Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 7:4 ירושלמי בבא קמא ז׳:ד׳

MISHNAH: A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses, who slaughtered or sold by the testimony of a single witness or his own confession, pays double restitution but does not have to pay quadruple or quintuple⁴⁴Since the testimony of a single witness is not admissible in a criminal procedure, he cannot be convicted of slaughtering or selling and does not have to pay the fine. Similarly, since a person is always related to himself and relatives are barred from being witnesses in criminal proceedings, his confession is inadmissible and he never pays a fine on his own admission. In civil procedure one has to pay on the basis of his admission..
One who stole and slaughtered on the Sabbath⁵²Stealing animals on the Sabbath is forbidden as on weekdays and incurs the same penalty. But slaughtering on the Sabbath is a capital crime which cannot be punished by an additional fine (cf. Note 22 and Ketubot 3:1, Terumot 7:1)., or stole and slaughtered for idolatry⁵³Pagan worship is a capital crime; a fine can be imposed for the theft but not for the slaughter., or stole from his father and after his father’s death slaughtered or sold⁵⁴Since he is a co-heir, he slaughtered or sold what is partially his own and cannot be sanctioned for the act., or stole, dedicated it⁵⁵As a sacrifice in the Temple. Temple property is not under the rules of civil law; illicit use is subject to the rules of Lev. 5:14–16, imposing a payment of 125% of the value taken., and afterwards slaughtered or sold, pays double restistution but not quadruple or quintuple. Rebbi Simeon says, for sancta for which he is liable by a warranty⁵⁶If the thief made a vow in which he obligated himself for a certain sacrifice and then dedicated the stolen animal for that sacrifice, the animal still was in his possession since if it died or was lost he would be required to provide a replacement. But if he simplydedicated the stolen animal as a sacrifice, implying that he would not be obligated to provide a replacement if it were lost or died, the animal would become Heaven’s possession and its slaughter or sale would not trigger the obligation of quadruple or quintuple restitution. he has to pay quadruple or quintuple, but if there is no warranty, he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “One who stole and slaughtered on the Sabbath,” etc. ²⁹He holds that slaughter which does not prepare meat for human consumption technically is called “killing” rather than “slaughter” and is not covered by the rule of Ex. 21:37. Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is intentional error about fat but in error about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Who stated it⁵⁷The statement in the Mishnah that the thief does not pay multiple restitution for slaughter or sale after dedication.? [Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated]⁵⁸Added from E supported by a Genizah fragment.: “Rebbi Simeon says, for sancta for which he is liable by a warranty he has to pay quadruple or quintuple⁵⁹Since these are not Heaven’s property., but if there is no warranty, he is not liable.”⁶⁰The argument is rejected in the Babli which holds that R. Simeon does not at all address the problem of the Mishnah (76a–78a).

Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Matton asked: If somebody redeems a string of dry figs from the Temple treasurer, does it become ṭevel for tithes⁶²Produce becomes obligated for tithes only at the very end of harvest. A profane sale triggers the obligation of tithes for previously exempt produce (Ma‘serot 4:1, Note 7.)? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Did we not state⁶³In the Mishnah. about him who “stole, dedicated it, and afterwards slaughtered or sold”? As you say there, the one who dedicates is not like a seller⁶⁴If dedication were the equivalent of a sale, the thief who dedicated the stolen animal should immediately be obligated for quadruple or quintuple restitution by the act of dedication alone. Since dedication is not a sale, redemption cannot be a buy., so one who redeems is not like a buyer. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implies that selling is like redeeming. They said, he has the choice of redeeming and eating it⁶⁵R. Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is rejected: Dedication is not a sale because the person dedicating retains the right of first refusal (Ma’serot 1:1 Note 23). R. Justus’s problem is not resolved..

Rebbi Eleazar said: If they saw him slaughtering a black ox in a forest, it is prima facie evidence that it was stolen⁶⁶The animal was slaughtered at a place where it was not easily seen and where usually cattle are not found and slaughter does not happen. Then the court can accept testimony about the slaughter to be used later if the police can find witnesses to the theft.. Could you not assume that it was lying down⁶⁷Since cattle periodically lie down to ruminate, could the ox not have chosen a shady place for his convenience?? Explain it if they saw him dragging it⁶⁸Viz., the animal into the forest. The Babli, 69b, points out that it is necessary for the thief to be seen dragging the animal to establish the theft. A person who slaughters a ruminating ox without moving the animal first did not steal before slaughtering and can be sued only for simple restitution..

There is a rule about the slaughterer which does not apply to the seller and to the seller which does not apply to the slaughterer, for he who slaughters on the Sabbath is criminally liable but he who sells on the Sabbath cannot be prosecuted⁶⁹The seller violates the positive commandment to rest on the Sabbath, but he did not violate any prohibition. Criminal prosecution is possible only for violation of a prohibition. The Mishnah is correct in only mentioning slaughter but not sale in connection with the Sabbath.. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said, we find a case of sale for which one is criminally liable on the Sabbath. Think of it, if somebody said to another: tear something off from this ground⁷⁰Which is an act of harvesting, forbidden in Ex. 34:21. to acquire, did he not acquire? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tearing makes him liable, not the sale⁷¹The Babli disagrees, 70b, and holds that no quadruple or quintuple restitution is due if the sale is simultaneous with and conditioned on a prohibited action..