Commentary for Avodah Zarah 92:5
ואי משום בית ה' אלהיך מיבעי ליה לכדתניא בית ה' אלהיך פרט לפרה שאינה באה לבית דברי ר"א וחכ"א לרבות את הריקועים
And if [you would argue that this conclusion is incorrect] because of the words, “into the house of the Lord your God,” they are required in accordance with this teaching: “Into the house of the Lord your God” this excludes a [red] heifer which does not enter the Temple, the words of R. Eliezer; but the Sages say: This includes plates of beaten gold.
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
One might have thought that the words “into the house of the Lord” which follows “do not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog” imply that under no circumstance should the hire of a harlot be used to buy a sacrifice, even if the wages are attached to the ground. But this reading is wrong because that verse has another use. It does not come to prohibit buying sacrifices with the hire of a harlot when those wages came in the form of attached property. Rather it either exclude the red heifer from the prohibition or includes beaten plates of gold. So R. Huna is arguing that not only can the stones be used to build the altar, the wages of a harlot could also be used in divine worship, if they are attached to the ground. The discussion will continue in tomorrow’s section.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy