Commentary for Bava Kamma 203:17

תנו רבנן הנותן מעות לשלוחו

But why was it necessary to state that the <i>halachah</i> was in accordance with R. Judah? For his view was in the first instance stated as a point at issue [between the authorities] and subsequently as an anonymous ruling; and it is an established rule that if a view is first dealt with as a point at issue and then stated anonymously, the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the anonymous statement!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 42b. ');">¹⁶</span> The point at issue in this case was in Baba Kamma [IF WOOL WAS HANDED OVER TO A DYER] TO DYE IT RED BUT HE DYED IT BLACK, OR TO DYE IT BLACK BUT HE DYED IT RED, R. MEIR SAYS THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY [THE OWNER] FOR THE VALUE OF HIS WOOL. BUT R. JUDAH SAYS: IF THE INCREASE IN VALUE EXCEEDS THE OUTLAY, THE OWNER WOULD REPAY TO THE DYER HIS OUTLAY, WHILE IF THE OUTLAY EXCEEDED THE INCREASE IN VALUE HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY HIM NO MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE INCREASE, whereas the anonymous statement was made in Baba Mezi'a where we have learnt: 'Whichever party departs from the terms of the agreement is at a disadvantage, so also whichever party retracts from the agreement has the inferior claim'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. VI, 2. Why then was it necessary for R. Huna to state explicitly that the halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Judah? ');">¹⁷</span> — R. Huna considered that it was necessary for him to state so, since otherwise you might have thought that there was no precise order for [the teaching of] the Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though its compilation was according to a definite plan and system; cf. Tosaf. a.l. ');">¹⁸</span> so that this [ruling of R. Judah] might perhaps have been in the first instance anonymous but subsequently a point at issue.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the anonymous statement does not constitute the accepted halachah. ');">¹⁹</span> [What does] R. Joseph [say to this]? — [He says] that if so, wherever a ruling is first a point at issue and then stated anonymously,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the anonymous statement is considered to be the accepted halachah. ');">²⁰</span> it might be questioned that as no precise order may have been kept in [the teaching of] the Mishnah it might have been anonymous in the first instance and a point at issue later on!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the anonymous statement does not constitute the accepted halachah. ');">¹⁹</span> To this R. Huna would answer that we never say that there was no precise order in [the teaching of] the Mishnah in one and the same tractate, whereas in the case of two tractates we might indeed say so. R. Joseph however considered the whole of Nezikin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Sherira Gaon, Maim. and others this refers only to B.K., B.M. and B.B. which constitute three gates of one tractate but not to Sanhedrin and the other tractates of this Order. A different view is taken by Ritba and others; cf. Yad Malachi 338, and Tosaf. Yom Tob in his introduction to Nezikin. ');">²¹</span> to form only one tractate. If you like, again, I may say that it is because this ruling was stated among fixed laws: 'Whichever party departs from the terms of the agreement is at a disadvantage, and so also whichever party retracts from the argument has an inferior claim.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. VI. 2. So that there was no need for R. Huna to state that the halachah rested with R. Judah. ');">²²</span> Our Rabbis taught: 'Where money was given to an agent

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 203:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.