What is the meaning of "Ki Yigach"?
Bava Kama, 2b: 'Negichah' means goring with the horn. 1
Why does the Torah use the expression "Ki Yigach" here, in connection with a human-being, and "Ki Yigof" in Pasuk 35, in connection with an animal?
Bava Kama (ibid.): Because 'Negichah' is a stronger form of goring than 'Negufah', and a n ox requires more force to gore a person than it does to gore an animal, since human-beings possess a Mazel, 1 which an animal does not.
A guardian angel
What are the implications of "ve'Chi Yigach Shor ... "?
Bava Kama, 39a: It implies that only an ox that gores of its own volition is Chayav Sekilah, but not one that is trained to gore. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 190.
What if the Shor Tam gores a Katan"?
Mechilta: Since both a Tam and a Mu'ad that kill a human-being are Chayav Sekilah, we learn Tam from Mu'ad, which does not differentiate between a Gadol and a Katan 1 in this regard,
See Pasuk 31.
Seeing as the current ruling extends to all animals and even to birds (as will be explained in Pasuk 33), why does the Torah mention specifically an ox?
Rashi: Because it is common for oxen to damage by goring.
What if the Shor Tam kills a person in any way other goring?
Seeing as the ox needs to be stoned, is it not obvious that it may not be eaten; so why the Torah need to specifically say so?
Rashi, Rashbam #2 (citing Bava Kama, 41a) and Targum Yonasan: To teach us that, even if the owner slaughtered it after Beis-Din sentenced it to stoning, it may not be eaten.
Rashbam #1: The Torah is teaching us here that, even though it permits selling a Neveilah or Tereifah to a Nochri or giving it to one's dog, it is forbidden to do the same with a Mu'ad ox.
R. Avahu in Bava Kama, 41a: To teach us that the meat is also Asur be'Hana'ah. 1
Since R; Avahu holds that "Lo Ye'achel" always includes an Isur Hana'ah. Te Yerushalmi in Avodah Zarah, 5:12 adds that it also renders Asur be'Cholshehu. See Torah Temimah, note 199.
Why does the Torah add the words "Es Besaro"?
Bava Kama, 41b: To include the skin 1 in the Isur Hana'ah.
Mechilta: To include the blood, the Cheilev and the skin in the Isur Hana'ah.
Temurah, 30b: To permit the dung 2 be'Hana'ah - ' "Besaro" Asur, Pirsho Mutar'.
What are the connotations of "Ba'al ha'Shor Naki"?
Rashi #1: It adds the prohibition of deriving any benefit from the ox. 1
Rashi #2: Since in the following Pasuk (in connection with a Shor Mu'ad - an ox that gored three times) the Torah writes "ve'Gam Ba'aLa'av Yumas", it needs to write here, that the owner is Patur. 2
Targum Yonason: (If a Mu'ad kills a sLa'ave, its owner pays 30 Shekalim.) The owner of a Tam is exempt from this.
Bava Kama, 41b and 42a & b: To teach us that he is Patur from half Kofer
Like a person tells his friend 'P'loni Yatza Chinam mi'Nechasav' (So-and so lost everything); he has no benefit whatsoever from his property!' (Rashi). Bava Kama, 41a, learns this from the words "Lo Ye'achel" (See Ba'al ha'Turim). See also 21:28:2:2.
Hadar Zekenim: Since he knew that it is a gorer, he is Chayav Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim]. Since he himself did not kill, Beis Din takes Kofer for him. (Here, he is not Chayav at all. - PF)
See Torah Temimah, note 203, who discusses all the opinions, which are all Halachah.
See Torah Temimah, note 204.
Why does the Torah insert the word "Shor" seven times in the current Parshah?
Bava Kama, 44b: To include in the Din of Misah an ox belonging to orphans, an Apotropus of orphans, one belonging to Hekdesh, an ox that is Hefker, and an ox that belongs to a Ger who died and left no relatives. 1
Even though they have no owner who is responsible.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that the verse needs to forbid if it was slaughtered after it was sentenced, it may not be eaten. Perhaps it is needed for a Ben Paku'a (a fetus in a slaughtered animal), which does not need [another] Shechitah!
Moshav Zekenim #1: If a Ben Paku'a, which was already permitted through Shechitah, becomes forbidden, all the more so a regular ox that was not permitted yet! We learn the smaller Chidush, but a Ben Paku'a, or an animal slaughtered before the verdict, is not forbidden.
Moshav Zekenim #2: Also a Ben Paku'a is forbidden in its lifetime, due to Ever Min ha'Chai. 1 Therefore, stoning it is like Shechitah, and it is forbidden.
Moshav Zekenim #3: Even if "Lo Ye'achel" is needed for a Ben Paku'a, or for a bird according to the opinion that the Torah does not require Shechitah for birds, "Es Besaro" forbids if it was made like meat (slaughtered).
Da'as Zekenim: Ben Paku'a is as if it was already slaughtered. We hold that if it was slaughtered before the sentence, it is permitted. 2
Riva: The Torah discusses a Stam ox, and not a Ben Paku'a.
Riva citing R"S ha'Kadosh: If a Ben Paku'a that was stoned becomes Asur, this is due to the verdict (and not because it is Neveilah), so the same applies to an animal slaughtered after the verdict.
Moshav Zekenim: If not, there should be a source that Ever Min ha'Chai is permitted, i.e. in a Ben Paku'a! (I did not find anyone else who says so. Chulin 75b says that if it stepped on the ground it needs Shechitah, i.e. only mid'Rabanan, due to Maris ha'Ayin (Rashi)! - PF)
How does this answer the question? Since we do not need a verse for a regular animal, it should forbid a Ben Paku'a! (PF)
Rashi writes that after it is stoned, it is Asur b'Hana'ah. It should be permitted, for its Mitzvah was done!
Moshav Zekenim: We say that there is no Me'ilah after its Mitzvah was done only regarding matters of Kaparah. 1
It is only Isurei Hana'ah which must be burnt that become permitted after burning, but not things that require burial
Moshav Zekenim: Tziporei Metzora are forbidden only before Haza'ah. We learn them from Eglah Arufah.