Study Bava Kamma folio 35A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
so too, in the case where he set the fire, it is presumably a case where he does not need the ashes. And nevertheless, the Mishnah teaches that he is exempt because he is sentenced to death. Apparently, one who lights a fire on Shabbat is liable even if he does not need the ashes, contrary to the
The Talmud rejects this proof: No, the comparison is the other way around; the case where his ox set the fire is similar to the case where he set the fire. Just as the case where he is liable for lighting a fire on Shabbat is one where he needs the ashes, so too, the case of his ox setting fire to
The Talmud asks: In the case where his ox set the fire, how can you find these circumstances, where it did so because it needed the ashes? Rav Avya said to him: Here we are dealing with an intelligent ox that was bitten on its back and wants to burn down the haystack and then roll around [iggandar]
The Talmud asks: And from where do we know that this is the reason that it set the fire? The Talmud answers: Because after the ox burned the haystack, it was rolling around in the ashes.
The Talmud asks: And is there really a case like this? The Talmud answers: Yes, as a certain ox that was at the house of Rav Pappa had a toothache. It went inside, and broke the lid of a utensil, and drank the liquor inside and was cured. Evidently there are oxen with this level of intelligence.