Question (Rav Tuvi bar Masna): What is the source in the Torah for Muktzeh (that one must designate a Korban before offering it)?

Answer: "Tishmeru Lehakriv Li" teaches that Korbanos must be guarded for Hash-m.

Objection (Abaye): Surely, even if someone brings a starved sheep (which was not guarded) for a Korban, we accept it!

Answer (Rav Tuvi): "Tishmeru l'Hakriv Li" teaches that it must be guarded for Hash-m, and not for others to whom people offer, i.e. idolatry. (Below, Version #1 and Version #2 correspond to the two versions at the end of the previous Daf.)

(Rava bar Rav Ada): Muktzeh is forbidden only after it works (Version #1 - for the idolatry; Version #2 - only until it works for the priests. After this, it will not be offered for idolatry.)

(Ula citing R. Yochanan): Muktzeh is forbidden only after it is given to the priests (Version #1; Version #2 - only until it is given to them to eat).

(Beha citing R. Yochanan): Muktzeh is forbidden only after it is fed vetch of idolatry (Version #1; Version #2 - only until it is fed vetch, to fatten it for the priests).

R. Aba (to Beha): Do you argue with Ula?

Beha: No. Also Ula means, after (Version #2 - until) it is given to the priests to feed it vetch.

R. Aba: Had Beha not gone to Eretz Yisrael, he would not have become such a Chacham to answer so well!

R. Yitzchak: No, he was also a great Chacham in Bavel (before he went up).

(Rav Chananyah Trita'ah - Beraisa): Muktzeh is forbidden only after (Version #2 - until) an act is done to it.

(Rav Chananyah): This act is shearing it and working with it (Version #1 - for idolatry; Version #2 - for the priests).

(Mishnah): What is Ne'evad?...

Question: What is the source (that it is permitted to people)?

Answer (Rav Papa): "Mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" teaches that Korbanos must be from things permitted to Yisrael;

If Ne'evad were forbidden to people, we would not need a verse to disqualify it from Hakravah!

Objection: Sometimes a verse forbids offering something, even though it is forbidden to people!

Tereifah is forbidden to people, yet a verse disqualifies it from Hakravah!

(Beraisa): "Min ha'Bakar" is repeated to disqualify a Tereifah.

Answer: The verse is needed;

From "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael," we would disqualify only a Tereifah that was Hukdash, but not a Korban that became Tereifah after it was Hekdesh; ("Min ha'Bakar" disqualifies a Korban that became Tereifah).

Question: Another verse teaches this!

"Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shevet" excludes a Tereifah (Rashi - whose leg was cut off above the knee. Likewise, all Terefos are excluded. Shitah - a Tereifah is too weak to pass. Rashash (in Bechoros) - a healthy animal crouches "Tachas" when one presses on it).

Answer: All three verses are needed;

From "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" we would disqualify only an animal that was Tereifah from its beginning (from birth, for the verse also alludes to Orlah, which is forbidden from its beginning);

"Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shevet" disqualifies a Tereifah that was Hukdash; "Min ha'Bakar" disqualifies a Korban that became Tereifah.

(Mishnah) Question: What is considered an Esnan? (Esnan Zonah is Pasul for Hakravah; we shall discuss which women are considered Zonah for this law.)

Answer: If one told a Zonah "take this lamb for your hire," even if he gave her 100, they are all forbidden.

Rebbi says, similarly, if Reuven told Shimon "take this lamb, in exchange for which your Shifchah will sleep with my slave," it is not an Esnan;

Chachamim say, it is an Esnan.

(Gemara - Mishnah): Even if he gave her 100, they are all forbidden.

Question: What is the case?

If her wages are 100 lambs, obviously all are forbidden. This is not different than one!

Answer: The case is, her hire is one lamb. He gave her 100 (Shitah - first he gave one, then another 99). They are all given for Esnan.

(Beraisa #1): If Reuven gave (an animal) to a Zonah and did not have relations with her, or had relations with her but did not give her anything, the Esnan is permitted.

Objection #1: If he gave to her and did not have relations with her, this is not called an Esnan!

Objection #2: If he had relations with her but did not give her anything, what Esnan is discussed?!

Answer: It means, if he gave to her and afterwards had relations with her, or had relations with her and afterwards gave to her, the Esnan is permitted.

Question: In the former case, when he has relations with her the Esnan should become retroactively forbidden!

Answer (R. Elazar): The case is, she already offered it (before relations).

Question: What is the case?

If he immediately transferred ownership to her, obviously it is valid. They did not have relations yet!

Answer: Rather, he told her that it will not be hers until relations.

Objection: If so, she cannot (be Makdish nor) offer it!

"V'Ish Ki Yakdish Es Beiso Kodesh" teaches that one can be Makdish only things in his possession, like his house.

Answer: He said "I will leave it with you until we have relations. If you need it, you may acquire it from now."

Question (R. Oshaya): If she was Makdish it (but did not offer it) before they had relations, what is the law?

Suggestion: We can learn from R. Elazar!

(R. Elazar): If she offered it before relations, it is valid.

Inference: He is Machshir only if it was already offered and is not around at the time of relations, but not if it was only Hukdash!

