Kiddushin 58B

אמר ליה: הוצאה את. איכסיף, הוא סבר: משמעתא קאמר ליה. אמר ליה: הכי קאמינא: רב אסי דהוצל קאי כותיך.

Rav Huna said to him: You are out [hotza’a]. R' Ḥiyya bar Avin was embarrassed, as he thought Rav Huna told him he was out, i.e., wrong, due to the halakha he stated. Sensing R' Ḥiyya bar Avin’s embarrassment, Rav Huna said to him: This is what I said: You are a Hutzla’a, as Rav Asi, from the town of Huzal, stands in accordance with your opinion.

נימא כתנאי: הגונב טבלו של חבירו ⁠– משלם לו דמי טבלו של חבירו, דברי רבי. רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר: אינו משלם אלא דמי חולין שבו. מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי, דמר סבר: טובת הנאה ממון, ומר סבר: טובת הנאה אינה ממון.

The Talmud suggests: Let us say that it is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. The baraita (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 3:9) taught: One who steals another’s untithed produce pays him the full value of the other’s untithed produce; this is the statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi. R' Yosei, son of R' Yehuda, says: He pays only the value of the non-sacred produce that it contains. What, is it not the case that they disagree about this issue: That one Sage, R' Yehuda HaNasi, holds that the benefit of discretion has monetary value, so he must be compensated beyond the value of the non-sacred produce; and one Sage, R' Yosei, son of R' Yehuda, holds that the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and only the non-sacred produce is of value to the owner.

לא, דכולי עלמא טובת הנאה אינה ממון, והכא בטבלים שנפלו לו מבית אבי אמו כהן ובמתנות שלא הורמו כמי שהורמו דמיין קמיפלגי. מר סבר: כמי שהורמו דמיין. ומר סבר: לאו כמי שהורמו דמיין.

The Talmud rejects this: No, everyone agrees that the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and here the case is with an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother’s father, who was a priest. And they disagree with regard to the question of whether or not gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. One Sage, R' Yehuda HaNasi, holds that they are considered as though they have been separated, which means that the grandson inherited the teruma itself from his grandfather, so the thief must repay him the value of the terumot and tithes as well. And one Sage, R' Yosei, son of R' Yehuda, holds that such gifts are not considered as though they have been separated; and the produce is viewed as regular untithed produce, where the Israelite has only the benefit of discretion, which is of no monetary value.