말라기 1:13의 탈무드

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.