Another question about the tam — the first-time goring ox. We have established that all forms of killing are equated with goring. But are minors — children killed by a tam — treated the same as adults?
For the mued, the answer is already known. (Exodus 21:31) says: "Whether it gore a son or gore a daughter" — explicitly including children. But the tam passage does not mention children. Are they included?
The Mekhilta argues yes, through parallel reasoning. Both the tam and the mued are put to death by stoning. If the mued rule equates minors with adults, then the tam rule should do the same. The shared punishment (stoning) creates a shared scope (minors included).
But the Mekhilta then raises an objection: this comparison may not hold. The mued's owner pays kofer; the tam's does not. Since the legal consequences differ, perhaps the inclusion of minors should be limited to the mued alone.
The Torah resolves this through (Exodus 21:31): "Or if it gore a son, or if it gore a daughter." The repeated word "gore" — appearing separately for son and for daughter — is legally extra. It creates another gezeirah shavah between the tam and mued passages. Just as minors are included for the mued, they are included for the tam. The Torah used seemingly redundant language to close every gap, ensuring that no child's death at the horns of an animal would go without legal consequence.