Splitting the loss

When talking about a novice – first time – goring ox killing another ox, the Torah teaches that we split the live ox and the dead one between the two owners. Obviously, this is not to be taken too literally, otherwise if the dead ox is worth more than the live one, the person who’s ox gored will end up with a profit. So it means that in a case where the two oxen were of equal value then they split them both. Why does the Torah consider this appropriate? Why ought not the person who’s ox gored need to pay up? I think this underscores the not-black-and-white nature of so many things in life, something not too popular these days. There is great ambiguity in this case. On one hand here a fellow was taking his ox out for a walk, something he is entirely entitled to do. He was not supposed to need to look out for his ox goring, after all, it had been tame up until now. Yet this is not a simple case where two people going on the same road get in each other’s way; there was an actual attack done here. So it may not be the owner’s fault, he was exercising his rights, yet the other fellow was targeted and hurt. The Torah says that we cannot ask the owner to pay. Neither can the victim be expected to absorb the loss all by himself. Instead we share the loss and remaining money, for they are partners in this winnerless episode. (R’ SR Hirsch has a similar – but different – approach). This settlement all the issues in the greatest overall way, while taking into account the grey, dappled nature of the matter.