Komentaryo sa Exodo 21:35: Rashi, Chizkuni, Or HaChaim & Rashbam

וכי יגף AND IF [AN OX] HURT [AN OX OF HIS FELLOW-MAN] — יגף means to thrust; whether it injures by horns or the whole body, or whether it kicks with its foot or bites it with its teeth, all are included in the term נגף, for נגף means nothing else than מכה — the impact of one thing upon another (Mekhilta).

ומכרו את השור החי, “and they sell the surviving ox.” What the Torah writes here applies only when the damage was caused through the ox being used on land that was not owned (or leased) by the owner of the ox. If it had been on property owned or leased by the ox’s owner, the party causing the damage is free from responsibility as the party that caused the damage can say to the owner: “what business did your ox have on my property?”

שור איש את שור רעהו, one man's ox that of another, etc. The reason the Torah writes the word את is because the scenario we deal with assumes A) that there were no witnesses, B) that both oxen are of equal value while alive; if, however, the attacking ox was clearly more valuable than its counterpart, the owner of the victimised ox is entitled to only half the value of the damage he has sustained; this is the ruling given in Baba Kama 34. The Talmud writes as follows: "If the value of the offending ox is less than that of the victim, we do not allow the owner of the victim to receive more than half the value of the offending animal. If we were to allow that, then the Torah should not have made the compensation depend on the sale of the surviving ox and its proceeds, but the Torah should have written: 'he shall pay him half the damage he has sustained.' The wording of the Torah proves that the owner of the dead ox does not receive more than half the value of the surviving ox even if this amounts to less than half the amount of damage he has sustained." The Talmud did not bother to mention that the owner of the victimised ox will certainly not receive more than half the value he has sustained. If we were to assume that the Torah assigns half of the value of the surviving animal to the owner of the victimised animal, it could happen that if the surviving animal is worth more than twice the value of the animal killed, the owner of the dead ox would receive more than the total value of the dead animal (while it was alive) as compensation. Such a situation is obviously not intended by the Torah.

שור איש means שור של איש THE OX OF A MAN (i. e. שור is in construct state to the word איש).‎

ומכרו את השור וגו׳ THEN THEY SHALL SELL THE LIVE ONE — Scripture is speaking of a case when both animals are of the same value: an ox of the value of 200 zuz that killed another also valued at 200 zuz. Then whether the carcass is worth much or whether it is worth little, as soon as one takes one-half of the living animal and one-half of the dead, and the other takes one-half of the living animal and one-half of the dead, it follows that each of them suffers the loss of half the damage which the death of the animal has caused. Scripture teaches us that the תם (which is the animal spoken of here — one that inflicted injury for the first time) always pays half damages. For from what it states about animals of the same value you may gather the rule for such as are of different values — that the law regarding the תם is for its owner to pay half damages, neither more nor less. Or perhaps you might say that also of animals which were of unequal value when living Scripture states that both of them must be halved! But if you say this, you will find that sometimes the man who occasions the damage may benefit considerably — namely, when the carcass is worth when sold unto heathens much more than the value of the ox which inflicted the injury. And you must admit that it is impossible that Scripture should say that the man who occasioned the damage should benefit by it. Or it may sometimes happen that the claimant will receive much more than the value of the whole damage — namely, when one-half of the value of the defendant’s ox is worth more than the whole value of the claimant’s ox. Consequently if you still maintain this (that the animals are to be halved even when they are of different value), the result may well be that the case of the תם is more severely dealt with than that of the מועד (when the claimant gets full damages — but not more). You must therefore needs admit that Scripture speaks here only of animals that are of equal value, and that it teaches you that the owner of a תם has to pay half damages; and from what is said in respect to animals of equal value you may derive the law in respect of such as are of different values — that in any case when a person is paid half the damages caused to him we value the carcass for him (the claimant); and as regards the depreciation in value caused by its death — he must accept a sum equal to half of that depreciation together with the carcass and has to be satisfied (Hebrew: and goes his way). But why does Scripture use this mode of expression and does not simply say: he (the owner of the תם) shall pay the half? To teach you by the way that the תם pays only to the extent of its own value (Hebrew: from what can be obtained for its body). So in case it gores another and itself dies, the claimant gets at most the carcass of the ox that caused the damage, and if that does not amount to one-half of the damage, he has to suffer the loss. Or take another case: an ox of the value of one maneh (200 zuz) that gored an ox of the value of 500 zuz (so that the loss is more than the whole value of the ox that caused it). The claimant still does not get more than the living ox; and the defendant is not bound to make up the deficiency from his own money, for the תם is not responsible to such an extent as to make its owner liable to pay from his own property) (Bava Kamma 16b).