Turning someone else into a bigger thief

[SuperFlyer]

Just to refresh the memory; there are two types of thieves:
1. Ganav: he hides from humans in his act (typically operates at night), and if caught pays double.
2. Gazlan: he is at a lesser level a thief (=not as bad), as he doesn't fear humans.(Unlike the the Ganav, which doesn't fear G-d, only humans, which is worse). The gazlan also does not pay double the amount of what he stole when caught.

According to a certain oppinion (to make it easier we will just focus on this particular one) a person who had something stolen from him, if it has been stolen as "geneiva", he is meya'esh (=gives up hope), and if it was "gegazelt" not.
The difference lies herein that if there was a yi'ush the thief acquires a higher level of kinyan on the stolen object, and could for instance be makdish the object, if he so wishes.
If one is successfuly is makdish an object and gets caught (meaning he was a ganev) he has to repay the object (he cannot just return it, as it now belongs to hekdesh.

The question is (will give an example to clarify):

A thief walks in the center of town in broad daylight, and steals a car.
The owner of the car realizes the following morning that his car is gone. He is sure that it was stolen in the middle of the night... (=he is meyayesh).
The thief for some reason says (for a joke) that the car that he stole, should be hekdesh.

The thief got caught and bes din decides that the car became hekdesh, and he has to repay the cars worth to the owner.

(The reason that it is hekdesh, is because the boss of the car, thought it was geganvet (as in ganev) in the middle of the night, and is thus mey'esh)

The thief says however: Hey, that's unfair, I stole the car in broad daylight, so I'm a gazlan. The fact that no one paid attention isn't my fault. If I'm a gazlan, I was not supposed to be able to be koine the car, and be able to turn it into hekdesh.

How can the boss of the car's thoughts worsen the situation for the gazlan, to the point where he has to pay money, which wouldn't be due otherwise.

[steeeveknowsbest]

I am not sure if i understand the question, I imagine that your contention is to compare this to  "ain adam oser davar she'aino shelo"

yet i don't see a similarity in any way. The din that barres someone from causing another a loss through something like having daas to

be gomer a kli thus allowing it to be mekabel tumaah is based on the assumption that only the baal has the ability or the power to use

his thoughts as a catalyst in this way (meaning only the one who owns an object can create this chalos or issur) Whereas The ganav

or gazlin's chiyuvim are entirely dependent on the level of kinyan and subsequent loss (which rules out hashava) as apposed to his

personal status (ganav/gazlan). In  this case the yiyush of the baal allows him attain a higher level of kinyan regardless if this yiyush is

predicated on an inaccurate assumption, and this has nothing to do with the thief's status of gazlen or ganav. The only reason a ganav

would be chayiv quicker on hekdesh is because of the yiyush which occured due to the baal assuming he will never get it back, the

gemara is clear on the logical basis of this din.

Did i understand correctly?

[SuperFlyer]

I believe you did understand correctly.

However it is interesting to point out, that if the baal habayis of the stolen good doesn't remember whether he was mayayish, or not, but the fact that the boss thinks it was a genaive (not gezaile), is reason enough to incur penalties etc on the thief, although he didn't intend in doing this act (or in this way).
I'd even say that it smells like a shoygeg...

[steeeveknowsbest]

i hear your point but i wouldn't call it shogeg! both gezala and geneva are actually asur! In essence a ganav is but a type of gazlan! (it might be vice versa, i can't remember at the moment) the differences are related to the situation and not the particular MO of the thief (although in most cases these go hand in hand) Btw, I'm not sure what you mean when you say the "boss", i assume you mean the baal?

[SuperFlyer]

Boss = baal habayis.

The real answer I believe is that we have an umdene here which says that the baal habayis was meyayesh.

In choshen mishpot that's how works, despite in a case like the above.

[Mocha]

Why can't it be that it doesn't matter on what assumptions the owner was miyayish? If he was miyayish then it's still a yiyush.

[SuperFlyer]

Why can't it be that it doesn't matter on what assumptions the owner was miyayish? If he was miyayish then it's still a yiyush.

Well indirectly really.

The owner thinks it was stolen at night, hence, chachomim said that we assume that he was meyayesh.

Basically we downgraded the gazlan into a ganev + make him pay for it, based on someone assuming something, and based on this assumption, there is another assumption telling me about the yi'ush.

[steeeveknowsbest]

Why can't it be that it doesn't matter on what assumptions the owner was miyayish? If he was miyayish then it's still a yiyush.

this is really in essence what i was saying but i was also addressing the point that superflyer keeps stressing that title of ganef vs. gazlan, and really this moot as the only matter is the yiyush. the premise we are working with is that when a ganef steals the baal is meyayish,but in essence this is innacurate as the truth is that when the baal thinks that a ganef stole from him he is meyayish. the chidush that yiyush is based on an umdena in certain cases is really no chidush at all to one who learns elu metzios somewhat be'iyun, this concept is repeated again and again.