Rujukan Talmud untuk Maleakhi 1:13: Jerusalem Talmud Gittin & Sukkah

Ulla bar Ismael: By law, it should not atone even if it was [not] known in public¹⁶⁹Babli 55a. There, Ulla explains that the sacrifice is not acceptable once the original owners have given up hope of recovery, since while abandonment makes a thing ownerless (Chapter 4, Note 88), ownership requires a conscious act of acquisition by the person in actual possession... Why did they say that it atones? Not to let the altar be deserted¹⁴⁵It is a sinful act to use any stolen or robbed animal as a sacrifice. If such a sacrifice would be declared invalid, no Cohen would volunteer to serve in the Temple for fear of unwittingly committing the sin of eating from an invalid sacrifice. Therefore, a sacrifice can be rejected only if it is known that it was obtained by illegal means.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁷⁰In the Babli this is attributed to Rav Jehudah and it is explained that abandonment by the former owner makes the object the property of the person in possession. said, by law, it should atone even if it was known in public. Why did they say that it does not atone? Not to let the altar accept robberies. How many are “public”? Rebbi Gorion in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Three people. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “You brought robbed goods with the lame and the sick.¹⁷¹Mal. 1:13.” Since lame and sick are obvious, so everything must be obvious.

For the reason that it is for him a commandment that is fulfilled through a transgression. As it says, "And you have brought the stolen [animal], the lame [animal], and the ill [animal as offerings] (Malachi 1:13)." [Therefore, we see] a stolen offering is similar to a lame one. Just like a lame animal has no way to fix it, so too a stolen animal has no way to fix it [to render it permissible]. It does not matter whether it is before the owner despaired of finding the animal, or after he despaired.