R' Yonasan holds that a Krach cannot sell its Bais Haknesses. The Gemorrah asks on this from the machlokes between the Tanna Kamma and R' Yehuda-the Tanna Kamma holds that Yerushalayim cannot become metameh b'nigayim, since it is not "achuzaschem"; R' Yehuda holds that Yerushalayim and batei knessiyos can become metameh b'negayim, however, the Bais Hamikdash cannot become metameh, becaues of the drasha of "Lo Habayis." The Gemorrah therefore asks that that we see that a bais haknesses is owned and can be sold-not like R' Yonassan.
Rashi appears to explain the kashya only according to R' Yehuda (D"H "Ani lo shamati"). Couldn't this be a kashya even lifi the Tanna Kamma? Even the Tanna Kamma holds that a bais haknesses can be sold-he only excludes Yerushalayim because of "Achuzaschem"-is it not mashma that even he would agree that in other cities where this drasha does not apply a bais haknesses may be sold? If so, why does Rashi only state this kashya according to R' Yehuda? Moreover, according to Rashi, if this is a kashya only according to R' Yehuda, why can't the Gemorrah simply answer that R' Yonassan holds like the Tanna Kamma (if, in fact, the Tanna Kamma holds that a bais haknesses cannot be sold)?
I would also like to point out that lifi Anius Daati-the information provided in the Point By Point Summary for Daf 26 is incorrect. In particular, under #2, the summary states that Rav Yehuda holds that Yerushalayim was not apportioned to the Shvatim and the Tanna Kamma holds that it was apportioned to the Shevatim. I think the Gemmorah says the opposite.
Dov Reifer, Baltimore, Maryland USA
The Tana Kama says merely that Yerushalayim is not Metamei and, therefore, there is no Diyuk as to the Halachah of Batei Kenesiyos. Rebbi Yehudah, on the other hand, says clearly that the only place in Yerushalayim which is not Metamei is the Beis Ha'Mikdash. We therefore have a Diyuk that everywhere else in Yerushalayim is Metamei, including the Batei Kenesiyos.