Bava Kamma, Chapter 4, Mishnah 5 - This Mishnah continues dealing with animals that killed a person. In such a tragic case, which is a difficult and terrible event, we must distinguish between two separate matters:
The law of the animal: An animal that intended to kill a person is liable to stoning, and it is put to death. This matter was already alluded to in the previous Mishnah.
The law of the owner: What payment is imposed upon the owner of the animal that killed a person, Heaven forbid?
The answer to the second question depends on the status of the ox:
A tam ox: The owner did not act recklessly or irresponsibly, and therefore he pays nothing for the person who died. Payment does not have the power to bring the dead back to life, and we do not diminish the significance of his death through monetary payment - similar to the principle of 'kim leih b'derabbah mineih' (one receives only the harsher punishment).
A mu'ad ox: The owner was negligent and bears heavy responsibility, and therefore he is liable to death - but not at the hands of an earthly court, rather at the hands of Heaven.
Although the simple reading of the verse implies that the owner is actually put to death, we learn from elsewhere: "Mot yumat hamakeh rotze'ach hu" (the striker shall surely be put to death, he is a murderer) - only an actual murderer is executed, whereas the owner of an animal that went out and killed is not a murderer. Therefore, his liability is death at the hands of Heaven, and he has the ability to atone for this and be saved from it through a payment called 'kofer' (ransom).
Calculating the kofer payment:
The kofer is a payment of atonement, which serves as a mitigating factor and prevents the consequences of liability to death at the hands of Heaven. In the Gemara, they disputed how it is calculated:
Rabbi Akiva: The payment is based on the value of the owner of the ox himself - how much people would buy him for if he were sold in a slave market. This amount is given to the heirs of the person who was killed. According to this approach, it is a direct atonement for his own life, similar to the custom of kaparot on the eve of Yom Kippur.
Rabbi Shimon: And this is the halachah - the calculation is based on the value of the person who died, if he were sold in the market.
The intention is not that the payment comes to replace the one who was killed, for there is no way at all to compensate for the loss of life. Rather, in order for him to atone for himself, the Torah established a certain amount for him, and its measure is determined according to the value of the deceased.
Goring a slave or maidservant:
At the end of the passage, a case is discussed where the victim is property - a slave or maidservant who is owned by a master. If the owner were to pay the master the value of the slave who died, as he would be sold in the free market, the matter would appear as direct compensation, as if the person who died could be replaced with money. This is a terrible insult and an affront to the fact that this person was created in the image of God - he is a Canaanite slave, but he is a human being, and it is impossible to give money as a replacement for his life.
Therefore, the Torah established a uniform amount: thirty shekels, or in the language of the Mishnah - thirty sela'im. The Torah establishes a fixed amount, without considering the true market value of the deceased as a slave, so that it should not enter one's mind that they are paying for the body of a human being, whose value is infinite and immeasurable. Nevertheless, some payment must be given, for it is intended to achieve atonement: one who was severely negligent and allowed his killing animal to kill a person, must do an action - and this is the solution the Torah established.
The Verses in Parashas Mishpatim (Shemos 21):
The first verse (28) deals with a shor tam: "V'chi yigach shor es ish o es isha vames" - an ox that gored a man or a woman and they died. "Sakol yisakel hashor" - the ox itself is killed by stoning. "V'lo ye'achel es besaro" - it is forbidden to eat of its meat, since it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it, as explained elsewhere. "U'vaal hashor naki" - the owner is considered innocent, since this involves a tam; although the event itself is terrible, it was not his fault.
Verse 29 deals with a mu'ad: "V'im shor nagach hu mis'mol shilshom" - an ox that gored from yesterday and the day before, meaning it has already gored three times. "V'hu'ad bivalav" - the owners received a warning, and this is what turns it into a mu'ad. "V'lo yishmerenu" - and they did not properly guard that killer ox. "V'heymis ish o isha" - and the ox went out and killed a man or a woman. "Hashor yisakel" - first of all, the ox is killed, assuming it actually survived after the three gorings during which it was warned and turned from a tam into a mu'ad.
"V'gam b'alav yumas" - according to the simple meaning of the verse, the owner of the ox is also put to death; however, as stated, this refers to death by the hand of Heaven, and not a punishment from an earthly court but from the Heavenly court. This is learned from the derivation on the verse "Mos yumas hamakeh rotze'ach hu" - the killer is put to death because he is a murderer, whereas here the owner is not a murderer, but a person who was severely negligent and did not prevent his deadly ox from harming people. Because he did not prevent this, he is liable to death by the hand of Heaven.
In the following verse: "Im kofer yushas alav". The word "im" usually means a condition ("if"), but here Rashi explains that it is not a condition but rather means "when", a meaning this word sometimes has. That is, an atonement payment will be imposed on the owner. "V'nasan pidyon nafsho k'chol asher yushas alav" - he must pay the full atonement payment to redeem his soul from that liability, according to whatever the court imposes upon him. According to Halachah, as stated, this is the value of the person who died, and this is the amount the owner of the ox pays to achieve the atonement.
"O ven yigach o vas yigach" - there is no difference if the victim is a boy or a girl, meaning minors; even though they are not obligated in mitzvos, the law is the same. "Kamishpat hazeh ye'aseh lo" - the same law applies regarding the payment of the kofer. "Im eved yigach hashor o amah" - but if the victim of the ox is a slave or a maidservant, "Kesef shloshim shekalim yiten la'adonav" - a payment of thirty shekels is given to the master of the slave, "V'hashor yisakel" - and nevertheless the ox is stoned.
The Text of the Mishnah:
"Hashor shenagach es ha'adam vames" - if the ox was a mu'ad, its owner is liable for the kofer payment as described above; and if it was a tam, the owner is exempt from the kofer and does not pay, since he did not act with severe negligence. But whether it was a tam or a mu'ad - the ox is stoned.
The same law also applies when the victim is a minor: even though a minor is not obligated in mitzvos, a full kofer payment is required if the ox was a mu'ad. And if it killed a slave or a maidservant - the owner pays thirty sela'im. The shekel mentioned in the verse is the sela in the terminology of the Mishnah, and a sela is worth four dinars.
The Mishnah adds that there is no practical difference regarding the actual value of the slave who was killed: whether he was worth one hundred maneh - meaning one hundred times one hundred dinars, ten thousand dinars - or whether he was worth only a single dinar. Whether his value is higher than thirty sela'im or less than them, the payment is fixed at thirty sela'im, and this is what is required to achieve atonement for the owner of the ox.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned the two levels of law regarding an ox that killed a person - the stoning of the ox in any case, and the liability of the owner for a kofer only in the case of a mu'ad; the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon regarding the calculation of the kofer (the value of the damager or the value of the victim); and the law of the slave and the maidservant, where the Torah established a uniform amount of thirty sela'im, which does not depend on the value of the victim, so that it should not appear as a payment in exchange for the life of a person who was created in the Divine image.