Bava Batra 44A

ולוקמה בגזלן!

The Talmud asks: And according to the understanding of Rav Sheshet, that the baraita is disqualifying one whose field was stolen from testifying on behalf of one who purchased the field from the robber, why is it necessary to discuss a case involving a buyer, when it would be simpler to establish it with regard to testifying for the robber himself?

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.

The Talmud answers: The tanna of the baraita discusses a case involving a buyer because he wants to teach the latter clause: If he sold a cow to him, or if he sold a cloak to him, he can testify about it for the buyer. As in this clause, the tanna specifically needs to discuss a case where the robber sold it, because then it is a case of despair by the owners due to the robbery, and there is also a change in possession due to the sale, and the one who was robbed can no longer reclaim the stolen item. He is therefore no longer biased in his testimony and can testify for the one who purchased the item. But in the latter clause, if the robber did not sell it, in which case the stolen item is returned to the robbery victim, he cannot testify, as he prefers that the item be in the possession of the robber, so that he can recover it from him. Therefore, the tanna taught in the first clause as well about a case where he sold it.

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

The Talmud asks: And in the latter clause as well, where there is despair and change in possession, granted that he despairs of recovering the item itself, but did he despair of being reimbursed for its value? While it is true that he lost his ownership of the item, he is still entitled to payment. Therefore, he is still biased in his testimony. The Talmud answers: No, it is necessary in a case where the robber died, in which case the robbery victim cannot collect even the value of the stolen item, and is no longer biased in his testimony. As we learned in a Mishnah (Bava Kamma 111b): In the case of one who robs another of food and feeds it to his own children, or who left a stolen item to them as an inheritance, the children are exempt from paying the victim of the robbery after their father’s death. Since he is no longer able to collect the value of the stolen item, he is not biased in his testimony and can testify on behalf of the buyer.