Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Nezikin · 318 sections

4.1.7
But the two first [owners] – the first owner [whose ox] was damaged and the owners, for each one of them had a quarter, each one of them pays one-quarter of his damages.
4.1.8
דינר זהב – which is twenty-five silver dinars.
4.2.1
הועד לקטנים – to calves.
4.2.2
אמרו לפני ר' יהודה – his students asked of him.
4.2.3
Forewarned for Sabbaths – because he (i.e., the animal) is idle from work and it became overbearing; alternatively, because it sees human beings in their nice Shabbat clothing, they are considered in its eyes as known but he does not recognize them.
4.2.4
But he is not forewarned on weekdays, what is the law regarding this?
4.2.5
משיחזור בו שלשה שבתות – (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4). After it (i.e., the owner of the ox) was forewarned for Sabbaths, they brought before him (i.e., the animal) oxen on three Sabbaths and it did not gore, it returned to its being innocuous, and if it returned to being innocuous and it gored, it (i.e., the owner) only pays one-half damages.
4.3.1
שור של ישראל שנגח שור של עובד כוכבים פטור – as it is written (Habbakuk 3:6): “When He stands, He makes the earth shake; When He glances, He makes nations tremble.” He saw the seven commandments that were commanded to the Sons of Noah. Since they did not fulfill them, He (i.e., God) stood and He released their money to Israel, and it states (Deuteronomy 33:2): “He appeared from Mount Paran [and approached from Ribeboth-kodesh},” He (i.e., God) revealed the money of the idolaters and permitted it [to the Jewish people]. “From Mount Paran”: from the time that he went around from one to the other offering the idolaters the Torah and they did not accept it.
4.4.1
ושל חרש שוטה וקטן שנגח שור של פקח פטור – for we don’t appoint an administrator/guardian for an innocuous ox to collect [damages] from his estate for they are movables, and we stated in the first chapter (Tractate Bava Kamma 14b) an equivalent amount of money teaches that the Jewish court does not need anything other than property from which debts may eventually be collected and we establish this for orphans.
4.4.2
מעמידין להן אפוטרופוסים וכו' – if they (i.e., oxen) are known to be gorers, we appoint for them a guardian/administrator and not to pay one-half damage other than for forewarned oxen, for if it gores again, they pay from the most valuable property and they collect the damages from the land of orphans.
4.4.3
חוזר לתמותו – for he (i.e., Rabbi Meir) holds that if it (i.e., the animal) left the domain of his masters an entered into the domain of other masters, he returns to his [former status] of innocuousness, for a different domain changes the law of its being “forewarned.”
4.4.4
שור האיצטדין – that is designated for goring and they (i.e., the oxen) are instructed in this.
4.5.1
מועד משלם כופר – and even though that in the first that he (i.e., the ox) gored, we kill it, we find him [now] to be forewarned, as in the example of one that killed three idolaters; alternatively, that it killed three Israelites, it is considered “torn” (as by another animal), for something that is “torn”, we don’t kill it as a man put to death is considered as dead; alternatively, someone who is [sentenced to be] killed and flees to the lake after they testified against him.
4.5.2
וכן בבן וכן בבת – small male child and small female child, he is liable for stoning and ransom like for adults.
4.6.1
שור שהיה מתחכך בכותל וכו' – is exempt from the death penalty, but if if was forewarned, as in the case that it was forewarned to rub itself against walls and to knock them over on humans, and it rubbed itself against the wall for its pleasure and it fell on a human being and he died, the ox is exempt from the death penalty but the owners pay the ransom. The ox is exempt from the death penalty, as it is written (Exodus 21:29): “[If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and is owner, though warned, has failed to guard it, and it kills a man or a woman -] the ox shall be stoned, and its owner, too, shall be put to death.” As it is with the death of the owners, so too with the death of the ox. Just as the owners are not liable if they killed a person, until they killed him with intent, so too, the ox is not liable until it kills with intent. And the owners pay ransom, as it is written (Exodus 21:30): “If ransom is laid upon him, [he must pay whatever is laid upon him to redeem his life],” for the Torah could have stated
4.7.1
ושור היתומים – that lack an administrator/guardian.
