In Masechet (tractate) Bava Kama, Perek Dalet (Chapter Four), Mishnah Zayin (Mishnah Seven), the Mishnah says: Shor HaIsha, an ox owned by a woman. Shor HaYetomim, an ox owned by orphans who are still ketanim, who are minors. Shor HaApotropos, an ox that is owned by minors, but it's under the guardianship of a trustee. Shor HaMidbar, the ox of the desert, that means it doesn't belong to anybody, it's a wild ox. Shor HaHekdesh, the ox owned by the temple treasury. It was held there, their property should be brought possibly as a korban (offering). Shor HaGer, or an ox that was owned by a convert to Judaism. Ve'ein Lo Yorshim, and he has no inheritors, and therefore it's ownerless at the point of death. We listed six different types of oxen. Harei Eilu Chayavim Mitah, all of these are liable to be put to death if they kill a person.
All of these are part of the Torah's command to kill an ox if it kills another person. We mentioned the word ox seven times in the Torah when we're talking about the penalty it gets if it kills a person. We have the one standard time and six extra ones that teach us these six possible cases where one would think we do not put the ox to death. Every single one of these has a reason. Why would we think it wouldn't be part of what the Torah is telling us when it comes to a woman? We would think that the Pasuk (verse) says, “The owner of the Shor”; Baal is in the masculine form, which would lead us to think it refers only to a man, not a woman. That's the first one. The second one is if the owners were Yetomim, if they were orphans: we would think that because they're so young, they wouldn't be responsible for their own animal, and therefore they shouldn't lose out on their ox. We don't put their ox to death. Number three is if there's an apotropos, if there's a trustee watching over the ox of these young orphans, we would say that the ox here, since it's guarded by an apotropos, by a trustee, is less likely to kill in the future, and it's the property of children. So maybe that combination would tell us that we don't kill this ox.
The fourth one was the Shor HaMidbar, the one that was wild. We refer to Baal HaShor many times. We say the owner of the Shor. So maybe in this case, we would think that the ox is only put to death if it's owned by somebody, and here it's wild. It's not owned by anybody. The fifth one is Shor HaHekdesh, owned by the Hekdesh, owned by the Beit HaMikdash. We would think that you don't kill that ox because we don't want the Beit HaMikdash to suffer a money loss. The last case was the Shor of a Ger, a convert, who died and had no inheritors. This is also a case like the Shor HaMidbar, where it was ownerless. We would think that we don't put it to death because the Torah mentions Baal HaShor, the owner. That could only be one that's owned. So we just went over six different reasons why we would think all of these wouldn't be part of the general command to put the ox to death if they killed somebody. The Mishnah comes to teach us that the word Shor is mentioned six extra times in this portion, where we talk about putting the ox to death, and therefore teaches us that all of these, which we would think we don't put to death, we actually do put to death if they killed somebody.
Rabbi Yehuda Omer, Shor HaMidbar, Shor HaHekdesh, Shor HaGer Shemet Peturim Min HaMitah. Says Rabbi Yehuda, the last three cases—the ox that was wild, the ox owned by the Beit HaMikdash, and the ox of a convert who died without any inheritors—we do not put to death for killing a person because Lefi She'ein Lahem Be'alim, because they have no owners. According to Rabbi Yehuda, we learn from the Pasuk, Vehu'ad Biv'alav Velo Yishmerenu. The Pasuk says that the owners were warned and they didn't watch it properly. According to him, we learn from here that you have to have an owner in order to be put to death if you're that ox. That's the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.