COMMENTARY
דף ע"ו
This דף discusses mainly ר"ש"s opinion where the thief consecrated the animal before the slaughter. The ת"ק holds he pays the double, but not the four or five. ר"ש says it depends on whether he is responsible for the animal if something happens to it, before it is brought as a sacrifice or not.
The גמרא asks why consecration is not similar to selling that he would pay four or five. The גמרא answers that a sale changes the name of the owner, whereas in the case of the consecration, it is still the offering of the consecrator even though it is in the possession of הקדש.
The גמרא does not understand ר"ש understanding that the opposite of the משנה should be true. If he is responsible he should be exempt since it is still his and does not constitute a sale! ר"ש is teaching that if one steals הקדש from the owner, he is exempt because it says וגונב מבית האיש ולא מהקדש. However, if he is responsible to replace it, it is considered גונב מבית האיש.
According to רבי שמעון, כל שחיטה שאינה ראויה אינה שחיטה. The thief slaughtered הקדש outside the Temple. רבי יוחנן according to one opinion answers he slaughtered it in the Temple for the owner, but the blood spilled. Since it became invalid it is not considered returned to the owner. According to another opinion, he slaughtered it not for the owner. It is a kosher sacrifice as long as not a קרבן פסח or a חטאת, but the owner does not get the benefit. He has to bring another. ר"ל explains that the animal was blemished and slaughtered outside the Temple.
Still the גמרא asks according to רבי יוחנן it is not the שחיטה that permits it is the blood service; according to ר"ל it is the redemption. Any blood that stands to be thrown or any animal that stands to be redeemed, is considered sprinkled or redeemed.
כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי; כל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי
