ר"מ אומר נותן לו דמי צמרו רבי יהודה אומר אם השבח יתר על היציאה נותן לו את היציאה ואם היציאה יתירה על השבח נותן לו את השבח
Rabbi 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. Rabbi Yehuda says: The dyer does not acquire the wool; rather, the owner of the wool must reimburse the dyer for his expenses, without losing out himself. If the value of the enhancement, i.e., the enhanced value of the wool, exceeds the dyer’s expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement.
אהדרינהו רב יוסף לאפיה בשלמא הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה איצטריך ס"ד אמינא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים קא משמע לן הלכה כיחיד
Rav Yosef turned his face away to demonstrate his displeasure with Rav Huna’s comment. The Gemara explains why Rav Yosef was unhappy: Granted, his ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that because this is a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha should be in accordance with the opinion of the many, not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa. Rav Huna therefore teaches us that in this case the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa despite the fact that he is an individual.
אלא הלכה כרבי יהודה למה לי פשיטא דמחלוקת ואחר כך סתם הלכתא כסתם
But why do I need the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is obvious that this is the case, as there is a well-known principle that whenever there is a dispute in a mishna and afterward one opinion is presented as the ruling of an unattributed mishna, i.e., without attribution to a particular Sage or that the ruling is subject to debate, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion presented in the unattributed mishna.
מחלוקת בבבא קמא וסתם בבבא מציעא דתנן כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה וכל החוזר בו ידו על התחתונה
The Gemara adds that here the ruling of the unattributed mishna appears after the dispute, as the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir appears in tractate Bava Kamma, and the unattributed mishna appears in Bava Metzia, which is the next tractate in the order of the Mishna. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 76a): Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage. This statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a craftsman who deviates from his assignment is at a disadvantage, as he receives only the expense or the enhancement, whichever is worth less.
ורב הונא משום דאין סדר למשנה דאיכא למימר סתם תנא ברישא ואחר כך מחלוקת אי הכי כל מחלוקת ואחר כך סתם לימא אין סדר למשנה
The Gemara asks: And why did Rav Huna feel it necessary to state explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It was necessary because Rav Huna holds that the Mishna is not sequential, and therefore it is not clear that the mishna in Bava Kamma precedes the mishna in Bava Metzia. Consequently, it can be said that in fact this is a case of an unattributed mishna that is taught first, and only afterward appears the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir. The Gemara challenges: If that is so, that the Mishna is not sequential, then in every case of a dispute that is afterward followed by an unattributed mishna, let us say that the Mishna is not sequential.
ורב הונא כי לא אמרינן אין סדר בחדא מסכת' בתרי מסכתי אמרינן ורב יוסף כולה נזיקין חדא מסכת' היא
The Gemara explains: And Rav Huna? How would he respond to this claim? He would say: When do we not say that the Mishna is non-sequential? The Mishna is considered sequential when both mishnayot appear in one tractate, but when they are in two different tractates, we do say that the Mishna is not sequential, and it is unclear which one was taught last. Therefore, in this case, as each mishna is found in a different tractate, one in Bava Kamma and the other in Bava Metzia, one cannot say for certain which was taught first. And how would Rav Yosef respond? He would say: All of tractate Nezikin, i.e., Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia, and Bava Batra, is considered one tractate, and therefore its internal order of mishnayot is sequential.
ואי בעית אימא משום דקתני לה גבי הלכתא פסיקתא כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה וכל החוזר בו ידו על התחתונה
And if you wish, say instead that Rav Yosef maintained that it was not necessary to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because his ruling is taught amid other decided halakhot: Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage, i.e., this statement is unrelated to the subject matter of the chapter in which it appears. Consequently, it is evidently the accepted halakha and therefore Rav Huna’s statement was unnecessary.
ת"ר לא יאמר אדם לחבירו הנראה שתעמוד עמי לערב רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אומר אדם לחבירו הנראה שתעמוד עמי לערב אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן הלכתא כרבי יהושע בן קרחה
§ The Gemara discusses other halakhot that are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa. The Sages taught: A person may not say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? This is prohibited, as the speaker is hinting that he would like to hire him for labor after the conclusion of Shabbat. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: A person may say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? In this case, he is not asking him explicitly. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa.
ת"ר הנשאל לחכם וטימא לא ישאל לחכם ויטהר לחכם ואסר לא ישאל לחכם ויתיר
The Sages taught: In the case of one who asks a question of a Sage with regard to an issue of ritual impurity and the Sage rules that the item is impure, he may not ask the same question of another Sage and have him rule that it is pure. Similarly, in the case of one who asks a Sage a halakhic question and he deems it forbidden, he may not ask the question of another Sage and have him deem it permitted.
היו שנים אחד מטמא ואחד מטהר אחד אוסר ואחד מתיר אם היה אחד מהם גדול מחבירו בחכמה ובמנין הלך אחריו ואם לאו הלך אחר המחמיר ר' יהושע בן קרחה אומר בשל תורה הלך אחר המחמיר בשל סופרים הלך אחר המיקל א"ר יוסף הלכתא כרבי יהושע בן קרחה
In a situation where there were two Sages sitting together and one deems an item impure and the other one deems it pure, or if one deems it prohibited and the other one deems it permitted, the questioner should proceed as follows: If one of the Sages was superior to the other in wisdom and in number, one should follow his ruling, and if not, he should follow the one who rules stringently. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: If the uncertainty exists with regard to a Torah law, follow the one who rules stringently; if it exists with regard to a rabbinic law, follow the one who rules leniently. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa.
ת"ר וכולן שחזרו בהן אין מקבלין אותן עולמית דברי ר"מ ר"י אומר חזרו בהן במטמוניות אין מקבלין אותן בפרהסיא מקבלין אותן א"ד עשו דבריהם במטמוניות מקבלין אותן
The Sages taught: And with regard to all of the people who are not deemed credible due to sins that they performed, even when they retract and repent from their evil ways, society never accepts them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If they retract their ways in private, society does not accept them, but if they repent in public [befarheseya], society accepts them. There are those who say that there is another version of this discussion: If they performed their sinful matters in private, then when they repent society accepts them.