Avodah Zarah, Daf Samekh Gimmel, Part 2
Introduction
The Talmud continues to discuss the case of the animal used to pay a prostitute. I should note that the interest in this topic is not because of the particular case at hand. Rather, the rabbis are interested in these sources because they help illustrate the laws of acquisition.
בא עליה ואחר כך נתן לה אתננה מותר: ורמינהי בא עליה ואחר כך נתן לה אפילו מכאן עד שלש שנים אתננה אסור אר"נ בר יצחק אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא הא דאמר התבעלי לי בטלה זה הא דאמר לה התבעלי בטלה סתם
[It was stated:] If he had intercourse with her and subsequently gave it to her, it is permitted.
Against this they brought the following: If he had intercourse with her and subsequently gave it to her, even after the lapse of three years, it is prohibited!
R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Hisda: There is no contradiction, the latter teaching refers to a case where he said to her, Have intercourse with me for this lamb, and the former teaching to a case where he said to her, Have intercourse with me for a lamb.
According to the first baraita, if he has sex with her and then gives her the animal, the animal is permitted, whereas the second baraita says that it is prohibited. R. Nahman b. Yitzchak resolves them by saying it depends on how he makes his statement to her. If he specifies beforehand that this lamb will be her payment, then it is prohibited. But if he does not specify which lamb then when he had sex with her, that lamb was not designated as payment. The lamb can therefore be used as a sacrifice.
וכי אמר לה בטלה זה מאי הוי? הא מחסר משיכה בזונה עובדת כוכבים דלא קניא במשיכה
And even if he did use the phrase for this lamb what of it? Behold it is lacking being drawn towards the one acquiring it!
[It deals here] with a non-Jewish prostitute who does not acquire an object by the act of drawing it towards herself.
For an object to be acquired, the person acquiring it must draw it towards themselves. A declaration is not sufficient to transfer ownership. So just because he says for this lamb does not mean that the lamb belongs to her, in which case it should be permitted.
The answer is that this prostitute was not a Jew. Jews, according to the Talmud, acquire by taking physical possession. Gentiles can, according to this passage, acquire even through a verbal transaction.
ואיבעית אימא לעולם בזונה ישראלית וכגון דקאי בחצירה
Or if you wish I can say that it surely deals with an Israelite prostitute but in a case where she standing in her courtyard.
One can acquire objects by their being on one s property. Therefore, if he says this lamb and they are on her property, it is hers and it will be forbidden.
אי דקאי בחצירה בא עליה ואח"כ נתן לה הא קניא לה
לא צריכא דשויה ניהלה אפותיקי דאמר לה אי מייתינא ליך זוזי מכאן עד יום פלוני מוטב ואי לא שקליה באתנניך
But if it was standing in her courtyard, [how can it be taught that] he had intercourse with her and subsequently gave it to her, seeing that she already had possession of it!
No, it is necessary in a case where he used it as a pledge, saying to her, If I bring you a certain number of zuz by such a date, well and good; otherwise take [the lamb] as your pay.
If the lamb is already on her property, then he gave it to her before intercourse and it should be prohibited in any case. This is not a case of giving after intercourse which is what we were discussing.
The Talmud adjusts the situation. He gave it to her only as a pledge if he were not to bring payment. If he brings payment, then the lamb will never have lest his possession. But if he does not bring payment, then it will turn out that the lamb becomes hers, but only after intercourse.
Tomorrow s passage will continue to discuss this case. Again, the main interest seems to be laws of transactions, not the particular case of the prostitute.