Study Bava Kamma folio 76B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And Reish Lakish says yet another explanation as to why the principal has not been returned to the owner: This is referring to a case where the thief slaughters blemished animals outside the Temple. A blemished animal may be slaughtered outside the Temple and its meat may be eaten, provided that it
R' Elazar wondered about this discussion: According to the explanations attributed to R' Yoḥanan, which are based on the assumption that this is referring to slaughtering a sacrificial animal inside the Temple, is it the slaughtering of the animal that renders it permitted for consumption? But isn’
R' Elazar continues: And according to the explanation of Reish Lakish, who states that the case is referring to the slaughter of a consecrated blemished animal outside the Temple, is it the slaughtering of the animal that renders it permitted for consumption? But isn’t it the redemption of the anim
The Talmud comments: Apparently, this following statement of R' Shimon escaped R' Elazar, who asked these questions. R' Shimon holds that any blood that is ready to be sprinkled is considered as though it had already been sprinkled, and likewise, any animal that is ready to be redeemed is considered
The Talmud proves that R' Shimon maintains these two opinions. R' Shimon holds that any blood that is ready to be sprinkled is considered as though it had already been sprinkled, as it is taught in a baraita that R' Shimon says: There are cases involving leftover sacrificial meat after the time allo