Reference for Bava Kamma 140:18

אלא אע"ג דכי קא תבעה ליה בדינא לא אמרינן ליה זיל הב לה כיון דכי יהיב לה הוי אתנן הכא נמי אע"ג דלענין תשלומין אי תבע בדינא קמן לא אמרינן ליה זיל שלים

and transfer to me [thereby]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by the animal entering into the premises of the prospective purchaser in accordance with B.M. 11a and supra p. 283. ');">¹⁷</span> the objects you have stolen.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 405, n. 7. ');">¹⁸</span> Whom does this follow? R. Akiba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 4b; 97a and Git. 79a. ');">¹⁹</span> who said that an object intercepted in the air is on the same footing [regarding the law of Sabbath] as if it had already come to rest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the capital offence was committed at the very moment the transaction of sale became complete by the animal entering the air of the purchaser's court-yard; cf. B.M. 12a and Git. 79a. ');">²⁰</span> For if we were to follow the other Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintain that the capital offence of desecrating the Sabbath by throwing anything from a public thoroughfare into private premises will be committed only at the moment when the object thrown falls upon the ground. ');">²¹</span> while the possession of the stolen objects would be transferred as soon as they reached the air of the court-yard of the purchaser's house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 12a and Git. 79a. ');">²²</span> in regard to Sabbath the capital liability would not be incurred until they have reached the actual ground!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 4b; 97a and Git. 79a. ');">¹⁹</span> — Raba thereupon said: It may still be in accordance with Rami b. Hama.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the purchaser said to the thief, 'Pluck off a fig of my fig-tree' etc., despite your objection as to the lack of consideration. ');">²³</span> For the hire [of a harlot] was prohibited by the Torah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 19. ');">²⁴</span> [from being used for the Temple] even [when given by a son] for having incestuous intercourse with his mother, irrespective of the fact that were she to have claimed it from him before us in the court, we should not have been able to order him to go and give her the hire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the very act that should cause pecuniary liability is a capital offence in which all possible civil liabilities have to merge. ');">²⁵</span> We see then that although were she to have claimed it from him by law, we should have been unable to order him to go and pay her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the very act that should cause pecuniary liability is a capital offence in which all possible civil liabilities have to merge. ');">²⁵</span> nevertheless when he of his own accord pays her [the hire] it will be subject to the law of the hire [of a harlot].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 19. ');">²⁴</span> So also here regarding payment [for the figs plucked by the thief on the Sabbath], if the purchaser had claimed it by law in our presence, we should have been unable to order the thief to go and pay;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the very act that should cause pecuniary liability is a capital offence in which all possible civil liabilities have to merge. ');">²⁵</span>

Explore reference for Bava Kamma 140:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.