Sanhedrin 33B

ואין מחזירין לחובה. מחזירין לזכות ⁠– זכות גרידתא, ואין מחזירין לחובה ⁠– לזכות שהיא חובה.

but they do not bring him back to be judged with a claim to find him liable. When the Mishnah says: The court brings the accused back to acquit him, this is an acquittal alone and is not to anyone’s liability. When it says: But they do not bring him back to be judged with a claim to find him liable, this is an acquittal that is also a liability. The court does not bring the accused back to acquit him if this entails a liability to another.

חובתיה דמאן? הא לא קשיא, חובתיה דגואל הדם. משום חובתיה דגואל הדם קטלינן ליה להאי? ועוד, מאי ״בין״ ״בין״? קשיא.

The Talmud clarifies: A liability for whom? There is no other litigant in cases of capital law. The Talmud answers: This is not difficult, this is to the liability, i.e., the detriment, of the blood redeemer, as he desires that the murderer be killed, and he will no longer be allowed to kill him. The Talmud questions this explanation: Is it reasonable that due to the liability of the blood redeemer, we kill this one and do not reverse the verdict to acquit him even when there is a reason to do so? And further, what is the meaning of the term: Whether with a claim to exempt the accused, or whether with a claim to find him liable? It is clear that this is referring to two separate matters, not to two types of acquittal. The Talmud comments: This is difficult.

רבינא אמר: כגון שהיה לו בידו משכון, ונטלו ממנו.

The Talmud cites another explanation of how one can find a judge giving the item from one to another with regard to the clause of: He exempts a liable party. Ravina said: It is possible in a case where the one who lodged the claim had in his possession an item belonging to the other litigant that functioned as collateral for a debt, and when the judge issued a verdict in favor of the other he took the collateral from him, thereby physically transferring it to the wrong party.