4.7.2
ושור האפוטרופוס – it is the ox of orphans, but it is upon the guardian/administrator to guard it.
4.7.3
הרי אלו חייבין – for seven “oxen” are written in the portion of goring a person (i.e., Exodus 21;28-30), one for itself and [the other] six for these six oxen.
4.7.4
שור הקדש שור הגר שמת ואין לו יורשים. פטורים מן שמיתה – even if it gored and afterwards was dedicated to the Temple; it gored and afterwards the proselyte died, Rabbi Yehuda would declare it exempt [from the death penalty – as they have no owners). But thee Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
4.8.1
ואם שחטו אסור – [if he slaughtered it, he is prohibited from] eating it, as it is written (Exodus 21:28): “The ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, [but the owner of the ox is not to be punished].”From the plain meaning of the verse, it implies, as it is stated, “the ox shall be stoned” – don’t I know that it is considered as carrion and carrion is forbidden to be eaten? What then is to be learned here for the verse to say “and its flesh shall not be eaten”- but rather to say to you, that if he advanced to kill it after judgement had been passed upon it, it is forbidden.
4.8.2
הקדישו בעליו מוקדש – and we learn from this that if he derived benefit from it, he has committed religious sacrilege.
4.9.1
ונעל בפניו כראוי – [locked it up before him] with a door that can withstand an ordinary wind, and that is identical with a lesser guarding.
4.9.2
ומועד פטור – from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning was given to him, but the side of that it should die stands in his place, and he (i.e., the owner) pays half-damages like an innocuous ox, as it is written (Exodus 21:29): “[and its owner, though warned,] has failed to guard it,” regarding a forewarned ox. But if he had guarded it/watched it a little bit, he is exempt from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning to him.
4.9.3
רבי אליעזר אומר – there is no guarding for a forewarned ox other than a knife,
4.9.4
עד שישחטנו – until he slaughters it. But there three disputes in this matter. For Rabbi Meir, with lesser guarding, he is liable and with more prominent [guarding], he is exempt. For Rabbi Yehuda, with lesser guarding, he is also exempt from the side of the law concerning damages payable after warning was given to him. But he is liable on the side of “it shall die” that is in it, until he guards him with a more prominent level of guarding. And to Rabbi Eliezer, even with a more prominent guarding, he is also liable. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda. But however, it is ab initio, a Mitzvah to slaughter the forewarned ox in order to remove the damages.
5.1.1
שור שנגח את הפרה – who was pregnant.
5.1.2
ונמצא עוברת בצדה – that died.
5.1.3
ואין ידוע אם עד שלא נגח ילדה – and did not die because of the goring.
5.1.4
אם משנגחה – and because of the goring aborted the fetus.
5.1.5
ורביע נזק – for an innocuous ox is liable for half damages and this offspring lies in doubt and we divide it. And our Mishnah is according to Sumachos who stated that money that is lies in doubt, we divide the money. But the Sages state that this is a great principle in law (see, for example, Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11 above): “He who seeks reparation from his fellow must produce evidence (i.e., upon him is the burden of proof).” But the Halakha is according to the Sages. And even if the [owner of the] animal who suffered damages asserts a certainty (i.e., literally, “sure”) and the [owner of the] animal who caused the damages says “perhaps” (i.e., a possibility), “he who seeks reparation form his fellow must produce evidence.”
5.1.6
וכן פרה שנגחה את השור וכו'- if the cow is found, it is according to the innocuous [animal whose owner] pays one-half damages from his estate, but if the cow is not found, he pays one-firth damages from the offspring, for if he had known that prior to [the cow] giving birth it had gored, he would pay all of the half-damages from the offspring, for she was pregnant and had gored and her fetus was gored, but if it was after she gave birth that she gored, he would not pay from the offspring anything, for the offspring did not gore. But the [owner of the] innocuous animal pays other than from his estate. But now that there is a doubt, they divide it and from the one-half damages that he has to pay, he pays one quarter damages from the offspring.
5.2.1
ואם הוזקה בהם בעל הפירות חייב – and these words refer to when the animal slips and stumbles/falls through them. But if she (i.e., the animal) ate from them until she died , the owner of the produce is exempt [from indemnity] because she should not have eaten them.
5.3.1
היה אביו או בנו – of the owner of the house were in it (i.e., the cistern) and the same law applies for the rest of the people, but [the Mishnah] took a usual incident.
5.3.2
משלם את הכופר – as for example, the [owner of the] animal had been forewarned to cause himself to fall upon on people in cisterns and currently saw herbs in the pit and caused itself to fall into the cistern to eat the herbs and killed a person, that the [owner of the] ox is exempt from the death penalty, for it killed without intention. But the owners [of the ox] pay the ransom, for it includes the ransom even if the animal killed without intention, as we have stated above.
5.3.3
רבי אומר וכו' – And the Halakha is according to Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi]. Therefore, if [the owner of] the animal led his ox [into the courtyard] with the permission of the owner of house, in an undefined manner, and he didn’t accept upon himself to guard [the animal], the owner of the house is exempt, for he did not accept upon himself watching/proper care. And the one who brings it (i.e., the animal) in is also exempt [from liability] because he brought it (i.e., the animal) in with permission.
5.4.1
שור שהיה מתכוון לחבירו וכו' – since our Mishnah had to teach the “concluding” (actually, the next phrase) part [of the Mishnah] that a person who intended [to strike] his fellow, the first part [of the Mishnah] teaches also regarding an ox that intends [to gore] its fellow [ox], for even if it had intended [to gore] a woman , the [owner of the] ox is exempt from the payment [for the value of] the offspring, for he is not liable for the payment [for the value of] offspring other than of a human being alone.
5.4.2
א"כ משהאשה יולדת משבחת – if so, that this is what we assess just as you said, it is found that he doesn’t give you anything for from when the woman gives birth, her worth is enhanced for her monetary value is less to be sold prior to her giving birth when she is in danger of dying in the pain of childbirth.
5.4.3
היתה שפחה ונשתחררה – meaning to say, when she was freed, she was married to a convert or to a manumitted slave or a female convert is married to one of them , and the husband (who was a freed slave or a convert) passes away, [the owner of the one who caused the damages] is exempt, for the individual who takes possession of the property of the convert who died and he has no heirs has merited, and this comes prior to acquiring what is in his hands. And the same law applies also to an Israelite woman who married a convert, and the convert died, he is exempt, for the value of the offspring goes to the husband, but because an undefined freed woman slave or a female convert are married to a male convert or to a freed slave, for this reason, [the Mishnah] took the language of a maidservant and a female convert.
5.5.1
ברשות היחיד ופתו לרשות היחיד אחרת – even though there is not side of a public domain here, he is liable, and only as long as he had made his domain ownerless where the mouth of the cistern is within it.
5.5.2
אחד החופר בור – it is made round.
5.5.3
שיח – long and narrow [trench].
5.5.4
מערה – square and covered temporarily but it has an opening.
5.5.5
חריצין – wide and squared like a cavern, but they are not its source.
5.5.6
נעיצין – short from the bottom and wide from the top.
5.5.7
מה בור שיש בו כדי להמית י' טפחים – for an undefined cistern is ten handbreadths high.
5.6.1
השני חייב – when he (i.e., the first of the partners passed to him while he was walking the cover to cover it and the second one didn’t cover it.
5.6.2
כסתו כראוי ונפל לתוכה – such as the case of where the cover became worm-eaten/decayed.
