Comentario sobre Deuteronómio 23:19

אתנן זונה [THOU SHALT NOT BRING] THE PROSTITUTION HIRE OF A WHORE [… INTO THE HOUSE OF THE LORD, THY GOD FOR ANY VOW] — This means, if he (the paramour) gave her a lamb as the hire of her prostitution it is unfitted for sacrifice (Sifrei Devarim 261:1; Temurah 29a).

THOU SHALT NOT BRING THE HIRE OF A HARLOT, [OR THE PRICE OF A DOG, INTO THE HOUSE OF THE ETERNAL THY G-D FOR ANY VOW]. Harlots are wont to do good deeds with their hire, thinking thereby to atone for their sins, as our Rabbis mentioned in their proverb,³⁰⁴Vayikra Rabbah 3:1. “She commits illicit sexual intercourse for apples and she divides them among the sick.” Therefore the Torah prohibited a harlot’s gift to be brought for any vow, for now they sin more and more.³⁰⁵Hosea 13:2. By bringing it for a vow into the House of G-d, she will be inclined to sin more, for she will think that her sin has been forgiven. Similarly the matter of the price of the dog is that hunters using dogs and watchmen of walls raise brazen dogs that harm the public, and the owners vow [to contribute] their value [to a cause which they consider sacred], as an atonement for their soul. Such is still the custom among men who ride to the hunts that they place the waxen image of their dogs before an idol that they may be successful with them. And the commentators [as mentioned by Ibn Ezra] have said [that the reason for the prohibition is] because they [i.e., these payments] came about in a contemptible manner.

לא תביא אתנן זונה ...בית ה', “You must not bring to the Temple the proceeds from your activity as a harlot.” Nachmanides writes that these harlots would use some of the gifts they received from their customers to make donations and offer sacrifices in the Temple, to expiate for the wrongs they had done. The Torah legislates, while it cannot prevent such harlots to use some of their ill gotten gains to give charity with such money, that such proceeds from sinful activities cannot be accepted as something sacred. [In our parlance, this would be an early example of money laundering. Ed.] Instead of cleansing themselves from sin, they would sink deeper into the moral morass that they were already in. The Torah legislates something similar concerning the proceeds from selling a dog. The Torah singles out dogs seeing that people who hunt by using dogs, or people training dogs to attack potential intruders, contribute to many innocent people being harmed by such dogs. Nachmanides also quotes instances from his own experience in which people hang the images of dogs near the idols that they worship, so that a dog, in many cultures, is identified with something idolatrous. The proceeds from the sale of such dogs are equally unwelcome in the Temple.

This adds alterations in form, etc. You might ask, why Rashi leaves the opinion of Beis Hillel who said (Bava Kama 94a), “Them but not their alterations in form,” and explain [the verse] according to Beis Shamai who expounds, “‘Even both’ to include their alterations in form”? The answer is that since the Gemora said that there is a difficulty also according to Beis Hillel, he therefore explains according to Beis Shamai.

V. 19. מחיר כלב .לא תביא וגו׳, wenn man für einen Hund einen in natura zur Verwendung als Opfer oder Tempelschmuck tauglichen Gegenstand eingetauscht hat. אתנן זונה und מחיר כלב sind nur selbst und unverändert zum Tempelgebrauch אסור, שניהם ולא ולדותיהן ולא שינוייהן Temura 30 b). Züchtigkeit ist eine der Grundtugenden, deren Pflege das jüdische Gottesheiligtum geweiht ist. Nichts was, wie אתנן זונה, einen dem entgegenstehenden Akt vermittelt, und nichts, was, wie מחיר כלב, an einen dem entgegenstehenden Tiercharakter erinnert, hat Eingang in das Tempelheiligtum zu finden. In Beziehung auf מחיר כלב kann man jedoch zweifelhaft sein, ob dessen Verweisung aus dem Tempelbereiche mit Hinblick auf diese Charakterseite geboten ist. In תנ׳׳ך ist es diese Seite nicht, für welche כלב und כלבים als Typus vorkommen. Es ist vielmehr immer eine soziale Verächtlichkeit oder Verworfenheit, für welche כלב und כלבים bildlich gebraucht werden. Es ist daher nicht unmöglich, dass auch hier die Vergegenwärtigung dieses sozialen Momentes den איסור מחיר כלב motiviert. Ja, es ist dies das Wahrscheinlichere, da das גם שניהם unseres Textes eine begriffliche Verschiedenheit von אתנן זונה und מחיר כלב voraussetzen dürfte, und wäre dann mit beiden איסורים die Vergegenwärtigung von geschlechtlicher und sozialer Entartung aus dem Bereiche des Heiligtums verwiesen.

'לא תביא אתנן זונה בית ה, “do not bring the payment received for practicing harlotry to the house of the Lord;” this verse is added here as the Torah just warned us not to tolerate Jewish harlots in our midst. The expression אתנן from the root נתן “to give,” means “gift.” It is an expression used exclusively in connection with payments made to harlots. The letter א at the beginning, which appears extraneous, is similar to the letter א in the word אזרוע in Jeremiah 32,21, instead of זרוע for “arm.” We also find such an apparently superfluous letter א in the word אתמול for “yesterday,” which appears more frequently meaning the same as תמול.

ומחיר כלב [THOU SHALT NOT BRING …] THE PRICE OF A DOG [INTO THE HOUSE OF THE LORD …], if one has exchanged a lamb for a dog (Sifrei Devarim 261:2; Temurah 30a).

גם שניהם, “both of them.” Seeing that the first example, the price paid for a harlot’s services, or the animal paid is a greater abomination than the proceeds of the sale of the dog, Moses wants to make sure that we do not consider the latter as in a completely different class, i.e. as a far less offensive sin. Alternatively, seeing that up until now the Torah had disqualified potential use of certain animals as sacrificial offerings forbidden only if the animal had certain physical blemishes, here we hear for the first time that the animal may have a moral blemish due to the lifestyle of its owner. In the case of animals having a physical blemish the Torah had introduced the legislation with the words: לא תזבח לה' אלוקיך שור או שה..אשר יהיה בו מום וגו', “you shall not slaughter for the Lord your G’d an ox or lamb that has a blemish, etc.” (Deut 17,1) The reason given is that such a blemish is considered an abomination. Here too, the reason given for the legislation is that it would be considered an abomination to offer an animal to Hashem that was acquired in payment for committing a sin.

GAM SHNEIHEM’ (‘EVEN THEY BOTH’) [ARE AN ABOMINATION TO THE ETERNAL THY G-D]. “Even they both — this includes the products into which they have been processed, such as wheat which she made into flour.” This is Rashi’s language. But in the Gemara³⁰⁶Temurah 30b. the Rabbis have said that the School of Shammai forbid it and the School of Hillel permit it.³⁰⁷And the accepted law is, in line with the legal rule, in accordance with the teachings of the School of Hillel. Why, then, did Rashi base his interpretation here upon an opinion held by the School of Shammai? Instead, the verse [in accordance with the teaching of the School of Hillel] is to be interpreted as follows: “They [are forbidden] but not their young; they [are forbidden] but not the products into which they have been processed.” And the purport of the expression gam shneihem is that since one of them is indeed a great abomination — namely, the hire of a harlot, since the harlotry was committed for it — [while the price of a dog might be considered less of an abomination] the verse states that “even both of these” [including the price of a dog] G-d will reject. Similarly, He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, ‘even they both’ are an abomination to the Eternal;³⁰⁸Proverbs 17:15. the verse attaches the smaller offense [i.e., he that justifies the wicked] to the bigger one [he that condemns the righteous]. So also, then they shall both of them die,³⁰⁹Above, 22:22. as I have explained [there, that the man is the greater sinner of the two, and therefore the verse states that even she is also to die].
Or it may be that the purport [of the expression gam shneihem] is that since he had already warned against the disqualifications of the offering through blemishes, and stated concerning them, Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Eternal thy G-d an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blemish, even any evil thing; for that is an abomination unto the Eternal thy G-d,³¹⁰Above, 17:1. he supplemented here saying that the hire of the harlot and the price of the dog — although in themselves perfect — that they too are the abomination of the Eternal like those [blemished offerings]. This is the correct interpretation. So also, The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Eternal hath made even both of them,³¹¹Proverbs 20:12. the verse alludes to man in general and states that G-d created man and also made these characteristics in him. Similarly, Diverse weights, and diverse measures, both of them alike are an abomination to the Eternal,³¹²Ibid., Verse 10. the verse intimates to whoever robs, extorts, and exploits in any manner which are greater abominations than these [false weights and measures], although it does not mention them, [and declares that even diverse weights and diverse measures are an abomination to G-d].

גם שניהם FOR EVEN BOTH THESE ARE [ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD, THY GOD] — The words גם שניהם taken as גם שנוייהם are intended to include in the prohibition the things into which they (whatever is given as hire) are changed, as, e.g., if he gave the woman wheat and she made it into flour (Temurah 30b).