Talmud for Temurah 6:4
נָתַן לָהּ כְּסָפִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים, וּסְלָתוֹת, וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אָסוּר. נָתַן לָהּ מֻקְדָּשִׁין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. עוֹפוֹת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, מָה אִם הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶם, אֵין אֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶם, עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן, אֵינוֹ בַדִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם), לְכָל נֶדֶר, לְהָבִיא אֶת הָעוֹף:
If he gave to her (the prostitute), they are permitted. [If he gave to her] wines, oils, finely sifted flour, or anything like them that can be offered on the altar, [they are] forbidden. If he gave to her sanctified objects, they are permitted. [If he gave to her] birds, they are forbidden. [It is possible to learn this] from a rule [of logic] (A kal v'Chomer): With sanctified [animals] a blemish forbids them [from being offered], but the status of "prostitute's fee" or "exchanged" do not fall upon them. With birds, which are not forbidden because of a blemish, is it not logical that the status of "prostitute's fee" or "exchanged" should [definitely] not fall on them? [Therefore] the Torah teaches (Deuteronomy 23:19), "For all vows," to include the birds.
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
In the preceding sentence “it” refers to the Pesaḥ animal, to which the sanctity of the subscription money is transferred while the unused part in the hand of the buyer is not touched by the transaction; it remains dedicated. But if the dedication of the money was conditional for the stated purpose of acquiring part of a Pesaḥ, the remaining money never was dedicated and is profane.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Think of it if he lets him subscribe gratis. Where do you have “becomes profane and is dedicated again”69Since no money changes hands, there is dedicated money whose sanctity can be transferred to parts of the Pesaḥ. In order to have a fully dedicated sacrifice it should be forbidden to invite non-paying guests for the Pesaḥ. This is a restriction which nowhere is mentioned and has to be rejected.? The words of the rabbis imply that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. We have stated there70Mishnah Temurah 6:4, dealing with wages of prostitution which may not be used for Temple dedications (Deut. 23:19). The reference is to the sentence following the quote, “if he (the customer) gave her (the prostitute) sancta, they are permitted (as sacrifice)” since as Heaven’s property they never became the prostitute’s.: “If he gave her monies, they are permitted; wines, oils, and fine flour, or anything of whose kind one offers on the altar, are forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he lets him71This must be “her”. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that a sacrifice in the hands of a prostitute is barred from the Temple, but if the prostitute is paid by a subscription to his Pesaḥ or his festival offering it is an acceptable arrangement. Temurah 30b. subscribe to his Pesaḥ and to his festival offering. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it would be forbidden as harlot’s wages72Mishnah Nedarim 4:3, detailing what A can legally do for B if A made a vow that B may not have any usufruct from him. A can pay for B’s sacrifices as long as no money comes into B’s hand, since sacrifices dedicated for B are Heaven’s, not B’s property.. Explain it if nothing was given into his hand; you should know as it was stated there73This paragraph also is in Beṣah 5:2 (צ)., “he can bring for him nests for male or female sufferers from genital discharges, nests for childbirth;” not if nothing came into his hands? Here also if nothing came into his71This must be “her”. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that a sacrifice in the hands of a prostitute is barred from the Temple, but if the prostitute is paid by a subscription to his Pesaḥ or his festival offering it is an acceptable arrangement. Temurah 30b. hands.