Bava Kamma

Let him  bring witnesses that it had been torn by sheer accident and free himself. Abba Saul says: Let him  [in all cases] bring the torn animal  to the Court. Now is not the following the point at issue: The latter maintains that a decrease in value of the carcass will be sustained by the plaintiff,  whereas the former view takes it to be sustained by the defendant? — No, it is unanimously held that the decrease will be sustained by the plaintiff. Here, however, the trouble of [providing  for bringing up] the carcass [from the pit] is the point at issue,  as [indeed] taught: Others say, Whence [could it be derived] that it is upon the owner of the pit to bring up the [damaged] ox from his pit? We derive it from the text, 'Money shall he return unto to the owner. And the dead beast'…  Abaye said to Raba: What does this trouble about the carcass mean? If the value of the carcass in the pit is one zuz,  whereas on the banks  its value will be four [zuz], is he not taking the trouble [of bringing up the carcass] solely in his own interests? — He [Raba], however, said: No, it applies when in the pit its value is one zuz, and on the banks its value is similarly one zuz. But is such a thing possible? Yes, as the popular adage has it, 'A beam in town costs a zuz and a beam in a field costs a zuz'. Samuel said: No assessment is made in theft and robbery  but in cases of damage;  I, however, maintain that the same applies to borrowing,  and Abba  agrees with me. It was therefore asked: Did he mean to say that 'to borrowing the law of assessment does apply and Abba agrees with me,' Or did he perhaps mean to say that 'to borrowing the law of assessment does not apply and Abba agrees with me'? — Come and hear: A certain person borrowed an axe from his neighbour and broke it. He came before Rab, who said to him, 'Go and pay [the lender] for his sound axe.'  Now, can you not prove hence  that [the law of] assessment does not apply [to borrowing]?  — On the contrary, for since R. Kahana and R. Assi [interposed and] said to Rab, 'Is this really the law?' and no reply followed, we can conclude that assessment is made. It has been stated: 'Ulla said on behalf of R. Eleazar: Assessment is [also] made in case of theft and robbery; but R. Papi said that no assessment is made [in these cases]. The law is: No assessment is made in theft and robbery, but assessment is made in cases of borrowing, in accordance with R. Kahana and R. Assi. 'Ulla further said on behalf of R. Eleazar: When a placenta comes out [from a woman] partly on one day and partly on the next day, the counting of the days of impurity  commences with the first day [of the emergence]. Raba, however, said to him: What is in your mind? To take the stricter course? Is not this a strictness that will lead to lenience, since you will have to declare her pure  by reckoning from the first day? Raba therefore said: 'Out of mere apprehension, notice is taken of the first day [to be considered impure], but actual counting commences only with the second day.' What is the new point made known to us? That even a part of an [emerging] placenta contains a fetus. But have we not learnt this elsewhere:  'A placenta coming partly out of an animal  renders [the whole of] it unfit for consumption,  as that, which is a sign of a fetus in humankind is similarly a sign of a fetus in an animal'? — As to this Mishnaic statement I might still have argued