Bava Kama page 111.

Bava Kama page 111. This is a subject that Rav Shach and Rav Shmuel Rozovski both deal with in the Rambam laws of theft chapter 5 law 7. [R. Rozovski was the rosh yeshiva of Ponovitch for about 35 years before Rav Shach.] One question is that if one marries a woman by theft or robbery [i.e., he stole an object and give it to a woman and say by this you are married to me] and it is known that there was already giving up abandonment by the owner, then the marriage is valid. However, see in Zichron Shmuel chapter 58 where he brings the case of sanctified object that if the situation is such that the Temple would have to pay for the object, then nothing was given in fact. So, in our case with theft even with abandonment and change of domain, the thief has to pay back the owner if the thief was a well-known thief, and even if he was not well known, the person that acquired the object from the thief would have to pay for it except for fixing of the market place. So, even if we are dealing with a case in which the woman does not have to give back the object, still she has to pay for it, or at least from the law of the torah she would have to pay for it except because of fixing of the market placve. [No one would buy anything if any buy can be cancelled.] Therefore, she received nothing, and the marriage should not be valid. The other problem is, why is she married? To Rav Rozovski and Rav Shach it is because there was abandonment along with change of domain. What change of domain? The responsibilities and privileges that the thief had before he gives it back. To the Gra however, it means that there was another change of domain before the object was given to the woman. And in terms of robbery, the Gra is certainly right for abandonment does not apply to robbery. The change of domain had to have occurred before giving the object to the woman. just to be clear. If there was theft and the thief sold the object, and there was abandonment by the owner, then the person that bought it keep it. However, if the thief was well-known, the buyer has to pay for it. If not, then he does not have to pay and the owner must go after the thief alone to get repaid. Also, we are referring here to the fact that a woman can be married by giving her an object with monetary value. So, in our case here where a man gave an object that he robbed or stole to a woman and says behold you are married me by this object, then if there was already was abandonment by the owner, then she is married. But abandonment by the owner alone does not cause ownership. Only abandonment with change of domain causes ownership. But here the change of domain occurred simultaneously with the given of the object to the woman; that is unless you say like rav shach that the change of domain refers to privileges the thief had before giving it back. what are these? you might ask. one is what you see in the rashba [R. Shmuel ben Aderet. Not the Rashba of Tosphot who is R Shimshon ben avraham] in Bava Kama page 33 where he says in the case where a e buyer plowed with stolen ox before it had to be given back, he does not have to pay for the use of the ox.