ורבי מאיר, לוקה ומשלם אית ליה, מת ומשלם לית ליה. ושאני הני, דחידוש הוא שחידשה תורה בקנס, אף על גב דמיקטיל — משלם. ואזדא רבה לטעמיה, דאמר רבה: היה גדי גנוב לו, וטבחו בשבת — חייב, שכבר נתחייב בגניבה קודם שיבא לידי איסור שבת. גנב וטבח בשבת — פטור, שאם אין גניבה, אין טביחה ואין מכירה.
and R' Meir is of the opinion that one is flogged and pays, but is not of the opinion that one dies by execution and pays. And these halakhot are different, as it is a novel element that the Torah innovated with regard to the halakhic category of fines; although he is killed, he pays. And Rabba followed his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Rabba said: If one had a stolen kid in his possession that he had stolen previously, and he slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is liable to pay 5 times the principal for slaughtering the kid, as he was already liable for stealing before he came to violate the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat. Although he slaughtered the goat on Shabbat, a capital crime, he is liable for the payment because it is a fine. However, if he stole the goat and slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is exempt from the payment of 5 times the principal as, if there is no payment for theft, due to his liability to receive the death penalty for desecrating Shabbat, and his obligation to repay the theft is not a fine, there is no liability for slaughter and there is no liability for sale.