Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Related for Temurah 58:76

הא מני

Because his seed is attributed to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the harlot is an Israelitish woman, the children are his, i.e., Jewish.');"><sup>49</sup></span> Raba, however, says: In both cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the harlot be an Israelitish or heathen woman.');"><sup>50</sup></span> her hire is forbidden for the altar, and a priest who has intercourse with her is punishable [with lashes] for [having intercourse with] a zonah. What is the reason? We infer one from the other:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of a heathen harlot from the case of an Israelitish harlot and vice versa.');"><sup>51</sup></span> Just as in the case of an Israelitish harlot there is a negative command,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Neither shall he profane etc.'');"><sup>52</sup></span> similarly there is a negative command in connection with a heathen harlot. And just as the hire of a heathen harlot is forbidden [for the altar], similarly the hire of an Israelitish harlot is also forbidden [for the altar]. An objection was raised: The hire of either a heathen harlot or an Israelitish harlot is forbidden [for the altar]. Shall we say that this refutes Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that the hire of an Israelitish harlot is permissible for the altar.');"><sup>53</sup></span> - Abaye can answer you: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha just quoted.');"><sup>54</sup></span> will represent the view of R'Akiba who holds that betrothal takes no effect in relationships involving the infringement of a negative command.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since there is the negative command: 'Neither shall he profane' in connection with an Israelitish harlot, her hire is forbidden.');"><sup>55</sup></span> [But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bracketed passage is inserted passage is inserted with Bah.');"><sup>56</sup></span> does not the Baraitha say in a later clause, as e.g. , a widow for a High Priest and a divorcee or one who has performed halizah for a common priest, her hire is forbidden? ]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And these examples are presumably adduced as instances where the betrothal takes effect and yet the hire is forbidden though the relationships involve no infringement of a negative command!');"><sup>57</sup></span> This is what [the Baraitha] informs us, that [in the case of any harlot with whom betrothal takes no effect] as is the case with a widow [for a High Priest], the hire is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text in the Gemara is in disorder. V. Commentaries.');"><sup>58</sup></span> And according to Raba, why does [the Baraitha] say: 'As e.g. , the case of a widow for a High Priest'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to him every harlot's hire is forbidden. Why therefore specifically mention the case of a widow for a High Priest?');"><sup>59</sup></span> - [The Baraitha means:] It is like the case of a widow [for a High Priest]: Just as a widow for a High Priest is not punishable with lashes until she is warned, similarly with a harlot there is no prohibition until he said to her: 'Here is [the hire]',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Raba, however, the first intercourse does not make her into a zonah, and consequently unless he tells her 'this is your hire', what he gives her is considered a mere gift.');"><sup>60</sup></span> thus excluding the teaching of R'Eleazar. For R'Eleazar said: If an unmarried man had intercourse with an unmarried woman without the intention thereby of making her his wife, he makes her a harlot. Where, however, she is already a harlot, even if he gave her a lamb [without giving the reason, Raba also agrees that] it is forbidden for the altar. Another version: [The Baraitha] above refers to forbidden relations, where betrothals take no effect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore even the hire of an Israelitish harlot is forbidden.');"><sup>61</sup></span> But does not the latter clause say: As e.g. , a widow for a High Priest, a divorcee or one who has performed halizah for a common priest, her hire is forbidden? Now in these cases betrothals take effect!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And yet the hire is forbidden.');"><sup>62</sup></span> - [The Baraitha] will represent the opinion of

Tosefta Kiddushin

A man shouldn't marry a wife until his niece is grown up or until he finds someone appropriate for him, as it is said, "The land was full of lust" (Vayikra 19:29). "It is lust" (Vayikra 20:14). Rabbi Eliezer says: This is a single man who has sex with a single woman not for the sake of marriage. Rabbi Eliezer said: From where do we know that he [the single man from the previous statement] is punished before God like the one who has sex with a woman and her mother? It is said here "Lust" and it is said there "A man who marries a woman and her mother—it is lust" (Vayikra 20:14). Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says: Because he has sex with many women and it is not known with which he has had sex; and she receives it from many men and it is not known from which of them she received it—it turns out that this man marries his daughter, this one marries his sister, and all of the world will be bastards. That's why it is said, "The earth will be full of lust" (zimah)—this one, what is he (zeh mah hu)? He is not a kohen, levi or Yisrael (sic! placement of this line based on Ehrfurt manuscript and the derash of זימה = זה מה). Rabbi Yehudah (sic! based on Ehrfurt manuscript) says: Behold it says "Do not prostitute the land" (Vayikra 19:29)—the produce degenerates. The Hakhamim decided by majority to support Rabbi Yehudah (sic!): "Lift your eyes to the lowlands and see where you have not been ravished... and the rains have been withheld" (Yirmiyahu 3:2-3) [i.e. your sexual immorality directly causes the rains to stop and the produce to degenerate].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Tosefta Kiddushin

[The process of something being transferred to the] ownership of the Temple with money, how so? If the treasurer gave coins for hekdesh moveable property, he acquires the hekdesh wherever he is; but a layperson [not empowered by the authority of the Temple] doesn't acquire until the moment he draws [it]. Speech [by a Temple treasurer or another official is as effective in transferring property] to the Temple as the handing over of a layperson. How so? "This ox is hekdesh", "This house is hekdesh"—even from where to the end of the world, he acquires the hekdesh wherever he is; but a layperson only acquires when he takes possession [of it].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse