Temurah 59
רבי אלעזר היא דאמר
R'Eleazar, who said: If an unmarried man has intercourse with an unmarried woman without the intention thereby of making her his wife, he makes her a harlot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the hire is forbidden, whereas Abaye will hold the opinion of the Rabbis who dispute with R. Eleazar.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
פנוי הבא על הפנויה שלא לשום אישות עשאה זונה
If [the Baraitha] represents the opinion of R'Eleazar, why take the case of a widow for a High Priest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the latter clause of the Baraitha.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אלמנה איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא
is the typical case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the case of an unmarried man who had intercourse with an unmarried woman had been taken, I might have regarded it as typical, and said that only where there is no prohibition as regards intercourse is the hire forbidden, but where intercourse is prohibited hire is not forbidden, and therefore in the case of a widow for a High Priest etc. the hire is not forbidden. The Baraitha therefore takes as example the case of a widow for a High Priest, etc.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
והא שפחה לעבד מישרא שריא
IF ONE SAYS TO HIS FELLOW: HERE IS THIS LAMB FOR YOU etc. But is not a bondwoman permitted for a slave?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why therefore do the Rabbis hold in our Mishnah that the lamb is a harlot's hire?');"><sup>5</sup></span>
שפחה לעבד עברי מישרא שריא
For it has been taught: If a Hebrew slave does not possess a wife and children, his master cannot hand over a Canaanitish slave to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Scripture says: If he came in by himself, he should go out by himself (Ex. XXI, 3) . R. Meir, who says that it is not a harlot's hire, does not however agree to this and holds that even if the Hebrew slave has no wife and children, his master can hand over a Canaanitish slave to him.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
האומר לחבירו הוליך טלה זה תחת כלב
AND LIKEWISE IF TWO PARTNERS DIVIDED [AN ESTATE] AND ONE TOOK TEN LAMBS AND THE OTHER NINE AND A DOG, ALL THOSE TAKEN INSTEAD OF THE DOG ARE FORBIDDEN [FOR THE ALTAR],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one can describe each lamb as the equivalent and price of the dog.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר
'BOTH' BUT NOT FOUR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there are no other cases where the lamb is forbidden in such circumstances. Now to add the cases of hire of a dog and price of a harlot would be to make four cases.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
א"כ נימא קרא לא תביא אתנן זונה וכלב מדכתיב אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב ש"מ
Thou sellest thy people for naught and hast not set high their price.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The term used is mehir. We therefore see that mehir means 'the price'.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דטפי דמי כלב מחד מינייהו והאי טיפונא דכלב שדי בכולהו
But did we suggest the hire and the price of a dog; what we suggested is that [it means] the hire and not the price? - If so, let Scripture say: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot and a dog.
א"ל רבא מפרזקיא לרב אשי
PARTNERS WHO DIVIDED [THEIR ESTATE] AND ONE TOOK etc. But why not take out [one lamb] for the dog, and all the remaining [lambs] should then be legitimate [for the altar]? - We are dealing here with a case where the value of the dog was greater than the value of any one [of the corresponding lambs] and this additional amount is distributed over all [the corresponding lambs].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where not one of the corresponding lambs is of equal value to the dog, some of the additional value of the dog is extended to each of the opposite lambs. E.g., suppose that each of the corresponding lambs was worth a denar, making altogether ten denars and each of the nine lambs with the dog was worth a denar minus a ma'ah (v. Glos.) , the dog thus being worth one denar plus nine ma'ah. Then nine of the opposite lambs are regarded as possessing something of the value of the dog, while the tenth lamb just corresponds to what is left of it. The Jerushalmi explains this as follows: If the ten lambs are each worth four zuz and a tenth, making a total of forty-one zuz, and the dog is worth five zuz, then the nine remaining lambs with it are worth thirty-six zuz or four zuz each, one tenth of a zuz less than each of the others. Hence each lamb in one set is the equivalent of each of the nine opposite lambs plus the tenth of a zuz, and this tenth is the equivalent of a portion of the dog and therefore causes them all to be forbidden for the altar as 'the price of a dog'.');"><sup>24</sup></span> THE HIRE OF A DOG AND THE PRICE OF A HARLOT ARE LEGITIMATE etc. Said Raba of Parzakia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Farausag, near Nehardea.');"><sup>25</sup></span> to R'Ashi: