The Mekhilta records the same logical challenge yet again, applying it to a slightly different aspect of the tam-mued comparison. The mued's owner pays kofer — ransom money. This is why minors are equated with adults for the mued: the kofer obligation makes the category serious enough to warrant full inclusion. But the tam's owner does not pay kofer. Without that additional financial burden, perhaps minors should not be equated with adults for the tam.
Once again, the Torah provides its answer through the language of (Exodus 21:31): "Or if it gore a son, or if it gore a daughter." The word "gore" in this verse links back to the tam passage through the gezeirah shavah. The shared word creates legal equivalence despite the practical differences between the two categories.
This repeated back-and-forth — objection, resolution, objection, resolution — is characteristic of the Mekhilta's legal style. The text does not simply state conclusions. It works through every possible objection, testing each derivation against logical challenges. Even when the conclusion has already been established, the Mekhilta insists on demonstrating that the objection was considered and refuted. This rigorous method ensures that the final ruling stands not because alternatives were ignored but because they were systematically eliminated.