1)

(a)Rav Tuvi bar Masna Amar Rebbi Yashiyah learns Muktzah from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Tishm'ru Lehakriv Li". We initially think that by Muktzah he means - an obligation to designate an animal and to declare it Hekdesh before sacrificing it.

(b)Abaye objects to that however - on the grounds that there is no law forbidding bringing a starving, un-designated animal as a Korban.

(c)So what Rav Tuvi bar Masna really learns from there - with the stress on the words "Tishm'ru ... Li", is that one should keep an animal to bring it to Hash-m, but not to for Avodah-Zarah.

2)

(a)When Rava bar Rav Ada Amar Rav Yitzchak says that Muktzah does not became Asur 'Ela ad she'Ya'avdenu', he cannot mean that it only becomes Asur after it has performed some task on behalf of the Avodah-Zarah (such as pulling a wagon) - because then he ought not to have inserted the word Ela.

(b)What he therefore means is that - it is only Asur until the priests use it for their own personal needs, at which point they will no longer sacrifice it.

(c)Ula quoting Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. According to him - it becomes permitted once the animal is handed over to the priests to eat, since that is when they will no longer sacrifice it.

3)

(a)Ba'asa cites Rebbi Yochanan differently than Ula. He maintains that - it only becomes permitted once the priests feed it with oats of Avodah-Zarah (because that is when they will no longer sacrifice it [see Hagahos ha'Gra]).

(b)When Rebbi Aba asked Ba'asa whether he actually disagreed with Ula, he replied that - he merely meant to explain what Ula meant, not to argue with him.

(c)Rebbi Aba commented that - Ba'asa learned the art of transmitting what people said in this way after going to Eretz Yisrael (see Rabeinu Gershom).

(d)Rav Yitzchak told Rebbi Aba that - in fact, Ba'asa had learned it both in Bavel and in Eretz Yisrael.

4)

(a)The Beraisa cited by Rav Chananyah T'rita'ah in front of Rebbi Yochanan rules that - Muktzah is only forbidden until one has performed with it an act ...

(b)... which he interprets to mean - either by shearing it or by working with it (Gizah va'Avodah).

5)

(a)Rav Papa learns from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" that - one is only permitted to bring a Korban from animals that a Yisrael is permitted to eat.

(b)Conversely - seeing as a Pasuk is required to forbid Muktzah on the Mizbe'ach, as we explained earlier, it must be permitted for a Yisrael to eat it.

(c)Nevertheless, we need to learn from the (second) Pasuk " ... min ha'Bakar", that a T'reifah is precluded from the Mizbe'ach (even though it is forbidden to a Yisrael) - where the animal became a T'reifah after it was declared Hekdesh (in which case it is not the T'reifus that renders it forbidden it to a Yisrael, but the fact that it is Hekdesh).

6)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Emor "Kol asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shevet" that - an animal that is incapable of walking into the pen together with the other animals (such as one whose upper hind-leg is severed, and which is a T'reifah) is not eligible to be picked as Ma'aser Beheimah.

(b)Based on what we just learned, the problem with what this is that - since it is anyway prohibited to a Yisrael, why does it require a specific Pasuk to forbid it to Gavohah?

(c)And we solve the problem - by performing a further sub-division, learning from ...

1. ... "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" - the prohibition regarding an animal that is forbidden from birth, and from ...

2. ... "Kol asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shevet" - the prohibition regarding an animal that had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, and that became a T'reifah only afterwards (which we would have otherwise thought is permitted to go on the Mizbe'ach).

7)

(a)Our Mishnah now defines Esnan Zonah. The Tana rules that if a man gives the Zonah a hundred lambs in exchange for her services - all hundred are considered Esnan and are therefore forbidden.

(b)According to Rebbi, if someone says to his friend 'Let your Shifchah spend the night with my unmarried Eved Ivri and take this lamb as payment', it is not considered Esnan Zonah. The Rabbanan hold - that it is.

(c)The Eved Ivri must be unmarried, because if he is married and has children - then he will be permitted to live with a Shifchah Cana'anis anyway, and the money will therefore not be considered Esnan Zonah.

