Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 475:1

"If a soul commits a trespass" (Leviticus 5:15): from here you reason concerning charity. It says, "if a soul commits a trespass" of the value of a perutah, and a perutah is one eighth of an Italian issar. And what does he pay? A guilt-offering worth two selas. And how many perutot are in two selas? One thousand five hundred thirty-six. The measure of good is greater than the measure of punishment by five hundredfold. And if one who trespassed by the value of a perutah pays one thousand five hundred thirty-six, then one who gives charity—how much more so, for there is no end to the giving of its reward. Rabbi Levi said: robbery of an ordinary person is more severe than robbery of the Most High, for this one [robbing the sacred] puts the sin before the trespass, while that one [robbing a person] puts the trespass before the sin. The rabbis taught: "a soul"—whether an individual, or a prince, or the anointed [High Priest]. "If it commits a trespass": trespass means only a change. And so it says, "any man whose wife goes astray" (Numbers 5:12), and it says, "and the children of Israel committed a trespass" (Joshua 7:1). One might think that he damaged but did not benefit, or benefited but did not damage, or with something attached to the ground, or by an agent who carried out his mission; Scripture states "and he sinned." "Sin" is stated regarding terumah, and "sin" is stated regarding trespass: just as the sin stated regarding terumah involves one who damages and benefits, and the one who damaged benefited, and benefited from the very thing he damaged, and his damage and benefit are as one, and with something detached from the ground, and by an agent who carried out his mission—so too the sin stated regarding trespass is similar. I have only one who eats and benefits; from where the eating of himself and the eating of his fellow, the benefit of himself and the benefit of his fellow, his benefit and his fellow's eating combine with one another over a long time? Scripture states "if it commits a trespass." If just as the sin stated regarding terumah did not combine two eatings as one, so too the sin stated regarding trespass did not combine two eatings as one; from where do we know one who ate today and ate tomorrow, even over a long time? Scripture states "commits a trespass" in any case. If just as the sin regarding terumah requires damage and benefit as one, from where his eating and his fellow's eating even from now until three years? Scripture states "commits a trespass" in any case. If just as the sin regarding terumah requires that it leave consecration for common use, from where to include from consecration to consecration, such as the bird-pairs of male and female dischargers, and one who paid his shekel and brought his sin-offering and his guilt-offering from the consecrated funds—once he removed it, he has trespassed; Rabbi Yehuda says: only once he throws the blood? Scripture states "commits a trespass" in any case. The Master said: "a soul," whether an individual—is this not obvious, since "a soul" is written? It might enter your mind to say that the Merciful One said, "whoever puts any of it upon a stranger" (Exodus 30:33), and this one is no stranger, since he was anointed with it; therefore it teaches us. The Merciful One compared it to the wayward wife, to idolatry, and to terumah: to the wayward wife, that even though there was no damage one has trespassed—regarding the sacred too, once the ring was placed in her hand she has trespassed; the Merciful One compared it to idolatry, that there must be a change—regarding the sacred too, until one splits with an axe; He compared it to terumah, just as terumah is "if he eats" (Leviticus 22:14), excluding one who causes damage—regarding the sacred too, anything edible, when one damages it, he is exempt. It was taught: there is no trespass after trespass except with an animal alone. Rabbi Nechemiah says: an animal and a service vessel. What is the reasoning of the first teacher? Rabbah said: he holds that the verse is written in the matter of an animal, regarding the ram of the guilt-offering (verse 16). And Rabbi Nechemiah could say to you: it is an inference from minor to major—if others he brings to their sanctity, the vessel itself all the more so.