5.6.3
נפל לפניו מקול הכרייה חייב – he was digging in the pit and the ox heard the sound of a hammer and was frightened and fell into the pit and died, he [the owner of the pit] is liable and even though that since it was because of indirect effect of the sound of the digging that it fell, we could say that the liability of the pit goes away from it and throws [instead] on the negligence regarding the sound of the digging but this is a mere indirect cause and he is exempt. Nevertheless, he is liable since the damage was found inside the pit.
5.6.4
לאחריו מקול הכרייה פטור – if the ox stumbled/fell from the sound of the digging on the edge of the pit and fell backwards outside of the pit and died, he (i.e., the owner of the pit) is exempt [from liability], for the damage was not found in the pit and the sound of the digging was a mere indirect cause and he is exempt.
5.6.5
ונשתברו. ונתקרעו – with the ox’s utensil belongs the breaking of the yoke and the plough. Regarding the donkey’s utensil belongs the tearing of the package of clothing and the pack saddle/cushion that is on its back.
5.6.6
ופטור על הכלים – as it is written (Exodus 21:33): “and an ox or a donkey falls into it.” An ox, but not a human being; a donkey but not utensils.
5.6.7
An ox (I.e., its owner) who is deaf-mute, or is an imbecile or is a minor, is liable for it if it fell into the pit. But an ox (i.e., its owner) which can hear is not liable for it, for he needs to investigate/deliberate and continue.
5.7.1
אחד שור ואחד כל בהמה לנפילת הבור – as it is written (Exodus 21:34): “[The one responsible for the pit must make restitution.] He shall pay the price to the owner, [but he shall keep the dead animal],” anything that has owners.
5.7.2
ולהפרשת הר סיני – as it is written (Exodus 19:13): “[No hand shall touch him, but he shall be either stoned or shot;] beast or man he shall not live;” and wildlife is included in animals, if also to include birds.
5.7.3
לתשלומי כפל – as it is written (Exodus 22:8): “In all charges of misappropriation” – anything where there is negligence.
5.7.4
להשבת אבידה – “and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses” (Deuteronomy 22:3).
5.7.5
לפריקה – (Exodus 23:5): “and would refrain from raising it.” Even though it Is written (Exodus 23:5): “When you see the ass of your enemy [lying under its burden],” all animals are included for we derive "חמור" "חמור" – from Shabbat, as it states (Deuteronomy 5:14): “your ox, your ass, or any of your cattle.”
5.7.6
לחסימה – “You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing” (Deuteronomy 25:4). We derive "שור" "שור" through a Gezerah Shavah (i.e., analogy) from Shabbat.
5.7.7
לכלאים – the (forbidden) coupling of heterogenous animals, even though it is written (Leviticus 19:19): “You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind.” This is also wildlife and birds included, for we derive "בהמה" "בהמה from Shabbat. And the same law applies to all two kinds of cattle, wildlife and birds. But, however, regarding the legal decision of the Halakha from the Torah, he is not liable other than someone who ploughs or leads with the two species [of same kind of animal] where one is ritually impure and the other is ritually pure, similar to an ox and an ass, but the Sages stated that [it means] any two species whether they are both ritually impure or whether they are ritually pure.
5.7.8
לשבת – as it is written (Deuteronomy 5:14): “your ox, or your ass, or any of your cattle.” But wildlife is within the category of cattle and every extension of scope/amplification is to include birds.
5.7.9
שדבר הכתוב בהווה – a thing that regularly happens.
6.1.1
הכונס. פטור – for he guarded it and what could he have done?
6.1.2
הוציאוה לסטים – even though he did not actually take it out, but rather that they stood before it until she left – it is as if they removed it with their hands and they are liable.
6.2.1
הניחה בחמה – the sun hurts her and it is not sufficient for her closing properly for it is in a door where she is able to stand only in an ordinary wind.
6.2.3
נפלה לגינה – as in the case when she slipped and fell in by accident. But if her “friends” pushed her and caused her to abort [her fetus] he (i.e., the owner) pays what she damaged for she was negligent in it and he should have passed through one at a time.
6.2.4
מה שנהנית – according to her pleasure and not according to her damage.
6.2.5
שמין בית סאה באותה שדה – we do not estimate the garden bed alone because the damage causes loss when we estimate it according to its value, and the All-Merciful stated (Exodus 22:4): “[When a man lets his livestock loose] to graze in another’s land,” and we expound that it teaches that we estimate it on top of another field, but we estimate a Bet-Seah ( 2500 square cubits or 50 cubits square) in that field how much it was worth before the garden bed was eaten from how much it is worth now. But now, he does not pay all of its monetary value, for whomever purchases a Bet Seah when it is with its grain does not despise it for the loss of one garden bed for it is a small amount.
6.2.6
ר' שמעון אומר אכלה פירות גמורים – for already they ripened fully – she (i.e., the owner of the animal) pays all the damages. But where we estimate on account of a field where it had not yet fully where it had not fully ripened. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.
6.3.1
ואם הדגיש ברשות בעל השדה חייב – In the Gemara (Tractate Bava Kamma 59b), it establishes it in a valley, for everyone together are accustomed to make it in one garden bed. This is his heap of sheaves and that is the other’s heap of sheaves and they appoint a guard. And since the guard state that he will go up and make a heap of sheaves, it is as if he said: “I will go up and guard yours.” But with the rest of the people, even if he made a heap of sheaves with permission, the owner of the field is not liable until he accepts upon himself protection/guardianship.
6.4.1
בא אחר וליבה – he blew on the fire and it rose into a large flame like (Exodus 3:2): “[An angel of the LORD appeared to him] in a blazing fire” and there are those who have the reading "נבה" – from the decree (Isaiah 57:19): “heartening comforting words: [ it shall be well, Well with the far and the near – said the LORD-and I will heal them].” When a person speaks and moves his lips, and wind escapes.
6.4.3
או דרך הרבים – sixteen cubits like the banners [of the tribes] in the wilderness.
6.4.4
ר"ש אומר הכל לפי הדליקה – according to the height of the fire and the size of the barley when the large fire jumps from afar. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.
6.5.1
המדליק את הגדיש – he kindled it within his own [property] and it went and consumed that of his fellow.
6.5.2
ר' יהודה אומר ישלם כל מה שבתוכו – that Rabbi Yehuda obligates on hidden damage in the fire, for he does not have (i.e., hold) the expounded teaching on "או הקמה"/or the standing grain (see Exodus 22:5). Just as the standing grain is uncovered, even all that is uncovered.
6.5.3
וחכ"א אינו משלם אלא גדיש וכו' - they have (i.e., “hold by” this expounded teaching of "או הקמה" and exempt on all damages that are hidden in the fire, but they estimate the place of the utensils as if it is a heap of grain. And he pays the heap of grain like the measure of the body of the utensils and when we stated the end [of our Mishnah]: “And the Sages agree with Rabbi Yehuda” – when he sets fire to a large building, that he pays for all that is inside it. And it is proven in the Gemara (Tractate Bava Kamma 61b) that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagreed also with one who kindles a fire in [the property] of his fellow, as Rabbi Yehuda holds that if he lights a fire in that of his fellow, he pays for everything that is within it, and even for a money-bag (or a purse hanging from the neck). But the Rabbis hold that utensils that one ordinarily hides in a heap of sheaves such as threshing sledges (i.e., an implement with grooves and indentations) and the utensils of cattle he pays for; utensils that one customarily does not hid in a heap of sheaves, he does not pay. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
6.5.4
היה גדי כפות לו חייב – for living creatures are also included in "או הקמה"/or standing grain. And because of the case that he who has committed two offenses simultaneously, must be held answerable for the severer only, he cannot be exempted. That he is not liable for death on the slave, for since he was not tied up, he could have fled and would exempt about him from the death penalty and from payments. But if he was a slave tied up, he would be exempt even on the kid and on the heap of sheaves, but he would liable for the death penalty on the slave – for he who has committed two offenses simultaneously, must be held answerable for the severer only. But concerning the kid, it makes ono difference whether it was tied up or not tied up, for since it (i.e. the Mishnah) took the language of the slave, it took the language of the kid as well.
