This דף begins with the conclusion of דף ע"ו ע"ב. The גמרא yesterday established according to ר"ש, the thief is liable to four and five because the slaughter is legal based on the ruleכל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי כל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי. The גמרא proves both of these rules. In respect to sprinkling, the גמרא proves it from the law of נותר. Sacrificial meat left beyond its allotted time becomes contaminated as long as there was enough time to sprinkle the blood of the קרבן before sunset even if the sprinkling was not actually done.
The law of redemption is learned from the פרה אדומה. It can be redeemed even after its slaughter if a nicer one is found even if it did not become disqualified. Therefore at that time it becomes susceptible to טומאת אוכלין even if it is not actually redeemed.
The גמרא explained two opinions how ר"ש holds one pays four or five as a thief for an animal consecrated that he is responsible to replace. He should not be liable because slaughtering outside the Temple disqualifies its use making it an illegal slaughter. According to רבי יוחנן he slaughtered it unblemished in the Temple. ריש לקיש explains it as blemished and he slaughtered it outside the temple.
The argument is based on the verse. ריש לקיש understands the juxtaposition of טביחה ומכירה to teach only an animal that can be sold can be liable for slaughtering. Therefore he explains the case of הקדש as שוחט בעלי מומין בחוץ whereas רבי יוחנן holds they are not dependent on one another. Therefore he explains the case of הקדש according to רבי שמעון as even שחיטת תמימים בפנים that cannot be sold. Their explanation impacts on slaughtering a טריפה as well. According to רי יוחנן one is liable to four and five even though it is a שחיטה שאינה ראויה, it can be sold; according to ר"ל since he cannot be liable for slaughtering, he cannot be liable for selling.
