R. Shimon says: Why need this ("for he is his money") be stated. Even if it were not stated I would know it by induction, viz.: Since his ox is killed for (killing) his man-servant or his maid-servant, and another's ox is liable for (killing) his man-servant or his maid-servant; he is killed for (killing) his man-servant or his maid-servant, and another is killed for killing his man-servant or his maid-servant—then if you have learned that there is no difference between his ox and that of another in the killing of his man-servant or his maid-servant, then we should make no distinction between him and another (vis-à-vis the application of the "one or two day" provision) in the killing of his man-servant or his maid-servant. It is, therefore, written "Vengeance shall not be taken, for he is his (the owner's) money." Scripture hereby apprises us that though no distinction is made between his ox and that of another in the killing of his man-servant or his maid-servant, a distinction is made (in the application of the afore-mentioned provision) between himself and another, (the provision applying only if he killed them, but not if another killed them.)