Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/407

Paragraph 1- If an unwarned ox damaged, and the tortfeasor sold it before litigation, although the sale is effective, the victim may collect from the ox, and the buyer would then go and collect from the tortfeasor that sold it to him, because once an animal gores there is chatter and the buyer should not have purchased it before the victim collected. If the victim sold it, the sale would be valid, and once he seizes it the buyer would take it.

Paragraph 2- If the tortfeasor slaughtered the animal, the victim would collect from its meat. ''There are those who say the tortfeasor must pay of the decrease in value from the slaughtering. Similarly, if he used the animal he must pay rent to the victim''. If he gave it as a gift, the gift is effective and the victim would collect from it.

Paragraph 3- When is this true? Where he sold or gifted prior to litigation. If he already litigated and then sold or gifted, however, he has not done anything.

Paragraph 4- If the tortfeasor’s creditor went ahead and seized the ox, regardless of whether the obligation was owed prior to the damage or the damage occurred before the obligation was owed, he would not acquire. Rather, the victim would collect from him, because even if the animal was with the creditor originally when it damaged he would still collect from the actual animal. ''There are those who say this is only where the creditor could have collected his debt elsewhere. If the ox was an explicitly designated collection for the creditor and the debt was incurred prior to the damage, however, the creditor would take precedence.''