Study Avodah Zarah folio 7A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
R' Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool. Since the dyer deviated from the owner’s wishes, he is considered akin to a robber who acquires the stolen item by changing it. Therefore, like a robber he keeps the changed item and pays the owner its original value. R' Yeh
Rav Yosef turned his face away to demonstrate his displeasure with Rav Huna’s comment. The Talmud explains why Rav Yosef was unhappy: Granted, his ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehoshua ben Korḥa was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that because this
But why do I need the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda? It is obvious that this is the case, as there is a well-known principle that whenever there is a dispute in a Mishnah and afterward one opinion is presented as the ruling of an unattributed Mishnah, i.e
The Talmud adds that here the ruling of the unattributed Mishnah appears after the dispute, as the dispute between R' Yehuda and R' Meir appears in tractate Bava Kamma, and the unattributed Mishnah appears in Bava Metzia, which is the next tractate in the order of the Mishnah. As we learned in a Mi
The Talmud asks: And why did Rav Huna feel it necessary to state explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda? It was necessary because Rav Huna holds that the Mishnah is not sequential, and therefore it is not clear that the Mishnah in Bava Kamma precedes the Mishnah