The Raavad's quesion is difficult to understand!! Why should we say that only the shomer gets paid because of the din of davar hagoreim limamon and not the owner who has a stake in the animal because it is actually his and not just because he is financially responsible. It is clear that the thief is not paying keifel to both of them, so why should only the shomer get the money??
In fact, the Ohr Sameach quotes the Raavad and says that the rule of Rav Shimon that davar hagoriem limamon etc, only appies to hekdesh, where hekdesh doesn't get payment so it goes to the baalim who have a financial stake, or to one who steals an ox who is liable to stoning [he likes to drink??] in which case as far as the owner is concerned the ox is worthless and thus the money goes to the shomer. But if one steals from a shomer where there is a rightful owner, even according to Rav Shimon he pays the keifel to the owner and there is no din of davar hagoreim which would obligate him to pay the shomer [unless we say that it actually belongs to the shomer, as the gemara answered].
But we still have a question about one who steals the stolen object from a thief, why according to Rav Shimon is he patur. He doesn't have to pay the owner because we expound the pasuk to teach that stealing from the house of a thief doesn't obligate one, so the second thief should have to pay the first thief due to the rule of davar hagoreim limamon.
In this case, the answer of the Raavad won't help us because it is the first thief who is completely responsible, so he should receive payment.
The Ohr Sameach discusses this at length and then writes that the obligation to pay for stealing an object only applies when it is stolen from the place where it should be and thus doesn't apply to a stolen object. Therefore, the second thief doesn't have to pay the first thief. That is why the Raavad wasn't bothered by the fact that one who steals from a thief is patur. But in the case of the person who steal from a shomer, the Raavad wondered why he shouldn't have to pay because of the rule of goreim limamon. He answered by saying that the shomer isn't completely responsible so the rule of goreim limamon doesn't apply.
Rav Dovid adds the cherry on top: It emerges that according to the Raavad, in a case where the shomer IS completely responsible, he would receive payment because of goreim limamon - even if this object has a bona fide owner. This proves that the rule of goreim limamon, makes him the actual owner, even if there already is an owner!!!
But we still have a question about one who steals the stolen object from a thief, why according to Rav Shimon is he patur. He doesn't have to pay the owner because we expound the pasuk to teach that stealing from the house of a thief doesn't obligate one, so the second thief should have to pay the first thief due to the rule of davar hagoreim limamon.
In this case, the answer of the Raavad won't help us because it is the first thief who is completely responsible, so he should receive payment.
The Ohr Sameach discusses this at length and then writes that the obligation to pay for stealing an object only applies when it is stolen from the place where it should be and thus doesn't apply to a stolen object. Therefore, the second thief doesn't have to pay the first thief. That is why the Raavad wasn't bothered by the fact that one who steals from a thief is patur. But in the case of the person who steal from a shomer, the Raavad wondered why he shouldn't have to pay because of the rule of goreim limamon. He answered by saying that the shomer isn't completely responsible so the rule of goreim limamon doesn't apply.
Rav Dovid adds the cherry on top: It emerges that according to the Raavad, in a case where the shomer IS completely responsible, he would receive payment because of goreim limamon - even if this object has a bona fide owner. This proves that the rule of goreim limamon, makes him the actual owner, even if there already is an owner!!!
ובאמת באו"ש (פ"א מהל' גניבה הי"ז) הביא דברי הראב"ד, ותירץ כן, דהא דמחייב ר"ש כפל משום גורם לממון, היינו דוקא או בקדשים, דלהקדש ליכא חיוב תשלומין, או בגנב שור הנסקל מבית בעלים, דאצל הבעלים לא הוי ממון, ולכן חייב הכפל למי שגרם להפסידו הממון.
אבל בגנב משומר, דיש כאן ג"כ בעלים ממש שהקרן שלו וברשותו הוא, אף לר"ש משלם הכפל להבעלים, ואין כאן דין גורם לממון שיתחייב להשני.
אכן כתב האו"ש שם, דאכתי בגונב מן הגנב, קשה, אמאי פטור לר"ש, דכיון דלבעלים פטור מלשלם, דלא הוי מבית האיש, א"כ בכה"ג יתחייב הגנב שני כפל לגנב ראשון מחמת דין גורם לממון.
וכן קשה אף לתירוץ הראב"ד, דהא תירץ דהא דאינו חייב כפל להשומר מדין גורם לממון, הוי משום דאינו חייב בכל האחריות, אבל גנב הרי חייב בכל האחריות, וא"כ הא גנב הראשון חשיב כבעלים ע"י חיוב אחריות, וא"כ יתחייב גנב השני לשלם לו כפל.
והאריך שם האו"ש בזה, ואח"כ כתב, דנראה דחיוב כפל על גניבה, לא שייך רק בגונב ממקום שהחפץ צריך להיות שם.
אבל כשהחפץ מונח ביד גנב, שהחפץ אינו צריך להיות שם, רק כל אדם מצווה להשיב החפץ לבעליו וליטלו מהגנב בע"כ, לא הוי זה גניבה, דבודאי לא קרינן ביה וגונב מבית האיש, דהא אינו צריך להיות ברשותו.
ולכן מגונב מן הגנב לא היה קשה כלל להראב"ד שיתחייב כפל לגנב ראשון מחמת גורם לממון, ורק בגונב מבית שומר דהבעלים הפקידו אצלו, בזה הוא דהוי קשה להראב"ד דליחייב משום גורם לממון, וע"ז תירץ משום דלא הוי חיוב אחריות גמור כמ"ש.
ועכ"פ לפי דברי הראב"ד נמצא, דאם יהא היכי תימצי דיהא חיוב אחריות גמור על השומר, באמת יהא חיוב הכפל להשומר, לר"ש, ואף על פי דאיכא בעלים ממש, ומוכח דסובר דגורם לממון עושהו לבעלים ממש אפי' דיש בעלים אחרים.
