## Avodah Zarah Daf 63a

###### Avodah Zarah 63a:1
[Avodah Zarah 63a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:1)

לֵיחוּל עֲלַהּ אִיסּוּר אֶתְנַן לְמַפְרֵעַ! אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כְּשֶׁקָּדְמָה וְהִקְרִיבַתּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the **prohibition** with regard to **payment** to a prostitute **should apply to** the payment **retroactively. Rabbi Eliezer says:** The *baraita* is referring to a situation **when she sacrificed** the payment in the Temple **first,** before the intercourse took place.


###### Avodah Zarah 63a:2
[Avodah Zarah 63a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:2)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאָמַר לַהּ: ״קְנַי לִיךְ מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ — פְּשִׁיטָא דִּשְׁרֵי, דְּהָא לֵיתֵיהּ בִּשְׁעַת בִּיאָה, וּמַתָּנָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּיָהֵיב לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of such a situation? **If** the circumstances are **that he said to her: Acquire** this payment **from now,** it is **obvious that** it is **permitted** to sacrifice it, **as it is not extant** as payment **at the time of the intercourse, and it is merely a gift that he gave her.** It would not be necessary for the *baraita* to state this.


###### Avodah Zarah 63a:3
[Avodah Zarah 63a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:3)

וְאִי דְּלָא אָמַר לַהּ ״קְנַי לִיךְ מֵעַכְשָׁיו״, הֵיכִי (מצי) [מָצְיָא] מַקְרְבָה? ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּשׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, אַף כֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the circumstances are **that he did not say to her: Acquire** this payment **from now, how can she** be allowed to **sacrifice it? The Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy to the Lord”** (Leviticus 27:14), from which it is derived that **just as** one’s **house is in his possession, so too, any** item that a person wishes to consecrate must be **in his possession.** The prostitute cannot consecrate an animal that is not in her possession.


###### Avodah Zarah 63a:4
[Avodah Zarah 63a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:4)

אֶלָּא, דְּאָמַר לַהּ: ״לֶהֱוֵי גַּבִּיךְ עַד שְׁעַת בִּיאָה, וְאִי מִיצְטְרִיךְ לִיךְ קְנַי מֵעַכְשָׁיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* is referring to a situation **where he said to her: Let** the animal **be with you until the time of intercourse, and if you need it** in the meantime, **acquire** it **from now.** The *baraita* teaches that in this situation she may sacrifice her payment as an offering.


###### Avodah Zarah 63a:5
[Avodah Zarah 63a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:5)

בָּעֵי רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: קָדְמָה וְהִקְדִּישַׁתּוּ, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: אֲמִירָתוֹ לְגָבוֹהַּ כִּמְסִירָתוֹ לְהֶדְיוֹט, כְּמַאן דְּאַקְרֵיבְתֵּיהּ דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִּלְמָא הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא הָא קָאֵי וְאִיתֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hoshaya raises a dilemma:** If **she consecrated it first,** before the intercourse, **what is** the *halakha*? **Since the Master said** that **declaration to the Most High is equivalent to transfer to an ordinary** person, i.e., a spoken consecration of an item to the Temple is deemed, in terms of acquisition, like the legal transfer of an item to a person, therefore, since she consecrated it by speech, is it considered **tantamount to having sacrificed it,** and consequently it would be permitted to sacrifice it? **Or perhaps** should it be reasoned that **now,** at the time of the intercourse, **in any event,** the animal **is extant,** i.e., it was not actually sacrificed, and therefore it is prohibited to sacrifice it?


###### Avodah Zarah 63a:6
[Avodah Zarah 63a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:6)

וְתִפְשׁוֹט מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: שֶׁקָּדְמָה וְהִקְרִיבַתּוּ — דַּוְקָא הִקְרִיבַתּוּ, אֲבָל הִקְדִּישַׁתּוּ — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Resolve** the dilemma **from** the statement **of Rabbi Eliezer, as Rabbi Eliezer says:** The *baraita* is referring to a case **where she sacrificed it first.** By inference, it is referring **specifically** to a case where **she sacrificed it; but** if **she** merely **consecrated it,** then it is **not** permitted to sacrifice the animal, as it is considered in her possession at the time of the intercourse.


###### Avodah Zarah 63a:7
[Avodah Zarah 63a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:7)

דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר גּוּפֵיהּ קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, מַאי? מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּהִקְרִיבַתּוּ דַּוְקָא, אֲבָל הִקְדִּישַׁתּוּ — לָא, דְּהָא אִיתֵיהּ בִּשְׁעַת בִּיאָה? אוֹ דִלְמָא הִקְרִיבַתּוּ פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, וְהִקְדִּישַׁתּוּ מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this resolution: Rav Hoshaya **raises the dilemma** with regard to the statement **of Rabbi Eliezer itself,** asking **what** his intent is: Is it **obvious to Rabbi Eliezer that** the animal is permitted **specifically** in a case where **she sacrificed it, but** in a case where **she** merely **consecrated it,** that is **not** the *halakha*, and the payment is forbidden, **because it is extant** as payment **at the time of** the **intercourse? Or perhaps** does he mention specifically the case where **she sacrificed it** because that case is **obvious to him, but** with regard to the case where **she consecrated it, he is uncertain** whether it is permitted or not, and he therefore did not rule on the matter? The Gemara comments: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Avodah Zarah 63a:8
[Avodah Zarah 63a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:8)

בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן לָהּ אֶתְנַנָּהּ — מוּתָּר, וּרְמִינְהִי: בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן לָהּ, אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן עַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים — אֶתְנַנָּהּ אָסוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* teaches: If **he engaged in intercourse with her and afterward,** after some time elapsed, **gave her** payment, **her payment** is **permitted.** The Gemara **raises a contradiction** from another *baraita*: If **he engaged in intercourse with her and afterward gave her** payment, **even from now until three years** afterward, **her payment** is **forbidden.**


###### Avodah Zarah 63a:9
[Avodah Zarah 63a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:9)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאָמַר ״הִתְבַּעֲלִי לִי בְּטָלֶה זֶה״, הָא דַּאֲמַר לַהּ ״הִתְבַּעֲלִי בְּטָלֶה״ סְתָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said** that **Rav Ḥisda said:** This is **not difficult. This** case, where it is forbidden, is **where he said** in advance: **Engage in intercourse with me** in exchange **for this lamb.** In this case the lamb is considered to be her property immediately, even if he actually gave it to her only after some time had elapsed. **That** case, where the animal is permitted, is **where he said to her: Engage in intercourse** with me in exchange **for a lamb, without specifying** a particular one. Since he did not specify a particular lamb as the fee, when he later gives her a lamb, it is not deemed payment.


###### Avodah Zarah 63a:10
[Avodah Zarah 63a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:10)

וְכִי אָמַר לַהּ ״בְּטָלֶה זֶה״ מַאי הָוֵי? הָא מְחַסַּר מְשִׁיכָה! בְּזוֹנָה גּוֹיָה, דְּלָא קָנְיָא בִּמְשִׁיכָה. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם בְּזוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, וּכְגוֹן דְּקָאֵי בַּחֲצֵירָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But when he says to her:** In exchange **for this lamb, what of it? Isn’t** a formal act of acquisition, such as **pulling** the lamb, **absent** from the transaction? In any case she has not acquired it. The Gemara answers: The reference is **to** the case of **a gentile prostitute, who does not acquire by pulling;** gentiles acquire an item by paying money for it. **And if you wish, say** instead that **actually,** the reference is **to a Jewish prostitute, and** it is a case **where** the lamb is already **standing in her courtyard.** This effected the acquisition as soon as the man stated his intent to give her the lamb, in accordance with the principle that a person acquires that which is within his property.


###### Avodah Zarah 63a:11
[Avodah Zarah 63a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:11)

אִי דְּקָאֵי בַּחֲצֵירָהּ, בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן לָהּ, הָא קָנְיָא לֵהּ! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּשַׁוְּיֵהּ נִיהֲלַהּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי, דַּאֲמַר לַהּ: ״אִי מַיְיתֵינָא לִיךְ זוּזֵי מִכָּאן עַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי — מוּטָב, וְאִי לָא — שִׁקְלֵיהּ בְּאֶתְנַנִּיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If** the reference is to a case **where it is standing in her courtyard,** that is not a case where **he engaged in intercourse with her and afterward he gave her** payment, since **it was acquired by her** before he engaged in intercourse with her. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to state this *halakha* with regard to a case **where he rendered** the lamb as **designated payment [*appoteiki*] for her,** i.e., a case **where he said to her: If I bring you dinars from now until such and such a day,** all is **well,** and you will return the lamb to me, **but if not, take** the lamb **as your payment.**


###### Avodah Zarah 63a:12
[Avodah Zarah 63a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/63a:12)

מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אוֹמֵר אָדָם לַחֲמָרָיו וּלְפוֹעֲלָיו ״לְכוּ וְאִכְלוּ בְּדִינָר זֶה״, ״צְאוּ וּשְׁתוּ בְּדִינָר זֶה״, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara resumes discussion of the practice of the Sages from the school of Rabbi Yannai, who would borrow produce from the poor during the Sabbatical Year and repay them after the Sabbatical Year, and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling that this is permitted, as it is not considered commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce. **Rav Sheshet raises an objection** to this ruling from a *baraita*: **A person may say to his donkey drivers or to his laborers: Go and eat with this dinar,** or: **Go and drink with this dinar, and he does not** need to **be concerned** that his workers will transgress a prohibition with the money he has given them,