Do Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan really disagree? TB Baba Metzia 36

All categories of guardians are liable for negligence (peshi’ah-פְּשִׁיעָה). Today’s daf TB Baba Metzia 36 decides whether or not one guardian may transfer without the permission of the owner the object the guardian is watching to another guardian. Is this transfer an act of negligence?

“It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a bailee who conveyed to another bailee the deposit with which he was entrusted. Rav says: He is exempt from payment in the same cases in which he is exempt when the deposit is in his possession. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is liable to pay even in cases of damage due to circumstances beyond his control.

“Abaye says: According to Rav’s line of reasoning, it is not necessary to state his ruling in a case where he was initially an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, as in that case the unpaid bailee enhanced the level of his safeguarding, since a paid bailee is liable to pay in instances where an unpaid bailee is exempt. But even in the case of a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, where the paid bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, he is exempt. What is the reason? He is exempt because he conveyed the deposit to a mentally competent person, thereby effectively safeguarded the deposit.

"According to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s line of reasoning, it is not necessary to state his ruling in a case where he was initially a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, as the paid bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, since an unpaid bailee is exempt in instances where a paid bailee is liable to pay. But even in the case of an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, where the unpaid bailee enhanced the level of his safeguarding, he is liable to pay. What is the reason? He is liable because the owner of the deposit said to him: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Admittedly Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position is much more logical. Rav Ḥisda taught that Rav never explicitly said that the original guardian is exempt, but it was implicitly derived from a court case that came before Rav and several mishnayot. Each time the Gemara deflects that Rav decided the general Jewish law principle of “a guardian who transfers the object to another guardian is exempt from payment.”  Each case’s circumstances uniqueness made Rav decided that the original guardian was exempt. This leads me to believe that Rav really didn’t disagree with the Rabbi Yoḥanan.

The sugiyah concludes: “Rava says: The halakha is: A bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is liable to pay. It is not necessary to say that this is the halakha if he was a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit to an unpaid bailee, as in that case the first bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, as an unpaid bailee is exempt from paying in instances where a paid bailee is obligated to do so. But even if it was initially an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, the first bailee is liable to pay. What is the reason that he is liable in that case? He is liable, as the owner of the deposit can say to him: You are trustworthy to me when you take an oath that the item was stolen or lost. That person is not trustworthy to me when he takes an oath.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Another bottom line: Rava agrees with Abaye that the original guardian is liable. He just provides a slightly different reason. Abaye holds that the owner doesn’t trust the second guardian to watch his goods. Rava holes that the owner doesn’t trust the truthfulness of the second guardian.