This is referring to a case where the prostitute first sacrificed the lamb as an offering, before she engaged in intercourse with the man who gave it her. In this case, the lamb is not considered payment to a prostitute. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that the man transferred ownership of the lamb to her immediately, and only afterward engaged in intercourse with her, it is obvious that this lamb is permitted to be sacrificed on the altar, as it belongs to her and up to that point the man had not yet engaged in intercourse with her. Therefore, the lamb is not considered payment at all.

But rather, this must be referring to a case where he said to her: The lamb shall be acquired by you only at the time of intercourse, and yet she went ahead and sacrificed it beforehand. But in this case, can she legally sacrifice the lamb? The Merciful One states: “And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:14), which teaches that just as his house is in his possession, so too any item that a person wishes to sanctify must be in his possession. In this case, by contrast, the lamb does not belong to her until they engage in intercourse.

The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary in a case where he said to her: The lamb shall be acquired by you only at the time of intercourse, but if you need it in the meantime, acquire it for yourself from now. The baraita teaches that in such a case the lamb is permitted to be sacrificed on the altar.

§ Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma: If she first consecrated the lamb before they engaged in intercourse but had not yet sacrificed it, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Resolve the dilemma from that which Rabbi Elazar said, as Rabbi Elazar said above: The baraita is referring to a case where the prostitute first sacrificed the lamb as an offering. It can be inferred that it is not considered payment only if she actually sacrificed it, as the lamb is not extant at the time of intercourse. But if she merely consecrated it and had not yet sacrificed it, the lamb is prohibited, i.e., it is considered payment to a prostitute and therefore prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar.

The Gemara responds: Rav Oshaya raises this inference itself as a dilemma, as follows: May one infer from Rabbi Elazar’s statement that it is only if she sacrificed it before their intercourse and it is no longer in existence at the time of intercourse that it is permitted; but if she had merely consecrated it at the time of intercourse, the lamb is prohibited.

Or perhaps one can argue otherwise: Since we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 28b) that a declaration to the Most High, i.e., consecrating an item through speech, is equivalent to transferring an item to an ordinary person, therefore if she verbally consecrated the lamb before she engaged in intercourse with the man, it should be permitted to be sacrificed on the altar, as once she has dedicated the animal to God it no longer belongs to her. And all the more so the animal should be permitted if she actually sacrificed it. No answer is found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

§ The baraita teaches: If he engaged in intercourse with her and afterward gave her payment, her payment is permitted. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in another baraita: If he engaged in intercourse with her and afterward gave her payment, her payment is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, and this is the case even if he gave it to her as much as twelve months later.

Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda said: It is not difficult, as this second baraita is referring to a situation where he set aside a particular lamb and said to her before engaging in intercourse: Engage in intercourse with me for this lamb. In this case that lamb is considered hers as soon as they engage in intercourse, even if it was not actually given to her until much later. Therefore, it is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar as payment to a prostitute. By contrast, that first baraita is referring to a case where he said to her: Engage in intercourse with me for a lamb, without specification. Since he did not designate a lamb for her services at the time, the lamb he gives her later is not considered payment.

The Gemara objects: Even if he said to her: Engage in intercourse with me for this lamb, it should not be prohibited for sacrifice on the altar, as it lacks the formal act of acquisition of pulling, without which she does not acquire the animal. The Gemara explains that this baraita is referring to a gentile prostitute, who does not acquire by pulling, as this method of acquisition cannot be performed by gentiles. And if you wish, say instead that this baraita is referring even to a Jewish prostitute, such as a case where the lamb is located in her courtyard, and she acquires it by means of her domain.

The Gemara asks: If the lamb is in her courtyard, why does the baraita state that he gave it to her after twelve months? He gave it to her at the outset, before they engaged in intercourse, and she acquired it at that time via her courtyard. The Gemara answers that the baraita is referring to a case where he established the lamb for her as designated payment, and said to her: If by such and such a day I give you money as your payment, all is well, and you will return the lamb to me. And if I have not given you money by that date, then the lamb itself shall be your payment.

§ The Gemara continues to discuss the definition of payment to a prostitute that is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar. Rav says: Both the payment given for intercourse of a male with a male, and the payment given for intercourse with any of those with whom relations are forbidden, have the status of payment to a prostitute and are therefore prohibited. Such an animal may not be used as a sacrifice, except for payment to one’s menstruating wife.

What is the reason that payment to one’s menstruating wife is permitted? The reason is that it is written “prostitute,” with regard to this prohibition: “You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God, for both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19), and this woman, his menstruating wife, is not a prostitute.

And Levi says: Even the payment for intercourse with one’s menstruating wife is considered payment to a prostitute and is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar. What is the reason? It is written “abomination” in the above verse, and this intercourse with one’s menstruating wife is also called an abomination, as it is written with regard to those with whom relations are forbidden, including a menstruating wife: “For whoever shall do any of these abominations” (Leviticus 18:29).

The Gemara objects: And according to the opinion of Levi as well, isn’t it written “prostitute,” with regard to this payment, and one’s wife is not a prostitute. The Gemara answers that Levi could have said to you: That term teaches that this prohibition applies only to a female prostitute who receives payment from a man, and not to a male prostitute who is paid by a woman. The Gemara further asks: And according to the opinion of Rav, who derives from the word “prostitute” that one’s menstruating wife is excluded, from where does he derive that halakha that the prohibition applies only to a female prostitute who receives payment from a man and not to a male prostitute who receives payment from a woman?

