Reference for Bava Kamma 95:11

הכניס שורו לחצר בעל הבית: אמר רבא הכניס שורו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות וחפר בה בורות שיחין ומערות בעל השור חייב בנזקי חצר ובעל חצר חייב בנזקי הבור

[the property of the owner of the premises]. But why should the rule in this case be different from [what has been laid down, that] if a woman enters the premises of another person to grind wheat without permission, and the animal of the owner of the premises eats it up, the owner is not liable, and if the animal suffers harm the woman is liable, the reason being that there was no permission, which shows that where permission was granted she would be exempt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should the woman, the owner of the dough, have to pay? ');">¹⁴</span> — I can answer: In the case of grinding wheat, since there is no need of privacy at all, and the owner of the premises is not required to absent himself, the obligation to take care [of his property] still devolves upon him, whereas in the case of baking where, since privacy is required,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'she requires privacy.' As the woman would usually have to uncover her arms. ');">¹⁵</span>

Explore reference for Bava Kamma 95:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.