Avodah Zarah Daf 63 עבודה זרח דַף 63

A Baraisa on the previous Daf taught that if one gave an animal to a זונה for payment before having relations with her, the אנתן is permitted as a korban. The Gemara asks that once they have relations, ליחול עלה איסור אתנן למפרע – the prohibition of אתנן should take effect on it retroactively, since it was given as payment for the subsequent relations, and it should be disqualified!? Rebbe Elazar answered: כשקדמה והקריבתו – the case is where she preempted the relations and brought it as a korban beforehand, and it no longer existed at the time of relations. The Gemara asks what the case is. If he told her to acquire the animal immediately (before relations), it is obvious that the korban is valid (although it was given on condition of relations, since it was sacrificed beforehand, it was מתנה בעלמא – a mere gift then). If not, the animal did not yet belong to her, and she could not bring it as a korban!? The Gemara concludes that he told her, “Let the animal remain with you until the relations (to acquire it then), ואי מיצטריך ליך קני מעכשיו – but if you need it earlier, acquire it from now.” Because he allowed her to acquire it earlier, the korban is valid.

The Baraisa on the previous Daf taught that if he gave an animal as payment after relations, it is also valid as a korban. This contradicts a Baraisa which states that if even if he only gave it three years later, the אתנן is prohibited as a korban!? Rav Chisda answered that an אתנן is disqualified if he said, התבעלי לי בטלה זה – “Have relations with me for this lamb.” Since he designated it, it is an אתנן even if he gave it afterwards. If he said, “Have relations with me for a lamb,” without designating a specific lamb, it is a valid korban, because she does not acquire anything until she receives it, after the relations, and it is not considered payment for relations. The Gemara wonders how she acquires a designated lamb at the moment of relations, since a kinyan of משיכה is required. It first answers that the זונה is a gentile, who acquires with money (or payment) without משיכה, so the relations themselves acquire the animal. Alternatively, the זונה is a Jew, and the animal is in her חצר, and she acquires it without משיכה.

On the previous Daf, Rebbe Yochanan said if one borrows shemittah produce and later repays with eighth-year produce (after consuming the borrowed produce), it is not considered an “exchange” for shemittah produce. Rav Sheishess challenges this from a Baraisa, which teaches that although one may pay his workers without concern that they will buy shemittah or maaser produce with it, but if he told them, צאו ואכלו ואני פורע – “Go out and eat, and I will pay for it as your wages,” he does have to be concerned they may purchase forbidden food. This proves that when he later pays, דמי איסור קא פרע – he is paying forbidden money, i.e., the money paid is considered an exchange for shemittah produce (and therefore cannot be given to an עם הארץ storekeeper). Here, too, the repayment should be considered an exchange of shemittah produce!? Rava explains that although a borrower has an obligation to the lender, כיון דלא מייחד שיעבודיה – since he did not designate specific produce to repay the obligation, the eventual payment is not an exchange for the shemittah produce. Regarding the workers, Rav Pappa explains that the employer gave the storekeeper a dinar beforehand, so it is an exchange of the shemittah produce he later gives them. Rav Ashi interprets the Baraisa differently.