Study Avodah Zarah folio 72A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And what does it mean that the stolen object is not subject to restitution? It means that it is not subject to the halakhot of restitution, because it is not technically a theft.
The Talmud asks: If that is so, say the latter clause of that halakhic statement: If another descendant of Noah came and took the stolen item from him, he is also executed for it. Granted, with regard to the first clause it can be explained that although there is no obligation to return the item,
Rather, should one not conclude from it that one pulling an item acquires it in a transaction performed by a non-Jew? Accordingly, the actions of both the first and second non-Jews are legally significant acts of theft, for which they are liable to be executed. The Talmud affirms: Conclude from it
§ The Talmud relates: There was an incident involving a certain man who said to another: If I sell this land, I will sell it to you, and they performed a formal act of acquisition to ratify the agreement. He went and sold it to another person. Rav Yosef said: The first one has acquired it.
Abaye said to him: But he did not fix a price with him for it. And from where do you say that wherever the people involved in the transaction did not fix a price, the buyer has not acquired the item, even if they performed a formal act of acquisition? It is from that which we learned in the Mishnah: