Bava Kamma 34B

תם חמור ממועד!

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 decrease in its value.

וכי תימא הכי נמי ⁠– כדתנן, רבי יהודה אומר: תם חייב, ומועד פטור; אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהודה ⁠– לענין שמירה, דכתיבי קראי; לענין תשלומין מי שמעת ליה?!

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 innocuous ox he is liable, and if it was a forewarned ox he is exempt (45b), that Mishnah cannot serve as proof for the issue under discussion. Say that you heard R' Yehuda express this opinion, that the halakha with regard to an innocuous ox is more stringent, with regard to the halakhot of safeguarding, as verses are written in the Torah from which this halakha is derived. But with regard to compensation, did you ever hear him express this opinion?

והתניא, רבי יהודה אומר: יכול שור שוה מנה שנגח שור שוה חמש סלעים, והנבילה יפה סלע ⁠– זה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת, וזה נוטל חצי החי וחצי המת?

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 half the dead ox, and that party takes half the living ox and half the dead ox. Accordingly, the injured party receives 52 dinars in value, which is much more than his ox was worth before it was killed.