Avodah Zarah 72A

ומאי ״לא ניתן להישבון״? דאינו בתורת הישבון.

And what does it mean that the stolen object is not subject to restitution? It means that it is not subject to the halakhot of restitution, because it is not technically a theft.

אי הכי, אימא סיפא: בא חבירו ונטלה ממנו ⁠— נהרג עליה. בשלמא רישא, משום דצעריה לישראל, אלא סיפא, מאי עביד?

The Talmud asks: If that is so, say the latter clause of that halakhic statement: If another descendant of Noah came and took the stolen item from him, he is also executed for it. Granted, with regard to the first clause it can be explained that although there is no obligation to return the item, the non-Jew is executed because he caused the Jew distress; but with regard to the latter clause, what did he do? He did not cause the Jew distress, and since the item is worth less than one peruta, one is not obligated to return it unless he stole it from a non-Jew. Consequently, the second theft should not be considered a legally significant act.

אלא שמע מינה, משיכה בגוי קונה, שמע מינה.

Rather, should one not conclude from it that one pulling an item acquires it in a transaction performed by a non-Jew? Accordingly, the actions of both the first and second non-Jews are legally significant acts of theft, for which they are liable to be executed. The Talmud affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

ההוא גברא דאמר ליה לחבריה: ״אי מזביננא לה להא ארעא ⁠— לך מזביננא לה״, אזל זבנה לאיניש אחרינא, אמר רב יוסף: קנה קמא.

§ The Talmud relates: There was an incident involving a certain man who said to another: If I sell this land, I will sell it to you, and they performed a formal act of acquisition to ratify the agreement. He went and sold it to another person. Rav Yosef said: The first one has acquired it.