Midrasz do Powtórzonego Prawa 5:14

"An if an ox gore": This tells me only of an ox. Whence do I derive (the same for) all beasts? It follows, viz.: It is written here "ox," and elsewhere (in the second Decalogue, Devarim 5:14) "ox." Just as the "ox" of Sinai is equated with "all of your beasts," so, here, all beasts are to be equated with ox. And whence is it derived that all deaths (inflicted by the beast) are equated with goring? It follows, viz.: Since a mued (an ox that gored three times) is put to death (for killing a man) by stoning (viz. Ibid. 29), and a tam (an ox that gored a man to death even the first time) is put to death by stoning — if you have learned about a mued that all deaths (inflicted by it) are equated with goring, so, all deaths (inflicted) by a tam are to be equated with goring. __ No, this may be true of a mued, where he (the owner) pays kofer (viz. 21:30), as opposed to a tam, where he does not pay kofer. It is, therefore, written (29) "and it killed a man or a woman," for purposes of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written here (28) "a man or a woman," and there (29) "a man or a woman." Just as there, all deaths are equated with goring, so, here, all deaths are to be equated with goring. And whence is it derived that minors (who were killed by a tam) are equated with adults? It follows, viz.: Since a tam is to be stoned and a mued is to be stoned, if you have learned about mued that minors are to be equated with adults (viz. 21:31), then there (re a tam), too, minors are to be equated with adults. __ No, this may be true of a mued, where he (the owner) pays kofer, wherefore minors are equated with adults, as opposed to a tam, where he does not pay kofer. It is, therefore, written (31) "Or if it gore a son (a minor), or if it gore a daughter (a minor). It ("gore") is extra for purposes of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ). It is written here (re tam [28]) "gore," and there (re mued) "gore." Just as there, minors are equated with adults, so, here. R. Shimon b. Yochai said: Why was this (gezeirah shavah ) stated? Even without it, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If in a "place" — killing others — where minors are not equated with adults (— adults being liable; minors not —) — (If in such a place) minors are equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed — then in a place where "minors" are equated with "adults," (a young ox as well as a grown ox being stoned for killing a man) — how much more so should minors be equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed! __ No, this may be true there, where intent (to damage) was equated with non-intent relative to (payment for) damages, wherefore minors were equated with adults in being killed, as opposed to our instance, where non-intent is not equated with intent, (the "horn" of the ox imposing liability only where the ox butts intentionally), wherefore we would say that minors are not equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed. It must, therefore, be written "Or if it gore a son or if it gore a daughter," "gore" being extra for purposes of formulating an identity, as above.