## Bava Kamma Daf 44b

###### Bava Kamma 44b:1
[Bava Kamma 44b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:1)

וְאַכַּתִּי צְרוֹרוֹת נִינְהוּ! אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא: דְּקָאָזֵיל מִינֵּיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara 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 imposed for such indirect killing. **Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said:** It is a case **where** the wall **gradually gave way** under the pressure applied by the ox, and so while the ox was still pushing the wall it collapsed and killed the person.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:2
[Bava Kamma 44b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:2)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל – וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב: יֵשׁ חַיָּיב בְּמִיתָה וּבְכוֹפֶר, וְיֵשׁ חַיָּיב בְּכוֹפֶר וּפָטוּר מִמִּיתָה, וְיֵשׁ חַיָּיב בְּמִיתָה וּפָטוּר מִן הַכּוֹפֶר, וְיֵשׁ פָּטוּר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 ox is **exempt from** being put to **death, and there are** cases where the ox is **liable to** be put to **death but** the owner is **exempt from** paying **ransom, and there are** cases where they are **exempt from this** punishment **and from that** one.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:3
[Bava Kamma 44b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:3)

הָא כֵּיצַד? מוּעָד בְּכַוָּונָה – חַיָּיב בְּמִיתָה וּבְכוֹפֶר. מוּעָד שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּונָה – חַיָּיב בְּכוֹפֶר וּפָטוּר מִמִּיתָה. תָּם בְּכַוָּונָה – חַיָּיב בְּמִיתָה וּפָטוּר מִכּוֹפֶר. תָּם שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּונָה – פָּטוּר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 **intentionally,** the ox is **liable to** be put to **death but** the owner is **exempt from** paying **ransom;** and if **an innocuous** ox kills **unintentionally,** they are **exempt from this** punishment **and from that** one. The *baraita* states explicitly that although a forewarned ox that kills a person unintentionally is exempt from being put to death, its owner is liable to pay ransom, in accordance with Shmuel’s opinion, and in contrast with Rav’s opinion.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:4
[Bava Kamma 44b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:4)

וְהַנְּזָקִין שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּונָה – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* adds: **And** for **injuries** caused by an ox **unintentionally,** from which the victim is not killed, **Rabbi Yehuda deems** the owner **liable** to pay for the injury **and Rabbi Shimon exempts** him.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:5
[Bava Kamma 44b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:5)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? יָלֵיף מִכּוֹפְרוֹ; מָה כּוֹפְרוֹ – שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּונָה חַיָּיב, אַף הַנְּזָקִין נָמֵי – שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּונָה חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda?** The Gemara 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 **unintentionally, so too,** with regard to **injuries** he is **also liable** even if it gores **unintentionally.**


###### Bava Kamma 44b:6
[Bava Kamma 44b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:6)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יָלֵיף מִקְּטָלֵיהּ דְּשׁוֹר, מָה קְטָלֵיהּ – שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּונָה פָּטוּר, אַף נְזָקִין – שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּונָה פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Shimon derives** his opinion **from** the *halakha* of the putting to **death of an ox** by the court: **Just as** with regard to **its** being put to **death,** if it kills a person **unintentionally** it is **exempt, so too,** if it causes **injuries unintentionally** its owner is **exempt** from payment.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:7
[Bava Kamma 44b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:7)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי, נֵילַף מִקְּטָלֵיהּ! דָּנִין תַּשְׁלוּמִין מִתַּשְׁלוּמִין, וְאֵין דָּנִין תַּשְׁלוּמִין מִמִּיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the above explanation: **And let Rabbi Yehuda also derive** the *halakha* concerning an ox unintentionally causing injury **from** the *halakha* of **its** being put to **death.** The Gemara answers: In his opinion, **we can derive** a *halakha* with regard to **payment** for injury **from** the *halakha* of ransom, which is another *halakha* with regard to **payment. But we cannot derive** a *halakha* with regard to **payment from** a *halakha* concerning **death.**


