Quoting%20commentary for Temurah 57:61

אמר רבי אלעזר

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>The Master says: EVEN IF THERE ARE A HUNDRED LAMBS THEY ARE ALL FORBIDDEN. How is this meant? Shall I say that she took a hundred animals for her hire? Surely it is obvious that they are all forbidden [for the altar]! What is the difference whether there be one or a hundred [lambs]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they are all a harlot's hire and forbidden for the altar.');">⁴⁴</span> - No; it is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Mishnah to say that even a hundred animals are forbidden.');">⁴⁵</span> in a case where she took one lamb as her hire<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man only promised her one lamb.');">⁴⁶</span> and he gave her a hundred; all are then forbidden, since they all come by reason of the hire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we do not say that they were given to her as a present.');">⁴⁷</span> Our Rabbis have taught: If he gave her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A lamb as hire.');">⁴⁸</span> but he had no intercourse with her, if he had intercourse with her, but did not give her, her hire is legitimate [for the altar]. In the case where he gave her but did not hav intercourse with her, do you call this her hire? And, moreover, the case where he had intercourse with her but did not give her, [you say that her hire is legitimate]. But what did he give her? - What is meant is this: If he gave her and then had intercourse with her, or if he had intercourse with her and then gave her [a lamb for] her hire, it is legitimate [for the altar]. But should not the law of [harlot's] hire take effect retrospectively?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where he gave her a lamb before he had intercourse with her, why should not the lamb be considered her hire? For, since at the time of the intercourse the lamb is alive, and he had intercourse with her on the strength of promising it, then wherever the lamb is to be found, it should be regarded as the hire of a harlot. Now there is no difficulty in the case where he had intercourse with her and then gave her a lamb, for one might say that since the animal was not assigned to her at the time of the intercourse, it was not forbidden for the altar and should he regarded as a present (Rashi) .');">⁴⁹</span> - Said R'Eleazar:

Explore quoting%20commentary for Temurah 57:61. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.