Bava Kamma 36B

יחזיר לשלפניו״?! ״לכולם״ מבעי ליה!

he should return it to the owner of the previous ox, the Mishnah should have ruled that the surplus should be returned to all of them, i.e., all the prior injured parties, since they all share joint ownership of the belligerent ox.

אמר רבא: לעולם כרבי ישמעאל ⁠– דאמר בעלי חובות נינהו; ודקשיא לך: ״אחרון אחרון נשכר״?! ״ראשון ראשון נשכר״ מבעי ליה! הכא במאי עסקינן ⁠– כגון שתפסו ניזק לגבות הימנו, ונעשה עליו כשומר שכר לנזקין.

Rava said: Actually, the Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yishmael, who says that all the injured parties are creditors. And as for the difficulty you pose, that instead of stating that the owner of the latest of the oxen gored in succession gains, the Mishnah should have stated that the owner of the earliest of the oxen gored in succession gains, that can be answered. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the first injured party seized the ox to collect payment from it, and consequently became like a paid bailee with regard to damage it causes. Therefore, he is responsible for any subsequent attacks by the ox. Similarly, if the next injured party seizes the ox from the first as compensation, he becomes responsible for any subsequent attacks.

אי הכי, ״יש בו מותר ⁠– יחזיר לשלפניו״?! ״יחזיר לבעלים״ מבעי ליה!

The Talmud asks: If so, instead of the Mishnah stating that if there is surplus value left in his ox after he pays that owner, he should return it to the owner of the previous ox that was gored, it should have stated that he should return it to its owner, since half the value of the belligerent ox belongs to its owner, who is not responsible for any later damage it causes.