###### Bava Kamma 44b:8
[Bava Kamma 44b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:8)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי, נֵילַף מִכּוֹפְרוֹ! דָּנִין חִיּוּבֵיהּ דְּשׁוֹר מֵחִיּוּבֵיהּ דְּשׁוֹר, לְאַפּוֹקֵי כּוֹפֶר דְּחִיּוּבֵיהּ דִּבְעָלִים הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Conversely, the Gemara asks: **And let Rabbi Shimon also derive** the *halakha* here **from** the *halakha* concerning **its** owner’s **ransom** payment. The Gemara answers: **We can derive** a *halakha* with regard to the **liability of an ox from** a *halakha* with regard to the **liability of an ox, to the exclusion of** the payment of **ransom, which is the liability of the owner.** Compensation for injury is considered the ox’s liability, as it is the ox that caused the injury, whereas the ransom paid is for the owner’s atonement. Therefore, the *halakha* concerning injury cannot be derived from the *halakha* of ransom, as they are dissimilar.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:9
[Bava Kamma 44b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:9)

נִתְכַּוֵּין לַהֲרוֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם [וְכוּ׳] – פָּטוּר. הָא נִתְכַּוֵּין לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה, וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה – חַיָּיב, מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּין לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה, וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if an ox **intended to kill** another **animal but killed a person,** or if it intended to kill a person for whom it would not be liable to be put to death but killed a person for whom it would be liable, it is **exempt.** The Gemara infers: If the ox **intended to kill this** person, for whom it would be liable, **but killed that** person instead, it is still **liable.** Accordingly, **the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says: Even** if the ox **intended to kill this** person **but killed that** person, it is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 44b:10
[Bava Kamma 44b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:10)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת״ – כְּמִיתַת בְּעָלִים, כָּךְ מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר; מָה בְּעָלִים – עַד דְּמִיכַּוֵּין לֵיהּ, אַף שׁוֹר נָמֵי – עַד דְּמִיכַּוֵּין לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon?** The Gemara answers that it is **because the verse states: “The ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death”** (Exodus 21:29); the juxtaposition of the ox and its owner indicates that **as the death of the owner,** i.e., a person, for killing another person, **so** is **the death of the ox** for killing a person. In other words, the two *halakhot* are applied in the same circumstances. Specifically, **just as the owner,** i.e., a person, is not liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment **unless he intends** to kill the person whom he ultimately kills, **so too, an ox** is not put to death **either, unless it intends** to kill the one whom it ultimately kills.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:11
[Bava Kamma 44b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:11)

וּבְעָלִים גּוּפַיְיהוּ מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָרַב לוֹ וְקָם עָלָיו״ – עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **the owner himself, from where do we** derive that he is not liable unless he killed the one whom he intended to kill? It is **as the verse states: “And he lay in wait for him, and rose against him,** and struck him mortally and he died” (Deuteronomy 19:11). From the term “for him,” Rabbi Shimon derives that the killer is not liable **unless he intends** to kill **him,** i.e., the one whom he ultimately killed.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:12
[Bava Kamma 44b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:12)

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״וְאָרַב לוֹ״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: פְּרָט לַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לְגוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what do the Rabbis,** who deem the killer liable in that case and who therefore disagree with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, **do with this** phrase: **“And he lay in wait for him”?** How do they interpret it? The Gemara answers that the Sages **of the school of Rabbi Yannai say** that this phrase **excludes** from liability **one who throws a stone into** an area where there are several people, some of whom are people for whom he would not be liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, e.g., gentiles, and a stone killed a person for whom he would receive court-imposed capital punishment.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:13
[Bava Kamma 44b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:13)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאִיכָּא תִּשְׁעָה גּוֹיִם וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּינֵיהֶם – תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּרוּבָּא גּוֹיִם נִינְהוּ; אִי נָמֵי פַּלְגָא וּפַלְגָא – סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת לְהָקֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case? **If we say that there are nine gentiles** in the crowd **and one Jew among them,** even without the verse **derive** the exemption from the fact **that a majority of them are gentiles. Alternatively,** even if **half** the people are gentiles **and half** are Jews, derive the exemption from the principle that when there is **uncertainty** concerning **capital law,** the *halakha* is **to** be **lenient.**


###### Bava Kamma 44b:14
[Bava Kamma 44b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:14)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא תִּשְׁעָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְאֶחָד גּוֹי. דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּרוּבָּא יִשְׂרְאֵלִים נִינְהוּ; כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חֲדא גּוֹי בֵּינַיְיהוּ – הָוֵי לֵיהּ קָבוּעַ, וְכׇל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמֵי, וְסָפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת לְהָקֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** the verse **is necessary** in a case **where there are nine Jews and one gentile. Although a majority of them are Jews,** the thrower is exempt from liability **because there is one gentile among them** who **is considered fixed** in his place, **and** the legal status of **any** item **fixed** in its place **is like** that of an uncertainty that is **equally balanced; and** when there is **uncertainty** concerning **capital law** the *halakha* is **to** be **lenient.** This is what the Rabbis derive from the phrase: “And he lay in wait for him.”


###### Bava Kamma 44b:15
[Bava Kamma 44b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** שׁוֹר הָאִשָּׁה, וְשׁוֹר הַיְּתוֹמִים, שׁוֹר הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, שׁוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר, שׁוֹר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, שׁוֹר הַגֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין מִיתָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר, שׁוֹר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, שׁוֹר הַגֵּר שֶׁמֵּת – פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמִּיתָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם בְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **an ox belonging to a woman, and** similarly **an ox belonging to** orphans, and **an ox** belonging to orphans that is in the custody **of** their **steward,** and **a desert ox,** which is ownerless, and **an ox** that was **consecrated** to the Temple treasury, and **an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs,** rendering the ox ownerless; all of **these** oxen **are liable** to be put to **death** for killing a person. **Rabbi Yehuda says: A desert ox, a consecrated ox,** and **an ox belonging to a convert who died are exempt from** being put to **death, since they have no owners.**


###### Bava Kamma 44b:16
[Bava Kamma 44b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:16)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שׁוֹר״ ״שׁוֹר״ שִׁבְעָה – לְהָבִיא שׁוֹר הָאִשָּׁה, שׁוֹר הַיְּתוֹמִים, שׁוֹר הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, שׁוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר, שׁוֹר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, שׁוֹר הַגֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר, שׁוֹר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, שׁוֹר הַגֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין – פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמִּיתָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם בְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught:** In the passage discussing an ox that kills a person (Exodus 21:28–32), the Torah states: **“An ox,” “an ox,”** repeating this word **seven** times, **to include** an additional six cases, in addition to the classic case of an ox goring and killing a person. They are: **An ox belonging to a woman, an ox belonging to orphans, an ox** belonging to orphans that is in the custody **of a steward, a desert ox, a consecrated ox,** and **an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs. Rabbi Yehuda says: A desert ox, a consecrated ox,** and **an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs are** all **exempt from** being put to **death, since they have no owners.**


###### Bava Kamma 44b:17
[Bava Kamma 44b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:17)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: פּוֹטֵר הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֲפִילּוּ נָגַח וּלְבַסּוֹף הִקְדִּישׁ, נָגַח וּלְבַסּוֹף הִפְקִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna says: Rabbi Yehuda would deem** the ox **exempt even** if it **gored** and killed **and** its owner **ultimately consecrated** it, or if **it gored and he ultimately renounced** his **ownership** over it, since at the time of the trial in court the ox does not have an owner.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:18
[Bava Kamma 44b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:18)

מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי – שׁוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר, וְשׁוֹר הַגֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין. שׁוֹר הַגֵּר שֶׁמֵּת מַאי נִיהוּ? דְּכֵיוָן דְּאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין – הֲוָה לֵיהּ שׁוֹר הֶפְקֵר; הַיְינוּ שׁוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר, הַיְינוּ שׁוֹר הַגֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין! אֶלָּא לָאו הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן – דַּאֲפִילּוּ נָגַח וּלְבַסּוֹף הִקְדִּישׁ, נָגַח וּלְבַסּוֹף הִפְקִיר? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where** did Rav Huna derive this assertion? **From** the fact **that** Rabbi Yehuda **teaches two** cases, **a desert ox and an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs. What is** the legal status of **an ox belonging to a convert who died? Since he has no heirs it is considered to be an ownerless ox.** Accordingly, the case of **a desert ox is** the same as the case of **an ox belonging to a convert who died and has no heirs,** and it does not seem necessary for the *baraita* to state both cases. **Rather, does it not teach us this: That even if** the ox **gored and he ultimately consecrated** it, or, if **it gored and he ultimately renounced ownership** over it, it is exempt, just as in a case where a convert’s ox gores and subsequently the owner dies? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **conclude from** the *baraita* that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:19
[Bava Kamma 44b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:19)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, יָתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ נָגַח וּלְבַסּוֹף הִקְדִּישׁ, נָגַח וּלְבַסּוֹף הִפְקִיר – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו״ – ״וְהֵמִית וְגוֹ׳״, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא מִיתָה וְהַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין שָׁוִין כְּאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** assertion **is also taught** in a *baraita*: **Moreover, Rabbi Yehuda said** that **even if it gored and he ultimately consecrated** it, or if **it gored and he ultimately renounced ownership** over it, the ox is **exempt, as it is stated: “And warning has been given [*vehuad*] to its owner**…**and it killed**…the ox shall be stoned” (Exodus 21:29). It is derived from here that the owner of the ox is exempt **unless** the ox’s status as the owner’s property at the time of the **death** of the victim **and** at the time of the owner’s **standing trial is the same,** i.e., that the ox has an owner.


###### Bava Kamma 44b:20
[Bava Kamma 44b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:20)

וּגְמַר דִּין לָא בָּעֵינַן? וְהָא ״הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל״ גְּמַר דִּין הוּא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא מִיתָה, וְהַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין, וּגְמַר דִּין שָׁוִין כְּאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But don’t we require** that the ox’s status be the same at the time of the **verdict** as well? **And isn’t** the phrase **“the ox shall be stoned”** also referring to the **verdict? Rather,** emend the statement and **say** that the owner of the ox is exempt **unless** the ox’s status as the owner’s property at the time of the **death** of the victim **and** at the time of the owner’s **standing trial and** at the time of **the verdict are identical as one.**


###### Bava Kamma 44b:21
[Bava Kamma 44b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:21)

**מַתְנִי׳** שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא לִיסָּקֵל, וְהִקְדִּישׁוֹ בְּעָלָיו – אֵינוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ. שְׁחָטוֹ – בְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר. וְאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ הִקְדִּישׁוֹ בְּעָלָיו – מוּקְדָּשׁ. וְאִם שְׁחָטוֹ – בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **an ox that is leaving** court **to be stoned** for killing a person **and its owner** then **consecrated it, it is not** considered **consecrated,** i.e., the consecration does not take effect, since deriving benefit from the ox is prohibited and the ox is therefore worthless. If one **slaughtered it, its flesh is forbidden** to be eaten and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. **But if its owner consecrated it before its verdict** the ox **is** considered **consecrated, and if he slaughtered it its flesh is permitted.**


###### Bava Kamma 44b:22
[Bava Kamma 44b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:22)

מְסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וּלְשׁוֹאֵל לְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וּלְשׂוֹכֵר – נִכְנְסוּ תַּחַת הַבְּעָלִים; מוּעָד – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם, וְתָם – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the owner of an ox **conveyed it to an unpaid bailee, or to a borrower,** or **to a paid bailee, or to a renter,** and it caused damage while in their custody, **they enter** into the responsibilities and liabilities **in place of the owner.** Therefore, if it was **forewarned** the bailee **pays the full** cost of the **damage, and** if it was **innocuous he pays half** the cost of **the damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 44b:23
[Bava Kamma 44b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/44b:23)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹר שֶׁהֵמִית; עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ – מְכָרוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught:** With regard to **an ox that killed** a person, if its owner **sold it before its verdict,**