The Eddie B. Sit edition presents an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically focusing on Masechet Temurah, Daf Samech Gimmel. This daf is being studied in the merit of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, may the spirit of G-d rest upon him in the Garden of Eden, amen. Additionally, this daf is being studied for Refuah Sheleimah for Mickey ben Jamie, may it be G-d’s will that he be healed in both soul and body, and may there be healing for all the sick among His people, and so may it be His will, and let us say amen.
We begin today’s daf on Samech Gimmel Amud Alef, starting with the inquiry of Rav Oshaya. We will discuss a case involving etnan zona. We previously examined a similar case on yesterday’s daf. The Torah states that etnan zona, the payment given to a prostitute, cannot be brought as a korban. The concept of etnan zona is considered assur. However, if a person gives her this payment and she sacrifices it before the act of intercourse, even though it was given for that purpose, at the time of the act, the animal has already been brought, thus it is no longer considered etnan.
One might ask, how can it not be etnan if she has already brought it as a korban? The explanation is that if she was obligated to bring a korban, this sacrifice counts for her, and she does not need to bring another korban. The korban is considered valid, and if she was obligated or made a nedar to bring a korban, it is accepted. The Gemara asks: Ba’ei Rav Oshaya, what is the status if she consecrated it before bringing the korban? He gave her an animal as payment, but the act of intercourse occurred later. In the meantime, she did not bring it to the Beit HaMikdash, but she consecrated it. What is the ruling? Since it is stated that the verbal declaration of consecration is equivalent to the physical transfer to a human being, it is as if the animal was already sacrificed.
The general principle states: Amirato laGavoah kiMsirato leHedyot—the verbal declaration to G-d is as effective as giving it to a person. Therefore, the verbal declaration itself constitutes the transfer for hekdesh. Thus, one could argue that since she consecrated it, it is effectively in G-d’s possession, and therefore it is not considered etnan zona. At the time of the act, it is already with HaKadosh Baruch Hu, and thus it is not regarded as etnan.
Alternatively, one might contend that the animal is still physically present at the time of the act, and thus it could still be classified as etnan zona. The Gemara responds: we can resolve this question based on the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who states that the only time it is permitted is when she has already brought it as a korban. This leads to a distinction: it is specifically when she has offered the korban, but not when she has merely consecrated it. The Gemara then poses a question regarding Rabbi Eliezer himself: is it clear to him that it is only the korban that matters, and not the consecration? Or does he maintain that while the korban is clear, the status of the consecration is uncertain? The Gemara concludes with teiku, indicating that the answer remains unresolved.
Moving forward, the Gemara discusses a case where the man had intercourse with the prostitute and subsequently gave her the animal. In this case, it is mutar because the payment must be made at the time of the act for it to be considered etnan. If the act has already occurred, and only afterward does he provide the animal, it is permitted for her to bring it as a korban. However, the Gemara raises a contradiction: if he had intercourse with her and later pays her—even if it is three years later—the animal is still assur. The Gemara resolves this by stating that it depends on what was said. If he specifically stated that he would give her that particular animal, then he has designated it for the act, and it is assur. If he merely stated that he would give her a sheep without specifying which one, and then he pays after the act, it is mutar since it was not designated at the time of the act.
In this discussion, the Gemara emphasizes the importance of intention and specification in transactions related to etnan zona. If the animal is designated for the act, it becomes problematic, but if it is not specified, it is permissible. The Gemara continues to explore various scenarios, examining the implications of ownership and transfer in the context of etnan zona and the associated halachic principles.
As we delve deeper into the complexities of these halachic discussions, it is crucial to maintain clarity on the distinctions between different cases and the underlying principles that govern them. Each case presents unique considerations, and understanding these nuances is essential for proper application of the halacha.