Reference for Bava Kamma 94:5
אימא סיפא אם הכניס ברשות בעל חצר חייב אתאן לרבנן דאמרי בסתמא נמי קבולי קביל עליה נטירותא
who said that even without express stipulation he makes himself responsible for watching. Moreover, [it was further stated]: RABBI SAYS: IN ALL THESE CASES THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES WOULD NOT BE LIABLE UNLESS HE HAS TAKEN UPON HIMSELF TO WATCH. [Are we to say that] the opening clause and the concluding clause are in accordance with Rabbi while the middle clause is in accordance with the Rabbis? — R. Zera thereupon said: The contradiction [is obvious]; he who taught one clause cannot have taught the other clause. Raba, however, said; The whole [of the anonymous part of the Mishnah] is in accordance with the Rabbis, for [where the entry was] with permission the owner of the premises undertook the safeguarding of the pots even against breakage by the wind.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the owner of the pottery could never be considered to have by implication accepted upon himself the responsibility for safeguarding the belongings of the owner of the premises. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>