Bava Kamma 67B

אף גזול דלית ליה תקנתא; לא שנא לפני יאוש, ולא שנא אחר יאוש.

so too a stolen animal has no rectification for its disqualification. There is no difference whether one is dealing with a stolen animal before the owner’s despair of recovering it, and there is no difference if it is after the owner’s despair. In either case, it is disqualified. This shows that the owner’s despair does not effect acquisition for the thief.

רבא אמר מהכא: ״קרבנו״⁠ – ולא הגזול. אימת? אילימא לפני יאוש ⁠– פשיטא, למה לי קרא?

Rava said: This halakha may be derived from here, a baraita: The verse: “If his offering is a burnt-offering of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), indicates that one’s offering must be “his offering,” but not an animal stolen from another. When, i.e., in which circumstances, is it necessary to teach this halakha? If we say it is dealing with a stolen animal that the robber consecrated and sacrificed before the owner’s despair of recovery, why do I need a verse to teach this? It is obvious that it is disqualified, as one cannot even consecrate an animal that does not belong to him.

אלא לאו לאחר יאוש ⁠– ושמע מינה יאוש לא קני? שמע מינה.

Rather, is it not referring to one who seeks to consecrate and sacrifice a stolen animal after the owner’s despair? And yet the baraita teaches that the animal cannot be consecrated by the thief. Conclude from the baraita that the owner’s despair of recovering a stolen item does not cause the thief to acquire it, as if it belonged to him he would be able to consecrate and sacrifice it. The Talmud affirms: Conclude from the baraita that it is so.

והא רבא הוא דאמר דגזל קרבן דחבריה! איבעית אימא: הדר ביה, ואיבעית אימא: חד מינייהו רב פפא אמרה.

The Talmud asks: But Rava was the one who said that this proof can be refuted, as the baraita can be interpreted as dealing with one who robbed another of an offering that was already consecrated. Rava apparently contradicts himself. The Talmud answers: If you wish, say that Rava retracted one of these two statements. And if you wish, say instead that Rav Pappa, not Rava, said one of these two statements.