Pisqa’ 261²⁹³

1. “Do not bring a whore’s hire . . . to the Abode of HASHEM your God” (Dt. 23:19)— I might infer only that [the verse prohibits a sacrificial animal traded for] a whore’s hire. On what basis do I know that [the verse also covers] the hire of any near kin [for sexual favors]? The Teaching states: “Hire” (Dt. 23:19)— for anyone’s sexual favors [including those who are not near kin].2. What, exactly, is a whore’s hire?

Take this lamb as your payment— even if he gives her a hundred lambs, they are all prohibited [for any one of them may be the whore’s hire].

take this lamb so that your slave-girl might spend the night with my slave—

This is not an example of a whore’s hire [for the slave-girl does not benefit from the exchange];

It is an example of a whore’s hire **[for the exchange involves a sexual favor].**²⁹⁴

footnotes: ²⁹³ H:258-259;JN2:191-192. ²⁹⁴ =M. Tem. 6:2; T. Tem. 4:6-7.

3. “Or a dog’s price” (Dt. 23:19)— What, exactly, is a dog’s price?

Take this [consecrated] lamb, in exchange for this dog— [and offer it on the Altar]. ²⁹⁵ Is it possible to say that even if he only walked [the lamb] through the Courtyard, [but did not slaughter it,] he should be held liable under this rule? It is stated here: “It is an abomination” (Dt. 23:19), and it is stated elsewhere [regarding a blemished sacrifice]: “It is an abomination” (Dt. 17:1). Now, just as elsewhere, abomination refers to [an unfit animal offered as] an altar-sacrifice, so, too, here as well, abomination refers to [an unfit animal avowed] as an altar-sacrifice.

footnotes: ²⁹⁵ =M. Tem. 6:3; cf. T. Tem. 4:4.

4. “To fulfill any sort of vow” (Dt. 23:19)— this excludes from the rule an item that has already been avowed.²⁹⁶ When He states: “Any sort of vow” (Dt. 23:19)— this includes under the rule [vows offered at] a cultic shrine [outside of Jerusalem]. ²⁹⁷

footnotes: ²⁹⁶ // T. Tem. 4:9. ²⁹⁷ Cf. T. Tem. 4:7.

“To the Abode of HASHEM your God” (Dt. 23:19)— this excludes from the rule the heifer [whose ashes are mixed with water] **for purification (i.e. Nu. 19:1ff),**²⁹⁸ for it is not brought to the Abode

Words of R. Eliezer.

This includes within the rule vows of gold foil **[to refurbish the Sanctuary].**²⁹⁹

footnotes: ²⁹⁸ The “red heifer” of Nu. 19:1ff. ²⁹⁹ Cf. T. Tem. 4:7.

“To fulfill any sort of vow” (Dt. 23:19)— this includes under the rule vows of a bird.

Just as consecrated animals are disqualified by a blemish— but the rules of a whore’s hire and a dog’s price don’t apply to them [after their consecration]— isn’t it reasonable that bird-offerings, which are not disqualified by a blemish, should not fall under the rule of a whore’s hire and a dog’s price?

“To fulfill any sort of vow” (Dt. 23:19)— this includes under the rule vows of a bird. ³⁰⁰ 5. Is it possible to say that even [if a husband pays his wife for a sexual act while she is unclean,] compensation for her wasted time should be prohibited under the rule? ³⁰¹ The Teaching states: “For indeed both of them are an abomination to HASHEM your God” (Dt. 23:19)— [i.e., a sacrificial animal purchased either with a whore’s hire or in exchange for a dog.] “Both of them” (Dt. 23:19)— this implies two [are abominable, i.e., a whore’s hire and a dog’s price], but not four [i.e., addition of a whore’s price or a dog’s hire].

footnotes: ³⁰⁰ =M. Tem. 6:4. Cf. T. Tem.4:9. ³⁰¹ Cf. T. Tem. 4:8. As H:259 and JN:192 point out, the topic of this passage is obscure. I render Sifre’s text in accord with the import of its Toseftan parallel, which is concerned with the status—under the rule of “a whore’s hire”—of sexual payments by a husband to a wife for otherwise prohibited relations.

“Them” (Dt. 23:19)— but not their offspring and not substitutes for them.³⁰²

footnotes: ³⁰² // M. Tem. 6:3.