Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 19, 2018 | 讙壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Avodah Zarah 63

In the house of Rabbi Yannai they borrowed shmita produce from poor people and returned them produce the following year from non聽shmita produce. Rabbi Yochanan allowed this. The gemara questions this ruling from a braita聽and brings several resolutions.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讬讞讜诇 注诇讛 讗讬住讜专 讗转谞谉 诇诪驻专注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻砖拽讚诪讛 讜讛拽专讬讘转讜

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛 拽谞讬 诇讬讱 诪注讻砖讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讚砖专讬 讚讛讗 诇讬转讬讛 讘砖注转 讘讬讗讛 讜诪转谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讛

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.

讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 拽谞讬 诇讬讱 诪注讻砖讬讜 讛讬讻讬 诪爪讬 诪拽专讘讛 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬拽讚砖 讗转 讘讬转讜 拽讚砖 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 讘讬转讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讗祝 讻诇 讘专砖讜转讜

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: 鈥淎nd when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:14), from which it is derived that just as one鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讜讬 讙讘讬讱 注讚 砖注转 讘讬讗讛 讜讗讬 诪讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讱 拽谞讬 诪注讻砖讬讜

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.

讘注讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 拽讚诪讛 讜讛拽讚讬砖转讜 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗诪讬专转讜 诇讙讘讜讛 讻诪住讬专转讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讻诪讗谉 讚讗拽专讬讘转讬讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讗 拽讗讬 讜讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛

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?

讜转驻砖讜讟 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖拽讚诪讛 讜讛拽专讬讘转讜 讚讜拽讗 讛拽专讬讘转讜 讗讘诇 讛拽讚讬砖转讜 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Resolve the dilemma from the state-ment 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.

讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讙讜驻讬讛 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讛拽专讬讘转讜 讚讜拽讗 讗讘诇 讛拽讚讬砖转讜 诇讗 讚讛讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘砖注转 讘讬讗讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛拽专讬讘转讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讜讛拽讚讬砖转讜 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 转讬拽讜

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.

讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转谉 诇讛 讗转谞谞讛 诪讜转专 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转谉 诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讗转谞谞讛 讗住讜专

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 讛转讘注诇讬 诇讬 讘讟诇讛 讝讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛转讘注诇讬 讘讟诇讛 住转诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that Rav 岣sda 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.

讜讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讘讟诇讛 讝讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 诪讞住专 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讝讜谞讛 讙讜讬讛 讚诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讝讜谞讛 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讜讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗讬 讘讞爪讬专讛

The Gemara asks: But when he says to her: In exchange for this lamb, what of it? Isn鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讘讞爪讬专讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转谉 诇讛 讛讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚砖讜讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 诪讬讬转讬谞讗 诇讬讱 讝讜讝讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讜讟讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖拽诇讬讛 讘讗转谞谞讬讱

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞诪专讬讜 讜诇驻讜注诇讬讜 诇讻讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

搂 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 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,

诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖专 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱

neither with regard to the prohibitions concerning Sabbatical-Year produce, nor with regard to restrictions on the consumption of tithe, nor with regard to the prohibition against consumption of wine used for a libation. This is because whatever food or drink that they acquire, they acquire it of their own volition, and the employer does not bear responsibility for their actions.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 爪讗讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讜讗谞讬 驻讜专注 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讜讗谞讬 驻讜专注 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诪砖讜诐 诪注砖专 讜诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱

But if he said to them: Go and eat and I will reimburse you, or: Go and drink and I will reimburse you, he must be concerned with regard to the possibility that his workers will transgress a prohibition with the money, whether with regard to prohibitions concerning Sabbatical-Year produce, or with regard to restrictions on the consumption of tithe, or with regard to the prohibition against consuming wine used for a libation. This is because if they acquire forbidden food or drink, it is tantamount to his acquiring these items and giving them to the laborers.

