Bava Batra — Daf 44a

ולוקמה בגזלן

משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא מכר לו פרה מכר לו טלית דדוקא מכר דהוה ליה יאוש ושינוי רשות אבל לא מכר דהדרא ליה לא תנא רישא נמי מכר

וסיפא נמי נהי דמייאש מגופיה מדמיה מי מייאש לא צריכא דמית גזלן דתנן הגוזל ומאכיל את בניו והניח לפניהם פטורים מלשלם

ולוקמה ביורש

הניחא למאן דאמר רשות יורש לאו כרשות לוקח דמי שפיר אלא למאן דאמר רשות יורש כרשות לוקח דמי מאי איכא למימר

ועוד קשיא ליה לאביי מפני שאחריותו עליו ואין אחריותו עליו מפני שהיא חוזרת לו ואינה חוזרת לו מיבעי ליה

אלא כדרבין בר שמואל דאמר רבין בר שמואל משמיה דשמואל המוכר שדה לחבירו שלא באחריות אין מעיד לו עליה מפני שמעמידה בפני בעל חובו

ודוקא בית או שדה אבל פרה וטלית לא מיבעיא

But [if the explanation of R. Shesheth is correct],  why should the rule not be stated in reference to the robber himself?  — Because It was necessary to state the second clause [viz.]: 'if he sells him a cow or a garment.' For in this case the selling is essential, in order that there may be both giving up [on the part of the original owner] and change of ownership,  but if the robber does not sell the article, since in this case the original owner may still recover it, he may not give evidence.  Hence in the first clause also the 'selling' is inserted. But [is this rule sound in regard] even to the second clause? Granted that the original owner abandons his claim to the article itself, he has not abandoned his claim to the money, has he?  — The rule requires to be stated to cover the case where the robber has died, as we have learnt: If a man robs [someone of food] and gives it to his children to eat or bequeaths it to them, they are not under obligation to repay it. But [if this explanation is correct], why should not the rule be stated in reference to the heir [of the thief]?  It is true, there is a reason [why it should not] if we accept the opinion that the ownership of an heir [of a thief] is not on the same footing as the ownership of a purchaser [from a thief],  but on the view that the ownership of the heir is on the same footing as the ownership of the purchaser, what are we to say? And Abaye finds yet another difficulty [in the explanation of R. Shesheth, viz. that the expressions] 'because he is responsible for it,' 'because he is not responsible for it' [are on this theory improperly used,  and] the Baraitha should say, 'because it may be recovered by him', 'because it cannot be recovered by him'? — We must therefore [understand the above rulings] in the light of the dictum enunciated by Rabin b. Samuel in the name of Samuel, viz. If a man sells a field to another [even] without [accepting] responsibility, he cannot give evidence as to the latter's title, because he can keep it safe for his own creditor.  This applies only to a house or a field, but in the case of a cow or a garment, not only is there no question