Study Bava Kamma folio 44B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud asks: But still, is it not a case of pebbles? Is this case not analogous to damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled from under the feet of an animal while it is walking, which is not considered damage caused directly by the ox, but rather, damage caused indirectly? Ransom is not
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav: There are cases where the ox is liable to be put to death and the owner is liable to pay ransom, and there are cases where the owner is liable to pay ransom but the
How so? In a case where a forewarned ox kills a person intentionally, the ox is liable to be put to death and the owner is liable to pay ransom; if a forewarned ox kills unintentionally, the owner is liable to pay ransom but the ox is exempt from being put to death; if an innocuous ox kills int
The baraita adds: And for injuries caused by an ox unintentionally, from which the victim is not killed, R' Yehuda deems the owner liable to pay for the injury and R' Shimon exempts him.
The Talmud asks: What is the reason for the opinion of R' Yehuda? The Talmud answers: He derives the halakha with regard to injury caused by the ox from the halakha with regard to its owner’s ransom payment. Just as with regard to its owner’s ransom payment he is liable even if the ox gores uninten