Bava Kamma 57: Thieves and Robbers and Oaths

Today's daf focuses on liability regarding returning or losing/not returning lost objects.  We are told that a person is not liable if s/he returns an item to an obvious place in the morning, for example - a time and place when the owner would be expected to find it.  And what if the item is lost before it is returned?  The rabbis move forward with this conversation, wondering if a person who has lost an item is like a paid bailee, who pays a single payment (rather than an unpaid bailee who pays a double payment).  They note that the Torah includes many ways to return items using hashev teshivem, returning items without the knowledge of the owner.

The rabbis discuss the difference between an armed bandit and a thief.  An armed bandit is in the category of a robber and not a thief because he is someone who transgresses in hiding. The rabbis also discuss differences between armed and unarmed bandits.

How serious is taking an oath?  When we compare that action to other actions?  We are offered cases where people do some actions in lieu of taking oaths.  It seems that at times people would pay fines for theft without admitting guilt or making oaths.  They would then be able to be reimbursed when the true thief stepped forward.

Our daf ends with the next section of our Mishna: if an animal falls into a garden, the animal's owner pays for any benefits.  Rav says that this is the case because the animal must have fallen on vegetables, not because the animal ate from the garden.  Why? Because it is the owner's fault that the animal fell, but not that the animal ate.