Selling a stolen animal and the penalty incurred during the time when the owner is or is no longer hoping to get the animal back - subject to a machloket on whether the despair of the owner getting the animal back. The extra 4 and 5 payment only kicks in once the theft is "forever." After despair, the thief takes full possession, and the original owner is compensated. There is an important discussion here regarding whether the animal is sold or slaughtered. Plus, note R. Sheshet's view and R. Nachman's view. Also, a clearly articulated dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish - until the reasons for their dispute are put through the wringer, and nothing is clear anymore. Including why a thief (and also an owner) would consecrate a stolen animal.

Is a changing an object a mechanism by which someone can acquire an object or does it always maintain its identity as the original object? Why does the rule of fourfold and fivefold payment only apply to the sheep and ox?

How a thief acquires a stolen item, via the thief's changing the item or the despair of the owner that it will never be recovered (the thief still has to compensate the owner for the item). Plus, Abaye's arguments against the impact of despair on the thief's taking possession of that which he has stolen. Also, the difference between a "ganav" (who steals with stealth) and a "gazlan" (who steals brazenly), and which is more likely to cause despair.

When the thief pays back what he owes plus the double, is the value assessed from the time of theft, or from the time of judgement? What if the value of an animal stolen increases? Also, what about the stolen item undergoing significant change while in the possession of the thief? That process means that the thief actually acquires the stolen item. But this is difficult. The thief comes out ahead! Plus, a comparison to Yaakov in the house of Lavan.

What do the different animals mentioned in the verse teach us about these categories of theft? Also, the question of whether the main case in the verse is theft or a custodian who claims theft - which makes a real difference - and the two interpretations are read through every detail.

What happens when a person comes to collect the item that another US safeguarding, and the guardian says - it was lost (or stolen). The guardian can be asked to swear to the veracity of his claim. But then other means (witnesses) attest to the fact that that claim was a lie. What kind of compensation does he have to pay the owner? Also, an investigation into baraitot that teach the handling of a thief - if he's found or not. And running through the text, the ongoing dispute whether the case is a thief or a claim of theft. And how do the biblical verses teach the details of the false claim?

The case of one who gives a gold coin to a woman, and tell her that it is silver - what is she obligated to pay if it's damaged? Or lost or stolen? Given that she has no idea that the coin is gold (maybe she wouldn't have agreed to watch over a silver coin). Plus, some confusion by Rav about R. Yehudah's teaching. Also, 2 new mishnayot, one to end the chapter, and another to begin the new chapter. Reconnecting to Chanukah candles and the damage caused by fire - flax on a camel and a shopkeeper's Chanukah candles, as is mentioned earlier in Bava Kamma too. And the opening of Perek HaMerubah - the penalties for stealing an item, for damaging after theft, and when those penalties are not put into play.

Several mishnayot. Beginning with more on fire, if it crossed a public road, a river, a wall - barriers that usually prevent the spread of fire. With a delving into issues of the wall. Plus, recognizing different kinds of fire. Also, fire set on another's property. And what about if that fire destroys things that were hidden, such that the fire-setter wouldn't have known to expect them to be there? It's a machloket if he has to pay.

A Mishnah describes the ways in which someone is liable for damages caused by fire. Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha gives an aggaditc and halachic interpretation of Shemot 22:5. The daf also shares a halachic inquiry from King David leaving the learner to ask what can be learned from this question?

More on R. Nachman's assessment of damages for the chopped-down tree, and his arrival at one-sixtieth of the value. Plus, the story of wearing black shoes like a mourner in the home of the exilarch, and how it can be a sign or piety or arrogance. With a test case to determine the difference going back to this kind of 1/60th. Also, 2 mishnayot about damage to one's produce in another person's yard, or as brought to the threshing floor, plus fire in the hands of those who can't be responsible enough for preventing damage by fire.