Rav Huna and Rav Must Agree (article preview)

Bava Kamma 115a

Reuven’s smartphone was stolen and sold. Then, the police caught the thief. Rav, citing his uncle and teacher, Rabbi Chiyya, says Reuven’s claim is only against the thief. Rabbi Yochanan, citing his primary teacher, Rabbi Yannai, says the claim is (also) against the purchaser (Bava Kamma 115a). Several Pumpeditan Amoraim – Rav Yosef, Abaye, Rav Zevid, and Rav Pappa, understand the Rav / Rabbi Yochanan discussion in different ways.

Rav Pappa’s explanation is that there exists a תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק, decree for the integrity of the marketplace. (As Rashi explains, if a buyer overtly bought something in the marketplace, not knowing it was stolen, they institute a fix for him when he returns the item – the original owner refunds him the purchase price.) Rav, citing Rabbi Chiyya, holds they didn’t make the decree here, so Reuven must seek a refund only from the thief. Rabbi Yochanan, citing Rabbi Yannai, holds they did make the decree, so Reuven can also seek a refund from the original owner (who would then seek the money from the thief).

The Talmudic Narrator objects. After all, Rav Huna was a primary student of Rav, so should be consistent with his teacher. Yet, Chanan the Wicked stole a cloak and sold it. The case came before Rav Huna, who told the original cloak owner, “go, redeem your pledge” (from the purchaser). The Narrator explains: Chanan the Wicked was poor, so couldn’t have paid the money. 

We might ask how the Talmudic Narrator, who is bold yet humble in generally only using facts and arguments expressed by named Amoraim,  knows that Chanan was poor. He knows it from Bava Kamma 37a. Chanan the Wicked slapped someone, and came before Rav Huna for judgment.