Limited liability or full coverage? TB Baba Kama 48

When a person gives objects permission to enter his domain, what type of liability he accepts upon himself, limited or full liability coverage is the question the Gemara asks on daf TB Baba Kama 47b. “A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where the owner of the courtyard accepted upon himself responsibility for safeguarding the items entering his premises, what is the halakha? Did he accept upon himself only the responsibility of safeguarding himself and his animals from causing damage? Or, perhaps he even accepted responsibility upon himself for safeguarding against all forms of damage that originate from the outside.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara brings case study after case study to determine whether the property owner as limited or full coverage liability to determine the halakha. Although the Gemara leaves this question inconclusive, I’ll share the story found on today’s daf TB Baba Kama 48.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Tur poskins if a person brings something into the friends property and damage occurs which are not the property  owner’s fault; the property owner is exempt from liability until he accepts upon himself guarding the objects. The Tur explains this problem is not resolved and in a case of doubtful money, we decide leniently and do not make the property’s owner pay for damages. According to the Rif and the Rambam this question is only a problem for the sages and not for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who says back in the Mishna “Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The homeowner is not liable in any of the cases in the mishna, even if he gave his permission for the items to be brought into his premises, unless he explicitly accepts responsibility upon himself to safeguard them.” (Sefaria,org translation) According to them, the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Rama poskins that when the owner of the property gives permission it is as if he accepts responsibility; however if the ox just wanders onto his property, he is not liable at all until he accepts upon himself to safeguard it. (The Shulkhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 398:5)