Rejection: R. Oshaya was unsure about R. Elazar's opinion:

Perhaps R. Elazar permits only when it was offered, but if it was only Hukdash, it becomes forbidden;

Or, perhaps, since a declaration to Hekdesh is like an acquisition to a person, is it as if she offered it (it is valid, and she may offer it later), and all the more so if she already offered it!

This question is not resolved.

(Our explanation of Beraisa #1): If he had relations with her and afterwards gave to her, the Esnan is permitted.

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): If he had relations with her and afterwards gave to her, even after a year, the Esnan is Pasul.

Resolution (Rav Chanan bar Rav Chisda): In Beraisa #2, he said "have relations with me for this lamb." In Beraisa #1, he said "have relations with me for a lamb."

Objection: Even if he said "for this lamb" it is permitted, for she did not do Meshichah (take it to her premises to acquire it)!

Answer #1: The case is, she is a Nochris, who does not acquire through Meshichah. (Nochrim normally acquire through giving money, and not through Meshichah. Therefore, the lack of Meshichah does not impede her Kinyan.)

Answer #2: It refers even to a Yisraelis. The case is, he put the animal in her Chatzer (she acquires at the time of relations).

Question: If so, she acquired before relations, not after! (Also - obviously, it is forbidden!)

Answer: He made the animal an Apotiki (specific collateral);

He fixed a time and said "if I do not pay you by then, you may keep the animal."

(Rav): An Esnan given to a man (for homosexual relations) or to any Ervah is Pasul, except for his wife when she is Nidah. (Usually, "Ervah" refers to a woman with whom Kidushin does not take effect, e.g. relatives forbidden by Kares. It can include other forbidden relations, therefore we do not challenge Rav from the Seifa of the Beraisa at the bottom of this Daf.)

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It says "Zonah". His wife is not a Zonah.

(Levi): Even Esnan of his wife when she is Nidah is Pasul.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It says "To'evah". Also this is an abomination.

Question: It says "Zonah"!

Answer: "Zonah" excludes Zoneh (what a woman pays to a man to have relations).

Question: What is Rav's source to exclude Zoneh?

Answer: He learns from Rebbi;

(Beraisa - Rebbi): Esnan is Pasul only if the relations were forbidden;

The following are valid -- Esnan of his wife when she is Nidah, compensation for money a Zonah could have earned (while she was with him), and what a woman paid to a man.

A verse hints to this (last law), but it is not a proof - "uv'Sitech Esnan v'Esnan Lo Nitan Lach va'Tehi l'Hefech."

Question: How does Rav expound "To'evah"?

Answer: It teaches Abaye's law:

(Abaye): The Esnan of a Nochris Zonah is Pasul. We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "To'evah-To'evah" from "Ki Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Chol ha'To'evos ha'Eleh";

This verse discusses Arayos with whom Kidushin does not take effect. Likewise, Esnan is Pasul if Kidushin does not take effect with the Zonah.

If a Kohen has relations with a Nochris, he is not lashed due to Zonah.

Question: What is the reason?

The verse that forbids a Zonah to a Kohen says "Lo Yechalel Zar'o". It refers to a woman whose children (from him) are considered his;

This excludes a Nochris, for her children (are Nochrim; they) are not considered related to their (Yisrael) father.

The Esnan of a Yisraelis Zonah is Kosher for a Korban.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Kidushin takes effect with her.

If a Kohen has relations with a Yisraelis Zonah, he is lashed.

Question: What is the reason?

Her children (from him) are considered his.

(Rava): Whether a Zonah is a Nochris or Yisraelis, her Esnan is Pasul. If a Kohen has relations with her he is lashed.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Each is learned from the other:

A Kohen is lashed for relations with a Yisraelis Zonah. The same applies to a Nochris;

The Esnan of a Nochris Zonah is Pasul. The same applies to that of a Yisraelis.

Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): Whether a Zonah is a Nochris or Yisraelis, her Esnan is Pasul.

Version #1 - Answer (for Abaye): The Beraisa is like R. Akiva, who says that Kidushin does not take effect with Chayavei Lavin;

(The Seifa forbids an Esnan that a Kohen Gadol gave to a widow.) The Beraisa teaches that the Torah discusses a Zonah with whom Kidushin does not take effect, just like (a Kohen Gadol cannot be Mekadesh) a widow.

Question: According to Rava, why does the Seifa discuss a (Kohen Gadol and) widow?

Answer: It teaches a similarity of widow to Esnan:

Just like there are no lashes for (a Kohen Gadol who had relations with a) widow unless they were warned, a woman who had Zenus (relations without Kidushin) does not become a Zonah unless she was paid;

This teaches unlike R. Elazar;

(R. Elazar): If a bachelor had Zenus with an unmarried woman (i.e. they are unrelated. Really, it does not matter whether or not he is married), she becomes a Zonah.

However, if she already was a Zonah, the Esnan is Pasul.

Version #2 - Answer (for Abaye): The Beraisa forbids Esnan of a Yisraelis Zonah only regarding Arayos with whom Kidushin does not take effect.

Question (Seifa of Beraisa): If a Kohen Gadol gave an Esnan to a widow, or a regular Kohen gave to a divorcee or a woman who did Chalitzah, it is Pasul.

Kidushin takes effect in these cases!