Bava Kama 111 A'B I want to explain what I think the Tosfot intends in Bava Kama 111. But first, let me bring the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Mishna says that if a thief gives what he stole to his children, they are not responsible, only the thief is responsible. Rav Chisda said that if someone stole and the owner did not give up and someone else takes the object and eats it, the owner can collect from each of them because the object was still in the owner's possession. The Gemara asks about this from the Mishna, which says that he can collect only from the thief, not from the children. Rav Chisda answers that the Mishna is talking about a case in which the owner gave up. The Tosfot holds that abandonment after a change of ownership does not confer ownership, and according to this assumption they are correct that Rav Chisda ruled and granted that if there is despair, one can only collect from the thief, not from the other. It does not matter whether the despair preceded the change of ownership or not. Even if there was a no change of ownership and the object was still in the owner's possession, it is still the same as the law of “his and not in his control”, which he cannot dedicate because he lacks ownership. Therefore, the owner can only collect from the thief. If it was owned totally by the owner, then the owner can collect from the robber or the second one that ate it