The gemarah at the very bottom of 10a asks according to shittah of Rav Yechiel who is coming to explain the opinion of Rebbi Yehuda as to what being "mechabeish" means. Rav Yechiel explains it as placing the hole in the millstone (it seems to be a machlokes harishonim about whether we are discussing the upper or lower millstone, or both - see Nimukei Yosef and Shittas Ribav), unlike Rav Yehuda who says it refers to chaffing/scratching the millstone to enable grinding. The gemarah asks that according Rav Yechiel how does it makes sense that there is an old millstone with no hole in it, since as Rashi (s.v. ella li'maan di'amar) says, a millstone with no hole in it is functionless? The gemarah answers that we are dealing with a situation where the old millstone has a hole, but that the hole needs to be enlarged.
The Keren Orah makes a point that the being mechabeish and being gomer the reichayim are the same thing. It follows that the other opinions mentioned in the braiysa - namely Rebbi Eliezer and the Yeish Omrim, hold that since you cannot be gomer the reichayim, that this should mean that you cannot be mechabeish the Reichayim, as the two are synonymous as the keren orah says (this also seems to be the way that Tosafos (s.v. Rebbi Yehuda) seems to learn too). The problem with this is that how could Rebbi Eliezer/yesh omrim allow for the chiseling out of millstone, but just not completing it by putting a hole in it (being machabeish), since in essence you would have a completely functionless item as Rashi (quoted above) says. And if a major concern of Moed is tircha, then what greater tircha could there be, then a millstone that in essence is functionless currently, and will not be permitted to be completed - this is classic tircha shelo litzorech?!?
Shmuel Gertel, Baltimore, MD USA
Your question seems to be according to the opinion of Rav Yechiel. If so, "Mechabesh" means enlargening a hole which already exists. Therefore, the mill is functional before the enlargement because there was already a hole.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Reb Dovid,
I do not know how you are dealing my question at all.
My issue is that according to the yeish omrim and Rebbi Eliezer who are two tannaim in the braiysa, how could they allow for the chiseling out of millstone, but just not completing it by putting a hole in it (being machabeish). This is the way to understand their shittah in Rav Yechiel according to the keren orah which is mashma in tosafos as well. If a major concern of Moed is tircha, then what greater tircha could there be, then a millstone that in essence is functionless currently, and will not be permitted to be completed - this is classic tircha shelo litzorech?!? The gemara is not shying away from Rav Yechiel as is clear from the fact that we ask in his mehalech how the shittah of Rebbi Yehuda can make sense, but it ignores this even more fundamental and basic question?
Thanks again,
Shmuel
The mill is functional because it already possesses a hole. According to Rav Yechiel, "Bas Eina" means making the hole bigger so that it will grind better, but even before it was widened it was possible to grind with the millstone. The widening merely improves the grinding.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Reb Dovid,
I really really appreciate your continued responses but I feel like you keep on reiterating the same point and are missing the pshat. What Rav Yechiel is saying is the teitch of the words mechabeish (ie "bas eina") is in REBBI YEHUDAH. But remember, being mechabeish means the completion of the mill according to the keren orah LIDIVREI HAKOL (and Tosafos is mashma this way). If so according to those who disagree with Rebbi Yehuda (REBBI ELIEZER and the YEISH OMRIM), they are not allowing completion of the mill - by a new mill. And therefore it will NOT mean that they simply do not allow a widening of an existing hole, since they are not talking about an old mill, as REBBI YEHUDA introduces in the braiysa, they are talking about a new mill and are saying that you cannot put in the eye-hole.
Therefore, when you say that "According to Rav Yechiel, "Bas Eina" means making the hole bigger so that it will grind better, but even before it was widened it was possible to grind with the millstone. The widening merely improves the grinding." This making the hole bigger is NOT accurate in Rebbi Eliezer/ Yeish Omrim, and it is additionally inaccurate to say that the it was possible to grind with the millstone previously. We are dealing with a NEW mill, not an old one. ONLY Rebbe Yehuda discusses this as an old mill, not Rebbi Eliezer/Yeish Omrim.
Respectfully and appreciatively yours,
Shmuel Gertel
Reb Shmuel, thank you for your very helpful comments.
1) I think possibly the key point in the Sugya is that the Beraisa cited in the Gemara states that Rebbi Yehudah said "in the name of" Rebbi Eliezer. Tosfos has a Havah Amina to say that Rebbi Yehudah only said this in the name of Rebbi Eliezer but that he himself does not hold of this, but Tosfos then rejects this Havah Amina because, as he writes, why should we make a dispute for no reason? Therefore, the conclusion of Tosfos is that there is no dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Eliezer.
2) So when you write that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees with Rebbi Yehuda, this is not correct according to Tosfos. In fact, Rebbi Yehudah also does not allow the completion of a mill -- by a new mill. This is what Rebbi Yehuda says in the Mishnah, that one may not do "Mechabshin (which means completing the mill according to the Keren Orah) "bi'Techilah." Tosfos writes that "bi'Techilah means a new mill, so we now know that one may not complete a new mill according to Rebbi Yehudah.
3) The Yesh Omrim prohibit Mechabshin under any circumstances, i.e. both with an old and a new mill. So there is a dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and the Yesh Omrim, but it is a fairly limited dispute and focuses only on Mechabshin an old mill, which Rebbi Yehudah permits and the Yesh Omrim prohibit.
Yasher Ko'ach,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you again for getting back to me.
a) In regards to your first point in point #1 and point #2 that there is no dispute between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehuda, Tosafos in no way is saying that there is no dispute between Rebbi Yehuda and Rebbi Eliezer. All Tosafos is saying is that there is no dispute between Rebbi Yehuda in the Mishnah, and Rebbi Yehuda in the name of Rebbi Eliezer in the braiysa. BUT this has no bearing whatsoever on the shittah of Rebbi Eliezer himself.
b) Based on my comments in point #1 in which it is CLEAR that Rebbi Eliezer DISAGREES with Rebbi Yehudah and is stated so explicitly by the keren orah, what would come out is as follows:
Rebbi Yehuda prohibits completing a new mill and permits completing an old mill (which the Keren Orah holds is being mechabeish)
Rebbi Eliezer prohibits completion (being mechabeish) of either a new or old mill.
c) When we introduce the opinion of the Yeish Omrim, they say identical as far as the mill is concerned to the shittah of Rebbi Eliezer. The only divergence between the two is in regards to the tanur vikirayim (the yesh omrim prohibit it and Rabbi Eliezer permits it) - see keren orah who spells all of this out. As such the breakdown of opinions amongst Rebbi Yehuda, Rebbi Eliezer and the Yesh Omrim are:
Rebbi Yehuda prohibits completing a new mill and permits completing an old mill (which the Keren Orah holds is being mechabeish)
Rebbi Eliezer prohibits completion (being mechabeish) of either a new or old mill, but permit completion of a tanur vikirayim.
Yeish Omrim are identical to Rebbi Eliezer insofar as the mill but additionally prohibit completion of a tanur vikirayim also.
d) The complication lies in the language of Rebbi Eliezer who says that one can be maamid a tanur vikirayim as long as you are not yigmor. Now that we have established that Rabbi Eliezer is even talking about a new mill and Tosafos says nothing contrary to this, it follows that Rebbi Eliezer will allow preparing of the mill so long as you aren't mechabeish it (yigmor). When Rebbi Yehuda says that you can be maamid a new mill, I could argue that the mill was previously made from before the moed, BUT in Rebbi Eliezer his language is that you can be maamid as long you are not yigmor. Gemirah of the mill is being mechabeish as we have already established in prior communications, which means that Rebbi Eliezer will allow - by a new mill, since Rebbi eliezer's shittah is prohibiting gemirah even by a new mill - the forming of a mill so long as you do not pierce it in the middle. And my question to you is that what greater tirchah could there possibly be then forming a mill that you cannot even use currently since it is not complete.
e) Regarding your last point that the machlokes between Rebbi Yehuda and the yeish omrim is only focused on the old mill. This is certainly not definitive. Based on the way the keren orah understands, that Rebbi Eliezer and the Yeish Omrim completely dovetail by the mill and only diverge by tanur vikirayim, the same way that I can clearly see a disagreement between Rebbi Yehuda and Rebbi Eliezer by a new mill (as I just outlined in letter "d"), I would view it identically that the yesih omrim disagree with Rebbi Yehudah by a new mill also.
f) One additional point to note is that I make frequent mention of the keren orah. The only reason why I do so is because there is such a dearth of comments explaining the pashut pshat in this sugya that I was necessitated to rely on achronim (aside for which that the keren orah is an accepted gadol amongst the achronim).
Thank you again for your time (and patience) and wishing you a ksiva vachasima tova,
Shmuel Gertel
Reb Shmuel, there is a text in the Mishnah which reads only "Tanur v'Kirayim" and does not include Reichayim. This appears to be Rashi's text and it also seems to be the text of the Ritva, because the Ritva writes that "it seems that the text of the Rambam in the Mishnah is that one may set up the Reichayim," which suggests that the Ritva himself did not have Reichayim in his text.
According to this, one may say that Rebbi Yehudah says in the Mishnah that one may not do Mechabshin, and Kal va'Chomer one may not form the mill in the first place. (See Chidushim u'Vi'urim by Rav Chaim Greinemann zt'l.)
Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom