Commentary for Bava Kamma 151:2
גנב והקדיש ואחר כך טבח ומכר כו': אמרי בשלמא אטביחה לא מחייב דכי קא טבח דהקדש קא טבח ולא דמריה קא טבח
IF HE STOLE IT AND CONSECRATED IT [TO THE TEMPLE] AND AFTERWARDS SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT, HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT BUT WOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS. I would here Say: I grant you that he should not be liable for the slaughter, as when he slaughtered it, it was a consecrated animal which he slaughtered and he did not slaughter that which belonged to the owner. But why should he not be made liable for the very act of consecration?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As if he would have sold it. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 151:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.