Bava Kamma 115A

לא צריך לאהדורי עליה כולי האי.

one does not need to pursue the matter in all this detail.

ודלמא איצטריך ליה זוזי, וזבין! אמר רב אשי: הרי יצא לו שם גניבה בעיר.

The Talmud questions this ruling: Perhaps he needed money, and he therefore sold the items despite the fact that he does not generally sell his personal belongings. The Talmud answers that Rav Ashi said: A rumor spread in the city that he had been a victim of theft. It is reasonable to assume that he is the rightful owner, as he does not usually sell his belongings and it is common knowledge that he was the victim of theft.

איתמר: גנב ומכר, ואחר כך הוכר הגנב ⁠– רב משמיה דרבי חייא אמר: הדין עם הראשון. רבי יוחנן משמיה דרבי ינאי אמר: הדין עם השני.

§ Having assessed the Mishnah’s ruling with regard to a case where the thief remained unidentified, the Talmud discusses a case where the thief was found. It was stated: In a case where a thief stole an item and sold it, and later the thief was identified, Rav says in the name of R' Ḥiyya: The homeowner’s claim can be pursued only with the first one, i.e., the thief, but he has no claim against the purchaser. R' Yoḥanan says in the name of R' Yannai: The homeowner’s claim can also be pursued with the second one, i.e., with the purchaser.

אמר רב יוסף: לא פליגי; כאן לפני יאוש ⁠– הדין עם השני, כאן לאחר יאוש ⁠– הדין עם הראשון.

Rav Yosef said: Rav and R' Yoḥanan do not disagree. Here, in the case about which R' Yoḥanan issues his ruling, the item was purchased from the thief before the victim of the theft despaired of recovering the stolen item. Consequently, the claim can be pursued even with the second one, i.e., the purchaser. Conversely, there, in the case about which Rav issues his ruling, the item was purchased after the victim despaired, and therefore the claim can be pursued only with the first one, i.e., the thief.