What’s the difference between kofir and damim? TB Baba Kama 43

Out of a discussion between  Rabba and Abaye we learn that the owner of a shor tam doesn’t get off scott free when his ox unintentionally kills a person. “Rabba says: With regard to an ox that killed a freeman unintentionally (a shor tam-שור תם), its owner is exempt from paying ransom (כּוֹפֶר-kofir); as it is stated: “The ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is laid on him” (Exodus 21:29–30). This indicates that whenever the ox is liable to be killed by stoning the owner pays ransom; and if the ox is not liable to be killed by stoning the owner does not pay ransom.

“Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s statement from a mishna: If a person admits: My ox killed so-and-so, or: My ox killed the ox of so-and-so, this owner pays based on his own admission (Ketubot 41a). This cannot be referring to the payment of a fine, as a person who admits his responsibility for an act incurring a fine is exempt from paying the fine. Clearly, it must be referring to a payment for which one can render himself liable through admission. What, is it not referring to the payment of ransom? If so, this proves that payment of ransom is not dependent on whether the ox is liable to be killed by stoning, as the ox cannot be killed based on its owner’s admission alone.

“The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to payment of the monetary value (damim-דָּמִים) of the victim. Although he is not liable to pay ransom, as the ox is not killed, nevertheless, since by his own admission his ox caused damage, he is liable to pay damages.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi points out that the kofir’s purpose is to ransom the owners person’s life for otherwise he would be liable for the death penalty. Nevertheless, death is no less of a type of damage that the owner of the ox would need to pay.

The Rishonim wonder what’s the difference between kofir and damim for the end the owner of the ox still has to pay the relatives of the deceased person. From Rashi’s commentary we can draw the conclusion that if the person does not have money to pay the monetary fine, he is freed from heavenly punishment; however if he is obligated to pay kofir, he doesn’t receive the atonement until he pays it. Tosefot says if the owner of the ox who kills a person dies, his relatives still have to pay the damim, but are freed from paying the kofir. Another difference would be the ability of the deceased’s family to waive the payment of damim. The Raavad points out another difference. Kofir isn’t treated as a loan. It needs to be paid. Damim can be treated as a loan. Not only payments can be stretched over time, some of the payments can be forgiven.