The Mishna says that a trained-to-fight bull does not get killed when he gores a man. We have a machlokes Rav and Shmuel whether such a bull can be offered as a korban but it never is explicitly said if the owner of such a bull would need to pay kofer or not.
On the one hand I'm inclined to think not, just like you don't kill the bull, so too he is considered oneis for this purpose. On the other hand, we did come out l'halacha that even a 'regel' killing pays kofer, so I can hear both ways. What do you think?
Nesonel Yankelev, Passaic, New Jersey, USA
Shalom!
My immediate response was to agree with your first side ("On the one hand I'm inclined to think not, just like you don't kill the bull, so too he is considered Oneis for this purpose.") However, when I thought it through, I had the following thoughts:
True the ox is an Oines, but regarding the owner this is not so simple. There is a Machlokes if Kofer is a Kapara or a payment for damages. If it is a Kapara, since the murderous nature of this ox was cultivated by the owner intentionally it seems logical that the owner does not deserve the opportunity to have a Kapara (unlike regel).
However, if Kofer is a payment for damages, it is entirely feasible that the owner would be obligated to pay, as he is MORE culpable than an ordinary owner of an ox that kills (i.e., through Regel etc.)
Unfortunately, I was not able to find any concrete proofs for any of these statements, not supportive or disputive. If you come up with any proofs from any source, please let me know.
Shimon Brodie