Avodah Zarah, Daf Samekh Gimmel, Part 1

 

Introduction

Last week s daf dealt with an animal given as pay to a prostitute. The Torah says that such an animal may not be used as a sacrifice. But if she sacrifices it before they have sex, the sacrifice is valid. Our sugya asks what the rule is if she dedicates it before having sex. Can it be offered even after they have sex?

 

בעי רב הושעיא קדמה והקדישתו מהו? כיון דאמר מר אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט כמאן דאקריבתיה דמי או דלמא השתא מיהא הא קאי ואיתיה בעיניה

 

R. Hoshaya asked: What is the rule if she dedicated it beforehand? Since the Master has said that a declaration to God is like delivery to an ordinary person, is she like one who has actually offered it, or perhaps [the animal] is after all still in existence [at the time of intercourse]?

 

As a rule of thumb when one dedicates something to the Temple, words have the same power that actually transferring possession does in ordinary cases. For instance, if I say that my animal belongs to the Temple it actually belongs to the Temple, whereas if I say it belongs to another person I have done nothing. So if the prostitute dedicates the animal before sex, perhaps it is no longer hers at the time of intercourse in which case it is not considered a payment for sex. On other hand, the animal is in existence at the time they have intercourse so perhaps it is considered a payment.

 

ותפשוט מדרבי אליעזר דא"ר אליעזר שקדמה והקריבתו דוקא הקריבתו אבל הקדישתו לא

 

But solve the question from the statement of R. Elazar who said: [It is permitted] when she first offered it only if she offered it, but not if she merely dedicated it?

 

On the previous page R. Elazar said the offering is permitted if she first offered it. By implication it is not permitted if she only dedicated it. So this should solve our question. For the animal to be permitted as a sacrifice she must first offer it, not merely dedicate it.

 

דרבי אליעזר גופיה קא מיבעיא ליה מאי מיפשט פשיטא ליה לרבי אליעזר דהקריבתו דוקא אבל הקדישתו לא דהא איתיה בשעת ביאה או דלמא הקריבתו פשיטא ליה והקדישתו מספקא ליה תיקו:

 

R. Elazar s statement itself is what was being asked about: Is it clear to R. Elazar that only if she had actually offered it [is it permitted] but not if she merely dedicated it because it is [in her possession] at the time of intercourse; or perhaps it is obvious where it had been offered but doubtful when it had only been dedicated? The question remains unanswered.

 

The Talmud says that really the question was asked about R. Elazar s statement itself. Was R. Elazar being specific the animal is a valid sacrifice only if it was actually sacrificed. Or perhaps he only said offered because he was sure that in that case it was valid. But in the case where it was only dedicated he was not so sure.

No answer to this one sorry folks. I know you really wanted to know.