Talmud sobre Números 19:5

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself³⁷The robber has to repay the robbery, not double the value he took as is the rule for the thief. It is assumed that the grandfather died after he forgave the grandson for the robbery and the grandson is the only heir. According to R. Joḥanan, the grandfather could not forgive and the grandson cannot inherit; therefore, the restitution has to be made to a Cohen. According the R. Simeon ben Laqish, the grandfather can forgive and the grandson can pay the principal to himself as heir, then sell the heave to a Cohen and pocket the money.
The statement is also in Pesaḥim 2:3 (29a).. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal³⁸Mishnah 6:4. Stealing and robbing from the Sanctuary have the same status; there is no double restitution. A fifth is required for illicit use of heave (Lev. 22:14) and of property of the Sanctuary (Lev. 5:16). The two obligations are independent of one another and computed on the same basis..” Should he not pay three³⁹This is only a potentiality, not a certainty. If he denied stealing under oath, another fifth is due (Lev. 5:16). The heave can become property of the Sanctuary only if the Cohen dedicated it. Therefore, if the Cohen may forgive repayment, the thief cannot be forced to swear and there never can be three fifths. But according to R. Joḥanan, the tribe should be able to force the thief to swear in court and the Tanna should have noticed the possibility of a third fifth.? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery⁴⁰Since robbery and sanctity are incompatible, once it is holy it is not subject to the laws of robbery and the third fifth claimed by R. Simeon ben Laqish is not applicable.. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning⁴¹The red cow whose ashes cleanse from the impurity of the dead (Num. 19) must be slaughtered on the stake; its carcass cannot be moved.. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning⁴²The entire statement is R. Hoshaia’s in Babli Zebaḥim 113, in opposition to R. Joḥanan who requires the carcass to be moved in case it was slaughtered at a place from which the Temple doors are not visible; cf. also Sifry Ḥuqqat 124..