https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.115a.15?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
For taking both lower & upper millstones, Mishna clearly states 2, but Rav Huna says 3. How come 2nd mishna on 115a is not contradiction to R' Huna? The amora Rav Huna is not allowed to argue on the (tannaic) mishna -- yet there is absolutely no discussion of this anywhere. Why not?
Paul Davidowitz, Long Beach
It seems that Rav Huna is not arguing with the Mishnah, but rather he is explaining it. The Mishnah starts off by saying that the creditor who takes the upper & lower millstones transgresses a negative commandment. According to Rav Huna, this is "Ki Nafsho Hu Chovel" and he receives Malkus for this. The Mishnah continues and states that he is liable for two vessels. Rashi explains that this means one set of Malkus for the upper one and one set of Malkus for the lower one. Therefore, according to the way Rav Huna learns the Mishnah, there are three sets of Malkus -- one for "Ki Nafsho Hu Chovel" and two for each part of the mill.
Wishing you a Gmar Chasimah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom
Reb Dovid,
You have answered the question from Paul below of how Rav Huna views the Mishna by saying that the Mishna reference to violation of negative command is actually talking about 'Ki Nafsho...'
and that is followed by 'liability' for 2 keilim. So, in essence, the Mishna is sync with Rav Huna, and according to his interpretation, it calls for up to 3 sets of lashes (if both stones are taken).
And Rav Yehuda says that in this particular case 'Ki Nafsho..' is not used to inflict an additional punishment on the stone taker.
But, then I have a question on Rav Yehuda:
The sentence mentions the 'liability' for taking the 2 stones, why then it's preceded by telling us that he also transgressed the 'Lo T'ose' ? Obviously, it pertains to the same millstone case, and If you are not learning the 3rd set of lashes from it (like Rav Huna is) then why would the Mishna have this extra information ?
Thanks, Eliezer
We can understand this according to the stage of the Gemara 115b which learns that Rav Yehudah maintains that one does not receive Malkus for "Lav sheb'Klalos," a "general prohibiton." The Torah states that one must not take the Rechayim and the Rechev. There is a general prohibition of "Lo Yachbol" that one may not take the millstones. This is the Klal. Then there are Two specific prohibitions of (a) taking the upper mill, (b) taking the lower mill. These two prohibitions are the Prat. Rav Yehudah maintains (at this stage of the Gemara) that if one transgresses the two Prat prohibitons, one receives Malkus for that, but one does not receive Malkus for the general prohibition of Lo Yachbol.
Therefore, when the first part of the Mishnah states that he transgresses a Lo Ta'aseh, he has indeed gone again the Mitzvah of the Torah of Lo Yachbol, but he does not receive Malkus for this. There are quite a number of cases where a Torah transgression is committed but the transgresser is not liable for Malkus. (See Rashi 115b, DH Abaye k'Rav.)
This question really requires a more thorough discussion, but I will close here for the moment.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
I've got your point, thank you, Dovid.. but, still:
When we are given those Prat prohibitions, which carry Malkus, don't we automatically also
know that they represent (fall under the general category of) transgressing a Lo Ta'aseh (of 'Lo Yachbol')
So then, what is a reason to unnecessarily state this fact explicitly ?
It seems to me that the Mishnah is telling us a very necessary Chidush. It is telling us how to understand the verse in Devarim 24:6. The first two words, "Lo Yachbol," tell us that by taking either of the mills one transgresses a Torah prohibition but there are no Malkus for this. The next word, "Rechayim," tells us that one receives Malkus for taking the lower mill. The next word "Rechev" teaches that one receives Malkus for taking the upper mill. So we learn three Halachos from four words in the verse!
In addition, the Mishnah is telling us (by using the word "Over" which hints that he is only "Over" -- he transgresses the Lav but he is not "Chayav" for Malkus) that there is a distinction between different prohibitions. For some prohibitions, one receives Malkus, but for other prohibitions one transgresses but does not receive Malkus.
Dovid Bloom