Reference for Bava Kamma 48:8
ת"ש שיסה בו את הכלב שיסה בו נחש פטור מאי לאו פטור משסה וחייב בעל כלב לא אימא פטור אף משסה
Rabina even said: 'Where the witnesses know only the owner but could not identify the ox.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the sole intention of all the sets of witnesses was the declaration of Mu'ad. They could not have intended to make the defendant liable for half damages since half damages in the case of Tam is paid only out of the body of the goring ox which the witnesses in this case were unable to identify. This explanation holds good only regarding the intention of the last set of witnesses, whereas the former sets, if for the declaration of Mu'ad they would necessarily have to record their evidence before the third time of goring, could then not have foreseen that the same ox (whose identity was not established by them) would continue goring for three and four times. Rashi thus proves that the three days refer not to warning the owner but to the times of goring committed by the cattle. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
Explore reference for Bava Kamma 48:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.