The Gemara explains that Rav derives it from that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The only payment to a prostitute that is prohibited for sacrifice on the altar is any payment given to one with whom intercourse is a transgression for him and is never permitted. But with regard to an animal given as payment by a husband to his menstruating wife for intercourse, and payment that he gave to a prostitute as a fee for her neglect of other paid labor that she could have been performing at that time, but not as payment for intercourse, and an animal that a woman gave him as his payment, all these are permitted to be sacrificed on the altar.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi adds: Even though there is no proof for the matter, that an animal given by a woman to a man for services rendered is not considered payment to a prostitute, nevertheless there is an allusion to the matter in the verses: “To all prostitutes gifts are given; but you have given your gifts to all your lovers, and have bribed them to come unto you from every side in your harlotries. And the contrary is in you from other women, in that you did solicit to prostitution, and you were not solicited; and in that you gave hire, and no hire is given to you, thus you are contrary” (Ezekiel 16:33–34). This indicates that it is contrary to the manner of prostitution for the woman to pay the man to engage in intercourse with her.

The Gemara asks: And Rav, this word “abomination” (Deuteronomy 23:19), from which Levi derives his ruling that an animal given by a husband for intercourse with his menstruating wife is considered payment to a prostitute, what does he do with it? The Gemara answers that Rav requires this word for that which Abaye said. As Abaye said: With regard to a gentile prostitute, her payment is prohibited.

What is the reason? It is written here, with regard to payment to a prostitute, “abomination,” and it is written there, with regard to forbidden sexual relations: “For whoever shall do any of these abominations” (Leviticus 18:29). Just as there the verse is referring to those with whom relations are forbidden and with whom betrothal does not take effect, so too, the prohibition of payment to a prostitute is referring to a woman with whom betrothal does not take effect, including a gentile.

And Abaye further stated with regard to a gentile prostitute: A priest who engaged in intercourse with her is not flogged for engaging in intercourse with her due to the prohibition with regard to priests: “They shall not take a woman who is a prostitute” (Leviticus 21:7). What is the reason? It is because the verse states: “And he shall not profane his seed among his people” (Leviticus 21:15). This verse indicates that the prohibition of profaning his seed applies only to a priest who engages in intercourse with a woman whose offspring are attributed to him, i.e., a Jew, where the lineage of the children is determined by the identity of the father. This excludes a priest who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman, whose offspring are not attributed to him, but to her, as their child is a gentile.

Abaye further stated: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with an unmarried Jewish prostitute, her payment is permitted to be sacrificed on the altar. What is the reason? It is that betrothal takes effect with her, and payment is prohibited only in the case of a prostitute with whom betrothal is ineffective. And a priest who engaged in intercourse with her is flogged due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a prostitute. What is the reason? It is because his offspring from this relationship are attributed to him.

And Rava says: With regard to both this, a gentile prostitute, and that, a Jewish prostitute, her payment is prohibited, and a priest who engaged in intercourse with her is flogged due to the prohibition against having intercourse with a prostitute. What is the reason? It is that these two cases are derived from one another: Just as engaging in intercourse with a Jewish prostitute is forbidden to a priest by a prohibition, so too his engaging in intercourse with a gentile prostitute is forbidden by a prohibition. And just as payment to a gentile prostitute is prohibited, so too payment to a Jewish prostitute is prohibited.

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Abaye from a baraita: With regard to both a gentile prostitute and a Jewish prostitute, their payment is prohibited. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye. The Gemara explains that Abaye could have said to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Betrothal does not take effect with regard to those liable for violating prohibitions.

And this baraita teaches us that according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva the halakha of payment to a prostitute applies to every prostitute with whom betrothal does not take effect, similar to the case of widow who is paid for engaging in intercourse with a High Priest, with whom betrothal does not take effect. This case is mentioned in the last clause of the baraita, cited below in the Gemara.

The Gemara objects: And according to the opinion of Rava, what is different about the case specified in the continuation of the baraita, where it teaches: For example, a widow who is paid for engaging in intercourse with a High Priest? In Rava’s opinion even payment to an unmarried woman is considered payment to a prostitute. The Gemara answers that this teaches that even one who engaged in intercourse with an unmarried woman is similar in this regard to a widow who engages in intercourse with a High Priest: Just as in the case of a widow who engages in intercourse with a High Priest, they are flogged only if witnesses warned them that the act is prohibited and is punishable, so too with regard to one who engages in intercourse with a prostitute, it is not considered payment unless he says to her: This lamb is for you for services rendered, indicating that the intercourse is an act of prostitution.

The Gemara adds that this serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to any unmarried man who engaged in intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the sake of marriage, he has thereby caused her to become a prostitute. Rava, in contrast, holds that intercourse with an unmarried woman once does not render her a prostitute, unless he specifies that it is an act of prostitution by saying: This lamb is for services rendered. But Rava concedes that in a case where this woman was a prostitute from the outset, so too her payment is automatically prohibited even if she is unmarried.

The Gemara cites another version of Abaye’s answer to the objection from the baraita that teaches that payment to both a gentile prostitute and a Jewish prostitute is prohibited: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to those with whom relations are forbidden and with whom betrothal does not take effect. By contrast, when Abaye said that payment to a Jewish prostitute is not prohibited, he was referring to a case where betrothal does take effect.

The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in the last clause of the baraita: For example, a widow who is paid for engaging in intercourse with a High Priest, or a divorcée or a woman who has performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] who is paid for engaging in intercourse with an ordinary priest, her payment is prohibited? But these are cases where betrothal takes effect. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?