If
one stole an ox or a sheep, then consecrated it to the Temple, and then
slaughtered or sold it, he pays twofold payment for stealing, but
doesn't pay the fourfold or fivefold.
Why not? Granted that when he slaughters it, it's the property of the Temple, not of the original owner.
But
when he consecrates it, let this be equivalent to a sale of a stolen
animal to the Temple – thus making him liable for a fourfold or
fivefold payment? No! Consecration differs from a sale: after
consecration the animal is still called “A sacrifice of so-and-so”, not
a “sacrifice of the Temple.”
Test your knowledge...