Keritot 27A

סיפא קרי ליה ל״מעילתו״ איל אשם!

whereas the latter clause uses the term: His misuse, in reference to the ram he brings as a guilt offering.

רישא, דהוה ליה איל רובן קרן וחומשו ⁠– קרו ליה ל״מעילתו״ גזילו. סיפא, דלא הוי איל דזבן קרן וחומש ⁠– קרי ליה איל אשם ״מעילתו״, ויביא עמה סלע וחומשה.

The Talmud answers: In the first clause, where he purchased two non-sacred rams with two dinars of consecrated money, the value of the bigger ram is equal to the principal plus its 1/5th that he is obligated to repay for that which he stole. Therefore, the Mishnah uses the term: His misuse, in reference to repayment for that which he stole. In the latter clause, where he purchased one non-sacred ram with one dinar of consecrated money, the value of the bigger ram is not equal to the principal plus 1/5th. Consequently, the Mishnah uses the term: His misuse, in reference to the ram he brings as a guilt offering, and he brings together with it payment of one sela and its 1/5th.

בעי רב מנשיא בר גדא: בכינוס חומשין מהו שיתכפר?

§ Rav Menashya bar Gadda raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to one who misused consecrated property several times until the accumulation of one-fifths that he owes totals two sela: May he bring a guilt offering with that money and thereby achieve atonement?

מי אמרינן: אם תימצי לומר אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש ⁠– משום דקטרח קמיה, אבל הכא דלא קטרח ⁠– לא מתכפר.

The Talmud explains the sides of the dilemma. Do we say: If you say that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property, e.g., if one initially purchased a ram worth one sela and then its market value increased to two sela while the animal was in his possession, this is because he exerted himself with regard to the animal by caring for it while it was in his possession. But here, where he did not exert himself, but the value accumulated on its own, he cannot achieve atonement.