Version #2 - Conclusion: Both objections are equally valid. We cannot learn both, therefore we do not learn either.
the way you understand it is ibois eima, usually lishna achrina is the same answer in different loshon, i think thats how it was read in shiur many years ago, i don't have Artscroll or Mesivta handy to see how they explain
m l, lakewood
It is certainly not a general rule that "Lishna Achrina" is the same answer in a different Lashon. In fact, usually it argues. Perhaps you heard like Chidushei Basra, who is Medayek specifically here from the fact that here it says "Lishna Acharina" while for the next answer it says "Iba'is Eima."
"Lishna Acharina" means that there were two versions of what was meant when Talmidim of the Beis Midrash answered "Shekulim Hem." And especially if we explain that the Lishna Acharina rejects the answer, it would not be appropriate to say "Iba'is Eima."
Sefer Shalom Rav refers us to Rashi on 17a, DH Chada Chada Teiku b'Duchtei, who explains that since they are equal and we cannot learn both, we do not learn either. I prefer learning like this, even though it has a difficulty and two recent Gedolim learned differently.
The way that Shalom Rav and I learn, it is a massive Chidush in the Lishna Acharina that if two equally valid ways to learn the Klal u'Frat u'Chlal contradict each other, we do not learn either. The Ayeles ha'Shachar and Minchas Yehudah say (like you and the Chidushei Basra) that also Version #2 holds that we learn both. They both ask, and do not answer, what is the difference from Version #1. According to their Perush, I find it difficult that none of the earlier Mefarshim were bothered by this. (The Mesivta edition cites someone who resolves this, but I could not find it, and the Ayeles ha'Shachar and Minchas Yehudah did not see or accept it.)
I suggest fixing the outline to read:
(i) Version #2 - Conclusion: Both objections are equally valid. We cannot learn both, therefore we do not learn either.
1. Note: According to this, Answer #2 is rejected, and we must say like Answer #1. It seems that Shalom Rav explains like this. Chidushei Basra, Ayeles ha'Shachar, and Minchas Yehudah say that also Version #2 holds that we learn both; the latter two ask what is the difference from Version #1.
Pesach Feldman
Thank you, mamesh meir eynayim! אולי י"ל בישוב מה שהקשו דמה מחדש הלישנא אחרינא, דבאמת אין כאן שום חידוש רק דחייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו גדאי' בדוכתי אחריתי,
Shalom. Who does the mesivta quote that resolves this ? SDB
Mesivta says in the name of Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik that since we cannot decide which k'Ein ha'Prat, it is as if neither Prat was written, so we learn both.
I hear only a very faint Remez how this is inferred from "v'Chada Chada Teiko a'Milsei" more than according to the first Lashon, "Shekulim Hen va'Yavo'u Shneihem." I think that the Gemara should have properly explained it, if this is the Pshat, but I acknowledge that there are three Gedolim who learned unlike me.
Pesach Feldman