data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8c6d8/8c6d8df3bbeef601b2736c4fb888ca62f95baf06" alt=""
Why not? Granted, when he slaughters it, it's the Temple's property, not the original owner.
But when he consecrates it, let this be equivalent to selling a stolen animal to the Temple – thus making him liable for a fourfold or fivefold payment? No! Consecration differs from a sale: after consecration, the animal is still called "A sacrifice of so-and-so," not a "sacrifice of the Temple."
Art: David Garrick and his Wife by his Temple to Shakespeare at Hampton by Johann Zoffany
No comments:
Post a Comment