(Mishnah): If he stole and slaughtered on Yom Kipur...

Question: Why does he pay? Granted, he is not liable to die, but he is lashed, and one does not get lashes and pay!

Answer #1: The Mishnah is like R. Meir, who says that one is lashed and pays.

Question: If the Mishnah is like R. Meir, he should pay even if he slaughtered on Shabbos!

Suggestion: Perhaps R. Meir says that one is lashed and pays, but one liable to die does not pay.

Rejection (Beraisa - R. Meir): A thief pays four and five even for stealing and slaughtering on Shabbos, to idolatry, or an animal sentenced to be stoned;

Chachamim exempt.

Answer: Indeed, R. Meir says that one is lashed and pays, but one liable to die does not pay;

R. Yochanan explained that the Beraisa discusses when the thief made a Shali'ach to slaughter for him. (We do not say that our Mishnah discusses a thief who made a Shali'ach to slaughter, for if so he would be liable even on Shabbos. However, the Rif says that our Mishnah is when the thief made a Shali'ach. It seems that he had a different text.)

Question: Must the thief pay for the transgression of his Shali'ach?! (Such a Shelichus is invalid!)

Answer #1 (Rava): This is an exception, for "and he will slaughter or sell it" equates slaughter and selling. Just like he is liable for selling it, which involves another person, also for slaughtering it through another person.

Answer #2 (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "Or" includes that he is liable through (slaughter by) a Shali'ach.

Answer #3 (Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): "Tachas (in place of)" includes that he is liable through a Shali'ach.

Question (Mar Zutra): Do we ever find that Reuven would be exempt for doing something, and if his Shali'ach does it, Reuven is liable?!

Answer (Rav Ashi): If the thief would slaughter himself, really he is liable;

He need not pay because he is Chayav Misah.

Question: If the thief made a Shali'ach to slaughter for him, why do Chachamim exempt the thief?

Answer: Chachamim hold like R. Shimon, that slaughter that does not permit the meat is not considered slaughter.

Question: This explains only slaughter for idolatry or of a sentenced ox. However, slaughter on Shabbos permits the meat!

(Mishnah): If one slaughters on Shabbos or Yom Kipur, even though he is Chayav Misah, the slaughter is valid.

Answer: Our Tana holds like R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If one cooks on Shabbos, if it was b'Shogeg, he may eat it (even on Shabbos). If he was Mezid, he may not eat it (on Shabbos);

R. Yehudah says, if he was Shogeg, he may eat it after Shabbos. If he was Mezid, he may never eat it;

R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar says, if he was Shogeg, others may eat it after Shabbos. If he was Mezid, even others may never eat it.

Question: What is R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar's reason?

Answer (R. Chiya): "... Shabbos is Kodesh to you" - just like one may not eat Kodesh, also what is made on Shabbos;

Suggestion: Perhaps what is made on Shabbos is Asur b'Hana'ah (forbidden to benefit from it), just like Kodesh!

Rejection: "To you" - you may benefit from it.

Suggestion: Perhaps even what is made on Shabbos b'Shogeg is Asur b'Hana'ah!

Rejection: "Those who profane it will die" applies only to Mezid sinners.

R. Acha and Ravina argued about whether R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar forbids what is made on Shabbos mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan.

One says that he forbids mid'Oraisa, like we expounded!

The other opinion expounds "it is Kodesh", but what is made on Shabbos is not Kodesh.

According to the opinion that forbids mid'Oraisa, we answered why Chachamim exempt the thief.

Question: According to the opinion that forbids mid'Rabanan, why do Chachamim exempt him?

Answer: Indeed, they exempt him only in the other cases.

Question: Why does R. Meir obligate him for slaughter to idolatry? Once he starts slaughtering, the animal is Asur b'Hana'ah, and it no longer belongs to the original owner!

Answer (Rava): The case is, he said that he serves the idolatry only through conclusion of the slaughter.

Question: Why does R. Meir obligate for slaughter of a sentenced animal? It is Asur b'Hana'ah. It does not belong to the original owner!

Answer (Rava): The case is, Levi deposited his ox with a Shomer (Shimon). While it was with Shimon, it gored and was sentenced. Reuven slaughtered it. R. Meir holds like R. Yakov and like R. Shimon.

R. Yakov says, even if a Shomer returns an animal after it was sentenced, it is considered returned;

R. Shimon obligates one who damages something that is worth money to someone (even if it is worthless to all others. Here, the ox has value only to Shimon, who can exempt himself by returning it.)

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): If one damages a Korban with Achrayus (one must bring a replacement if that animal is not brought), he is liable.

Question (Rav Zvid of Nehardai): How can R. Yochanan say that our Mishnah (which obligates for slaughter on Yom Kipur) is only like R. Meir (who obligates lashes and money), but unlike R. Shimon?

(Reisha): R. Shimon exempts in these two cases. 2. Inference: He agrees in all other cases!

Answer (Rav Kahana): No, we may infer only that he agrees about slaughter for dogs or medicinal needs, which were also taught in the last clause.

(Mishnah): If he stole from his father and slaughtered or sold...

Question (Rava): If Reuven stole and slaughtered an ox of two partners, then he admitted to one of them (which exempts him from paying a fine to that partner), what is the law?

The Torah said "five cattle in place of the ox", not five half-cattle;

Or, one pays "five cattle", and even five half- cattle.

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): There is no payment of five half-cattle.

Question (Mishnah): If he stole from his father and slaughtered or sold, then his father died, he pays four and five.

When the father dies, he inherits part, and is exempt for his part, yet he pays four and five for the parts of his brothers!

Answer: The case is, Beis Din ruled that he is liable, and then his father died.

Inference: Had his father died before this, he would be exempt.

Question: If so, why does the Seifa (74b) exempt (from four and five) for slaughter after his father died? It should teach that even when he slaughtered in his father's life, if his father died before the trial, he is exempt!

Answer: Indeed, he is exempt then. The Tana preferred to teach about slaughtering after the father died for parallel structure.

Answer #2 (retraction - Rav Nachman): He pays five half-cattle.

Last night I answered incorrectly, for I did not investigate well enough (Rashi; Tosfos - I was fasting).