Study Bava Kamma folio 115A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
one does not need to pursue the matter in all this detail.
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
§ 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 hom
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 p
Rav Yosef continues: And both Rav and R' Yoḥanan have accepted as halakha the ruling of Rav Ḥisda (111b), that if the owner had not yet despaired of retrieving his item, he can press his claim against either the thief or the purchaser.