## Temurah Daf 29b

###### Temurah 29b:1
[Temurah 29b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:1)

שֶׁקָּדְמָה וְהִקְרִיבַתּוּ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי נֵימָא דְּאַקְנְיֵהּ נִיהֲלַיהּ לְאַלְתַּר — פְּשִׁיטָא דְּמוּתָּר, דְּעַד כָּאן לֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is referring to a case **where** the prostitute **first sacrificed** the lamb as an offering, before she engaged in intercourse with the man who gave it her. In this case, the lamb is not considered payment to a prostitute. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If we say that** the man **transferred** ownership of the lamb **to her immediately,** and only afterward engaged in intercourse with her, it is **obvious that** this lamb is **permitted** to be sacrificed on the altar, **as** it belongs to her and **up to that** point the man **had not yet engaged in intercourse with her.** Therefore, the lamb is not considered payment at all.


###### Temurah 29b:2
[Temurah 29b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:2)

וְאֶלָּא, דַּאֲמַר לַהּ: ״לָא נִיקְּנֵי לִיךְ עַד שְׁעַת בִּיאָה״, מִי מָצְיָא מַקְרְבָה לֵיהּ? ״אִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּישׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, אַף כֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But rather,** this must be referring to a case **where he said to her:** The lamb **shall be acquired by you only at the time of intercourse,** and yet she went ahead and sacrificed it beforehand. But in this case, **can she** legally **sacrifice** the lamb? **The Merciful One states: “And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy to the Lord”** (Leviticus 27:14), which teaches that **just as his house is in his possession, so too any** item that a person wishes to sanctify must be **in his possession.** In this case, by contrast, the lamb does not belong to her until they engage in intercourse.


###### Temurah 29b:3
[Temurah 29b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:3)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּאֲמַר לַהּ: ״לָא (מִקַּנְיָה) [נִיקְּנֵי] לָךְ עַד שְׁעַת בִּיאָה, וְאִי מִצְטְרִיךְ לָךְ נִיקְּנֵי לָךְ מֵעַכְשָׁיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** it is **necessary** in a case **where he said to her:** The lamb **shall be acquired by you only at the time of intercourse, but if you need it** in the meantime, **acquire it for yourself from now.** The *baraita* teaches that in such a case the lamb is permitted to be sacrificed on the altar.


###### Temurah 29b:4
[Temurah 29b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:4)

בָּעֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: קָדְמָה וְהִקְדִּישַׁתּוּ, מַאי? תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: קָדְמָה וְהִקְרִיבַתּוּ. הִקְרִיבַתּוּ הִיא דְּהָא לֵיתֵיהּ בִּשְׁעַת בִּיאָה, אֲבָל הִקְדִּישַׁתּוּ — אָסוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma:** If **she first consecrated** the lamb before they engaged in intercourse but had not yet sacrificed it, **what** is the *halakha*? The Gemara suggests: **Resolve** the dilemma **from that** which **Rabbi Elazar** said, **as Rabbi Elazar said** above: The *baraita* is referring to a case where the prostitute **first sacrificed** the lamb as an offering. It can be inferred that it **is** not considered payment only if she actually **sacrificed it, as** the lamb **is not extant at the time of intercourse. But** if she merely **consecrated it** and had not yet sacrificed it, the lamb is **prohibited,** i.e., it is considered payment to a prostitute and therefore prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar.


###### Temurah 29b:5
[Temurah 29b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:5)

הִיא גּוּפַהּ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: הִקְרִיבַתּוּ, (וְהָא) [דְּהָא] לֵיתֵיהּ בִּשְׁעַת בִּיאָה — מוּתָּר, אֲבָל הִקְדִּישַׁתּוּ בִּשְׁעַת בִּיאָה — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Rav Oshaya **raises this** inference **itself** as **a dilemma,** as follows: May one infer from Rabbi Elazar’s statement that it is only if **she sacrificed it** before their intercourse **and it is no** longer in existence **at the time of intercourse** that it is **permitted; but** if she had merely **consecrated it at the time of intercourse,** the lamb is **prohibited.**


