Consistency in Rav Nachman, Rav Chisda, and Rabbi Yochanan (article preview)

Bava Metzia 10a

There is a principle of זָכִין לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, Shimon can act on Reuven’s behalf to his benefit, even without Reuven’s explicit appointment to do so. However, אֵין חָבִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, we cannot act on Reuven’s behalf to his detriment. What if it’s to Reuven’s benefit (זָבִין) but to Levi’s detriment (חָבִין)? Does it matter if Reuven appointed Shimon as his agent?

Related to the above, Bava Metzia 10a discusses the following: Shimon lifts an item to acquire it, not for himself but for Reuven. That is, (A) הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. Does Reuven acquire? Rav Nachman bar Yaakov¹ (third-generation Nehardean Amora) and his contemporary Rav Chisda (Sura) both say לֹא קָנָה חֲבֵרוֹ, that it doesn’t work. Rabbi Yochanan (second-generation Amora, Teveria) says it works. The gemara elaborates that this is based on (B), הַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים, one who seizes for a creditor, to that creditor’s benefit, in a scenario where it’s to others’ detriment, namely the other creditors. Rav Nachman / Rav Chisda maintain it doesn’t work; Rabbi Yochanan disagrees. (Rashi says it doesn’t work because he wasn’t explicitly appointed an agent; Tosafot disagrees.) Rava, Rav Nachman’s student, challenges him in two ways, but Rav Nachman successfully defends against the attacks.

A bit earlier, on 8a, Rami bar Chama tried to prove that A works from a careful analysis of the first Mishnah. However, Rava showed that it’s not a conclusive proof – perhaps since he’s acquiring part for himself, he can also acquire for his friend, but generally not. Recall that Rami bar Chama is a fourth-generation Amora, who was Rav Chisda’s student and son-in-law. Fourth-generation Rava was also Rav Chisda’s student and son-in-law, marrying Rami’s widow. Still, Rava’s primary teacher was Rav Nachman. Interestingly, Rami deviates from Rav Chisda’s teaching, while Rava defends Rav Chisda’s and Rav Nachman’s position. Rav Chisda doesn’t speak up, nor is his position mentioned. Tosafot note that Rava on 8a defends Rav Nachman’s position, so he must have accepted Rav Nachman’s rejoinders.

Consistency in B

Note that Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda don’t explicitly utter the words that A is based on B. Rather, the Talmudic Narrator suggests this anonymously, perhaps because of global Talmudic knowledge or because the legal analysis is convincing.