Question

Hello Rabbi, I’ve been watching your video series on Platonism, and I’m really enjoying it.
We learned today in the morning study session that there is a view in the Mishnah, that of Rabbi Yehuda, which says that an ox forewarned for goring still retains an aspect of innocence. Rashba asks there: if so, how can it pay a full ransom? After all, if you understand it simply, it is half innocuous and half forewarned. He answers that the Torah obligated it, because of its forewarned aspect, to pay a full ransom.
It reminded me מאוד of what you said about the legal status of a woman; here too, there are two objects applying to it, that of a forewarned ox and that of an innocuous ox, and therefore the Torah obligates on account of its forewarned aspect.
But my question is: why should we obligate specifically according to the forewarned aspect and not according to the aspect of innocence? Unlike the example you gave of a doubtful unmarried woman and doubtful divorcée, where the Torah says that a divorcée is forbidden to marry a priest but an unmarried woman has neither a prohibition nor an obligation, and so we follow what the Torah says — here, in both cases the Torah says there is liability, just that according to the aspect of innocence he would pay half-ransom, and according to the forewarned aspect he would pay a full ransom! So why shouldn’t he pay one and a half, if anything?