###### Temurah 29b:6
[Temurah 29b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:6)

אוֹ דִּלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּתְנַן ״אֲמִירָתוֹ לַגָּבוֹהַּ כִּמְסִירָתוֹ לְהֶדְיוֹט״, הִקְדִּישַׁתּוּ מוּתָּר, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הִקְרִיבַתּוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** one can argue otherwise: **Since we learned** in a mishna (*Kiddushin* 28b) that **a declaration to the Most High,** i.e., consecrating an item through speech, **is equivalent to transferring** an item **to an ordinary person,** therefore if she verbally **consecrated** the lamb before she engaged in intercourse with the man, it should be **permitted** to be sacrificed on the altar, as once she has dedicated the animal to God it no longer belongs to her. **And all the more so** the animal should be permitted if **she** actually **sacrificed it.** No answer is found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Temurah 29b:7
[Temurah 29b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:7)

בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן לָהּ אֶתְנַנָּה — מוּתָּר, וְהָתַנְיָא: בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְנָתַן לָהּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ — אֶתְנַנָּה אָסוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* teaches: If **he engaged in intercourse with her and afterward gave her** payment, **her payment is permitted.** The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in another *baraita*: If **he engaged in intercourse with her and** afterward **gave her** payment, **her payment** is **prohibited** to be sacrificed on the altar, **and** this is the case **even** if he gave it to her as much **as twelve months** later.


###### Temurah 29b:8
[Temurah 29b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:8)

אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאָמַר לַהּ ״הִבָּעֲלִי לִי בְּטָלֶה זֶה״, הָא דְּאָמַר לַהּ ״הִבָּעֲלִי לִי בְּטָלֶה״ סְתָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda said:** It is **not difficult,** as **this** second *baraita* is referring to a situation where he set aside a particular lamb and **said to her** before engaging in intercourse: **Engage in intercourse with me for this lamb.** In this case that lamb is considered hers as soon as they engage in intercourse, even if it was not actually given to her until much later. Therefore, it is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar as payment to a prostitute. By contrast, **that** first *baraita* is referring to a case **where he said to her: Engage in intercourse with me for a lamb, without specification.** Since he did not designate a lamb for her services at the time, the lamb he gives her later is not considered payment.


###### Temurah 29b:9
[Temurah 29b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:9)

״טָלֶה זֶה״, וְהָא מְחוּסַּר מְשִׁיכָה! בְּזוֹנָה גּוֹיָה, דְּלָא קָנְיָא בִּמְשִׁיכָה. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ בְּזוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, כְּגוֹן דְּקָאֵי בַּחֲצֵרַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: Even if he said to her: Engage in intercourse with me for **this lamb,** it should not be prohibited for sacrifice on the altar, as it **lacks** the formal act of acquisition of **pulling,** without which she does not acquire the animal. The Gemara explains that this *baraita* is referring **to a gentile prostitute, who does not acquire by pulling,** as this method of acquisition cannot be performed by gentiles. **And if you wish, say** instead that this *baraita* is referring **even to a Jewish prostitute, such as** a case where the lamb **is located in her courtyard,** and she acquires it by means of her domain.


###### Temurah 29b:10
[Temurah 29b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:10)

הָא יַהֲבֵיהּ לַהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא, דְּשַׁוְּויֵהּ לַהּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי, וַאֲמַר לַהּ: ״אִם עַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי יָהֵיבְנָא לָךְ זוּזֵי — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — טָלֶה בְּאֶתְנַנִּךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If the lamb is in her courtyard, why does the *baraita* state that he gave it to her after twelve months? **He gave it to her at the outset,** before they engaged in intercourse, and she acquired it at that time via her courtyard. The Gemara answers that the *baraita* is referring to a case **where he established** the lamb **for her as designated payment, and said to her: If by such and such a day I give you money** as your payment, all is **well,** and you will return the lamb to me. **And if** I have **not** given you money by that date, then **the lamb** itself shall **be your payment.**


###### Temurah 29b:11
[Temurah 29b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:11)

אָמַר רַב: אֶחָד אֶתְנַן זָכָר, וְאֶחָד אֶתְנַן כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת אָסוּר, חוּץ מֵאֶתְנַן אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the definition of payment to a prostitute that is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar. **Rav says: Both the payment** given for intercourse of a male with **a male, and the payment** given for intercourse with **any** of **those with whom relations are forbidden,** have the status of payment to a prostitute and are therefore **prohibited.** Such an animal may not be used as a sacrifice, **except for payment** to **one’s menstruating wife.**


###### Temurah 29b:12
[Temurah 29b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:12)

מַאי טַעְמָא? ״זוֹנָה״ כְּתִיב, וְהָא לָאו זוֹנָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** that payment to one’s menstruating wife is permitted? The reason is that **it is written “prostitute,”** with regard to this prohibition: “You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God, for both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19), **and** this woman, his menstruating wife, **is not a prostitute.**


###### Temurah 29b:13
[Temurah 29b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:13)

וְלֵוִי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״תּוֹעֵבָה״ כְּתִיב, וְהָא תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Levi says: Even** the payment for intercourse with **one’s menstruating wife** is considered payment to a prostitute and is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar. **What is the reason? It is written “abomination”** in the above verse, **and this** intercourse with one’s menstruating wife **is** also called **an abomination,** as it is written with regard to those with whom relations are forbidden, including a menstruating wife: “For whoever shall do any of these abominations” (Leviticus 18:29).


###### Temurah 29b:14
[Temurah 29b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:14)

וְלֵוִי נָמֵי, וְהָכְתִיב ״זוֹנָה״! אָמַר לָךְ: הָהִיא ״זוֹנָה״, וְלֹא זוֹנֶה. וְרַב, הָהִיא זוֹנָה וְלֹא זוֹנֶה מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **And** according to the opinion of **Levi as well, isn’t it written “prostitute,”** with regard to this payment, and one’s wife is not a prostitute. The Gemara answers that Levi could have **said to you: That** term teaches that this prohibition applies only to **a female prostitute** who receives payment from a man, **and not** to **a male prostitute** who is paid by a woman. The Gemara further asks: **And** according to the opinion of **Rav,** who derives from the word “prostitute” that one’s menstruating wife is excluded, **from where does he** derive **that** *halakha* that the prohibition applies only to **a female prostitute** who receives payment from a man **and not** to **a male prostitute** who receives payment from a woman?


###### Temurah 29b:15
[Temurah 29b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:15)

נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵין אֶתְנַן אָסוּר אֶלָּא (כׇּל) אֶתְנַן [כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת] הַבָּאוֹת לוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה, אֲבָל אֶתְנַן אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה, וְשֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ שָׂכָר לְהַפְקָעָתָהּ, וְשֶׁנָּתְנָה לוֹ [הִיא] בְּאֶתְנַנּוֹ — מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Rav **derives it from that** which **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi said. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The **only payment** to a prostitute that is **prohibited** for sacrifice on the altar **is any payment** given to one with **whom intercourse is a transgression for him** and is never permitted. **But** with regard to an animal given as **payment** by a husband to **his menstruating wife** for intercourse, **and** payment **that he gave** to a prostitute as **a fee for her neglect** of other paid labor that she could have been performing at that time, but not as payment for intercourse, **and** an animal **that** a woman **gave him as his payment,** all these are **permitted** to be sacrificed on the altar.


###### Temurah 29b:16
[Temurah 29b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:16)

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר: ״וּבְתִתֵּךְ אֶתְנָן וְאֶתְנַן לֹא נִיתַּן [לָךְ] (לָהּ) וַתְּהִי לְהֶפֶךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi adds: **Even though there is no proof for the matter,** that an animal given by a woman to a man for services rendered is not considered payment to a prostitute, nevertheless there is **an allusion to the matter** in the verses: “To all prostitutes gifts are given; but you have given your gifts to all your lovers, and have bribed them to come unto you from every side in your harlotries. And the contrary is in you from other women, in that you did solicit to prostitution, and you were not solicited; **and in that you gave hire, and no hire is given to you, thus you are contrary”** (Ezekiel 16:33–34). This indicates that it is contrary to the manner of prostitution for the woman to pay the man to engage in intercourse with her.


###### Temurah 29b:17
[Temurah 29b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:17)

וְרַב, הַאי ״תּוֹעֵבָה״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ כִּדְאַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: זוֹנָה גּוֹיָה — אֶתְנַנָּה אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rav, this** word **“abomination”** (Deuteronomy 23:19), from which Levi derives his ruling that an animal given by a husband for intercourse with his menstruating wife is considered payment to a prostitute, **what does he do with it?** The Gemara answers that Rav **requires this** word for **that which Abaye** said. **As Abaye said:** With regard to **a gentile prostitute, her payment is prohibited.**


###### Temurah 29b:18
[Temurah 29b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:18)

מַאי טַעְמָא? כְּתִיב הָכָא ״תּוֹעֵבָה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״כִּי כׇּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵל״, מָה לְהַלָּן עֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ, הָכִי נָמֵי אֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason? It is written here,** with regard to payment to a prostitute, **“abomination,” and it is written there,** with regard to forbidden sexual relations: **“For whoever shall do any of these abominations”** (Leviticus 18:29). **Just as there** the verse is referring to **those with whom relations are forbidden** and **with whom betrothal does not take effect, so too,** the prohibition of payment to a prostitute is referring to a woman **with whom betrothal does not take effect,** including a gentile.


###### Temurah 29b:19
[Temurah 29b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:19)

וְכֹהֵן שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ — אֵין לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״ — מִי שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ מְיוּחָס אַחֲרָיו, יָצָא גּוֹיָה דְּאֵין זַרְעוֹ מְיוּחָס אַחֲרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Abaye further stated with regard to a gentile prostitute: **A priest who engaged in intercourse with her is not flogged for** engaging in intercourse with **her due to** the prohibition with regard to priests: “They shall not take a woman who is **a prostitute”** (Leviticus 21:7). **What is the reason?** It is **because the verse states: “And he shall not profane his seed** among his people” (Leviticus 21:15). This verse indicates that the prohibition of profaning his seed applies only to a priest who engages in intercourse with a woman **whose offspring are attributed to him,** i.e., a Jew, where the lineage of the children is determined by the identity of the father. This **excludes** a priest who engaged in intercourse with **a gentile woman, whose offspring are not attributed to him,** but to her, as their child is a gentile.


###### Temurah 29b:20
[Temurah 29b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:20)

זוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית — אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר, מָה טַעַם? דְּהָא קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ, וְכֹהֵן שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ — לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָא זַרְעוֹ מְיוּחָס אַחֲרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye further stated: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with an unmarried **Jewish prostitute, her payment is permitted** to be sacrificed on the altar. **What is the reason?** It is **that betrothal takes effect with her,** and payment is prohibited only in the case of a prostitute with whom betrothal is ineffective. **And a priest who engaged in intercourse with her is flogged due to** the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with **a prostitute. What is the reason?** It is **because his offspring** from this relationship **are attributed to him.**


###### Temurah 29b:21
[Temurah 29b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:21)

וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה, אֶתְנַנָּה אָסוּר, וְכֹהֵן הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? יָלְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי — מָה זוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בְּלָאו, אַף זוֹנָה גּוֹיָה בְּלָאו, וּמָה אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה גּוֹיָה אָסוּר, אַף אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says:** With regard to **both this,** a gentile prostitute, **and that,** a Jewish prostitute, **her payment is prohibited, and a priest who engaged in intercourse with her is flogged due to** the prohibition against having intercourse with **a prostitute. What is the reason?** It is that these two cases **are derived from one another: Just as** engaging in intercourse with **a Jewish prostitute** is forbidden to a priest **by a prohibition, so too** his engaging in intercourse with **a gentile prostitute** is forbidden **by a prohibition. And just as payment to a gentile prostitute is prohibited, so too payment to a Jewish prostitute is prohibited.**


