Bava Kamma 13: Sacrificial Damages and Ownerless Damagers

The Gemara discusses animals intended for sacrifice.  Peace offerings, tithe offerings, first-born offerings.  Some of these animals are permitted to be redeemed and some are not, for they are sanctified from the time that they are in the womb.  Some animals are permitted to be sold and some are not - whether or not they are blemished, alive/slaughtered.  

So what is to be done when an animal that causes damage is the same animal intended for sacrifice?   Does it make a difference which type of offering is at hand?  What about whether or not the animal was tam, tame, or mu'ad, already violent and forewarned?  We know that sometimes damages can be paid through meat.  Is sacrificial meat treated in the same ways as unconsecrated meat?

The rabbis move their arguments in an interesting direction.  They compare different types of sacrifices and determine which parts of the animal are sacrificed.  If an animal did damage with parts of its body that would not be used as an offering, are those parts of its body permitted as payment?  What about the bread that accompanies a thanks-offering, for example? Are parts of the animal required as payment, or can the bread be used as payment for damages?

We learn that any payment of damages happens only in a situation where there is a clear which animal has done damage.  If two people each accuse the other's animal of injuring the other, neither can collect damages.  As well, the animal that has caused damage must have an owner at the time that it has caused damage and at the time that it is tried.  Is this a loophole?  Could the owner of a mu'ad ox that gores again then claim that his animal is now ownerless, thus erasing his culpability?  This is an important idea, especially because when an ox kills a person, both the ox and its owner are supposedly meant to be stoned to death.  The owner thus has opportunity to back away from full ownership - of the ox and of its crime.

The Gemara ends with a discussion about two shared owners of a fence in a courtyard.  Who is responsible if each of their animals might have damaged the fence?  The rabbis consider whether the actions of the animals fall into the categories of Eating, Trampling, or Goring.  They also wonder whether the specific wording of the mishna was used to include the cases of unpaid bailees, borrowers, paid bailees, renters, bandits, and others.