Rif Bava Kamma 33b {95b; 94b; 96a - b}

33b

{Bava Kamma 95b}

סבר דגזלן הוי

{And Rabbi Shimon} maintains that this would belong to the robber.

ורב פפא אמר דכולי עלמא שבח שע"ג גזלה דגזלן הוי אלא למחצה לשליש ולרביע איכא בינייהו
ר' יהודה סבר שבח שעל גבי גזלה כוליה דגזלן הוי
ורבי שמעון סבר למחצה לשליש ולרביע הוא דשקיל גזלן
והא דתנן גזל פרה ונתעברה אצלו וילדה רחל ונטענה אצלו וגזזה משלם כשעת הגזלה
הוא הדין דאפילו לא ילדה נמי כשעת הגזלה הוא דמשלם ואיידי דנסיב רישא ילדה תנא סיפא נמי ילדה ומתניתין רבי יהודה היא
תניא כותיה דרב פפא ר"ש אומר רואין אותה כאילו היא שומא אצלו בכסף למחצה לשליש ולרביע
והלכתא כרבי יהודה ואליבא דרב פפא דתניא כותיה:

And Rav Pappa said: All agree that an increased value attaching to the misappropriated article are to the robber, but the difference between them is as regards the half, third, or fourth. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that an increased value attaching to the misappropriated article would belong solely to the robber. And Rabbi Shimon maintains that the robber would be paid only to the extent of a half, a third or a fourth.

But they learn {tnan}: IF HE MISAPPROPRIATED A COW WHICH BECAME PREGNANT WHILE WITH HIM AND THEN GAVE BIRTH, OR A SHEEP WHICH WHILE WITH HIM GREW WOOL WHICH HE SHEARED, HE WOULD PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE VALUE AT] THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY.
So would be the same, that even if she did not give birth as well, it is like at the time of the theft that he pays. And once the resha seized upon "she gave birth," the sefa also taught that "she have birth." And our Mishna {'s author} is Rabbi Yehuda.
There is a brayta in accordance with Rav Pappa: Rabbi Shimon says: We see her {=the animal} as if its value had been insured with the robber, {who will be paid} to the extent of a half, a third or a fourth {of the increase}.

And the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda, and according to Rav Pappa, for there is a brayta like him.

{Bava Kamma 94b}

ת"ר הגזלנין ומלוי רבית שהחזירו אין מקבלין מהן והמקבל מהן אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו
וה"מ בשאין גזלה קיימת אבל גזלה קיימת מקבלין מהן:

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If robbers or usurers {repent and} are prepared to restore {the misappropriated articles}, it is not right to accept from them, and he who does accept from them, the spirit of the Sages is not pleased with him.
And these words are where the theft is not extant, but if the theft is extant, we accept from them.

{Bava Kamma 96a}

א"ר פפא גזל והשביח ומכר גזל והשביח והוריש מה שהשביח מכר ומה שהשביח מוריש:

Rav Pappa {our gemara: Rava} said: where the robber improved {the theft} and then sold it, or where the robber improved and then left it to his heirs, that which he improved he sold, and that which he improved he has {validly} left to his heirs.

בעי רבא השביח לוקח מהו בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה מה מכר ראשון לשני כל זכות שתבא לידו:

Rava inquired: What would be the law where the purchaser {from the robber} improved it? After asking the question he himself gave the answer: That what the former sold the latter, was surely all rights which might subsequently accrue to him.

בעי רבא השביח עובד כוכבים מהו
א"ל רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא תקנתא לעובד כוכבים ניקום ונעביד
א"ל לא צריכא כגון דזבנא ניהליה לישראל
א"ל סוף סוף הבא מחמת העובד כוכבים הרי הוא כעובד כוכבים
א"ל לא צריכא כגון דגזלה ישראל וזבנה לעובד כוכבים ואשבח עובד כוכבים והדר עובד כוכבים וזבנה לישראל
מי אמרי' כיון דמעיקרא ישראל ולבסוף ישראל עבדו רבנן תקנתא
או דלמא כיון דאיכא עובד כוכבים באמצע לא עבדי להו רבנן תקנתא
תיקו:

Rava inquired: What would be the law where a heathen {stole it and} improved it?
Rav Acha MiDifti said to Ravina: Shall we trouble ourselves to make an enactment for a heathen?
He {=Ravina} said to him: No; the query might refer to the case where he sold it to an Israelite.
He {=Rav Acha} said to him: When it comes down to it, he who comes to claim through a heathen {predecessor}, could surely not expect better treatment than the heathen himself.
He {=Ravina} said to him: No; the query could still refer to the case where an Israelite had misappropriated an article and sold it to a heathen who improved it and who subsequently sold it to another Israelite. Do we say that since initially there was an Israelite {in possession} and in the end an Israelite, the Sages made an enactment? Or perhaps, since there is a heathen in the middle, the Sages did not make for them an enactment.
The question stands unresolved.

{Bava Kamma 96b}

וא"ר פפא האי מאן דגזל עפרא מחבריה ועבדי לבינתא לא קני
מ"ט הדר משוי ליה עפרא
לבינתא ועבדה עפרא קני
מאי אמרת הדר עביד ליה לבינתא ההיא לבינתא אחריתי היא:

And Rav Pappa said: A person who stole dirt from his fellow and made it into a brick, he does not acquire. What is the reason? It could again be made into dirt.
{If he stole} a brick and made it into dirt, he does acquire it? For what will you say? If one once again makes it into a brick, it is a different brick.