Bava Kamma 109B

מכלל דרבי יוסי הגלילי סבר: אפילו לנפשיה נמי מצי מחיל?! אלא גזל הגר דקאמר רחמנא נתינה לכהנים, היכי משכחת לה?

The Talmud questions Rava’s explanation: By inference does it follow that R' Yosei HaGelili holds that he can forgive the return of the stolen item even to himself? But if so, payment for robbery of a convert who dies without heirs, about which God says that it requires giving repayment to the priests, how can you find these circumstances if in every case where one robs a convert and the convert dies the robber can forgive the return of the item to himself?

אמר רבא: הכא במאי עסקינן ⁠– כשגזל את הגר, ונשבע לו, ומת הגר, והודה לאחר מיתה; דבעידנא דאודי ⁠– קנאו השם ונתנו לכהנים.

Rava said: With what are we dealing here? With a case where one robbed the convert and took an oath to him that he did not rob him, and then the convert died, and the robber admitted his false oath after the convert’s death, such that at the time that he admitted to it, the Name, i.e., God, acquired the principal and the additional 1/5th payment and gave it to the priests. Once the right to the payment is transferred to the priests the robber can no longer forgive it. By contrast, if he admitted his false oath while the convert was still alive and then the convert dies, the convert can forgive the obligation to himself, since he already took ownership of it.

בעי רבינא: גזל הגיורת, מהו? ״איש״ אמר רחמנא ⁠– ולא אשה, או דלמא אורחיה דקרא הוא?

§ Ravina raises a dilemma: With regard to payment for robbery of a female convert, what is the halakha? God states in the Torah: “But if the man has no kinsman” (Numbers 5:8), indicating that the halakha applies to a male convert, but not to a woman, i.e., a female convert; if she dies after being robbed, payment is not given to the priests. Or perhaps it is the manner of the verse to employ masculine wording, but the halakha applies in the case of a female convert as well?