fear raping her lest this causes him to lose his money (the husband would not want to pay to have her redeemed, I know this is awful). This can be shown from the end of that mishnah, which teaches that if she was taken prisoner for a capital charge, she may not return to her husband. Thus the distinction is rejected.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy