For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 57
To download, click/tap here: PDF
Our masechta continues its discussion of payment "to the extent of the benefit" [ma she-nehenet]. Even when, for one reason or another, there is no liability in the context of the laws of damage, a person is still obligated to pay a person from whom he derived benefit the amount of that benefit, this being similar to the argument that "mamoni gabakh" ("my property is in your possession").
Regarding, [a case where an animal tripped and had the blow cushioned by landing on produce that did not belong to his owner, and the owner of the damaged produce, even if, for whatever reason, he will not get paid the full value of the damaged fruit, would still like to at least be paid for the benefit derived by the animal from the lessening of] the impact, we might have said that this is a case of "driving away a lion away from a neighbor's property" [mavri'ach ari], so that no payment should be made even to the extent of the benefit.
It is therefore indicated to us [here that even this benefit has to be paid for].
We look at the history the lion in rabbinic Literature and its use as metaphor for the divine.