Bava Kamma 56B

פשיטא! כיון דאפקוה ⁠– קיימא לה ברשותייהו לכל מילי!

The Talmud questions the need for this ruling: It is obvious that this is the halakha, as once they removed the animal, it is now in their custody for all purposes, including responsibility for any ensuing damage.

לא צריכא, דקמו לה באפה. כי הא דאמר רבה אמר רב מתנה אמר רב: המעמיד בהמת חברו על קמת חבירו ⁠– חייב. מעמיד ⁠– פשיטא! לא צריכא, דקם לה באפה.

The Talmud answers: No, this statement is necessary in a case where they stood before the animal and encouraged it to leave the enclosure but did not lead it out directly. This case is like the case in this statement that Rabba says that Rav Mattana says that Rav says: With regard to one who stands another’s animal near a third person’s standing grain, and the animal eats the grain, he is liable. The Talmud asks: If he stands the animal there, isn’t it obvious that he is liable? The Talmud answers: No, this ruling is necessary in a case where one stood before the animal and encouraged it to go toward the grain without leading it, and he is nevertheless liable.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף: הכישה אמרת לן, ולסטים נמי דהכישוה.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: You told us when explaining the statement of Rav Mattana in the name of Rav that it is referring to a case where he hit the animal with a stick, and similarly, the Mishnah can also be explained as referring to a case where the bandits hit it with a stick and did not lead it.

מסרה לרועה ⁠– נכנס הרועה כו׳. אמרי: תחתיו דמאן? אילימא תחתיו דבעל בהמה ⁠– תנינא חדא זמנא: מסרו לשומר חנם, ולשואל, לנושא שכר, ולשוכר ⁠– כולן נכנסו תחת הבעלים! אלא תחתיו דשומר.

§ The Mishnah teaches that if the owner conveyed the animal to a shepherd to care for it, the shepherd enters in his place and is responsible for all damage. The rabbis say in clarification: The shepherd enters in place of whom? If we say that the shepherd is in place of the owner of the animal, didn’t we already learn on one occasion in a Mishnah (44b): If the owner conveyed his animal to an unpaid bailee, or to a borrower, to a paid bailee, or to a renter, they all enter into the responsibilities and liabilities in place of the owner. What novelty is there in stating that the responsibility now lies with the shepherd to whom the owner conveyed the animal? Rather, it means that the shepherd enters in place of a bailee to whom the owner conveyed the animal, who is no longer liable once he conveys the animal to a shepherd.