the gemora asks on the top of 28b that acc. to rava that tameh animals wiill become tameh ina an ohel so what is the breisa coming to teach us -and rashi says that if it is coming to tell us that the tachas was tahor "mae dehavi havi" meaning there is no practical halacha learnt from here.
the rashba asks what is rashi saying but the gemorah asks a couple liness later "mae havi alun" so we see the gemorah wants to know? so the rashba gives pshat in the gemorahs question.
I dont understand the rashbas question because rashi is saying good according to rava that we know that tamei animals become tamei in an ohel so what is the breisa coming to practically teach us-but the gemorah later on is asking that now that the breisaa is not refering to the mishcan so we arent resolving reb eliezers question and there is as practical halacha that comes out as the gemorah explained on 28a that if it is tamei than we can learn out that the hide of a tamei animal will become tamei in an ohel!
someone told me that the rashba is asking on rashi's lashon of mei dehavi havi which is mashma that we are not concerned about this AT All and if so we see the gemorah is concerned about it. But if you explain the rashbas question the way i said then rashi should have used a lashon of "this isnt pertianing to us lehalacha" and according to this Peshat it seems to answer my question. is this right? can you please explain?
Thank You very much.
moshe heller, La,Ca
I am not sure exactly how you understand Rashi and the Rashba. If you will send in your query again worded differently, I will be happy to go into it again.
Meanwhile, here's how I understand the Sugya ...
According to Rashi, when the Gemara asks 'le'Mai Hilchesa', it means seeing as even the skin of a Tamei animal is Metamei be'Ohel, why does the Beraisa confine Meleches Shamayim to the skin of a Tahor animal? It cannot be just to teach us that the Tachash was Tahor, since that is long past and who cares about what was?
But that's not true, asks the Rashba! The Gemara will shortly ask 'Mai Havi Alah', so you see that we do care?
(I think that this is what your friend explained to you, in which case I am inclined to agree with him).
He (the Rashba) therefore explains 'le'Mai Hilchesa', not as 'who cares about what was', like Rashi, but because the Lashon of the Beraisa ('Lo Huchshar ... Ela ... ') implies that it is coming to teach us a Halachah. Hence, 'L'mai Hilchesa' means what is the Beraisa coming to teach us.
As for 'Mai de'Havi Havi', that is not a problem, so we ask inquisitively 'Mai Havi Alah'.
It seems to me that one could answer Rashi by differentiating between Tana'im (in Mishnos and Beraisos) and Amora'im.
The Gemara asks 'le'Mai Hilchesa', because it is not way of Tana'im to discuss purely theoretical issues that have no bearing on Halachah.
Amora'im however, are different. They want to get to the bottom of everything, especially as the Gemara began dealing with the subject and left it in the middle. So it asks 'Mai Havi Alah'? as if to say, 'By the way, what is the conclusion regarding the Tachash that you began discussing'?
Incidentally, the Rashba might have queried Rashi's interpretation of 'le'Mai Hilchesa' from the beginning of the Sugya, which discusses whether the Tachash was Tahor or Tamei. But if, as I explained, Amora'im do delve into such matters, there is no problem.
Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler.