What is the meaning of "Ki Yigach"?
Bava Kama, 2b: 'Negichah' means goring with the horn. 1
Bava Kama (Ibid.): As in Melachim 1, 22:11 and in ve'Zos ha'Berachah, 33:17. See Torah Temimah, note 188, as to why the Gemara cites the Pasuk in Navi before the Pasuk in the Torah.
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 an 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 - See Torah Temimah, note 189.
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.
The Torah writes " ... es Ish ve'es Ishah. 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,
Where it writes - in Pasuk 31 - "O ben Yigach O bas Yigach".
Since the Torah writes Shor, how do we know that the Din extends to other animals that gore?
Mechilta: WE learn if from a Gezeirah Shavah "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos from the Aseres ha'Dibros in Va'eschanan Devarim, 5:14, where the Torah writes "ve'Shorcha, va'Chamorcha ve'Chol Behemtecha". 1
See Torah Temimah, note 188.
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 than goring?
Seeing as the ox needs to be stoned, is it not obvious that it may not be eaten; why does 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 T'reifah 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 Basar is also Asur be'Hana'ah. 1
Since R; Avahu holds that "Lo Ye'achel" always includes an Isur Hana'ah. The Yerushalmi in Avodah Zarah, 5:12 adds that it also renders Asur be'Kolshehu. 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. 2
Temurah, 30b: To permit the dung be'Hana'ah - ' "Besaro" Asur, Pirsho Mutar'. 3
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) the Torah writes "ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas", it needs to write here that the owner is Patur. 2
Targum Yonason: It exempts him from paying for half the thirty Shekalim that the owner of a Mu'ad is Chayav for killing an Eved.
Bava Kama, 41b and 42a & b: To teach us that he is Patur from half Kofer - according to R. Eliezer; from paying for half the fetuses - according to R. Yossi ha'Gelili; and for paying for half an Eved - according to R.Akiva. 3
Mechilta (citng R. Yehudah): To teach us that he is completely Patur - even be'Dinei Shamayim. 4
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). See Ba'al ha'Turim. See also Torah Temimah, note 189 and refer to 21:28:2:3.
Hadar Zekenim: Since he knew that it is a goring ox, he is Chayav Misah [bi'Yedei Shamayim], only, since he himself did not kill, Beis Din claim Kofer from him. (But here, by a Shor Tam, he is not Chayav at all. - PF)
See Torah Temimah, note 203, who discusses all three opinions, which are all Halachah. See also Torah Temimah, citing the Mechilta, which apart from the distintions cited here (it omits the Din of fetuses) cites the three other distinctions that apply to a Tam over a Mu'ad: 1. It does not require witnesses snd warning; 2. The owner pays only half the damage, and 3. The owner only pays from the body of the ox. See Torah Temimah, note 206.
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 Pasuk needs to prohibit eating it where it was Shected after it was sentenced. Perhaps it is needed for a Ben Paku'ah (a fetus inside a Shechted animal), which does not need [another] Shechitah?
Moshav Zekenim #1: If a Ben Paku'ah, which was already permitted through Shechitah, becomes forbidden, all the more so a regular ox that was not permitted yet - because we can only learn the smaller Chidush - but a Ben Paku'ah, or an animal that was Shechted before the verdict, is not forbidden.
Moshav Zekenim #2: Also a Ben Paku'ah is forbidden in its lifetime, due to Eiver 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'ah, 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 (Shechted).
Da'as Zekenim: Ben Paku'ah is as if it was already Shechted. We hold that if it was Shechted before the sentence, it is permitted. 2
Riva: The Torah discusses a Stam ox, and not a Ben Paku'ah.
Riva citing R"S ha'Kadosh: If a Ben Paku'ah that was stoned becomes Asur, this is due to the verdict (and not because it is a Neveilah), the same applies to an animal that is Shechted after the verdict.
Moshav Zekenim: If not, there should be a source that Eiver min ha'Chai is permitted - in a Ben Paku'ah! (I did not find anyone else who says so. Chulin 75b says that if it stepped on the ground it needs Shechitah - only mid'Rabanan, due to Maris ha'Ayin (Rashi) - PF.
How does this answer the question? Since we do not need a Pasuk for a regular animal, it should forbid a Ben Paku'ah! (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 - such as a Shor ha'Niskal (an ox that is stoned).
Moshav Zekenim: Tziporei Metzora are forbidden only before Haza'ah. We learn them from Eglah Arufah.
