Bava Metzia 16A

הא מית ליה. ומאן דאמר: ניחא ליה דליקום בהמנותיה ⁠– בהדי בני נמי ניחא ליה דליקום בהמנותיה.

in this case, since the purchaser already died, the owner is not present to call the seller a robber, so he presumably did not intend to retroactively validate the sale. And conversely, according to the one who says that he bought the land because it is preferable for him to maintain his reliability, it is preferable for him to maintain his reliability with regard to the purchaser’s children too.

סוף סוף קרו ליה בני לוקח ״גזלנא״!

The Talmud challenges this distinction: Ultimately, the purchaser’s children will also call the seller a robber if the field is appropriated from them. Therefore, there is no difference between the two explanations of Rav’s ruling in a case where the purchaser has died.

אלא: איכא בינייהו דמית גזלן. מאן דאמר ניחא ליה לאיניש דלא לקריוהו ״גזלן״, הא מית ליה. למאן דאמר ניחא ליה דליקום בהמנותיה, הכי נמי אף על גב דמית ⁠– ניחא ליה דליקום בהמנותיה!

Rather, the practical difference between them is in a case where the robber himself died, and his children subsequently bought the field from its owner. According to the one who says that the motivation is that it is preferable for a person not to be called a robber, he already died and this motive is not applicable. While according to the one who says that his motivation is that it is preferable for him to maintain his reliability, in this case also, even though the robber died, it is still preferable for him to maintain his reliability, i.e., one is concerned about the reputation he will have after his death, not only while he is alive.

סוף סוף קרו לבניה: ״בני גזלנא״.

The Talmud rejects this distinction as well: Ultimately, if the sale is revoked after his death, people will call his children the children of a robber. Just as one does not want to be called a robber during his lifetime, one presumably does not want his children to be called the children of a robber after his death.