POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Avodah Zarah 63
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
2) THE JUSTIFICATION OF R. YANAI'S HOUSEHOLD
(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).
(d) Answer: He said 'I will leave it by you until we have
relations; if you need it, you may acquire it from now'.
2. If he did not say 'It is yours from now', she cannot
i. "V'Ish Ki Yakdish Es Beiso Kodesh" - a man can
only Makdish things in his possession, like his
(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);
(f) This question is not resolved.
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
i. Perhaps R. Elazar only permits when it was
offered, but if it was only Hukdash, it becomes
ii. Or, perhaps R. Elazar is unsure if it was only
Hukdash, therefore he taught the case when it
(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
(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
(j) Question: Even if he said 'for this sheep', since she did
not do Meshichah, she did not acquire it at the time of
(k) Answer #1: The case is, she is a Nochris (she acquires by
giving money (in this case, relations), not through
(l) Answer #2: Even a Bas Yisrael acquires it if it was in
(m) Question: If so, why does it say 'If he had relations
with her and later gave...' - she acquired it
(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
(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
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
(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.
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!
(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).
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): The case is, Reuven gave a Dinar to
the grocer from the beginning.
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'?
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)'!
(g) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The case is, Reuven took the food
from the grocer and gave it to his workers.
2. Answer: (Rav Kahana): Indeed, the Beraisa should say
'Eat, and I will calculate'.
(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