Reference for Bava Kamma 20:28

לימא פחת נבילה תנאי היא דתניא אם טרף יטרף יביאהו עד

hence special reference is essential.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 12. ');">²⁰</span> If [on the other hand] this ruling had been made known to us only in the case of an animal torn in pieces.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 42, n. 11. ');">²²</span> it would have been explained by the fact that the damage there was done by an indirect agency,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not by the bailee himself but by a wild beast. ');">²³</span> whereas in the case of a man killing a beast, where the damage was done by a direct agency, the opposite view might have been held. Again, were this ruling intimated in both cases, it would have been explained in the one case on account of its infrequency,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., man killing an animal. ');">²⁴</span> and in the other account of the indirect agency,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the animal in charge was torn by beasts. ');">²⁵</span> whereas in the damage to which 'And the dead shall be his own'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the case of a goring ox, Ex. XXI, 36. ');">²⁶</span> refers, which is both frequent and direct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ox being his property, makes the owner responsible for the damage as if it were perpetrated by himself, ');">²⁷</span> an opposite view might have been taken. If [on the other hand] this ruling had been intimated only in the case referred to by 'And the dead shall be his own, it would have been explained by the fact of the damage having been done only by man's possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by his cattle. ');">²⁸</span> whereas in cases where the damage resulted from man's person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as in Lev. XXIV, 18 and Ex. XXII, 12. ');">²⁹</span> an opposite view might have been taken. Hence all quotations are essential. R. Kahana said to Rab: The reason [for the ruling] is that the Divine Law says 'And the dead shall be his own', and but for this I might have thought that the carcass shall remain with the defendant [yet how can this be]? If, when there are with him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with the defendant. ');">³⁰</span> several carcasses he is entitled to pay him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the plaintiff. ');">³¹</span> with them, for the Master stated: He shall return,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' EX.XXI, 34. ');">³²</span> includes payment in kind, even with bran,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 24. ');">³³</span> what question then about the carcass of his own animal? — No, the verse is required only for the law regarding the decrease of the value of the carcass<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to he sustained by the plaintiff, since it becomes his from the moment of the goring. ');">³⁴</span> May we say that the decrease of the value of the carcass is a point at issue between Tannaitic authorities? For it has been taught: If it be torn in pieces, let him bring it for witness:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex.XXII, 12. ');">³⁵</span>

Jastrow