Study Bava Kamma folio 40A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אי לרבי יהודה – דעבד ליה שמירה פחותה, ולא עבד ליה שמירה מעולה. אי לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב – דלא עביד ליה שמירה כלל;
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 one wants to interpret it in accordance with the opinion of R' Eliezer ben Ya’akov, it can be discussing a case where he did not provide safeguarding for it at all.
דתניא, רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר: אחד תם ואחד מועד ששמרן שמירה פחותה – פטורין. והא קא משמע לן רבי יעקב – דמעמידין (להן) אפוטרופין לתם, לגבות מגופו.
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 court appoints stewards for the owners of an innocuous ox to enable the injured party to collect damages from the proceeds of the sale of its body.
אמר ליה: הכי קאמר – חדא דאית ביה תרתי טעמא.
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 innocuousness, and that reduced safeguarding is sufficient for a forewarned ox.
רבינא אמר: רשות משנה איכא בינייהו – כגון דהוה מועד; ונתפקח החרש, ונשתפה השוטה, והגדיל הקטן. רבי יהודה סבר: הרי הוא בחזקתו, רבי יעקב סבר: רשות משנה.
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 the deaf-mute regained his hearing, or the imbecile became halakhically competent, or the minor reached majority, and the ox returned to its owner’s custody. R' Yehuda holds that it is still in its previous status, the change of custody notwithstanding, and that therefore the owner is liable for the full cost of the damage. By contrast, R' Ya’akov holds that the change of custody changes the status of the ox, which reverts to innocuousness, and so the owner pays only half the cost of the damage.