Kommentar zu Bava Kamma 5:2

A potter that brings his pots into a courtyard of a homeowner etc...

ואם הוזקה בהם בעל הפירות חייב – and these words refer to when the animal slips and stumbles/falls through them. But if she (i.e., the animal) ate from them until she died , the owner of the produce is exempt [from indemnity] because she should not have eaten them.

If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by them (by the the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.
If a man brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by it (by the the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.
The two mishnayoth which we will learn today are concerned with damages that occur on the property of the damaged party. In mishnah two we will learn about a pottery maker or a produce seller who brings his ware onto another person’s property and it either causes damage or is damaged. In mishnah three we will learn about a person who brings his ox onto another person’s property and again it either causes injury or is injured. In both of these cases we will learn the following general rules:
1. If a person’s belongings are damaged after he brought them onto another person’s property without permission the owner of the property is not liable.
2. In such a case if a person’s belongings cause damage on another person’s property he is liable.
Sections one and two of mishnah two are very similar and can be explained simultaneously. If a person brings his belongings onto another’s household without permission he is obligated for any damage his belongings will cause. In addition he will not receive compensation if his belongings are damaged by the belongings of the owner of the household. After all, the householder can say I never gave you permission to come onto my property. In modern terms this would be called trespassing. However, if he received permission to come onto the property the laws are reversed. The mishnah explicitly states that if the person’s belongings were damaged the owner of the household, whose belongings caused the damage, is liable. It can be assumed, although it is not stated explicitly, that in such a case if the person’s belongings caused damage to the belongings of the household owner he would not be liable.

What it is saying with the fruits, that if it (the animal) was damaged from them... means to say if (the animal) stumbled on them, but if it happened to him damage from eating them, he is not obligated in anything in any matter. That the owner of the fruits did not accept upon himself the guarding of the animal of the house owner and it was not to him that it shouldn't eat.