Bava Kamma 76A

תשלום דכפל.

the payment of the extra part of the double payment, i.e., the amount that exceeds the principal.

גנב והקדיש ואחר כך טבח ומכר כו׳. אמרי: בשלמא אטביחה לא מחייב, דכי קא טבח ⁠– דהקדש קא טבח, ולא דמריה קא טבח;

§ The Mishnah teaches: If one stole an animal and subsequently he consecrated it as an offering, and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, the thief pays the double payment but he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. The rabbis say: Granted, he is not liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment for the slaughter of the animal, as when he slaughtered it, he slaughtered an animal belonging to the Temple treasury, and he did not slaughter the animal belonging to its owner.

אלא אהקדש ⁠– ליחייב! מה לי מכרו להדיוט, מה לי מכרו לשמים?

But let him be liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment for having consecrated the animal in the first place, as what difference is it to me if he sold the animal to an ordinary person, and what difference is it to me if he sold it to Heaven by consecrating it? Consecration should be considered tantamount to a sale, as in either case ownership of the animal is transferred to another party.

הא מני ⁠– רבי שמעון היא, דאמר: קדשים שחייב באחריותן ⁠– ברשותיה דמריה קיימי.

The Talmud answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this Mishnah taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon, who says that sacrificial animals for which the owner bears financial responsibility to replace with another animal if one of the original animals is lost or dies are considered to be in the possession of their owner (see 74b). The Mishnah is referring a case where the thief consecrated the animal in such a manner that he is obligated to replace it if it is lost or damaged before being sacrificed. One consequence of this potential financial loss is that the animal is considered to be in the thief’s possession even after he consecrated it. Therefore, the animal’s consecration is not tantamount to a sale to another party.