(d)Rebbi disagree with the Rabbanan - because he holds that an Eved Ivri is permitted to live with a Shifchah Cana'anis whether he has a wife and children or not (see Bartenura).

8)

(a)We might have thought that if the man gives the Zonah a hundred lambs, ninety-nine of them will be permitted - in a case where the initial agreement only mentioned one lamb, and he then gave her a hundred (in which case the other ninety-nine might be construed as a gift).

(b)What is strange about the Beraisa which permits ...

1. ... the Esnan that the man gives the Zonah, if they did not subsequently have relations is - why the Tana refers to the money as Esnan (seeing as she is not a Zonah).

2. ... the Esnan that the man declined to give the Zonah if they did is that - if he did not give her anything, then which Esnan is he referring to?

(c)We therefore amend the Beraisa to read that - he either gave her the Esnan in advance of their having relations, or vice-versa.

(d)The problem with the Beraisa now is that - in the case where he gave her the lamb first, since it is still there at the time when the Bi'ah takes place, there is no reason for it not to become an Esnan retroactively.

(e)The problem does not extend to the case where he gave her the Esnan after the Bi'ah - because since he had not designated the lamb beforehand, it is considered merely a gift.

9)

(a)We query Rebbi Elazar's answer, that she went and brought the lamb on the Mizbe'ach before they actually had relations - inasmuch as, if, as it would appear, he stipulated when he gave her the lamb that it was only to become hers after the Bi'ah, then the lamb did not yet belong to her, in which case she had no right to sacrifice it in the first place?

(b)What Rebbi Elazar must have therefore meant is that - when handing her the lamb, he stipulated on the one hand, that it would only become hers after the Bi'ah, but on the other, that if she needed it, she could acquire it from now.

(c)And the Beraisa permits it - because the fact is that when she sacrificed it, it was not her personal property, and was therefore not an Esnan.

10)

(a)Rav Oshaya asks what the Din will be if the Zonah did not actually bring the animal before the Bi'ah, but declared it Hekdesh. We try to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Elazar, who permits the lamb that the Zonah sacrificed before the Bi'ah - implying that if she had not actually brought it, but only declared it Hekdesh, it will be an Esnan.

(b)We reject this proof however - in that this is precisely what Rav Oshaya was asking, whether, based on the principle Amiraso li'Gavohah ki'Mesiraso le'Hedyot, declaring the animal Hekdesh is no different than bringing it on the Mizbe'ach in this regard.

(c)The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.

11)

(a)We just cited the Beraisa which rules that if he gave her the Esnan only after the Bi'ah, it is permitted. Rav Chanan bar Rav Chisda reconciles this with another Beraisa, which forbids it - by establishing the latter where he actually said 'Hiba'ali li bi'Teleh Zeh' before having relations with her, whereas our Beraisa speaks where he sent her the lamb after the Bi'ah without having said anything.

(b)The problem with this answer is that - since, in the second Beraisa, she did not make a Meshichah at the time, his statement is meaningless.

(c)The simple answer to the problem is that - the Tana is speaking about a Zonah Nochris, who acquires through Kesef, and not Meshichah (and who will therefore acquire the lamb as payment for her services).

(d)The problem with establishing the second Beraisa even by a Zonah Yisre'elis, where the lamb was already in her Chatzer before the Bi'ah took place is that - in that case, it is equivalent to the case where he gave her the Esnan before the Bi'ah (whilst we are supposed to be speaking in the reverse case).

(e)So we establish it - where he gave her the lamb as an Apotiki (a security) stipulating that it would become hers at a certain date, if by then, he has not paid her a certain price for her services.

12)

(a)Rav rules that the Esnan of ...

1. ... a male prostitute, as well of ...

2. ... any of the other Arayos - is included in "Esnan Zonah".

(b)He precludes the lamb that a man gives his wife who is a Nidah (who is also included in the Parshah of Arayos) from the Din of Esnan - because she does not fall into the category of Zonah.