讗诇诪讗 讻讬 拽讗 驻专注 讚诪讬 讗讬住讜专 拽讗 驻专注 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 拽讗 驻专注 讚诪讬 讗讬住讜专讗 拽讗 驻专注

Rav Sheshet infers: Apparently, when he pays his laborers after some time has elapsed, it is considered as though he is paying money for forbidden items, even though the forbidden items no longer exist. Here too, when people borrow Sabbatical-Year produce with the intent of paying for it afterward, when one pays, he is paying for a forbidden purchase.

转专讙诪讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讞谞讜谞讬 讛诪拽讬驻讜 讚诪砖转注讘讚 诇讬讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讞讬讛 诇讗拽讜驻讬 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专 讙讘讬讛

Rav 岣sda interpreted this baraita with regard to a storekeeper who regularly gives credit to the employer, so that the employer incurs the debt to him at the moment the storekeeper gives the food or drink to the laborers. This is because, since it is his custom to give him credit, it is considered as though the storekeeper acquires the dinar from him at that moment. Therefore, if the laborers bought from him Sabbatical-Year produce, it is considered as though the employer paid his laborers with Sabbatical-Year produce, which is prohibited. Therefore, this case is not comparable to the case of the Sages who borrowed Sabbatical-Year produce.

讗讘诇 讞谞讜谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讬驻讜 诪讗讬 诪讜转专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 爪讗讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛

The Gemara asks: But in the case of a storekeeper who does not give credit to the employer, what is the halakha? Is it permitted for the employer to send his laborers to buy food, committing to reimburse them afterward? If so, rather than the tanna teaching that if the employer says: Go and eat with this dinar, or: Go and drink with this dinar, he does need to be concerned that they will buy forbidden food, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself where he says: Go and eat and I will reimburse you.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讞谞讜谞讬 讛诪拽讬驻讜 讚诪砖转注讘讚 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讞谞讜谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讬驻讜 诪讜转专

The tanna could teach as follows: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that if the employer says: I will reimburse you, he cannot allow his laborer to buy forbidden food? It is stated with regard to the case of a storekeeper who regularly gives credit to the employer, such that the employer incurs the debt to him at the moment the storekeeper gives the food or drink to the laborers. But in the case of a storekeeper who does not give credit to the employer, it is permitted for the employer to instruct his laborers in this manner.

讜注讜讚 讞谞讜谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讬驻讜 诪讬 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谉 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬拽谞讜 讻诇 谞讻住讗讬 诇讱 拽谞讛 诪讚讬谉 注专讘

And furthermore, there is another difficulty with this interpretation: In the case of a storekeeper who does not give credit to the employer, does he not incur the debt to him? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say that in the case of one who says to another: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so and all of my property will be transferred to you, he acquires it by the halakha of a guarantor? Just as a guarantor for another person鈥檚 loan renders himself liable to pay for someone else鈥檚 debt, so too, the owner of the property renders himself liable to give the property in exchange for the one hundred dinars that the acquiring party gives that so-and-so. Here too, the employer renders himself liable to pay the storekeeper when the storekeeper gives food to his laborers at his request.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪拽讬驻讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讬驻讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪砖注讘讚 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚 砖讬注讘讜讚讬讛 诇讗 诪讬转住专

Rather, Rava says: There is no difference whether the storekeeper gives him credit, and there is no difference whether he does not give him credit. Any commitment to pay causes a liability. But although he incurs a debt to him, since he does not designate specific coins as payment for his debt the employer鈥檚 conduct is not prohibited. Therefore, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai acted in a permitted manner.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讗诪讗讬 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬注讬转 讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚 砖讬注讘讜讚讬讛 讛讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诐 诇讜 讚讬谞专

The Gemara asks: But here, in the baraita, why does the employer need to be concerned with regard to the prohibitions concerning Sabbatical-Year produce? He does not designate specific money as payment for his debt here. Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to a case where the employer first paid the storekeeper a dinar for the food he would provide to the laborers, before they actually purchased food. Therefore, the employer is considered to have acquired forbidden items and paid his laborers鈥 wages with them.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 爪讗讜 讜讗讻诇讜 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讜讗谞讬 驻讜专注 爪讗讜 讜讗讻诇讜 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讜讗谞讬 诪讞砖讘 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 爪讗讜 讜讗谞讬 诪讞砖讘

Rav Kahana said: I stated this halakha before Rav Zevid of Neharde鈥檃. He said to me: If so, if the latter clause of the baraita is understood as referring to a case where the employer paid the storekeeper a dinar in advance, rather than teaching a case where the employer said to his laborers: Go and eat, go and drink, and I will reimburse you, the tanna should have taught a case where he said: Go and eat, go and drink, and I will calculate the amount that should be deducted from the dinar I gave him. Rav Kahana said to him: That is not difficult; teach the baraita as stating: Go, and I will calculate the amount that should be deducted from the dinar I gave him.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 爪讗讜 讜讗讻诇讜 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讟诇讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讟诇讜 讜砖转讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讟诇讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讟诇讜 讜砖转讜

Rav Ashi said: The baraita is referring to a case where the employer took the food and drink from the storekeeper and gave it to the laborers with his own hand. Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, rather than teaching that the employer said: Go and eat, go and drink, the tanna should have taught a case where he said: Take and eat, take and drink. Rav Ashi said to him: Teach the baraita as stating: Take and eat, take and drink.

讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜注讜诇讗 讜讗讘讬诪讬 讘专 驻驻讬 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讻专讜 诇砖讘讜专 讘讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 讗住讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻诇 诇诪注讜讟讬 转讬驻诇讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rav Na岣an and Ulla and Avimi bar Pappi were sitting, and Rabbi 岣yya bar Ami, who was studying with them, was sitting among them, and they were sitting and a dilemma was raised before them: If one hired a person to break barrels of wine used for a libation so the wine will spill out, what is the halakha? Do we say that since he has an interest in the preservation of the barrels until he breaks them, so that he can be paid for breaking them, his wage is forbidden, or perhaps should it be reasoned that any action that one performs to reduce impropriety [tifela] is permitted, even if he is paid for the actual breaking?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬砖讘讜专 讜转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 注讜讚专讬谉 注诐 讛讙讜讬 讘讻诇讗讬诐

Rav Na岣an said: He may break them, and let a blessing come upon him. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports his opinion: One may not hoe together with a gentile in a field that contains a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 63

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 63

诇讬讞讜诇 注诇讛 讗讬住讜专 讗转谞谉 诇诪驻专注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻砖拽讚诪讛 讜讛拽专讬讘转讜

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛 拽谞讬 诇讬讱 诪注讻砖讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讚砖专讬 讚讛讗 诇讬转讬讛 讘砖注转 讘讬讗讛 讜诪转谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讛

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.

讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 拽谞讬 诇讬讱 诪注讻砖讬讜 讛讬讻讬 诪爪讬 诪拽专讘讛 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬拽讚砖 讗转 讘讬转讜 拽讚砖 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 讘讬转讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讗祝 讻诇 讘专砖讜转讜

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: 鈥淎nd when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:14), from which it is derived that just as one鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讜讬 讙讘讬讱 注讚 砖注转 讘讬讗讛 讜讗讬 诪讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讱 拽谞讬 诪注讻砖讬讜

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.

讘注讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 拽讚诪讛 讜讛拽讚讬砖转讜 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗诪讬专转讜 诇讙讘讜讛 讻诪住讬专转讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讻诪讗谉 讚讗拽专讬讘转讬讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讗 拽讗讬 讜讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛

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?

讜转驻砖讜讟 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖拽讚诪讛 讜讛拽专讬讘转讜 讚讜拽讗 讛拽专讬讘转讜 讗讘诇 讛拽讚讬砖转讜 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Resolve the dilemma from the state-ment 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.

讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讙讜驻讬讛 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讛拽专讬讘转讜 讚讜拽讗 讗讘诇 讛拽讚讬砖转讜 诇讗 讚讛讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘砖注转 讘讬讗讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛拽专讬讘转讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讜讛拽讚讬砖转讜 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 转讬拽讜

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.

讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转谉 诇讛 讗转谞谞讛 诪讜转专 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转谉 诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讗转谞谞讛 讗住讜专

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 讛转讘注诇讬 诇讬 讘讟诇讛 讝讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛转讘注诇讬 讘讟诇讛 住转诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that Rav 岣sda 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.

讜讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讘讟诇讛 讝讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 诪讞住专 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讝讜谞讛 讙讜讬讛 讚诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讝讜谞讛 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讜讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗讬 讘讞爪讬专讛

The Gemara asks: But when he says to her: In exchange for this lamb, what of it? Isn鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讘讞爪讬专讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转谉 诇讛 讛讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚砖讜讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 诪讬讬转讬谞讗 诇讬讱 讝讜讝讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讜讟讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖拽诇讬讛 讘讗转谞谞讬讱

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞诪专讬讜 讜诇驻讜注诇讬讜 诇讻讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

搂 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 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,

诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖专 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱

neither with regard to the prohibitions concerning Sabbatical-Year produce, nor with regard to restrictions on the consumption of tithe, nor with regard to the prohibition against consumption of wine used for a libation. This is because whatever food or drink that they acquire, they acquire it of their own volition, and the employer does not bear responsibility for their actions.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 爪讗讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讜讗谞讬 驻讜专注 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讜讗谞讬 驻讜专注 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诪砖讜诐 诪注砖专 讜诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱

But if he said to them: Go and eat and I will reimburse you, or: Go and drink and I will reimburse you, he must be concerned with regard to the possibility that his workers will transgress a prohibition with the money, whether with regard to prohibitions concerning Sabbatical-Year produce, or with regard to restrictions on the consumption of tithe, or with regard to the prohibition against consuming wine used for a libation. This is because if they acquire forbidden food or drink, it is tantamount to his acquiring these items and giving them to the laborers.

讗诇诪讗 讻讬 拽讗 驻专注 讚诪讬 讗讬住讜专 拽讗 驻专注 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 拽讗 驻专注 讚诪讬 讗讬住讜专讗 拽讗 驻专注

Rav Sheshet infers: Apparently, when he pays his laborers after some time has elapsed, it is considered as though he is paying money for forbidden items, even though the forbidden items no longer exist. Here too, when people borrow Sabbatical-Year produce with the intent of paying for it afterward, when one pays, he is paying for a forbidden purchase.

转专讙诪讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讞谞讜谞讬 讛诪拽讬驻讜 讚诪砖转注讘讚 诇讬讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讞讬讛 诇讗拽讜驻讬 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专 讙讘讬讛

Rav 岣sda interpreted this baraita with regard to a storekeeper who regularly gives credit to the employer, so that the employer incurs the debt to him at the moment the storekeeper gives the food or drink to the laborers. This is because, since it is his custom to give him credit, it is considered as though the storekeeper acquires the dinar from him at that moment. Therefore, if the laborers bought from him Sabbatical-Year produce, it is considered as though the employer paid his laborers with Sabbatical-Year produce, which is prohibited. Therefore, this case is not comparable to the case of the Sages who borrowed Sabbatical-Year produce.

讗讘诇 讞谞讜谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讬驻讜 诪讗讬 诪讜转专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 爪讗讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛

The Gemara asks: But in the case of a storekeeper who does not give credit to the employer, what is the halakha? Is it permitted for the employer to send his laborers to buy food, committing to reimburse them afterward? If so, rather than the tanna teaching that if the employer says: Go and eat with this dinar, or: Go and drink with this dinar, he does need to be concerned that they will buy forbidden food, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself where he says: Go and eat and I will reimburse you.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讞谞讜谞讬 讛诪拽讬驻讜 讚诪砖转注讘讚 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讞谞讜谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讬驻讜 诪讜转专

The tanna could teach as follows: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that if the employer says: I will reimburse you, he cannot allow his laborer to buy forbidden food? It is stated with regard to the case of a storekeeper who regularly gives credit to the employer, such that the employer incurs the debt to him at the moment the storekeeper gives the food or drink to the laborers. But in the case of a storekeeper who does not give credit to the employer, it is permitted for the employer to instruct his laborers in this manner.

讜注讜讚 讞谞讜谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讬驻讜 诪讬 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谉 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬拽谞讜 讻诇 谞讻住讗讬 诇讱 拽谞讛 诪讚讬谉 注专讘

And furthermore, there is another difficulty with this interpretation: In the case of a storekeeper who does not give credit to the employer, does he not incur the debt to him? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say that in the case of one who says to another: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so and all of my property will be transferred to you, he acquires it by the halakha of a guarantor? Just as a guarantor for another person鈥檚 loan renders himself liable to pay for someone else鈥檚 debt, so too, the owner of the property renders himself liable to give the property in exchange for the one hundred dinars that the acquiring party gives that so-and-so. Here too, the employer renders himself liable to pay the storekeeper when the storekeeper gives food to his laborers at his request.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪拽讬驻讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讬驻讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪砖注讘讚 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚 砖讬注讘讜讚讬讛 诇讗 诪讬转住专

Rather, Rava says: There is no difference whether the storekeeper gives him credit, and there is no difference whether he does not give him credit. Any commitment to pay causes a liability. But although he incurs a debt to him, since he does not designate specific coins as payment for his debt the employer鈥檚 conduct is not prohibited. Therefore, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai acted in a permitted manner.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讗诪讗讬 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬注讬转 讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚 砖讬注讘讜讚讬讛 讛讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诐 诇讜 讚讬谞专

The Gemara asks: But here, in the baraita, why does the employer need to be concerned with regard to the prohibitions concerning Sabbatical-Year produce? He does not designate specific money as payment for his debt here. Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to a case where the employer first paid the storekeeper a dinar for the food he would provide to the laborers, before they actually purchased food. Therefore, the employer is considered to have acquired forbidden items and paid his laborers鈥 wages with them.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 爪讗讜 讜讗讻诇讜 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讜讗谞讬 驻讜专注 爪讗讜 讜讗讻诇讜 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讜讗谞讬 诪讞砖讘 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 爪讗讜 讜讗谞讬 诪讞砖讘

Rav Kahana said: I stated this halakha before Rav Zevid of Neharde鈥檃. He said to me: If so, if the latter clause of the baraita is understood as referring to a case where the employer paid the storekeeper a dinar in advance, rather than teaching a case where the employer said to his laborers: Go and eat, go and drink, and I will reimburse you, the tanna should have taught a case where he said: Go and eat, go and drink, and I will calculate the amount that should be deducted from the dinar I gave him. Rav Kahana said to him: That is not difficult; teach the baraita as stating: Go, and I will calculate the amount that should be deducted from the dinar I gave him.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 爪讗讜 讜讗讻诇讜 爪讗讜 讜砖转讜 讟诇讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讟诇讜 讜砖转讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讟诇讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讟诇讜 讜砖转讜

Rav Ashi said: The baraita is referring to a case where the employer took the food and drink from the storekeeper and gave it to the laborers with his own hand. Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, rather than teaching that the employer said: Go and eat, go and drink, the tanna should have taught a case where he said: Take and eat, take and drink. Rav Ashi said to him: Teach the baraita as stating: Take and eat, take and drink.

讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜注讜诇讗 讜讗讘讬诪讬 讘专 驻驻讬 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讻专讜 诇砖讘讜专 讘讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 讗住讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻诇 诇诪注讜讟讬 转讬驻诇讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rav Na岣an and Ulla and Avimi bar Pappi were sitting, and Rabbi 岣yya bar Ami, who was studying with them, was sitting among them, and they were sitting and a dilemma was raised before them: If one hired a person to break barrels of wine used for a libation so the wine will spill out, what is the halakha? Do we say that since he has an interest in the preservation of the barrels until he breaks them, so that he can be paid for breaking them, his wage is forbidden, or perhaps should it be reasoned that any action that one performs to reduce impropriety [tifela] is permitted, even if he is paid for the actual breaking?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬砖讘讜专 讜转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 注讜讚专讬谉 注诐 讛讙讜讬 讘讻诇讗讬诐

Rav Na岣an said: He may break them, and let a blessing come upon him. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports his opinion: One may not hoe together with a gentile in a field that contains a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds,

Scroll To Top