Bava Kamma

nevertheless, since the thief was prepared to transfer the possession [of the stolen objects] to him by this procedure it should be considered a sale. IF HE STEALS AND SLAUGHTERS ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT etc. I would ask, why [should this be so]? It is true that no capital punishment is attached here,  but there will at least be the punishment of lashes, and is it not an established ruling  that no man who is lashed can be ordered to pay?  — It may, however, be said that the Mishnah is in accordance with R. Meir who said  that a person who is lashed may also be ordered to pay.  But if in accordance with R. Meir, why should there be no liability even for slaughtering on the Sabbath?  And should you affirm that while he holds that one may be lashed and be ordered to pay, he  does not hold that one may be condemned to death and also ordered to pay. [I would ask,] does he really not [maintain this second ruling]? Was it not taught:  'If he steals and slaughters on the Sabbath or if he steals and slaughters to serve idols,  or if he steals an ox condemned to be stoned  and slaughters it, he has to make four-fold or five-fold payment according to R. Meir,  but the Rabbis rule that there is exemption'? — I might reply that this ruling applies to all cases save this, for it was stated with reference to it that R. Jacob stated that R. Johanan said, or as others say, that R. Jeremiah stated on behalf of R. Simeon b. Lakish that R. Ile'a and the whole company  said in the name of R. Johanan that the slaughter [in that case] was carried out by another person [acting on behalf of the thief].  But how could the one  commit an offence  and the other  be liable to a fine?  — Raba replied: This offence here is different, as Scripture says: And slaughter it or sell it:  just as selling [becomes complete] through the medium of another person,  so also slaughter may be effected by another person. The School of R. Ishmael taught: [The term] 'or'  [inserted between 'slaughter' and 'selling' was meant] to include the case of an agent.  The School of Hezekiah taught: The term 'instead'  [was intended] to include the case of an agent. Mar Zutra demurred to this. Is there [he said] any action for which a man is not liable if done by himself but for which he is liable if done by his agent? — R. Ashi said to him: In that case  it was not because he should not be subject to liability, but because he ought to be subject to a penalty  severer than that. But if the slaughter was carried out by another one, what is the reason of the Rabbis who ruled that there was exemption? — We might say that the Sages [referred to] were R. Simeon who stated that a slaughter through which the animal would not ritually become fit for food could not be called slaughter [in the eyes of the law].  But I would say, I grant you this in regard to serving idols and an ox condemned to be stoned, as [through the slaughter] the animal will in these cases not become fit for food,  but in the case of the Sabbath, does not the slaughter render the animal fit for food? For did we not learn that if a man slaughters on the Sabbath or on the Day of Atonement, though he is liable for a capital offence,  his slaughter is ritually valid?  — It may, however, be said that he  concurred with R. Johanan ha-Sandalar, as we have learned, If a man cooks [a dish] on the Sabbath, if inadvertently, [even] he himself  may partake of it,  but if deliberately, he should not partake of it  [on that day]. So R. Meir. R. Judah says: If inadvertently, he may eat it only after the expiration of the Sabbath,  whereas if deliberately he should never partake of it.  R. Johanan ha-Sandalar says: If inadvertently, the dish may be partaken of after the expiration of the Sabbath, only by other people, but not by himself, whereas if deliberately, it should never be partaken of either by him or by others.  What was the reason of R. Johanan ha-Sandalar? — R. Hiyya expounded at the entrance of the house of the prince:  Scripture says: Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you.  Just as holy food is forbidden to be eaten,  so also what is unlawfully prepared on the Sabbath is forbidden to be partaken of. But, [you might argue,] just as holy food is forbidden for any use,  so should whatever is [unlawfully] prepared on the Sabbath also be forbidden for any use.  It is therefore stated further: 'Unto you',  implying that it still remains yours for general use.  It might [moreover] be thought that the prohibition extends even where prepared inadvertently, it is therefore stated: Everyone that profaneth it shall surely be put to death,  [as much as to say], I speak only of the case when it is done deliberately, but not when done inadvertently. R. Aha and R. Rabina differ in this matter. One said that whatever is [unlawfully] prepared on the Sabbath is forbidden on Scriptural authority whereas the other [Rabbi] said that whatever is [unlawfully] prepared on the Sabbath is forbidden on Rabbinic authority. He who said that it was on Scriptural authority bases his view on the exposition just stated, whereas he who said that it was on Rabbinic authority holds that when Scripture says, 'It is holy', it means that it itself  is holy, but that which is [unlawfully] prepared on it is not holy. Now I grant you that according to the view that the prohibition is based on Scriptural authority, the Rabbis because