Talmud do Szewuot 8:10

Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “You killed my ox, you cut down my fruit trees,” and the other says, I do not know, he is liable. He said to him, certainly you state that to the rabble⁷⁶As J. Levy notes, the unexplained words מקרילות (Genizah מקבילות ,(מקליקות are onomatopoetic and intended as an insult. The Babli in such a situation uses חִילֵּק וּבִילֵּק “split and desolation” to designate the totally unworthy. R. Abbahu’s statement is not worth to be heard since nobody can be responsible for an undocumented claim about which he notes his own ignorance.. He answered, it is my fault, they said the following: “We testify against X that he killed ox Y” and the other says, I do not know, he is liable. [He said, that was stated.]⁷⁷Not in the Leiden ms., added from the E and Genizah texts. R. Joḥanan notes that the statement in its present form is obviously true, hence unnecessary.
The Genizah text has a better version in R. Abbahu’s statement: “We testify against X that he killed Y’s ox or cut down his fruit trees.”

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he handed over but did not make to pass through,³⁰¹At the start of the Halakhah it was noted that if somebody handed over his child to the Moloch priests but did not make him pass over the fire, he is not guilty under the Moloch paragraph. One has to read that to mean that the intent had been for a full Moloch ceremony but that for some reason it was not executed. Then the question here is, whether there is any guilt in handing over the child knowing that the ceremony cannot be performed. is that the disagreement between Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan? Fore they disagreed: If he slaughtered but did not sell, Ḥizqiah said he is liable, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not liable³⁰²The thief of livestock who slaughters and sells stolen animals is liable to fourfold or fivefold restitution (Ex. 21 :37). The question arises whether stealing and slaughtering an animal which cannot be sold, e. g., one dedicated as a sacrifice but still in its owner's hand, triggers liability for quadruple or only double restitution. The problem is not mentioned elsewhere; a related one is in Ševuot 8:8. The comparison of civil and criminal law is unfounded; the question merits no answer..