Bring this produce designated as second tithe to Jerusalem for me in exchange for a share of the produce, of which you may partake in Jerusalem. This is considered payment and is tantamount to conducting commerce with the tithe. But he may say to him: Bring it to Jerusalem to eat it and drink it in Jerusalem, as long as he does not specify that it is payment; and once in Jerusalem they may give one another unrequited gifts. This indicates that what may not be given as payment may be given as a gift, and therefore the donkey drivers may be compensated with Sabbatical-Year produce.

And Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan means that the produce with which the drivers are paid is sacred with the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce, and as for that which poses a difficulty for you with regard to the halakha of the laborer cited in the mishna, which states that his wage is not sacred, that difficulty can be resolved as follows: There is a distinction between a laborer, whose wage is not great, and therefore the Sages did not penalize him by decreeing that his wage is sacred, and donkey drivers, whose wages are great, and therefore the Sages penalized them. And with regard to the mishna that deems forbidden even the laborer’s wage in the case of one who produces wine designated for libation, the stringency of wine used for a libation is different, and it is treated more stringently than Sabbatical-Year produce.

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a gentile hired a Jew to work with him in the production of nondescript wine of gentiles, i.e., wine that was not used for libation, what is the halakha? Do we say that since the prohibition of deriving benefit from nondescript wine of gentiles is as stringent as the prohibition of deriving benefit from wine used for a libation, his wage is also forbidden, or perhaps should it be reasoned that since the halakha with regard to its capacity for imparting ritual impurity to one who comes into contact with it is more lenient than the halakha with regard to wine used for a libation, the halakha with regard to its wage is also more lenient?

Come and hear a resolution: It is related that there was a certain man who rented out his ship for transporting nondescript wine of gentiles, and the gentiles gave him wheat in payment. He came before Rav Ḥisda to determine the status of the wheat. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Go burn it and bury it in a graveyard. Evidently, payment for working with nondescript wine of gentiles is forbidden.

The Gemara raises an objection to the method of eradication of the wheat in Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. But let him say to the ship owner: Scatter it. The Gemara responds: If he scatters it, people might be caused a mishap by it if they find kernels of the scattered wheat and gather them for eating. The Gemara challenges: But then let him burn it and scatter it. Why should it be buried? The Gemara answers: Perhaps people will fertilize their fields with it.

The Gemara challenges: But let him bury the wheat in its unadulterated form. Didn’t we learn in a baraita with regard to the instruments used for imposing capital punishment: The stone with which a condemned person is stoned, and the tree on which his corpse is hung after his execution, and the sword with which he is killed, and the scarf with which he is strangled, all of them are buried together with him, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. The baraita does not require that they be burned before they are buried.

The Gemara answers: There, since they are buried in the court graveyard, the matter is clear to all that these were executed by the court, so everyone knows that using the instruments of execution is prohibited. Here, the matter is not clear to all, as one might say to himself that a person stole the wheat and brought it and buried it here, and he might thereby come to use it.

§ The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai borrowed Sabbatical-Year produce from the poor and repaid them in the eighth year. Others came and said this to Rabbi Yoḥanan, out of concern that by doing so they violated the prohibition against engaging in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: They are acting properly, as this is not considered commerce.

And in the corresponding case concerning payment to a prostitute for services rendered, it is permitted to sacrifice such an animal as an offering. Although the Torah prohibits the sacrifice of an animal used as a prostitute’s payment (see Deuteronomy 23:19), in a case similar to this one, it is permitted; as it is taught in a baraita: If the man gave the prostitute payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, or if he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, it is permitted for her payment to serve as an offering.

The Gemara discusses difficulties with the wording of the baraita: If he gave her payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, isn’t it obvious that it is permitted? Since he did not engage in intercourse with her, it is merely a gift that he has given her, and there is no reason for it to be forbidden. Why does the baraita need to state this? And furthermore, with regard to the case in the baraita where he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, he did not give her anything, and since he did not give her payment, what is the meaning of the statement that her payment is permitted?

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: If he gave her payment and afterward, after some time elapsed, he engaged in intercourse with her, or if he engaged in intercourse with her and afterward, after some time elapsed, he gave her payment, her payment is permitted, because the payment was not given proximate to the intercourse. This is also the halakha in the case of borrowing Sabbatical-Year produce, i.e., paying for it after time has elapsed is not considered commerce.

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is referring to a case where he gave her payment and afterward engaged in intercourse with her, then when he engaged in intercourse with her,