Bava Kamma 76B

וריש לקיש אמר: בשוחט בעלי מומין בחוץ.

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 is redeemed with money.

תהי בה רבי אלעזר: לרבי יוחנן ⁠– שחיטה מתרת?! והלא זריקה מתרת!

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’t it the sprinkling of the blood that renders it permitted? It is prohibited to eat sacrificial meat immediately after the slaughter; only after the sprinkling of the blood is it permitted to consume the meat. As the slaughter itself does not render the animal’s meat permitted, there should be no liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.

לריש לקיש ⁠– שחיטה מתרת?! והלא פדייה מתרת!

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 animal that renders it permitted? Since the thief slaughtered a sacrificial animal, it is prohibited to eat its meat until its sanctity is removed by redeeming it with money. Once again, the slaughter itself does not render the meat permitted, and here too, there should be no liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.