Beitzah 40A

מי שזמן אצלו אורחים ⁠— לא יוליכו בידם מנות, אלא אם כן זכה להם מנותיהם מערב יום טוב.

With regard to one who invited guests to visit him from a town beyond his Shabbat limit, and they joined the Shabbat boundaries to enable them to reach his house, they may not carry in their hands back to their town any portions they received from him as gifts. These portions are as the feet of the host, since they belonged to him on the eve of the Festival. This is true unless he transferred ownership of their portions to them on the eve of the Festival, in which case the gifts may be carried wherever the recipients may walk.

גמ׳ אתמר: המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו ⁠— רב אמר: כרגלי מי שהפקידו לו, ושמואל אמר: כרגלי המפקיד. לימא רב ושמואל דאזדו לטעמייהו, דתנן: אם הכניס ברשות ⁠— בעל החצר חייב. רבי אומר: לעולם אינו חייב עד שיקבל עליו בעל הבית לשמור.

Talmud: It is stated that amora’im disagreed with regard to one who deposits produce with another for safekeeping: In whose possession is the produce with regard to determining its place of rest over the Festival? Rav said: They are as the feet of the one with whom they were deposited. And Shmuel said: They are as the feet of the object’s owner. The Talmud suggests: Let us say that Rav and Shmuel follow their usual line of reasoning, as we learned in a Mishnah: If one brought in his produce or his ox to another’s courtyard with his permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable for any damage caused to them. And R' Yehuda HaNasi said: The homeowner is never liable for damages, unless the homeowner explicitly accepts upon himself the responsibility to watch them.

ואמר רב הונא אמר רב: הלכה כדברי חכמים, ושמואל אמר: הלכה כרבי. לימא רב דאמר כרבנן ושמואל דאמר כרבי?

And Rav Huna said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, who disagreed with R' Yehuda HaNasi, and that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda HaNasi. If so, let us say that Rav spoke here in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, with the following reasoning: Just as when one gives permission to store something in his yard, that object is under his jurisdiction concerning monetary responsibility, so too, it is in his jurisdiction concerning the establishment of the Shabbat limit. And Shmuel spoke here in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda HaNasi: When a homeowner gives permission to store something in his yard, the object is not in his jurisdiction, whether with regard to monetary responsibility or with regard to the Shabbat limit.