###### Temurah 29b:22
[Temurah 29b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:22)

מֵיתִיבִי: אֶחָד זוֹנָה גּוֹיָה וְאֶחָד זוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית — אֶתְנַנָּה אָסוּר. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּאַבָּיֵי! אָמַר לָךְ אַבָּיֵי: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Abaye from a *baraita*: With regard to **both a gentile prostitute and a Jewish prostitute, their payment is prohibited.** This is apparently **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Abaye.** The Gemara explains that **Abaye** could have **said to you:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who said: Betrothal does not take effect with regard to** those **liable for** violating **prohibitions.**


###### Temurah 29b:23
[Temurah 29b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:23)

וְהָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּכׇל זוֹנָה לָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין, דּוּמְיָא דְּאַלְמָנָה דְּלָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And this** *baraita* **teaches us that** according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva the *halakha* of payment to a prostitute applies to **every prostitute with whom betrothal does not take effect, similar to** the case of **widow** who is paid for engaging in intercourse with a High Priest, **with whom betrothal does not take effect.** This case is mentioned in the last clause of the *baraita*, cited below in the Gemara.


###### Temurah 29b:24
[Temurah 29b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:24)

וּלְרָבָא, מַאי שְׁנָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״כְּגוֹן אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל״? דּוּמְיָא דְּאַלְמָנָה — מָה אַלְמָנָה לָא לָקֵי עַד דְּמַתְרִי בֵּהּ, אַף זוֹנָה — עַד דְּאָמַר ״הֵא לִךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **And according to** the opinion of **Rava, what is different** about the case specified in the continuation of the *baraita*, **where** it **teaches: For example, a widow** who is paid for engaging in intercourse **with a High Priest?** In Rava’s opinion even payment to an unmarried woman is considered payment to a prostitute. The Gemara answers that this teaches that even one who engaged in intercourse with an unmarried woman is **similar** in this regard **to a widow** who engages in intercourse with a High Priest: **Just as** in the case of **a widow** who engages in intercourse with a High Priest, **they are flogged only if** witnesses **warned** them that the act is prohibited and is punishable, **so too** with regard to one who engages in intercourse with **a prostitute,** it is not considered payment **unless he says** to her: **This** lamb is **for you** for services rendered, indicating that the intercourse is an act of prostitution.


###### Temurah 29b:25
[Temurah 29b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:25)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פָּנוּי הַבָּא עַל פְּנוּיָה שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִישׁוּת — עֲשָׂאָהּ זוֹנָה, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּזוֹנָה מֵעִיקָּרָא — הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds that this serves **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says:** With regard to any **unmarried man who engaged in intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the sake of marriage, he has** thereby **caused her to become a prostitute.** Rava, in contrast, holds that intercourse with an unmarried woman once does not render her a prostitute, unless he specifies that it is an act of prostitution by saying: This lamb is for services rendered. **But** Rava concedes that in a case **where** this woman was **a prostitute from the outset, so too** her payment is automatically **prohibited** even if she is unmarried.


###### Temurah 29b:26
[Temurah 29b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:26)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא: כִּי קָתָנֵי הָא — בַּעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites **another version** of Abaye’s answer to the objection from the *baraita* that teaches that payment to both a gentile prostitute and a Jewish prostitute is prohibited: **When that** *baraita* **is taught,** it is referring **to those with whom relations are forbidden** and with **whom betrothal does not take effect.** By contrast, when Abaye said that payment to a Jewish prostitute is not prohibited, he was referring to a case where betrothal does take effect.


###### Temurah 29b:27
[Temurah 29b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29b:27)

וְהָא קָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט — אֶתְנַנָּה אָסוּר, וְהָא הָנֵי קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהֶן! הָא מַנִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But isn’t it taught in the last clause** of the *baraita*: For example, **a widow** who is paid for engaging in intercourse **with a High Priest,** or **a divorcée or a woman who has performed *ḥalitza* [*ḥalutza*]** who is paid for engaging in intercourse **with an ordinary priest, her payment is prohibited? But these** are cases where **betrothal takes effect.** The Gemara answers: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*?