Bava Kamma

so also the owner similarly had no intention to satisfy thereby any need, and yet it is stated THERE WOULD BE NO [CIVIL] LIABILITY AS HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CAPITAL CHARGE?  No; it is the act of Cattle, which is placed on the same level as that of the owner himself, to show that just as in the act of the owner there had surely been the intention to satisfy some need, so also in the act of Cattle there must have been the intention to satisfy some need.  But how is this possible in the case of Cattle? — R. Iwiya replied: The case here supposed is one of an intelligent animal which, owing to an itching in the back, was anxious to burn the barn so that it might roll in the [hot] ashes. But how could we know [of such an intention]? [By seeing that] after the barn had been burnt, the animal actually rolled in the ashes. But could such a thing ever happen? — Yes, as in the case of the ox which had been in the house of R. Papa, and which, having a severe toothache, went into the brewery, where it removed the lid [that covered the beer] and drank beer until it became relieved [of the pain]. The Rabbis, however, argued in the presence of R. Papa: How can you say that [the Mishnah places the act of] Cattle on a level with [the act of] the owner himself? For is it not stated: IF CATTLE HAS BROUGHT INDIGNITY [UPON A HUMAN BEING] THERE IS NO LIABILITY,  WHEREAS IF THE OWNER CAUSES THE INDIGNITY THERE IS LIABILITY? Now, if we are to put the act of Cattle on a level with that of the owner himself, how are we to find intention [in the case of Cattle]?  — Where, for instance, there was intention to do damage, as stated by the Master  that where there was intention to do damage though no intention to insult, [liability for insult will attach]. Raba, however, suggested that the Mishnah here  deals with a case of inadvertence, [resembling thus Cattle which acts as a rule without any specific purpose] and [the law  was laid down] in accordance with the teaching at the School of Hezekiah. For it was taught at the School of Hezekiah:  [Scripture places in juxtaposition] He that killeth a man … and he that killeth a beast … [to imply that] just as in the case of killing a beast you can make no distinction whether it was inadvertent or malicious, whether intentional or unintentional, whether by way of coming down or by way of coming up,  so as to exempt from pecuniary obligation, but [in all cases] there is pecuniary liability,  so also in the case of killing man you should make no distinction whether it was inadvertent or malicious, whether intentional or unintentional, whether by way of coming down or by way of coming up so as to impose a pecuniary liability, but [in all cases] there should be exemption from pecuniary obligation.  Said the Rabbis to Raba: How can you assume that the ruling in the Mishnah refers to an inadvertent act?  Is it not stated there [that were the owner to have set fire to a barn on Sabbath there would be no civil liability] AS HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CAPITAL CHARGE?  — It only means to say this: Since if he would have committed it maliciously he would have been liable to a capital charge, as, e.g., where he had need of the ashes, there should be exemption [from civil liability] even in such a case as this where he did it inadvertently. MISHNAH. IF AN OX WAS PURSUING AN OTHER'S OX WHICH WAS [AFTERWARDS FOUND TO BE] INJURED, AND THE ONE [PLAINTIFF] SAYS, 'IT WAS YOUR OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE, WHILE THE OTHER PLEADS, 'NOT SO, BUT IT WAS INJURED BY A ROCK [AGAINST WHICH IT HAD BEEN RUBBING ITSELF]',  THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE CLAIMANT. [SO ALSO] WHERE TWO [OXEN] PURSUED ONE AND THE ONE DEFENDANT ASSERTS, 'IT WAS YOUR OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE', WHILE THE OTHER DEFENDANT ASSERTS, 'IT WAS YOUR OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE',