Commentary for Bava Kamma 151:20

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן בשוחט תמימים בפנים שלא לשם בעלים

he stated on behalf of R. Johanan [that the liability would arise] if the thief slaughtered the sacrifices while unblemished within the precincts of the Temple in the name of the owner. But has not the principal thus been restored to the owner [since the sacrifice produced atonement for him]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should liability for the fine be attached? ');">¹⁷</span> — Said R. Isaac b. Abin: We presume that the blood was poured out [and thus not sprinkled upon the altar, so that no atonement was effected for the owner].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Zeb. 25a. ');">¹⁸</span> When Rabin arrived<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">¹⁶</span> he said on behalf of R. Johanan that the liability would only be where he slaughtered the sacrifices while unblemished within the precincts of the Temple but not in the name of the owner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the owner derives no benefit, as the sacrifice is not credited to him though otherwise it is perfectly valid; cf. Zeb. I, 1. ');">¹⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 151:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.