Ox and man each have stringencies over the other, and the liability for one can't be derived from another.
If
combined, can the two teach liability for fire? Ox has the intent to
damage, whereas fire does not. However a man is liable even for damage
which he inflicts while sleeping. Thus, the intent to damage is not
essential.
Man is liable for four damage payments, but fire for
just one. However, the ox disproves that, since it is also liable for
just one payment.
Man and ox are alive, and fire is not, thus liability for fire had to be mentioned in the Torah.
