In Bava Kama page 111 we ee that if a robber gives and object that he stole to someone else and the owner gave up retrieving the object then tat third person own the object and the original owner can demand payment from the robber alone, not the third person. Based on this both Rav Shach and Rav Shmuel Rozovki suggest an explanation in a law in the Rambam law of marriage 5 law 7. However, I would like to suggest an alternative approach based on Tosfot in Bava Kama page 67a first words “at first it was secular”. The law in the Rambam is this. If one marries a woman by an object that he stole or robbed, and it is known that he had acquired it by the owner giving up hope of retrieving it, she is married. I think the case here is that there was giving up and the giving the object to the woman is the change of domain. That is, the change of domain occurred simultaneously with giving her the object. This is something that rav Rozovski and Rav Shach find problematic and they suggest the thief already had certain right in the object before he gave it to the woman and so he is giving her something of value that he already own. However, to me this is problematic since because he might own certain rights in the object, but even so you need abandonment and change of domain to own an object of theft, and until he gives it to her, there no change of domain. so instead I suggest the approach of Tosphot on page 67. There the Gemara says if a thief or robber sanctify an animal, it is valid. The Gemara say the reason is because there was change of name. first the name was secular and now the name is holy. Tosphot asks why do you need the answer of change of name. is it not so that there is change of domain, and that should be enough to make the act of sanctification valid. Tosphot answers the Gemara needs the answer of change name for case in which there is no change of domain for example he sanctified an animal to be his sin offering or his guilt offering. In that case, he remains responsible for the animal even and it is still his until it is sacrificed, you see in Tosphot that the act of sanctification is valid even though the thief does not own the animal. so how can it be that the act of sanctification is valid. Tosphot holds the fact that it changes domain simultaneously with the act of sanctification makes the sanctification valid. So in our case also the act of marrying the woman and the change of domain of the stolen object occur simultaneously.However, I admit that my approach to this Rambam does not fit exactly because the Rambam wrote, “It is known that he acquired the object by abandonment.” It seems he should have written, “by abandonment and change of domain.” {For abandonment does not cause ownership by itself.} Leaving out that last word Is what makes that Rambam difficult under any interpretation I would also like to suggest that Padam Aram mean the state of Aram, not a city by the name Padan Aram. The reason I say this is that Eliezer went to Aram Naharaim to find a marriage partner for Isaac and specifically to the city of Nachor, not Charan . Later, when Jacob went to find a wife, he went to Charan. Charan was the city that Terach settled in after he left Mesopotamia on his way to the land of Canaan. so Charan in not Mesopotamia. But Charan was in Padan Aram as it say in several verses; for example where it mentions that the children of Leah were born in Padan Aram. so when the verses say that Isaac married Rivka who was from Padan Aram that must mean the state, not the city. This is just like the fact that there I a state New York and there is a city, New York. _______________________________________________________ In בבא קמא page קי''א we see that if a robber gives an object that he stole to someone else, and the owner gave up retrieving the object then that third person owns the object, and the original owner can demand payment from the robber alone, not the third person. Based on this, both רב שך and רב שמואל רוזובסקי suggest an explanation in a law in the ר''ם laws of marriage. However, I would like to suggest an alternative approach based on תוספות in בבא קמא page ס''ז ע''א. The law in ר''ם is this. If one marries a woman by an object that he stole or robbed, and it is known that he had acquired it by the owner giving up hope of retrieving it, she is married. I think the case here is that there was ייאוש and the giving the object to the woman is the change of domain. That is, the change of domain occurred simultaneously with giving her the object. This is something that רב שך and רב שמואל רוזובסקי find problematic and they suggest the thief already had certain right in the object before he gave it to the woman and so he is giving her something of value that he already own. However, to me this is problematic since because he might own certain rights in the object, but even so you need ייאוש and change of domain to own an object of theft, and until he gives it to her, there no change of domain. so instead I suggest the approach of תוספות on page ס''ז. There the גמרא says if a thief or robber sanctify an animal, it is valid. The גמראsay the reason is because there was change of name. first the name was secular and now the name is holy. תוספות asks why do you need the answer of change of name. is it not so that there is change of domain, and that should be enough to make the act of sanctification valid. תוספות answers the גמרא needs the answer of שינוי השם for case in which there is no change of domain, for example he sanctified an animal to be his חטאת or his אשם. In that case, he remains responsible for the animal even and it is still his until it is sacrificed, you see in תוספות that the act of sanctification is valid even though the thief does not own the animal. so how can it be that the act of sanctification is valid. תוספות holds the fact that it changes domain simultaneously with the act of sanctification makes the sanctification valid. So in our case also the act of marrying the woman and the change of domain of the stolen object occur simultaneously. However, I admit that my approach to this רמב''ם does not fit exactly because the רמב''ם wrote, “It is known that he acquired the object by ייאוש.” It seems he should have written, “by ייאוש and change of רשות.” {For ייאוש does not cause ownership by itself.} Leaving out that last word Is what makes that רמב''ם difficult under any interpretation ---------------------------------I would also like to suggest that פדן ארם mean the state of ארם, not a city by the name פדן ארם The reason I say this is that Eliezer went to ארם נהריים to find a marriage partner for Isaac and specifically to the city of נחור, not חרן . Later, when Jacob went to find a wife, he went to חרן . NOW חרן was the city that תרח settled in after he left Mesopotamia on his way to the land of כנען. so חרן in not Mesopotamia. But Charan was in פדן ארם as it say in several verses; for example where it mentions that the children of Leah were born in פדן ארם. so when the verses say that Isaac married Rivka who was from פדן ארם that must mean the state, not the city. This is just like the fact that there I a state New York and there is a city, New York.