Bava Kamma 41A

כמאן דקטלה דמי, קא משמע לן.

that the ox should be considered like one that killed her, as it was the reason for her execution, and therefore its owner should be liable to pay a ransom, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case.

רבא אמר: לעולם דרבעה וקטלה; ודקא קשיא לך: מה לי קטלה בקרנים, מה לי קטלה ברביעה ⁠– קרן כוונתו להזיק, האי כוונתו להנאת עצמו הוא.

Rava said: Actually, it is a case where the animal engaged in bestiality with her and killed her in the process. And as for the difficulty you pose: What is the difference to me whether it killed her with its horns, and what is the difference to me whether it killed her through bestiality, the answer is that in that case of an animal killing with its horn, its intention is to cause injury, whereas in this case of killing through bestiality its intention is to achieve its own pleasure.

במאי פליגי? ברגל שדרסה על גבי תינוק בחצר הניזק; לאביי ⁠– משלם כופר, לרבא ⁠– לא משלם כופר.

The Talmud asks: With regard to what other case would Abaye and Rava disagree? They disagree with regard to a case where an ox trampled a child with its foot, killing it, in the courtyard of the injured party. According to Abaye, the owner pays the ransom, as he holds that ransom is paid even if the animal’s objective was not to cause injury or death. According to Rava, he does not pay the ransom.

תניא כוותיה דרב: שור האיצטדין ⁠– אינו חייב מיתה, וכשר לגבי מזבח; מפני שהוא כמעושה.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: A stadium ox that killed a person is not liable to be put to death and is fit to be sacrificed as an offering on the altar, because it is as though it was compelled to behave in this manner.