6.5.5
במדליק את הבירה – when he kindles within that of his fellow and it is as if he destroys with his hands, and even so, the reason because it is the manner of people to leave their utensils in their houses, but a heap of sheaves, where it is not the manner of people to leave it other than like a threshing sledge (i.e., an implement with grooves or indentations) or the instruments for cattle. Even though I will kindle with that of my fellow, he doesn’t pay, according to the Sages other than things that it is customary to hide in a heap of sheaves.
6.6.1
גץ – a spark of fire.
6.6.2
רבי יהודה אומר בנר חנוכה פטור – since he is engage in the performance of a Mitzvah. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
7.1.1
מרובה. דבר שיש בו רוח חיים ובדבר שאין בו רוח חיים – as it is written (Exodus 22:8): “[In all charges of misappropriation – pertaining to an ox, an ass,] a sheep, a garment, or any other loss, [whereof one party alleges, ‘This is it’ – the case of both parties shall come before God: he whom God declares guilty] shall pay double to the other.”
7.1.2
אין הגונב אחר הגנב – as it is written (Exodus 22:6): “and they are stolen from the man’s house,” and not “from the house of the thief.”
7.2.1
גנב על פי שנים – meaning to say that two testify against him that he stole.
7.2.2
גנב ומכר בשבת – but he slaughtered which is punishable by stoning, he who has committed two offenses simultaneously, must be held answerable for the severer only.
7.2.3
וטבח ביום הכפורים – for his wanton violation is not punishable other than through extirpation, and such as the case where they (i.e., the witnesses) didn’t warn him and they ae not whipped for we hold that all who are liable for flogging are those who act inadvertently, but are liable for payment, but those who are liable for the death penalty at the hands of the Jewish court , even inadvertently, are exempt from payment.
7.2.4
וטבח ומכר ואחר כך מת אביו – but if his father died and afterwards, he slaughtered [the animal], it (i.e., the Mishnah] taught at the conclusion that he is exempt, because he is slaughtering what is his and selling what is his, for he inherited his father.
7.2.5
בשני אלו – with an animal torn by wild beasts and with non-holy produce eaten in the Temple courtyard, for Rabbi Shimon holds that slaughter that is not worthy is not called slaughtering, but for medicinal purposes and for dogs, it is an appropriate slaughter, and if he wants he can eat from it.
7.3.1
האחרונים משלמים שלשה – for an ox, and for example, the latter witnesses were found to be scheming witnesses first ,for if the witnesses for the theft had been found to be scheming first, the testimony of the slaughter is voided , for perhaps the owners had sold it to him, and if they are refuted why do they pay?
7.3.2
בטלה עדות שניה – and he pays double because of the first testimony (i.e., that he is a thief), and they are exempt, for the witnesses do not pay money until both sets are found to be scheming witnesses.
7.3.3
בטלה כל העדות – and he is exempt and they are exempt [from payment] and even if they retracted and the latter witnesses were found to be scheming afterwards, they do not pay as their testimony was voided already and they were contradicted. Since he did not steal, he did not slaughter [in the meanwhile] they are not liable. But regarding “you were with us” that the whole body of their testimony was removed and all the more so, if the first wo witnesses were found to be scheming witnesses, the testimony of the second [set of witnesses] is voided. But at the time that they had not been found to be scheming other than one [of them], the testimony of both is voided but when both of them had been proven to be scheming witnesses, the testimony of the first set, other than paying of double indemnity.
