Bava Kamma 111B

מתני׳ הגוזל ומאכיל את בניו, והניח לפניהם ⁠– פטורין מלשלם. ואם היה דבר שיש בו אחריות ⁠– חייבין לשלם.

Mishnah: In the case of one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, or who left a stolen item to them and then died, the children are exempt from paying the victim of the robbery after their father’s death. But if the stolen item was something that serves as a legal guarantee of a loan, the heirs are obligated to pay.

גמ׳ אמר רב חסדא: גזל ולא נתייאשו הבעלים, ובא אחר ואכלו ממנו ⁠– רצה מזה גובה, רצה מזה גובה. מאי טעמא? כל כמה דלא נתייאשו הבעלים ⁠– ברשותיה דמריה קאי.

Talmud: Rav Ḥisda says: If one robbed another, and the owners of the stolen item have not yet despaired of retrieving it, and another person came, took it from the robber and ate it, if the owner wishes he may collect from this one, i.e., the first robber, and if he wishes he may collect from that one, i.e., the second robber. What is the reason that he may collect from whomever he chooses? It is because as long as the owners did not despair of retrieving it, it remains the possession of its owner, so that when the second robber stole it from the first, he was in fact stealing from the original owner. Nevertheless, since the first robber was already obligated to return the item, his obligation remains in force and the owner may demand payment from him if he wishes.

תנן: הגוזל ומאכיל את בניו, והניח לפניהם ⁠– פטורין מלשלם. תיובתא דרב חסדא! אמר לך רב חסדא: כי תניא ההיא ⁠– לאחר יאוש.

The Talmud questions this opinion based on what we learned in the Mishnah: In the case of one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, or one 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. This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who holds that one who steals from a thief is obligated to pay the owner. The Talmud answers: Rav Ḥisda could have said to you: When that Mishnah is taught, it is addressing a case where it is after the owners had already despaired of retrieving the item, whereas Rav Ḥisda was referring to a case where the owners had not yet despaired.