מאי ברשות ומאי שלא ברשות איכא what reason is there to rule one way where the produce is brought in with permission, and what reason is there to rule another way where the produce is brought in without permission? With regard to damage done by the ox of a stranger, it should not make any difference.
אמרי ברשות הויא לה שן ברשות הניזק ושן ברשות הניזק חייבת שלא ברשות הויא לה שן ברה"ר ושן ברשות הרבים פטורה The Sages said in response: If he brought in the produce with permission, it is a case of damage under the category of Eating (see 2a), in the domain of the injured party, since, with respect to the produce, the courtyard is treated as belonging to its owner, and the halakha is that if an animal causes damage categorized as Eating in the domain of the injured party, the ox’s owner is liable. But if he brought it into the courtyard without permission, it is a case of damage under the category of Eating in the public domain, and if an animal causes damage categorized as Eating in the public domain, the ox’s owner is exempt. Given this explanation, the answer to the question of what type of safeguarding the courtyard owner accepted cannot be derived from the baraita.
ת"ש הכניס שורו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות ובא שור ממקום אחר ונגחו פטור ואם הכניס ברשות חייב מאן פטור ומאן חייב לאו פטור בעל חצר וחייב בעל חצר Come and hear a proof from another baraita: If one brought his ox into a homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and an ox from elsewhere comes and gores it, he is exempt. But if he brought it into the courtyard with permission, he is liable. The Gemara clarifies: Who is exempt and who is liable? Is it not the owner of the courtyard who is exempt and the owner of the courtyard who is liable? If so, this proves that the owner of the courtyard accepted responsibility for all damage occurring on his premises.
לא פטור בעל השור וחייב בעל השור אי הכי מאי ברשות ומאי שלא ברשות איכא The Gemara responds: No, the owner of the ox that gored is exempt, and the owner of the ox that gored is liable. The Gemara asks: If so, what significance is there to specifying the case of with permission, and what significance is there to specifying the case of without permission with regard to this ox? For damage categorized as Goring (see 2b), the owner of the animal is liable wherever the goring occurred, even in the public domain.
אמרי הא מני ר' טרפון היא דאמר משונה קרן בחצר הניזק נזק שלם משלם ברשות הויא לה קרן בחצר הניזק ומשלם נזק שלם שלא ברשות הויא לה קרן ברה"ר ולא משלמא אלא חצי נזק: The Sages said in response: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says: The halakha of damage categorized as Goring in the courtyard of the injured party is different, and the owner of the goring animal pays the full cost of the damage. According to this opinion, the baraita should be interpreted as follows: If the injured party brought his ox into the courtyard with permission, it is a case of damage categorized as Goring in the property of the injured party, and the owner of the Goring animal pays the full cost of the damage. But if he brought it in without permission, it is a case of damage categorized as Goring in the public domain, and he pays only half the cost of the damage.
ההיא איתתא דעלתה למיפא בההוא ביתא אתא ברחא דמרי דביתא אכלה ללישא חביל ומית חייבה רבא לשלומי דמי ברחא § The Gemara relates that there was a certain woman who entered a certain house to bake. Subsequently, a goat belonging to the owner of the house came and ate the woman’s dough, and as a result it became overheated and died. Rava deemed the woman liable to pay compensation for the goat.
לימא פליגא אדרב דאמר רב הויא לה שלא תאכל The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rava disagrees with the opinion of Rav, as Rav says that in a case where someone brings in his produce to another’s courtyard without permission, and the latter’s animal is injured by eating it, the owner of the produce is nevertheless exempt, since the animal should not have eaten it.
אמרי הכי השתא התם שלא ברשות לא קביל עליה נטירותא הכא ברשות קביל עליה נטירותא The Sages said in response: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case where someone brought in his produce without permission, he did not accept responsibility upon himself for safeguarding against the produce causing damage, whereas here, where the woman brought in the dough with permission, the woman did accept responsibility upon herself for safeguarding against the dough causing damage.
ומאי שנא מהאשה שנכנסה לטחון חטין אצל בעל הבית שלא ברשות ואכלתן בהמתו של בעל הבית פטור ואם הוזקה חייבת טעמא שלא ברשות הא ברשות פטור The Gemara asks: And in what way is it different from the case of the baraita mentioned previously: In the case of a woman who entered the house of a homeowner without permission in order to grind wheat, and the homeowner’s animal ate the wheat, he is exempt? And moreover, if the homeowner’s animal was injured by the wheat, the woman is liable. The Gemara infers: The reason she is liable is specifically that she entered without permission, but if she entered with permission, she would be exempt.
