Reference for Bava Kamma 135:25

ת"ש וטבחו ומכרו מה טביחה שאינה חוזרת אף מכירה שאינה חוזרת אימת אילימא לפני יאוש אמאי אינה חוזרת אלא לאחר יאוש וש"מ חיובא לאחר יאוש הוא תרגמה רב נחמן פרט לשהקנה לו לשלשים יום

that a change leaves the article in its previous status. But if so [that it was after Renunciation], will not the opening clause and middle clause be in contradiction to the view of Rab? — R. Zebid therefore said: The whole text could still refer to the time before Renunciation, as we are dealing here with a case where the owner abandoned hope [of regaining the stolen object] when it was already in the possession of the buyer, but had not abandoned it while it was still in the possession of the thief, so that [so far as the buyer was concerned] there was Renunciation [as well as a change in possession].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for this reason the second in the middle clause has to make double payment to the buyer. ');">²⁰</span>

Jastrow