Commentary for Bava Kamma 94:3
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דשלא ברשות הא ברשות לא מיחייב בעל קדירות בנזקי בהמתו דבעל חצר ולא אמרינן קבולי קביל בעל קדירות נטירותא דבהמתו דבעל חצר
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The reason why [the potter would be liable for damage occasioned by his pottery to the cattle of the owner of the premises] is because the entry was without permission, which shows that were it with permission the owner of the pots would not be liable for the damage done to the cattle of the owner of the premises and we do not say that the owner of the pots has by implication undertaken to watch the cattle of the owner of the premises. Who is the authority for this view? — Rabbi, who has laid down that without express stipulation no duty to watch is undertaken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [For the present it is assumed that the duty applies alike to the owner of the pottery in regard to the belongings of the owner of the premises as to the latter in regard to the pottery.] ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 94:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.