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.