(c)Levi, based on the word "To'evah' (in the Pasuk "Ki To'avas Hash-m Elokecha Gam Sheneihem") holds that - Nidah is included in the Din of Esnan ...

(d)... whereas from "Zonah" - he learns "Zonah", 've'Lo Zoneh', (to preclude the lamb that the Zonah gives to the man from the prohibition of Esnan Zonah).

13)

(a)Rav learns Levi's previous Din from Rebbi in a Beraisa, who restricts the Isur of Esnan to where there is a sin, by which he means that - where there is an ultimate Heter (such as his wife who is a Nidah), there is no Din of Esnan.

(b)In addition, besides the lamb that the Zonah gives to the man, he also precludes - one that the man gives the woman, but to pay for work lost, rather than for services rendered.

(c)By way of a hint, he learns from the words "va'Tehi le'Hepech" (in the Pasuk in Yechezkel "u've'Sitcha Esnan, ve'Esnan Lo Nitan lach, va'Tehi le'Hepech") that - the lamb that the woman gives the man is not subject to the Isur of Esnan Zonah.

(d)Rav learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "To'eivah" "To'evah" (from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ki Chol asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'eivos ha'Eileh, ve'Nichr'su") like Abaye - who learns from there that the Esnan of anyone whose Kidushin does not take effect, is forbidden.

(e)Rav now says that - if a man gives a lamb to a Zonah Nochris, it is also included in the Isur of Esnan Zonah, like Abaye.

14)

(a)The other Halachah that Abaye learns regarding a Zonah Nochris from the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o be'Amav" is that - a Kohen who has relations with a Zonah Nochris does not receive Malkos (since any children that they have will go after her and not after him, in which case his seed is not desecrated).

(b)Based on the same Pesukim, Abaye holds that with regards to an Esnan Yisre'elis ...

1. ... the Esnan - is permitted (since Kidushin does take effect).

2. ... a Kohen - will receive Malkos for having relations with her (since their children will indeed go after him).

(c)Rava maintains however, that even the Esnan of a Zonah Yisre'elis is Asur, and one receives Malkos for having relations with a Zonah Nochris - because he learns the Esnan of a Zonah Yisre'elis (le'Chumra) from that of a Zonah Nochris, and Malkos for having relations with a Zonah Nochris (le'Chumra) from that of a Zonah Yisre'elis.

15)

(a)Abaye reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa 'Echad Zonah Ovedes-Kochavim ve'Echad Zonah Yisre'elis Esnenah Asur' - by establishing the Beraisa specifically by a Zonah Yisre'elis by whom Kidushin does not take effect (such as one of the Arayos).

(b)And he explains the Seifa 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol ... Esnenah Asur' (even though Kidushin does take effect on the Isurei Kehunah) like Rebbi Elazar who holds - 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah, As'ah Zonah' (because he connects Zonah to every Bi'as Z'nus), whereas Abaye himself, holds like the Rabbanan.

(c)And the Beraisa refers to 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol ... ', and not just to 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah', to teach us that - the Pasuk is not speaking specifically about a Bi'ah where no Aveirah was performed.

16)

(a)Alternatively, we establish the Seifa regarding Almanah le'Kohen Gadol ... like Rebbi Akiva, who says that - Kidushin does not take effect on Chayvei La'avin (incorporating the La'avin of Kehunah).

(b)And the Tana mentions Almanah le'Kohen Gadol - to teach us that only the Esnan of Chayvei La'avin by which Kidushin does not take effect is Asur (but not by cases where it does).

(c)According to Rava, who does not differentiate between whether Kidushin takes effect or not, the Tana then mentions Almanah le'Kohen Gadol ... - to teach us that just as there, the Kohen Gadol only receives Malkos if there has been warning, so too by a S'tam Panuy ha'Ba al Penuyah, it is only considered Esnan, if he speaks and says 'Hey lach Esnan', but not if he gives it to her S'tam ...

(d)... to preclude - the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, who considers Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah S'tam, to be a Zonah.

(e)Rava will agree however, that the Esnan of an established Zonah who is not yet married - is Asur.