Bava Kamma

what has permission or absence of permission to do with the case?  — I will answer; [Where the produce was brought in] with permission, the case would be one of Tooth [doing damage] in the plaintiff's premises,  and Tooth doing damage in the plaintiff's premises entails liability,  whereas in the absence of permission it would be a case of Tooth doing damage on public ground,  and Tooth doing damage on public ground entails no liability. Come and hear: If a man brings his ox into the premises of another person without permission, and an ox from elsewhere comes and gores it, there is no liability. But if he brought it in with permission there would be liability. Now, who would be exempt  and who would be liable?  Does it not mean that it is the owner of the premises who would be exempt  and the owner of the premises who would be liable?  — No, it is the owner of the ox [from elsewhere] who would be exempt  and similarly it is the owner of the ox [from elsewhere] who would be liable.  But if so, what has permission or the absence of permission to do with the case?  — I would answer that this teaching is in accordance with R. Tarfon, who held  that the unusual damage occasioned by Horn in the plaintiff's premises has to be compensated in full: [Where the ox was brought in] with permission the case would therefore be one of Horn doing damage in the plaintiff's premises  and the payment would have to be for full damages, whereas in the absence of permission it would amount to Horn doing damage on public ground,  and the payment would accordingly be only for half damages. A certain woman once entered the house of another person for the purpose of baking bread there, and a goat of the owner of the house came and ate up the dough, from which it became sick and died. [In giving judgment] Raba ordered the woman to pay damages for the value of the goat. Are we to say now that Raba differed from Rab, since Rab said:  It should not have eaten?  — I may reply, are both cases parallel? There,  there was no permission and the owner of the produce did not assume any obligation of safeguarding [the property of the owner of the premises], whereas in this case, permission had been given and the woman had accepted responsibility for safeguarding  [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?  — 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,  the owner of the premises absents himself [from the premises], the obligation to safeguard his property must fall upon the woman. IF A MAN BRINGS HIS OX INTO THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER PERSON [etc.]. Raba said: If he brings his ox on another person's ground and it digs there pits, ditches, and caves, the owner of the ox would be liable for the damage done to the ground, and the owner of the ground would be liable for any damage resulting from the pit. For though the Master stated:  [It says,] If a man shall dig a pit,  and not 'if an ox [shall dig] a pit', still here [in this case] since it was the duty of the owner of the ground to fill in the pit and he did not fill it in, he is reckoned [in the eyes of the law] as having himself dug it. Raba further said: If he brings his ox into the premises of another person without permission, and the ox injures the owner of the premises, or the owner of the premises suffers injury through the ox,  he is liable, but if it lies down,  he has no liability. But why should the fact of its lying down confer exemption?  — R. Papa thereupon said: What is meant by 'it lies down' is that the ox lays down its excrements [upon the ground], and thereby soils the utensils of the owner of the premises. [The exemption is because] the excrements  are a case of Pit, and we have never found Pit involving liability for damage done to inanimate objects.  This explanation is satisfactory if we adopt the view of Samuel who held  that all kinds of nuisances come under the head of Pit. But on the view of Rab who said  [that they do not come under the head of Pit] unless they have been abandoned,  what are we to say? — It may safely be said that excrements as a rule are abandoned. Raba said further: If one enters the premises of another person without permission, and injures the owner of the premises,  or the owner of the premises suffers injury through him  there would be liability;  and if the owner of the premises injured him, there would be no liability. R. Papa thereupon said: This ruling applies only where the owner had not noticed him. For if he had noticed him, the owner of the premises by injuring him would render himself liable, as the trespasser would be entitled to say to him: 'Though you have the right to eject me, you have no right to injure me.'  These authorities  followed the line of reasoning [adopted by them elsewhere], for Raba or, as others read, R. Papa stated: