Study Bava Kamma folio 40A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
There are two scenarios in which the baraita could be interpreted as referring to an innocuous ox. If one wants to interpret it in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, it can be discussing a case where he provided reduced safeguarding for it and did not provide superior safeguarding for it. If
As it is taught in a baraita: R' Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: With regard to both an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox whose owner provided reduced safeguarding for them, he is exempt. The owner is liable only if he did not safeguard them at all. And accordingly, R' Ya’akov teaches us this, that the c
Ravina said to him that this is what Rava was saying by interpreting R' Ya’akov’s statement with regard to a forewarned ox: R' Ya’akov stated one matter containing two elements of reasoning [ta’ama] in accordance with R' Yehuda’s opinion, namely, that a forewarned ox retains its element of innocuous
Ravina himself said a different explanation of the baraita: The practical difference between R' Yehuda and R' Ya’akov is with regard to whether a change of custody changes the status of the ox. For example: in a case where the ox was forewarned while in the custody of the steward and subsequently t
§ A baraita states: Stewards are liable to pay from their superior-quality property for damage caused by forewarned oxen under their custody, but they do not pay a ransom if the oxen killed a person.