Answer #1: The case in which his ox burned is like when he burned. Just like he burns for a need, also his ox.

Question: What is the case?

Answer (Rav Avya): An intelligent ox was bitten on the back. It wants the ashes to roll in them.

Question: Question: How do we know that this is why it burned?

Answer: Afterwards, it rolled in the ashes.

Question: Are there really such intelligent oxen?

Answer: Yes! Rav Papa's ox had a toothache. It opened a barrel of beer, drank and was healed.

Question (Rabanan): How can we say that the case of his ox is like himself? It also teaches when they embarrassed!

Reuven is liable, so he must have intended. How can we find this regarding an ox?

Answer: The case is, it intended to damage;

If a man intended to damage, even though he did not intend to embarrass, he pays for embarrassment.

Answer #2 (Rava): In the Mishnah, (Reuven and his ox) burned b'Shogeg.

(Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): The Torah equates "one who strikes (i.e. kills) a man" and "one who strikes an animal":

One who strikes an animal always pays, without distinction between Shogeg or Mezid, whether he hit going downward or upward. Similarly, one who strikes a man never pays, without distinction. (The same applies to all capital sins.)

Question (Rabanan): How can you say that in the Mishnah, he burned b'Shogeg? It says, he is judged to die!

Answer (Rava): Had he intended, he would be judged to die, i.e. if he needed the ashes. Therefore, even b'Shogeg, he does not pay.

(Mishnah): If Reuven's ox was chasing Shimon's ox, and we see Shimon's ox wounded, and Shimon says that Reuven's ox damaged it, and Reuven says that it was hurt on a stone, ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah (the one who wants to collect (Shimon) must bring proof).

If Reuven's and Shimon's oxen were chasing Levi's ox, and it was damaged, and Reuven says 'your ox damaged', and Shimon says 'no, rather, your ox damaged', they are exempt.

If both chasing oxen belonged to Reuven, they are liable.

If one was big (or Mu'ad), and the other small (a Tam), and Levi says 'the big one (or Mu'ad) damaged', and Reuven says 'no, the small (Tam) one damaged', ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah. (Levi collects no more than the value of the small Tam ox.)

If two oxen of Reuven damaged two of Levi's oxen, and Levi says that the big ox (or the Mu'ad) damaged the big ox, and the small ox (or the Tam) damaged the small ox, and Reuven says oppositely, ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah.

(Gemara - R. Chiya bar Aba): Our Mishnah teaches that Chachamim argue with Sumchus, who says that when in doubt, we split the money.

Question (R. Aba bar Mamal): Did Sumchus say so even when both sides make definite claims?

Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba): Yes.

Question: What is the source that in our Mishnah, their claims are definite?

Answer: It says 'this one says 'your ox damaged', and the other says 'no, rather...''

Question (Rav Papa): If in the Reisha both are definite, also in the Seifa!

(Seifa): If one was big (or Mu'ad), and the other small (Tam), and Levi says 'the big one (or Mu'ad) damaged' and Reuven says 'no, rather the small (Tam) one damaged', ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah.

(Inference): If Levi cannot bring proof, he collects like Reuven said.

Summation of question: If so, this refutes Rabah bar Nasan!

(Rabah bar Nasan): If Reuven claimed that Shimon owes him wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt (even for giving barley. Reuven pardoned him for it.)

Answer (Rav Papa): Rather, in the Seifa one party is definite, and the other is unsure.

Question: Which is definite?

If the damager is unsure and the victim is definite, this still refutes Rabah bar Nasan!

Answer: Rather, the damager is definite, and the victim is unsure.

Inference: Also in the Reisha, the damager is definite, and the victim is unsure.

Question: Does Sumchus say even in this case that we split the money, and therefore our Tana needed to teach unlike him?

Answer: No. In the Reisha, the damager is unsure and the victim is definite.

Question: It is difficult to say that the Reisha and Seifa discuss different cases!

Answer: When one side is sure, and the other is not, it makes little difference which side is sure;

When both sides are sure is very different than when only one side is sure.

(Rabah bar Nasan): If Reuven claimed that Shimon owes him wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt.

Question: A Mishnah teaches this!

(Mishnah): If Reuven claimed that Shimon owes him wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt.

Answer: One might have thought that he is exempt from paying wheat, but he must pay barley. Rabah bar Nasan teaches that he is totally exempt.

(Mishnah): If two oxen of Reuven, one big and one small...

(Inference): If Levi cannot bring proof, he collects like Reuven says.

Question: This is like wheat and barley (and Rabbah bar Nasan totally exempts)!

Answer: Rather, if Levi cannot bring proof, he should collect like Reuven says, but does not collect at all.

Question (Beraisa): Levi collects for the small ox from the big ox, and for the big ox from the small ox.

Answer: That is when Levi seized the damager.

(Mishnah): If two oxen of Reuven, one Tam and one Mu'ad... Levi says that the Mu'ad damaged the big ox and the Tam damaged the small ox, and Reuven says, no, it was the other way, ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah.

(Inference): If Levi cannot bring proof, he collects like Reuven says.

Question: This is like wheat and barley!

Answer: If Levi cannot bring proof, he should collect like Reuven says.

Question (Beraisa): Levi collects for the small ox from the Mu'ad, and for the big ox from the Tam.

Answer: That is when Levi seized the damager.