Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) AN "ESNAN" THAT IS PERMITTED

(a) Question: If he gave an Esnan to a harlot and later had relations with her, the Esnan should retroactively become forbidden!
(b) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): The case is, she offered it like a Korban before they had relations.
(c) Question: What is the case?

1. If he said 'It is yours from now', surely it is permitted, (it is like a gift - Tosfos deletes this from the text).
2. If he did not say 'It is yours from now', she cannot Makdish it!

i. "V'Ish Ki Yakdish Es Beiso Kodesh" - a man can only Makdish things in his possession, like his house.

(d) Answer: He said 'I will leave it by you until we have relations; if you need it, you may acquire it from now'.
(e) Question (R. Hoshaya): If she was Makdish it (but did not offer it) before they had relations, what is the law?

1. Since a declaration to Hekdesh is like an acquisition to a person, is it as if she offered it (it is Kosher, she may offer it later);
2. Or, since it is still here, it becomes forbidden.
3. Question: We should be able to infer from R. Elazar - he was Machshir only when it was offered before relations, not if it was only Hukdash!
4. Answer: R. Hoshaya was unsure about R. Elazar's opinion:

i. Perhaps R. Elazar only permits when it was offered, but if it was only Hukdash, it becomes forbidden;
ii. Or, perhaps R. Elazar is unsure if it was only Hukdash, therefore he taught the case when it was offered.

(f) This question is not resolved.
(g) (Beraisa): If he had relations with her and later gave to her an Esnan, it is permitted.
(h) Contradiction (Beraisa): If he had relations with her and later gave to her an Esnan, even three years later, it is forbidden.
(i) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): If he said 'Have relations with me for *this* sheep, it is forbidden; if he said 'Have relations with me for *a* sheep', it is permitted.
(j) Question: Even if he said 'for this sheep', since she did not do Meshichah, she did not acquire it at the time of relations!
(k) Answer #1: The case is, she is a Nochris (she acquires by giving money (in this case, relations), not through Meshichah).
(l) Answer #2: Even a Bas Yisrael acquires it if it was in her Chatzer.
(m) Question: If so, why does it say 'If he had relations with her and later gave...' - she acquired it immediately!
(n) Answer: The case is, he made it an Apotiki - he said 'If I do not pay you by such and such day, the lamb is yours'.

(a) Question (against R. Yanai's household - Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): Reuven may tell his workers 'Go and eat or drink (a grocer's food) for the value of this Dinar', he need not be concerned about Shemitah, Ma'aser or Yayin Nesech (these will be explained);

1. (The reason is, he gave them a Dinar, they spend it themselves.)

2. If he said 'Go and eat, I will pay for you', he must be concerned about Ma'aser (perhaps they will buy Tevel and not tithe it, and Reuven uses it to pay his debt to them), Yayin Nesech (if the workers are Nochrim, they forbid the wine), and Shemitah. (Rashi - regarding Shemitah, we are concerned that they will buy Shemitah produce, the Dinar gets Kedushas Shemitah; if the seller is unreliable, it is forbidden to give (more than three meals worth of) such money to him. Tosfos - if they will buy Shemitah produce after Bi'ur (which is forbidden), it is as if he gave this to them; even if they buy it before Bi'ur, he may not pay his debt with Shemitah produce.)
3. The reason is, when he pays later, it is as if he bought the food and paid them with Isur (something forbidden) - likewise, we consider what R. Yanai's household pay in the eighth year as barter for Shemitah, it should receive Kedushas Shemitah!

(b) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): The Beraisa discusses a grocer that normally sells to Reuven on credit - therefore, Reuven is liable to pay for the food once it was given, it is as if the grocer receives the Dinar right away.
(c) Inference: If the grocer does not normally sell to Reuven on credit, it is permitted.
(d) Objection #1: Why does the Beraisa distinguish between 'Eat for the value of this Dinar' and 'Eat, I will pay for you' - rather, it should distinguish between whether or not the grocer normally sells to Reuven on credit!
(e) Objection #2: Even if the grocer does not normally sell to him on credit, Reuven is liable to pay for the food once it was given!

1. (Rava): If Shimon told Levi, give a Maneh to Yehudah to acquire my property, this makes a proper sale, like we find by an Arev (he is obligated to pay a loan even though he did not receive the money - likewise, a seller can transfer ownership of his land (through the Kinyan of money) even if he does not receive the money).
2. Conclusion (Rava): Whether or not the grocer normally sells to him on credit, Reuven is liable to pay, but since no particular money is designated for payment, it is permitted.
3. Question: If so, why is it forbidden when he says 'Eat, I will pay for you'?

(f) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): The case is, Reuven gave a Dinar to the grocer from the beginning.

1. Question (Rav Zevid of Neharda'a): If so, why does the Beraisa say 'Eat, I will pay for you' - it should say 'Eat, and I will calculate (how much of the Dinar the grocer is entitled to)'!
2. Answer: (Rav Kahana): Indeed, the Beraisa should say 'Eat, and I will calculate'.

(g) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The case is, Reuven took the food from the grocer and gave it to his workers.
(h) Question (Rav Yemar): If so, why does the Beraisa say 'Go and eat' - it should say 'Take and eat'!
(i) Answer: (Rav Ashi): Indeed, the Beraisa should say 'Take and eat'.