Study Bava Kamma folio 34B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
a case where the halakha with regard to an innocuous ox that causes damage is more stringent than with regard to a forewarned ox, since according to all opinions, in a case where a forewarned ox kills another ox, the carcass belongs exclusively to the injured party, and he sustains any subsequent de
And if you would say that indeed, R' Yehuda holds that the halakha with regard to an innocuous ox is more stringent than with regard to a forewarned ox, as we learned in a Mishnah that R' Yehuda says: If a bailee did not safeguard an ox properly, and it escaped and caused damage, if it was an inno
On the contrary; but isn’t it taught in a baraita that R' Yehuda says: One might have thought that in the case of an ox worth 100 dinars that gored an ox worth 5 sela, i.e., 20 dinars, and the carcass is worth one sela, i.e., 4 dinars, the halakha is that this party takes half the living ox and h
Instead, continues R' Yehuda, you should say: For what purpose is the case of a forewarned ox singled out by the halakha? Is it to render it more stringent than the case of an innocuous ox, or to render it more lenient? Clearly, you must say that it is to render it more stringent. And therefore, i
Rather, Rava’s explanation, that R' Meir and R' Yehuda disagree with regard to a case where the carcass depreciated in value, should be rejected. Instead, their dispute should be explained according to what R' Yoḥanan said, i.e., that the practical difference between them is with regard to the app