the gemara asks why raish lakish darshins "im kofer" but not "im eved" ? the gemara answers the "im" of kofer modifies the payment, however the "im" of eved doesn't modify the payment, rather the damage ( im eved yigach ) ? i dont understand ? since the ribuy of "im" comes to include payment even when the damage is done unintentionally, why is it better if "im" modifies the payment rather than the damage ?
The Gemara is merely stating that the word "Im" can only be understood to include payment when it is in the context of payment. When the word "Im" is next to the word "Kofer," it is clearly discussing payment. When it is next to the word "Eved," it is not clear that the Torah's intent in stating "Im" is to teach a law about payment.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose