Why is the shor haniskal (שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל) different from all other capital cases? TB Sanhedrin 36

The opening Mishnah of our chapter daf TB Sanhedrin 32a enumerates the differences between capital cases and civil cases. The number of judges needed to adjudicate depends on the case. For civil cases only 3 judges are required. For capital cases 23 judges are required.

On today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 36 “Rabbi Abbahu says: There are ten ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law, as was taught in the beginning of the chapter, and none of them is practiced with regard to a court hearing concerning an ox that is to be stoned (שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל), as it is treated as a case of monetary law, except for the requirement that the animal be judged by twenty-three judges, like in cases of capital law.” (Sefaria.org translation) Any animal who kills any human being is tried and is subject to the death penalty of stoning.

Why is there a difference between the case of the shor haniskal (שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל)? “The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Aḥa bar Pappa says: As the verse states: “You shall not incline the judgment of your poor in his cause” (Exodus 23:6). He explains: You may not incline the judgment of, i.e., exert effort to find liable, your poor, but you may incline the judgment of an ox that is to be stoned. The reason for the procedural differences between cases of monetary law and cases of capital law is to render it more likely that one accused of a capital transgression will be acquitted. This is not a factor when judging the ox.” (Sefaria.org translation)

In capital cases the goal if possible is to exonerate the accused murderer. In capital cases there has to be a majority of two judges to find the accused guilty. If the number of judges do not cross that threshold, the accused goes free. The court knows that taking a human life is a very serious decision that cannot be reversed if a mistake occurs. Consequently, the court is very reluctant to impose the death penalty.

On the other hand, the court has no such sympathy towards an animal and is willing to sentence it to death.