We learn two things from a debate between Rav Yosef and Rav Huna TB Baba Kamma 102

We learn two things from a debate between Rav Yosef and Rav Huna on today’s daf TB Baba Kamma 102. We shall learn a rule in deciding the halakha and the origin of our massekhet.

Concerning the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda about the dyer who accidentally dyes some wool the wrong color back in the Mishna on daf TB Baba Kamma 100b the Gemara relates the following story:

“Rav Yosef was sitting behind Rabbi Abba, and they were both sitting before Rav Huna. And Rav Huna was sitting and saying: … the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Yosef turned his face in disdain of Rav Huna’s statement…

“But with regard to the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why do I need it? This is an example of the Mishna recording a dispute, and afterward recording only one side of that dispute as an unattributed opinion. And the principle is that when the Mishna records a dispute, and afterward records only one side of that dispute as an unattributed opinion, then the halakha is in accordance with the unattributed opinion.

“The Gemara identifies the dispute and the unattributed mishna. The dispute is found in tractate Bava Kamma: If one gave wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and instead he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool (Rabbi Meir holds when the dyer dyes the wool the wrong color, he becomes an accidental thief. When a thief changes the item he stole, he acquires it and only has to pay the victim the cost of the original object at the time of theft-gg). Rabbi Yehuda says: If the value of the enhancement exceeds the expenses, the owner of the wool gives the expenses to the dyer. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement (Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t hold in this case the dyer is an accidental thief who acquires dyed wool. He has to give this unfortunate customer the dyed wool as a fine. This dyed wool is worth more than undyed wool. Nevertheless, the customer has to pay whatever is less, the enhancement to the product or the expenses of dying the product-gg). And the unattributed mishna appears in tractate Bava Metzia, as we learned in a mishna there (76a): Whoever changes from the terms of an agreement is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges from an agreement is at a disadvantage. This unattributed mishna accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a craftsman who deviates from his assignment receives either the expenses or the enhancement, whichever is of lesser value.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Although Rabbi Huna agrees with the above general principle, he pushes back saying that it is necessary to decide that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda because these two mishnayot are not sequential. “And Rav Yosef would respond: All of Nezikin, i.e., Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia, and Bava Batra, is one tractate.” (Sefaria.org translation) That’s enough to make them sequential.

This is the second thing we learn from this discussion. At one time there was a 30 chapter massekhet Nezikin (damages). It was broken into three equal massekhtot; each containing 10 chapters. I’m guessing that it was easier to memorize the Gemara broken down into three different massekhtot.