אָמַר רָבָא הָיְתָה לְפָנָיו כִּכָּר שֶׁל הֶפְקֵר וְאָמַר כִּכָּר זוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ נְטָלָהּ לְאוֹכְלָהּ מָעַל לְפִי כּוּלָּהּ לְהוֹרִישָׁה לְבָנָיו מָעַל לְפִי טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁבָּהּ
Rava said: In a case where there was a loaf of ownerless bread before a person, and he said: This loaf is consecrated, if he took the loaf to eat it, he misused consecrated property. His repayment to the Temple for that misuse is based on the loaf’s entire value. However, if his intent was not to take the loaf for himself but to bequeath it to his sons, he misused the consecrated property, and his repayment to the Temple is based on the discretionary benefit that he derived from the fact that his children are indebted to him for the bequest, as he himself derived no direct benefit from the loaf.
Then he went ahead, and took it for himself, he was Mo'el in all of it
But if it was an inheritance, we would estimate, only the Hana'a that is relevant
Why was the piece of bread, belonging to Hefker, instead of the basic case, where it came from his place
Answers the Ranand states, that within his gates, picked up to a eat, wouldn't do anything, cuz as a Gizbar he wasn't, Motzi it from Reshut Hekdesh
So it must have been, that the Kinyan, was within, the Dalet Amos in front of him, and the Hekdesh is akin, to being Zocheh in an Aveda for a friend, and that's the way he did the sin