Temurah 3A

על של חבירו ⁠— טובת הנאה שלו!

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.

אמר ליה: התם הוא דקאתי מכח ישראל, משום הכי אזלינן בתר מתכפר, והוה ליה תחילתו וסופו ביד ישראל. אבל הכא, הכי קא מיבעיא ליה: מי בעינן מתחילה ועד סוף דתיקו ברשות מאן דעביד תמורה? תיקו.

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, who is able to effect substitution. But here, where a non-Jew consecrated the animal, this is how he raises the dilemma: Do we require that from the initial consecration of the offering until the ultimate act of sacrifice it must be in the possession of one who is able to effect substitution or not? The Talmud concludes: The dilemma should stand [teiku] unresolved.

אמר מר: מוקדשי גוים לא נהנין ולא מועלין. לא נהנין ⁠— מדרבנן, ולא מועלין ⁠— מדאורייתא.

§ 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 benefit from them ab initio is by rabbinic law. And that halakha that if one benefited from them after the fact he is not liable for misusing consecrated property is by Torah law.

מאי טעמא? דכתיב: ״נפש כי תמעל מעל וחטאה בשגגה״, וילפינן ״חטא״ ״חטא״ מתרומה, ובתרומה כתיב: ״בני ישראל״, ולא גוים.

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 word “sin” used in the context of teruma: “They should therefore keep My charge, lest they bear sin for it” (Leviticus 22:9). And with regard to teruma it is written explicitly: “Even of all the hallowed items of the children of Israel” (Numbers 18:8), from which one can infer: But not of non-Jews. The halakhot of misuse as well, therefore, do not apply to animals consecrated by non-Jews.