Tosfos Bobo Kamo 2a - Tosfos.com

ד'‏ ה מילתא אגב אורחא
By using different verbs to describe the goring of a person as opposed to
the goring of another animal, the Torah is teaching us that there is an
inherent difference between killing a person and killing an animal. A
greater effort and viciousness is required to kill a person. Therefore if an
animal is muod to kill people, it is automatically muod to kill animals, but
if the animal is muod to kill other animals it is not muod to kill people.
Tosfos points out that there seems to be a G’moro later that contradicts
our conclusion. On (37a) Rav Popo clearly says that an animal that is
muad to kill people is not muad to kill animals. Tosfos will attempt to
reconcile this apparent contradiction.
And even according to Rav Popo who says later in Shor Shenogach
Daled V’hay (37a) that a muod to kill people ordinarily is not muod to
kill animals, which seems to contradict our G’moro and the lesson taught
by the Braiso, that is only when he killed only three people, by doing that
he does not become muod to kill animals, but if he gored a person, an ox
and a donkey which are three species he becomes muad for all including
people.
However, if he gores an ox, a donkey and a camel, he does not become
muod for people, even though he is muod for all animals, even
according to Rav Popo as the G’moro says there (37a). That according to
Rav Popo an ox who killed three different animals is a muad for all animals.
The lesson of the Braiso is still in effect, animals are more readily killed
than humans.
Tosfos offers a second solution to this contradiction:
1

And R’ M’nachem explained that the G’moro means to say as follows:
An animal that is muod for people, who was a muod for everything
including animals, and he retracted from animals, he saw an animal
three times and did not attack it, but he remained a muod for people, there
was no evidence that he retracted from killing people, remains a muod for
animals, for the retraction from killing animals is inconclusive, as long
as he remains a muad for people.
However, a muod for everything, people and animals, who retracted
from killing people, is no longer muod to kill people, for his retraction
from killing people is a retraction. According to this answer as well, we
see that an animal is more likely to kill animals than humans, therefore his
retraction from killing animals is inconclusive as long as he remains muad
for people, but his retraction from killing people is a retraction even though
he remains a muad for killing animals.
2