אמרי לטחון חטים כיון דלא בעיא צניעותא מידי לא בעי מסלקי מרוותא דחצר נפשייהו ועליה דידיה רמי נטירותא אבל למיפא כיון דבעיא היא צניעותא מרוותא דחצר מסלקי נפשייהו הלכך עלה דידה רמיא נטירותא: The Sages said in response: If she entered the house to grind wheat, since she does not require any privacy, the owners of the courtyard do not need to absent themselves from there, and the responsibility for safeguarding against damage therefore rests upon them. But if she enters to bake, since she requires privacy for this, as the process of kneading involves exposing her elbows, the owners of the courtyard absent themselves from there to allow her to bake. Therefore, the responsibility for safeguarding against damage to anything in the courtyard rests upon her.
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 mishna teaches: If one brought his ox inside the homeowner’s courtyard without permission and the homeowner’s ox gored it or the homeowner’s dog bit it, the homeowner is exempt. Rava says: If one brought his ox into a homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and the ox dug pits, ditches, or caves in it, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage caused by his animal to the courtyard, but the owner of the courtyard is liable for any damage caused by the pit if someone falls inside.
אף על גב דאמר מר (שמות כא, לג) כי יכרה איש בור ולא שור בור הכא כיון דאית ליה להאיך למלוייה ולא קא מלייה כמאן דכרייה דמי Even though the Master says that when the verse states: “And if a man shall open a pit” (Exodus 21:33), it limits the liability for the pit to a person who digs a pit, but not an ox that digs a pit, in which case the owner of the courtyard should be exempt, nevertheless, here, in Rava’s statement, since this owner of the courtyard should have filled the pit with earth and he did not fill it, he is considered like someone who actually dug the pit.
ואמר רבא הכניס שורו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות והזיק את בעל הבית או בעל הבית הוזק בו חייב רבץ פטור And similarly, Rava says: In the case of one who brought his ox into a homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and the ox injured the homeowner, or the homeowner stumbled and was injured by it, the owner of the ox is liable. If the ox crouched [ravatz], and by doing so caused damage, the ox’s owner is exempt.
ומשום דרבץ פטור אמר רב פפא מאי רבץ שהרביץ גללים ונטנפו כליו של בעל הבית דהויא גללים בור ולא מצינו בור שחייב בו את הכלים The Gemara asks: And is he exempt because the animal caused damage when it crouched? Rav Pappa said: What is the meaning of the term ravatz? It means that it dropped feces [hirbitz] on the ground, and subsequently the clothes of the homeowner were soiled. Consequently, the feces constitute a pit, and we do not find a case of damage categorized as Pit that one is liable for causing damage to utensils. Therefore, the owner of the animal is exempt.
הניחא לשמואל דאמר כל תקלה בור הוא אלא לרב דאמר עד דמפקר ליה מאי איכא למימר The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Shmuel, who says: Any obstruction is categorized as Pit, and the same halakha exempting the one responsible for the pit from damage to utensils applies to them as well. But according to the opinion of Rav, who says that one’s property is not categorized as Pit until he renounces ownership of it, what is there to say?
אמרי סתם גללים אפקורי מפקיר להו The Sages said in response: The animal’s owner usually renounces ownership of ordinary feces, and so they are categorized as Pit even according to the opinion of Rav.
ואמר רבא נכנס לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות והזיק את בעל הבית או בעל הבית הוזק בו חייב הזיקו בעל הבית פטור And Rava says: In the case of a person or an animal that entered the courtyard of a homeowner without permission and injured the homeowner, or the homeowner was injured by stumbling on the intruder, the person or owner of the animal is liable. Moreover, if the homeowner damages the person or animal, he is exempt.
א"ר פפא לא אמרן אלא דלא הוה ידע ביה אבל הוה ידע ביה הזיקו בעל הבית חייב מ"ט משום דאמר ליה נהי דאית לך רשותא לאפוקי לאזוקי לית לך רשותא Rav Pappa said: We said this only when the homeowner did not know of his presence. But if he knew of his presence, even if he entered without permission, then if the homeowner injured him, the homeowner is liable. What is the reason? It is due to the fact that the injured party can say to the owner of the courtyard: Although you have the right to eject me from your courtyard, you do not have the right to injure me.
ואזדו לטעמייהו דאמר רבא ואיתימא רב פפא The Gemara comments: And Rava and Rav Pappa, who hold that one who enters without permission is liable if damage is caused, follow their lines of reasoning, as Rava says, and some say it was Rav Pappa who said it: