(Mishnah): And similarly for a boy or girl.

(Beraisa): "Or if it will gore a boy or girl" - (we kill the ox) for minors like for adults.

Suggestion: We should be able to learn from man, who is liable for minors like for adults!

One who kills a minor is (killed) like one who kills an adult. Also, an ox that kills a minor should be (killed) like an ox that kills an adult!

Further, there is a Kal va'Chomer! A child who kills is not (killed) like an adult who kills, yet people are killed for killing children. A young ox that kills one is (killed) like a mature ox, all the more so, an ox that kills a minor is like one who kills an adult!

Rejection: No. A man who kills is more stringent, for he pays four (additional) damages. We cannot learn to an ox, which only pays Nezek. We need "a boy or a girl".

Question: This teaches about a Mu'ad. What is the source for a Tam?

Answer #1: The Torah said that we kill the ox for goring a man or woman, and for a boy or girl. Just like for a man or woman, Tam is like Mu'ad, also for a boy or girl.

Further, there is a Kal va'Chomer! Men and women have less privileges regarding damages (when they damage, they are liable), yet a Tam is killed for them like a Mu'ad. Minors are privileged regarding damages (they are exempt for damage). All the more so a Tam is killed for them, like a Mu'ad!

Question: Can we make such a Kal va'Chomer, to be stringent?

We are stringent for killing adults, for they are commanded to keep Mitzvos. Perhaps we are lenient for killing minors, who are exempt from Mitzvos!

Answer #2: "If it will gore a boy, if it will gore a girl" - it says "gore" twice. The verse discusses a Mu'ad and a Tam that gore, regarding death and damages.

(Mishnah): In the following cases, an ox is exempt:

It was scratching on the wall, and it fell on a man;

It intended to kill an animal, a Nochri, or a Nefel (stillborn baby), and killed a (healthy) Yisrael.

(Gemara - Shmuel): The animal is not killed, but it pays Kofer.

(Rav): It is exempt from both.

Question: Why does Shmuel obligate Kofer? It is Tam!

Answer: Elsewhere, Rav said 'the case is, the ox is Mu'ad to fall on people in pits.' Here, we can say that the ox is Mu'ad to kill people when scratching on walls.

Question: If so, we kill the ox!

Regarding the pit, we can say that it saw food, and therefore fell in. Here, it intended to kill!

Answer: No, it was scratching for its own benefit.

Question: How could we know this?

Answer: After it fell, it resumed scratching.

Question: This is only pebbles (the ox made the wall fall, and the wall killed)!

Answer (Rav Mari brei d'Rav Kahana): The ox was pressing on the wall the entire time it was falling.

Support (for Shmuel, and question against Rav - Beraisa): Sometimes the ox is killed and pays Kofer; sometimes the ox is not killed but it pays Kofer; sometimes the ox is killed but it is exempt from Kofer; sometimes it is exempt from both:

A Mu'ad that intended to kill is killed, and it pays Kofer;

A Mu'ad that did not intend is not killed, but it pays Kofer;

A Tam that intended is killed, but it is exempt from Kofer;

A Tam that did not intend is exempt from both.

R. Yehudah says, if it damaged without intent, it pays;

R. Shimon exempts.

Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?

Answer: He learns from Kofer. Just like Kofer is paid even without intent, also damages.

R. Shimon learns from stoning. Just like we kill the ox only when it intended, also payment of damages.

Question: Why doesn't R. Yehudah learn like R. Shimon?

Answer: He prefers to learn payments from payments, not from death.

Question: Why doesn't R. Shimon learn like R. Yehudah?

Answer: He prefers to learn damages from stoning, which are both liabilities of the ox, not from Kofer, which is an atonement for the owner.

(Mishnah): If it intended to kill an animal, and killed a Yisrael... it is exempt.

(Inference): Had it intended to kill Reuven and killed Shimon, it would be liable!

Our Mishnah is not like R. Shimon.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): Even if it intended to kill Reuven and killed Shimon, it is exempt.

Question: What is his reason?

Answer: "The ox will be stoned, and also its owner will die" - death of the ox is like of the owner;

Just like a man is killed only for killing his intended victim, also an ox.

Question: What is his source that a man is killed only for killing his intended victim?

Answer: "He waited in ambush for him, and rose upon him" - he must intend for his victim.

Question: What do Chachamim learn from that verse?

Answer (d'Vei R. Yanai): It excludes one who throws a rock into a group and kills someone.

Question: What is the case?

If the majority are Nochrim, even without this verse we would follow the majority (and not kill him, for it is as if he intended to kill a Nochri)!

Even if half were Nochrim, for an even doubt we do not kill!

The case is, there are nine Yisraelim and one Nochri there. Even though the majority are Yisraelim, the minority is considered Kavu'a (fixed). It is like an even doubt; we do not kill when in doubt.

(Mishnah): The following oxen are killed (for killing): the ox of a woman, of orphans (without an Apotropos), of (orphans with) an Apotropos, an ox of the wilderness, a Hekdesh ox, and the ox of a convert who died without heirs;

R. Yehudah says, we do not kill an ox of the wilderness, of Hekdesh, or of a convert who died without heirs, because it has no owner.

(Gemara - Beraisa): It says 'ox' seven times in the Parshah. Six are extra, to teach about six special oxen that we kill: the ox of a woman, of orphans, of an Apotropos, an ox of the wilderness, a Hekdesh ox, and the ox of a convert who died without heirs;

R. Yehudah says, we do not kill the last three, because they have no owners.

(Rav Huna): R. Yehudah exempts even if it had an owner, and he made it Hefker or Hekdesh after it gored.

Question: What is the source for this?

Answer: The Mishnah counts an ox of the wilderness and the ox of a convert who died without heirs as separate cases.

Question: Both are Hefker!

Answer: Both were taught to teach that even if it had an owner, and he made it Hefker or Hekdesh after it gored, R. Yehudah exempts.

Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Even if it had an owner, and he made it Hefker or Hekdesh after it gored, it is exempt - "the owner heard testimony on it, and it killed (again... the ox will be stoned)" - the trial of the ox must be like the goring, (i.e. when it has an owner).

Question: We should require an owner also at the time of the verdict! "The ox will be stoned" is the verdict!

Correction: Indeed, it should say 'the goring, the trial, and the verdict must be the same' (when it has an owner).

(Mishnah): If Reuven's ox was being brought out to be stoned, and he made it Hekdesh, it is not Hekdesh. If he slaughtered it, the meat is forbidden.

Before a verdict was reached, if he made it Hekdesh, it is Hekdesh. If he slaughtered it, the meat is permitted.

If one gave an animal to a Shomer Chinam (one who guards a deposit for free), borrower, Shomer Sachar (he is paid to guard it), or renter, the Shomer is like the owner. A Mu'ad pays full damage, and a Tam pays half- damage.