Study Bava Kamma folio 47B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ברשות, ונגחו שורו של בעל הבית, או שנשכו כלבו של בעל הבית – פטור. נגח הוא שורו של בעל הבית – חייב. נפל לבורו, והבאיש מימיו – חייב. היה אביו או בנו לתוכו – משלם את הכופר. ואם הכניס ברשות – בעל החצר חייב.
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 water, the owner of the ox is liable to pay compensation for despoiling the water. If the homeowner’s father or son were inside the pit at the time the ox fell and the person died as a result, the owner of the ox pays the ransom. But if he brought the ox into the courtyard with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for the damage caused.
רבי אומר: בכולן אינו חייב, עד שיקבל עליו לשמור.
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.
גמ׳ טעמא דשלא ברשות, הא ברשות – לא מיחייב בעל קדירות בנזקי בהמתו דבעל חצר, ולא אמרינן קבולי קביל בעל קדירות נטירותא דבהמתו דבעל חצר;
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; and we do not say that the potter accepted responsibility for the safeguarding of the courtyard owner’s animal from his own pots.
מני – רבי היא, דאמר: כל בסתמא – לא קביל עליה נטירותא.
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 assumed that with regard to each party, he has not accepted upon himself the responsibility of safeguarding the item. Therefore, the potter who received permission to bring his pots into the owner’s courtyard similarly did not accept responsibility to safeguard against damage to the property of the owner of the courtyard.