Study Bava Kamma folio 47B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
permission, and the homeowner’s ox gored it or the homeowner’s dog bit it, the homeowner is exempt. If it gored the homeowner’s ox, the owner of the goring ox is liable. Furthermore, if the ox that he brought into the courtyard without permission fell into the owner’s pit and contaminated its wa
R' Yehuda HaNasi says: The homeowner is not liable in any of the cases in the Mishnah, even if he gave his permission for the items to be brought into his premises, unless he explicitly accepts responsibility upon himself to safeguard them.
Talmud: From the first case of the Mishnah, it can be inferred that the reason the potter is liable is that he brought his pots into another’s courtyard without permission. But if he brought them in with permission, the potter would not be liable for damage caused to the courtyard owner’s animal; a
Whose opinion is this? It is that of R' Yehuda HaNasi, who says at the conclusion of the Mishnah that any case where permission is granted to allow an item into one’s premises without specification, i.e., without an explicit agreement as to who is responsible for safeguarding the item, it is assume
But say the latter clause: If the potter brought them into the courtyard with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable. In this case, we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with R' Yehuda HaNasi and say that, even in a case where permission is granted to allow an item into one