Temurah 58
ואלא דאמר לה לא ניקני ליך עד שעת ביאה מי מציא מקרבה ליה
Surely it is obvious that it is legitimate for the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if she did not hurry to offer it, as the law of hire does not here apply at all (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>2</sup></span>
לא צריכא דאמר לה לא מקניה לך עד שעת ביאה ואי מצטריך לך ניקני לך מעכשיו
Shall we then suppose that he said: Do not acquire ownership of it [the lamb] until the time of intercourse?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And she hurried to offer it before there was intercourse.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
קדמה והקריבתו הקריבתו היא דהא ליתיה בשעת ביאה אבל הקדישתו אסור
So all things must be in his possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to be able to dedicate them. And here since the lamb only becomes hers at the time of intercourse, how can she legitimately offer it beforehand?');"><sup>8</sup></span>
כיון דתנן אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט הקדישתו מותר וכל שכן הקריבתו
let it be acquired by you from now'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We therefore regard it as a case of being in her possession to dedicate, since she can use it if she is in need. And since he said to her that the lamb is only hers at the time of intercourse, the Baraitha therefore needs to inform us that it is not a hire if she hurried and offered it before the act of intercourse.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
בא עליה ואחר כך נתן לה אתננה מותר
Now [he says] that where she offered it, it is legitimate [for the altar] because it is not i existence at the time of the intercourse, implying that where she dedicated it, [since the animal is in existence at the time of the intercourse],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אמר רב חנן בר רב חסדא
[Do we say that] where she offered it, since it is not in existence at the time of the intercourse, t animal is legitimate [for the altar], but where she dedicated it at the time of the intercourse, the animal is forbidden [for the altar],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is in existence at the time of intercourse.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
לא קשיא הא דאמר לה הבעלי לי בטלה זה הא דאמר לה הבעלי לי בטלה סתם
or perhaps since we have learnt: The word of mouth is in dedication what delivery is in private transaction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And one cannot withdraw from his word.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
אחד אתנן זכר ואחד אתנן כל עריות אסור חוץ מאתנן אשתו נדה
we suppose that he said to her: 'Submit to intercourse for this lamb,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he gave it to her at the time of intercourse, the law of hire has effect immediately on the animal and even if she did not receive it till twelve months later, it is forbidden for the altar (v. Sh. Mek.) .');"><sup>21</sup></span>
(דברים כג, יט) זונה כתיב והא לאו זונה היא
that he said to her: 'Submit to intercourse for a lamb', without specifying.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A particular lamb. What he therefore sends her afterwards is merely a present but not a harlot's hire.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
אמר לך
And if you prefer [another solution] I may say that we are even dealing with an Israelitish harlot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it can be explained that from the time that intercourse took place she possessed the animal.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
ורב ההיא זונה ולא זונה מנא לי'
If so, surely he gave it to her at the beginning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the intercourse, if the animal was placed in her courtyard. Why then does the Baraitha say that he had intercourse with her and then gave the lamb to her?');"><sup>30</sup></span>
אין אתנן אסור אלא כל אתנן הבאות לו בעבירה
And if not, the [whole] lamb will be your hire'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore when the day came and he did not give her the money, the animal is regarded as having been hers from the time of the act of intercourse. Nevertheless the Baraitha rightly says: 'And then he gave her the animal', since it was not hers till that particular day arrived. The Baraitha therefore needs to inform us that in such circumstances the animal is forbidden for the altar.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
אבל אתנן אשתו נדה ושנתן לה שכר להפקעתה ושנתנה לו באתננו מותרין
Said Rab: The law of [harlot's] hire applies to a male<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he had intercourse with a male and gave him a hire, the animal is forbidden to be offered.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
אף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר (יחזקאל טז, לד) ובתתך אתנן ואתנן לא ניתן [לך] (לה) ותהי להפך
and to all forbidden relations, except the hire of hi wife when she is a niddah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman during her menstruation period.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
וכהן שבא עליה אין לוקה עליה משום זונה
It is written: An abomination,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.; Scripture saying: 'For the abomination of the Lord thy God etc.' And intercourse with a niddah is also an abomination, for it is mentioned in connection with illicit relations and with reference to all these relations the Bible says: For all these abominations (Lev. XVIII, 27) .');"><sup>36</sup></span>
דאמר קרא (ויקרא כא, טו) לא יחלל זרעו מי שזרעו מיוחס אחריו יצא עובדת כוכבים דאין זרעו מיוחס אחריו
But as to Levi, is it not written: 'A zonah [harlot]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a niddah is not a harlot (zonah) .');"><sup>37</sup></span>
זונה ישראלית אתננה מותר מה טעם
- He can answer you: [It is to intimate] zonah but not zoneh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The male committing lewdness. I.e. , that if she gave him a hire, it is legitimate for the altar.');"><sup>38</sup></span>
וכהן שבא עליה לוקה משום זונה מ"ט
For it has been taught: Rabbi said, Hire is forbidden only when it comes to him through a transgression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When there is no legitimate aspect to the act of intercourse.');"><sup>39</sup></span>
ומה אתנן זונה עובדת כוכבים אסור אף אתנן זונה ישראלית אסור
[Scripture saying:] And in that thou givest hire, and no hire is given unto thee, thus thou art contrary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XVI, 34. Hence what she gives him is not hire (Rashi) .');"><sup>44</sup></span>
אין קדושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין והא קמשמע לן דכל זונה לא תפסי בה קדושין דומיא דאלמנה דלא תפסי בה קידושין
[We therefore argue,] just as there the reference is to forbidden relations where betrothal has no effect, similarly here [in the case of a harlot] we are dealing with a case where betrothal has no legal effect.
פנוי הבא על הפנויה שלא לשם אישות עשאה זונה
implying such seed as is attributed to him, to the exclusion of a heathen women whose seed is not attributed to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seed from a non-Jewess is called her child but not his.');"><sup>48</sup></span>
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