The Gemara asks: But if that is the meaning of the baraita, why is it necessary to purchase the animal back from the prostitute for it to be subject to animal tithe? Let her tithe it herself, as it is not prohibited as payment to a prostitute, since it was in the womb when he gave it to her. The Gemara answers that the baraita is referring to a gentile prostitute, to whom the mitzva of tithing animals does not apply.

The Gemara challenges: But let the baraita establish this case, of an animal set aside as payment to a prostitute that nevertheless enters the pen to be tithed, as a case involving a Jewish prostitute, and let it be referring to a case where she tithes it herself. The Gemara explains that this baraita teaches us that an animal given as payment to a Jewish prostitute does not have the halakhic status of payment to a prostitute, and is not prohibited for sacrifice.

The Gemara adds that this is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, as Abaye says: An animal given to a gentile prostitute is considered to be payment to a prostitute, which is prohibited for sacrifice on the altar. And a priest who engages in intercourse with a gentile prostitute is not flogged due to the prohibition of: “A widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a prostitute, these shall he not take, but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife. And he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him” (Leviticus 21:14–15). Conversely, an animal given to a Jewish prostitute is not considered payment to a prostitute and it is permitted to sacrifice it. But a priest who engages in intercourse with a Jewish prostitute is flogged due to the prohibition of: “And he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.”

The Gemara clarifies Abaye’s opinion. An animal given to a gentile prostitute is considered payment to a prostitute, which is prohibited for sacrifice on the altar, as Abaye derives a verbal analogy from the word “abomination” stated with regard to payment to a prostitute: “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19), and the word “abomination” stated in the verses discussing those with whom relations are forbidden: “For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29).

The Gemara elaborates: Just as the verses discussing those with whom relations are forbidden are referring specifically to those women upon whom betrothal does not take effect, so too, the prostitute referred to in the verse is one upon whom betrothal does not take effect, i.e., a gentile prostitute.

Abaye further stated: And a priest who engages in intercourse with her is not flogged due to the prohibition of: “And he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.” The Gemara explains: The reason is that the Merciful One states that he should not profane his seed, i.e., his children, and any children born from this gentile prostitute are not considered to be his seed, as the children of a gentile mother are gentiles.

MISHNA: With regard to brothers and partners, i.e., brothers who are partners in the inheritance of their father, when they are obligated to add the premium [bakalbon] to their annual half-shekel payment to the Temple they are exempt from animal tithe. Conversely, those whose halakhic status is like that of sons who are supported by their father and are obligated to separate animal tithe are exempt from adding the premium.

The mishna clarifies: If the brothers acquired the animals through inheritance from the property in the possession of their father’s house they are obligated in animal tithe; but if not, they are exempt. How so? If they divided the inheritance between them and then reentered a partnership, they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “That you shall set apart for the Lord all that opens the womb; every firstborn male that emerges from an animal that shall be yours belongs to the Lord” (Exodus 13:12). This teaches that the obligation of animal tithe applies only to an animal that belongs to you, i.e., to one owner, but not to an animal owned by partners. One might have thought that the obligation of the tithe does not apply to the animal even if brothers acquired the animals through inheritance from the property in the possession of their father’s house. Therefore, the verse states: “Shall be,” to include animals acquired through inheritance in the obligation of animal tithe.

The Gemara asks: But this verse is not referring to animal tithe; rather, it is written with regard to firstborn animals. The Gemara answers: If it is not needed for the matter of firstborn animals, as the mitzva of sanctifying a firstborn animal does apply in a case of partnership, as it is written, in the plural form: “And you shall bring there your burnt offerings, and your offerings, and your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:6), apply the verse to the matter of animal tithe, teaching that it does not apply to an animal owned by partners.

§ The mishna teaches: If the brothers divided the inheritance between them and then reentered a partnership, they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe. Rabbi Yirmeya says: There are times when they are obligated both in this, the premium, and in that, animal tithe. And there are times when they are exempt both from this and from that. Furthermore, there are times when they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe; and finally, there are times when they are obligated in animal tithe and are exempt from having to add the premium.

The Gemara elaborates: The guiding principle is that partners are exempt from animal tithe but obligated to pay the premium, whereas in the case of individual ownership one is obligated in the animal tithe but exempt from paying the premium. Therefore, the case where they are obligated both in this, the premium, and in that, animal tithe, is when they divided the money they inherited from their father but did not divide the animals they inherited. The case where they are exempt both from this and from that is when they divided the animals but did not divide the money.

The case where they are obligated to pay the premium and are exempt from animal tithe is when they divided up both this and that, the money and the animals, from the estate of their deceased father. Afterward they reestablished a partnership and are therefore partners in the normal sense, rather than co-owners of the original inherited estate, and partners are obligated to pay the premium and are exempt from the animal tithe.

Finally, the case where they are obligated in the animal tithe and are exempt from paying the premium involves brothers who have not divided this or that, the money and the animals of their father’s estate, between them at all. It is therefore considered as though their father is still the sole owner of the estate and is contributing the shekel for the pair of them. Since the estate is under individual ownership, the animal tithe must be separated from the livestock.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? What is the novelty of Rabbi Yirmeya’s statement? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Yirmeya to teach the case where they divided the animals but did not divide the money. It might enter your mind to say that since they divided the animals they have thereby revealed their intent to divide the entire estate. Consequently, the estate stands to be divided, and they should be obligated to pay the premium. Therefore, Rabbi Yirmeya teaches us that they are exempt from paying the premium until they have actually divided the money.

§ Rav Anan says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where they divided kids for goats and goats for kids, i.e., when the two brothers inherited both kids and goats, but one took all the goats and the other all the kids. Since each originally inherited both goats and kids, this division is tantamount to one brother trading his goats for the other’s kids. When they again become partners, they are considered like strangers who join together. Consequently, they are exempt from the animal tithe.

But if they divided kids for kids and goats for goats, so that each takes some of both types, in the normal manner, one can say that this, i.e., the group of animals that each brother takes, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset, and no transaction between them has occurred. Consequently, when they reestablish the partnership the estate reverts to its original status as a single entity, and they are therefore obligated to separate animal tithe.

And Rav Naḥman says: Even if they divided the estate in the manner of kids for kids and goats for goats, we do not say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset. Therefore, if they reestablish a partnership they are considered like partners and are exempt from separating animal tithe.

The Gemara notes that this matter is also the subject of a dispute between other amora’im. And Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught this halakha only when they divided nine large goats for ten kids, and ten kids for nine large ones. Since the nine large goats are worth the same as ten kids, this division is tantamount to one brother trading his large goats for the other’s kids. When they again become partners they are considered as strangers who join together, and therefore they are exempt from the animal tithe.

But if they divided nine large goats for nine large goats and ten kids for ten kids, so that each takes some of both types, one can say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset, and no transaction between them has occurred. Consequently, when they reestablish the partnership the estate reverts to its original status as a single entity, which means they are obligated to separate animal tithe.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even if they divided the estate in the manner of nine large goats for nine large goats and ten kids for ten kids, one does not say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset. Therefore, if they reestablish a partnership they are considered as partners and are exempt from separating animal tithe.