Responsa for Bava Kamma 228:21

ורבי חנינא מסיים בה הכי וחבירי בדילין ממני והיו קורין אותי יוחנן אוכל חלות והעלהו רבי לכהונה על פיו

The difficulty, it is true, is easily solved if you say that Rabbi meant [to make the thief subject to the same law] as robber as defined by R. Simeon in which case ownership is transferred; the ruling in this teaching would then be in accordance with Rabbi, as on this account ownership would be transferred. But if you say that he meant [to make him] subject to the law of robber as defined by the [other] Rabbis, in which case ownership will not be transferred, in accordance with whom will be this ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that there is Renunciation both in the case of robbery and in the case of theft. ');">¹⁶</span>

Maharach Or Zarua Responsa