Source: http://halakhah.com/babakamma/babakamma_72.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:19:45+00:00

Document:
Stating exemption, since 'five oxen' imply also 'five halves' of oxen why then should he not pay the part due to his coheirs?
As the slaughter took place while the father was still alive.
For at the time of the slaughter the thief was already a joint owner of the animal.
In the precincts of the Temple.
For surely after it becomes forbidden for any use, there would be no practical use in retaining ownership.
Before the animal became forbidden for any use.
Of the proof suggested by R. Habibi.
That, since the animal became forbidden for any use at the commencement of the slaughter, there should be no liability to pay the fine.
So that the animal became forbidden for any use only at the completion of the slaughter, for which the thief has to pay the fine.
V. p. 413, n. 4.
GEMARA. It has been stated:12 If a witness has been proved a zomem, Abaye says that he becomes disqualified retrospectively [from the time when he gave his evidence in court],13 whereas Raba says that he is disqualified only for the future [from the time when he is proved zomem]. Abaye makes the disqualification retrospective on the ground that the witness has been shown to have been wicked at the time when he gave evidence, and the Torah says: Do not accept the wicked as a witness.14 Raba, on the other hand, holds that the disqualification begins only from the moment when his deceit is proved, because the whole procedure of proving witnesses zomemim is anomalous. For this is a case of two witnesses against two; why then accept the evidence of the one pair rather than that of the other? At least let it take effect only from the time when the anomalous procedure is employed.
V. p. 413, n. 8.
V. p. 413, n. 9.
V. p. 413, n. 10.
Lit., 'plotters', 'schemers' (plural of Zomem), i.e., witnesses proved by the subsequent evidence of two witnesses to have been absent at the time of the alleged offence; their punishment is by the law of retaliation. V. Deut. XIX, 18-19 and Mak. I, 2-4.
I.e., five times the value of the alleged theft. V. Ex. XXI, 37.
For which cf. supra pp. 403-5.
Which he would have to pay through them for the alleged theft.
I.e., the difference between the 'double' and the 'fivefold' payment intended by them to have been inflicted on the accused.
As the evidence regarding the theft still holds good.
For the fine of fivefold includes the double payment for the theft so that when the latter could not be established as in the case here no fine could be imposed for the slaughter or sale.
Any evidence he gave in the intervening period becomes invalidated.
An interpretation of Ex. XXIII, 1.

References: V. 

V. 

V. 

V. 
 V. 
 V.