Bava Kamma 066

13:
If someone steals [an ox or a sheep] and slaughters it and it is found to be 'terefah'… he must make four-fold or five-fold repayment. We must presume that the reason why this is included in our list is because the thief might claim that since the animal was found – after slaughter – to be unfit for Jewish consumption that he had not really deprived the original owner of any meaningful amount.

14:
The Hebrew term terefah is derived from a verse in the Torah [Exodus 22:30]

Clearly the original intention of the verse is to prohibit for Jewish consumption meat from an animal (whose meat would otherwise have been permitted) that was killed by another animal. However, rabbinic tradition applied this term to indicate other factors which may also invalidate meat from a carcass.

1. If the animal was attacked by another and the injury inflicted must be considered mortal: i.e. the animal could not reasonably be expected to survive for one year.
2. If the animal was not slaughtered according to the rules and regulations of Jewish ritual slaughter [shechitah]. Such slaughtering could include almost anything from roadkill to an invalid sheḥitah.
3. If upon examination of the carcass after ritual slaughter it was found that the animal suffered from an organic defect or a disease.
4. These considerations apply not only to animals in the strict sense of the term but also to fowl. (They have never been applied to fish or insects.)

15:
If someone steals [an ox or a sheep] and slaughters … secular meat in the Priestly Court he must make four-fold and five-fold repayment. Secular meat refers to meat that is intended for consumption by Jews in everyday life. The term serves to distinguish between secular meat and the meat of animals sacrificed in the Bet Mikdash.

16:
Animals brought to the Bet Mikdash for slaughter might be offered as a sacrifice, or, at the very least, the lifeblood of the slaughtered animal was sprinkled at the base of the main altar in the Priests' Court of the Bet Mikdash. (Those interested will find details in our study of Tractate Tamid.) In some cases (such as the paschal lamb) the carcass was returned to its owners for celebratory consumption; in other cases part of it was returned to the owners and part was offered on the altar; in many cases the priests were entitled also to a share of the meat.

17:
The carcass of an animal that was slaughtered ritually in the Bet Mikdash could not be used thereafter for secular consumption. Therefore, the thief could claim that the owner could not claim his loss. Our mishnah stipulates that in such a case too repayment must be made.

18:
Rabbi Shim'on excuses him from these [last] two. Rabbi Shim'on ben-Yoḥai would absolve the thief from having to make restitution since in both these cases – meat found to be treif and meat from slaughter in the Bet Mikdash – the thief actually derives no benefit from his theft. However, the rest of the sages do not accept this reasoning.

19:
At last we have completed our study of this mishnah and may, God willing, proceed in our next shiur to mishnah 3.

Ronen Lautman asks:

How was the value of a stolen ox or sheep valued in the following circumstances? 1. The animal is not available; 2. the claims of the owner and the thief are contradictory; 3. no reliable witnesses are available.

I respond:

Ronen's questions are always thoughtful!

The last item in Ronen's question is the easiest to deal with: if there are no witnesses the thief has no case to answer. The owner must substantiate his claim of theft by the acceptable evidence of two witnesses.

In both the other cases the answer is also relatively simple: it is the task of the court, the Bet Din, to assess the value of the animal on the basis of the testimony offered. It is, of course, possible that the court might require an expert witness to establish the market value of the animal, but such a witness would not be hard to find from the local market.