Rabbi Yochanan Argues With A Tanna?
(1) At the turn from Bava Metzia 41a to 41b:
וּמִדְּרַב סָבַר שְׁלִיחוּת יָד צְרִיכָה חֶסְרוֹן. לֵוִי סָבַר שְׁלִיחוּת יָד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה. חֶסְרוֹן מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלֵוִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן נְהוֹרַאי: מְשׁוּנָּה שְׁלִיחוּת יָד הָאֲמוּרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר מִשְּׁלִיחוּת יָד הָאֲמוּרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Levi? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai: Misappropriation that is stated with regard to a paid bailee is different from misappropriation that is stated with regard to an unpaid bailee. There is no need for the Torah to state the halakha of misappropriation twice. If an unpaid bailee is liable to pay for misappropriation, all the more so is a paid bailee liable to pay. The reason that the Torah repeated this halakha is to teach that a paid bailee is liable to pay for misappropriation even if there is no loss.
וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר אֵינָהּ מְשׁוּנָּה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan continues: And I say that misappropriation by a paid bailee is not different.
Tosafot speak at length about this, a bit later in d.h. Karna, קרנא בלא שבועה, at the very end of the long passage:
ואע"ג דרבי יוסי ברבי נהוראי הוא תנא וסבר דקרנא עדיפא וכן ברייתא דהשואל (לקמן בבא מציעא דף צה.) סבר דקרנא עדיפא או לסטים מזויין גזלן הוא ור' יוחנן פליג בתרוייהו הא לא קשיא דר' יוחנן סבר כתנא דהכונס (ב"ק דף נז:) דקאמר לא אם אמרת בשומר חנם שכן משלם כפל לכך שלח בה יד חייב דקאי אמילתיה דרבי יוסי בר' נהוראי:
They wonder how Rabbi Yochanan, an Amora, can argue with a Tanna, Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai. (As well as a different brayta on 95a.) They answer that he can argue because we can point to other Tannaim, in another sugya, in Bava Kamma 57b.
We might be able to point to an even closer Tanna on the page, namely Rabbi Eleazer, in this:
וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ מְשׁוּנָּה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan stated: And I say that it is not different, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: This case and that case are one.
That could be Rabbi Eleazar ben Shamua, a Tanna. However, perhaps the language of דָּא וְדָא, which is Aramaic, would tag instead Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat, the Amora.
There are other plausible answers. Rabbi Yochanan is citing his direct teacher. If he considers himself a first-generation Amora, or perhaps even a quasi-Tanna, or even a Tanna, he should be able to argue. As I’ve put forth elsewhere, Tanna status is somewhat a matter of self-identification. And, that’s how Rav is a Tanna and argues, when he chooses to do so, and how Shmuel sometimes does so as well.
The real issue is that it isn’t at all clear that Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai is a Tanna. To quote the discussion of Talmudic biographers:
התוספות כותבים שהיה תנא[12]. בעל היוחסין[13] ובעקבותיו בעל סדר הדורות[14] טוענים שלכאורה היה אמורא כי נמצא בתלמוד שקיבל הלכה בשם רבי אלעזר בן פדת שהיה מהאמוראים בדור השני, שאמר זאת משמו של רבו רבי הושעיה[15], רבי אהרן הימן מיישב שהכוונה שגם הוא קיבל את הלכתו של רבי הושעיה שאכן היה בדורו[16].
Here is what Rav Hyman has to say about this Sage:
For me, I see the reference to Chullin 57b:
ולית הלכתא ככל הני שמעתתא אלא כי הא דשאל רבי יוסי בן נהוראי את ר' יהושע בן לוי קדירת קנה בכמה אמר לו משנה שלמה שנינו עד כאיסר האיטלקי אמר לו והלא רחל אחת היתה בשכונתנו שנקדר קנה שלה ועשו לה קרומין של קנה וחיתה
The Gemara concludes: But the halakha is not in accordance with any of these statements. Rather, it is in accordance with that which Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: In what amount must a windpipe be punctured to render the animal a tereifa? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: We learned a full mishna (54a): Until the perforation is the same size as the Italian issar. Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai said to him: But wasn’t there a certain ewe in our neighborhood whose windpipe was punctured in a greater amount, and they made a seal for the windpipe out of the shell of a reed and it lived?
with him asking first-generation Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi a question, and I’d say that he is a quasi-Tanna quasi-Amora.
(2) While I’m writing a post anyway, here is a brief idea that might not have merited its own post. In Berachot 53b:
וְרָבָא אָמַר: ״יֵאוֹתוּ״ מַמָּשׁ.
And with regard to the question whether or not one must actually benefit from the flame’s light in order to recite a blessing, Rava said: When the mishna said benefit, it meant that he must actually derive benefit from the light.
וְכַמָּה? אָמַר עוּלָּא: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּכִּיר בֵּין אִיסָּר לְפוּנְדְּיוֹן. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּכִּיר בֵּין מְלוּזְמָא שֶׁל טְבֶרְיָא לִמְלוּזְמָא שֶׁל צִפּוֹרִי.
The Gemara asks: And how adjacent must one be in order to be considered to have derived benefit from the flame? Ulla said: So that he can distinguish between an issar and a pundeyon, two coins of the period. Ḥizkiya said: So that he can distinguish between a weight used in Tiberias and a weight used in Tzippori, which were slightly different.
Now consider this from the recent daf, Bava Metzia 42a:
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּסָפִים אֵין לָהֶם שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא בַּקַּרְקַע. אָמַר רָבָא: וּמוֹדֵי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, דְּלָא אַטְרְחוּהּ רַבָּנַן. וְאִי שְׁהָא לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת שִׁעוּר לְמִקְבְּרִינְהוּ וְלָא קַבְרִינְהוּ – מְחַיַּיב. וְאִי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן הוּא סָבַר: דִּלְמָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ זוּזֵי לְאַבְדַּלְתָּא.
§ Shmuel says: There is safeguarding for money only in the ground. Rava said: And Shmuel concedes if one received a deposit on Shabbat eve at twilight, that the Rabbis did not impose upon him to bury it in the ground immediately. And if, at the conclusion of Shabbat, he delayed and did not bury the money within the period of time needed to bury it, he is liable to pay the owner if it is stolen. And if the one who deposited the money is a Torah scholar and the bailee thought: Perhaps he requires money for havdala, and that is the reason that he did not bury the money immediately, then he may delay burying the money a bit longer.
Now, Rashi says this:
ואם צורבא מרבנן הוא - המפקיד שהוא חרד על מצות הבדלה על הכוס אמר השומר דלמא מיבעי ליה זוזי לאבדלתא להכי לא קברינהו ופטור:
That is, the original owner who deposited the coins might have need of them, to purchase wine, so the coins need to remain liquid assets (heh), and the bailee will therefore not bury them yet. We’d add: it cannot be the bailee who plans on using them. Even though milveh lehotzaah nitnu, money given as a loan is meant to be used, and other funds returned in their place, here the original coins were deposited for safekeeping. Thus, it is the original owner who is the one who would use these coins.
What I would propose is that it is perhaps even the bailee / tzurba mei-rabbanan that is using it, and since it is mere looking at it, not true usage, it isn’t a violation of misappropriation. But the original owner would have allowed such usage, and keeping it out for that minor time for that purpose is not considered negligence. Perhaps only a Torah scholar knows the Rava / Ulla approach.