Bull running

Thank you very much.
That is, if I understand correctly, a tam ox does not need to be guarded at all, and yet the sages imposed a fine on it, so if I want to get rid of the fine, I must maintain excellent guarding. On the other hand, a tamed ox needs guarding and the requirement for me to guard it is less. My logic says that the more your wealth poses a greater danger to the public, the more you must guard it. Therefore, I would require excellent guarding. The explanation that a tam ox does not need guarding and therefore the obligation is only from the law of fines is also a bit incomprehensible. An ox is an animal that has the potential to cause harm to the public. Does the Rabbi see any logic in the fact that an ox does not need guarding at all? It seems to me that today a dog needs excellent guarding.

Right, but the conclusion is wrong. Less protection is “like a human denarius” and therefore it is enough for the ox (even a moed) to be considered protected. But to get rid of the fine of half the damage, you need to be really righteous and maintain excellent protection.
It is not a question of how much protection the ox needs, but what protection justifies that we spare you and even exempt you from the fine.

Apparently, the division is that in the case of a complete sentence, the basis for liability is because your sentence caused harm, whereas in the case of a term, the basis for liability is because you did not keep it.

True (although there is some confusion about the Abkhaz investigation regarding tort claims), but that in itself requires an explanation.

Because the obligation to guard the bull of the time of the festival is an explanation – this bull is close to causing harm, therefore guard it – and therefore the obligation is on the man. But in their opinion, half the damage is a fine which is a fine” which says that the one whose bull caused the damage must pay.
Apparently the intention of the Torah is that everyone should maintain excellent guard – therefore in their opinion we obligated the one who maintains lesser guard to pay, but in the time of the festival the Torah relies on the owner to maintain excellent guard (“just bulls with the assumption of sustainable guard” according to this opinion), both because this bull is close to causing harm and because he will pay the full amount of the damage that the bull will cause. In other words, the owner is already deterred.

Well, I've lost you. In a bullfight, anyone who keeps less guard is exempt, meaning that halachically, less guard is sufficient. So why assume in a stele that the owner will keep it in excellent guard? I've already explained that the Gemara states that the required guard is “kadantri inshi”, meaning less guard. But I think everything is clear now.

Would it be conceivable that someone who has a tam bull and keeps it in excellent condition would reduce the level of care for the bull after it has been tamed?
Why would he do this, is it because the halacha no longer requires him to pay?! After all, this is the opinion of the Rabbi, who believes that ”tam bulls are subject to the presumption of permanent maintenance”, that is, he trusts the owner to take care of his bull even before the Torah required damages to be paid for them! So your question is not for me, but for the Rabbi.

I think you're completely confused here. But everything has been explained. Just innocent bulls under the presumption of conservation but not tripping. And the presumption of conservation is not only because the owner is a guardian but also because there is no fear that they will be gored. Okay, we've exhausted it.

Where does this concept of half damage come from? Isn't it permissible to sell the live bull and the dead bull and divide the money? That is, both will receive the same amount. That is, no one is held guilty of the bull hitting, and both share the extent of the damage equally.
And in the case of a bull, the penalty is that he gives him the live bull and he receives the dead bull.