7.4.1
על פי עד אחד – even though it is a simple mater, for one does not pay four or five times the amount (i.e., if he not only stole, but also sold the animal or slaughtered it – see Exodus 21:37) on the testimony of one witness. Sure this comes to teach us that testifying by one’s own admission is similar to testimony by one witness. Just as one witnesses, if he brings another witness after wars, they combine in public to make liable. By his own testimony also, if he brings witnesses after his admission, they make him liable, for admitting to a fine and afterwards witnesses came, he is liable. And these words [concern] someone who says: “ I didn’t steal,” and witnesses came and said that he stole and afterwards he retracted and said: “I slaughtered or I sold,” and witnesses came afterwards that he slaughtered or sold, he is liable, for when he says, “I slaughtered or I sold,” he does not make himself liable for anything for he knows that a person who admits to a fine is exempt. We we don’t have here an admission of nothing. But when he says: “I sole” and witnesses came [and testified} that he stole, he obligated himself to pay the principle, however, through his admission, therefore, it is a complete admission and he is exempt from double indemnity, even though afterwards witnesses came [and testified].
7.4.2
ומת אביו – and he inherited him and would not be a slaughter completely illicit.
7.4.3
גנב והקדיש – when he slaughtered it was for the Temple that he slaughtered and not for the owners.
7.4.4
ר"ש אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותם (See Tractate Megillah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6 and Tracate Kinnim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1 – both at the end of the respective Mishnayot.) Rabbi Shimon is not referring to the matter of the first Tanna/teacher, nor does he dispute him regarding someone who stole and dedicated the animal to the Temple and afterwards slaughtered and/or sold it. But we understand Rabbi Shimon teaching the Rabbis in another place and saying that a person who seals something dedicated to the Temple from the house of its owners is exempt, as it is written (Exodus 22:6): “if they are stolen from the man’s house” and not “from the house of something dedicated to the Temple.” And on this, Rabbi Shimon refers and states “that a person if he stole consecrated animals for which he [who had consecrated them] is responsible is liable,” for we call him, “if they are stolen from the man’s house”, and since the owner is responsible for them, he is liable. But when he slaughters, it the master’s that he slaughters, and in consecrated animals where he is responsible for the, Rabbi Shimon also does not obligate him for the payment of four times (for a sheep) the amount or five times (for an ox) the amount other than when he slaughtered them innocently inside for the sake of the owners, but when the blood is spilled, if those who have bodily defects slaughtered them outside, even though they had not been redeemed, he held that anything about to be redeemed is considered as fully redeemed. And it is an appropriate slaughter, but if pure people had slaughtered them outside [the Temple] it is considered an unworthy slaughtering, and we understand that according to Rabbi Shimon who said that a slaughter that is not fit is not called a slaughtering, and he is not liable for the payment of four and five times the amount either. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.
7.5.1
מכרו חוץ מאחד ממאה שבו – a thief who sold the entire ox except for a small amount of it, from the things that remain with him in the slaughter he is exempt, as it is written (Exodus 21:37): “[When a man steals an ox or a sheep,] and slaughters it or sells it “ -until he sells all of the things that remain from the slaughter, excluding if some of its shorn wool/fleece, etc. and he is not exempted from this.
7.5.2
הנוחר – tears it open from its nostrils until its heart.
7.5.3
והמעקר – uproots the windpipe and gullet is exempt, and even according to the Rabbis who state that a ritual slaughtering ha is not appropriate is called a ritual slaughtering, but this is not a ritual slaughtering at all.
7.6.1
היה מושכו ויוצא – he is exempt from the twofold restitution.
7.6.2
הגביהו – even in the domain of its owners for lifting up acquires in every place (see also, Tractate Kiddushin, Chapter 1, Mishnah 4).
7.6.3
נתנו – he stole it for a Kohen for five Selah of the Redemption of his First-Born son.
7.6.4
היה מושכו – the Kohen or the creditor or the guard and it died in the domain of the owners.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org/ Licence: CC-BY. Source.