The Talmud Yerushalmi Trumot chapter 6 brings a discussion between R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish that is difficult to understand. The question of Reish Lakish is that according to the opinion of R. Yochanan that one who is not a kohen who stole trumah from the father of his wife who is a kohen, and then inherits his property, has to make payment to the whole tribe of kohanim. Riesh Lakish holds he pays back himself. Reish Lakish asks if R . Yochanan is correct, then the later mishna which says one who stole and ate truma that is hekdesh must pay one kern (main amount) and two fifths, should say, He pays back three.” R. Yesa said in the name of R Yochanan that the theft is included. The Ridvaz explains that to the Raavad the paint of Reish Lakish was he ought to pay back three kerens [main amounts] one for hekdesh and two for truma. The reason for two is that all cases of theft require double payment. All together there would be three times the original value. But how then is this good to Reish Lakish? In this later case the thief is not a kohen. So why not pay back three? Reish Lakish can answer that the trumah of hedesh is not property of the kohanim. The case is after all such that a kohen received trumah, and then dedicated it to the temple. So he is certainly not the owner of it any more. The only owner is the temple, so he pays back one keren to hedesh. The problem with this answer is that it works just as well for R Yochanan. I think the answer is that Reish Lakish claims that even though the trumah belongs to the temple, it still is trumah, and so he should pay back three kerens, one to hekdesh, and two to the tribe if one has to pay back stolen trumah to the tribe. But Reish Lakish might claim here that stolen trumah is not paid back to the tribe but to the individual owner, and here after the kohen gave it to the temple, it belongs to no individual kohen.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The תלמוד ירושלמי תרומות פרק שישי brings a discussion between ר’ יוחנן and ריש לקיש that is difficult to understand. The question of ריש לקישis that according to the opinion of ר’ יוחנן that one who is not a kohen who stole תרומה from the father of his wife who is a kohen, and then inherits his property, has to make payment to the whole tribe of kohanim. ריש לקיש holds he pays back himself. ריש לקיש asks if ר’ יוחנן is correct, then the later משנה which says one who stole and ate תרומה that is הקדש must pay one kern (main amount) and two fifths, should say, He pays back three.” ר' יסא said in the name of ר’ יוחנן that the theft is included. The רידב''ז explains that to the ראב''ד the point of Reish Lakish was he ought to pay back three קרניים [main amounts] one for הקדש and two for תרומה. The reason for two is that all cases of theft require double payment. All together there would be three times the original value. But how then is this good to ריש לקיש? In this later case the thief is not a kohen. So why not pay back three? ריש לקיש can answer that the תרומה ofהקדש is not property of the kohanim. The case is after all such that a kohen received תרומה, and then dedicated it to the temple. So he is certainly not the owner of it any more. The only owner is the temple, so he pays back one קרן toהקדש . The problem with this answer is that it works just as well for ר’ יוחנן. I think the answer is that ריש לקיש claims that even though the תרומה belongs to the temple, it still is תרומה, and so he should pay back three קרניים, one to הקדש, and two to the tribe if one has to pay back stolen תרומה to the tribe. But ריש לקיש might claim here that stolen תרומה is not paid back to the tribe but to the individual owner, and here after the כהן gave it to the temple, it belongs to no individual כהן----------