Study Temurah folio 3A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
for the purpose of exempting the produce of another, the benefit of discretion as to which priest or Levite will receive it is his. Apparently, the halakhot of substitution follow the one achieving atonement.
Rami bar Ḥama could say to this: There, in R' Yoḥanan’s statement, the offering comes on behalf of the Jew who consecrated it. Due to that reason, we follow the one atoning, and during both the initial consecration of the offering and its ultimate sacrifice the animal is in the possession of a Jew,
§ The Master said in the baraita cited on the previous amud: With regard to animals consecrated by non-Jews, one may not derive benefit ab initio, but if one benefited from them after the fact, he is not liable for misusing consecrated property. The Talmud explains: The halakha that one may not ben
What is the reason that one is not liable for misuse? As it is written with regard to misuse of consecrated property: “If anyone commit a trespass, and sin through error, in the holy items of YHWH” (Leviticus 5:15). And we derive a verbal analogy from the use of the word “sin” in this verse and the
The baraita continues: And if one consumes them, i.e., animals consecrated by non-Jews, one is not liable for committing a transgression, with regard to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or consuming offerings while ritually impure. The source for this is a verse, as it is written with regard to