The gemara says the maarava had the same question but did not have the answer, now the question was (according to rashi) on the basis of the beraita, meaning a kasha, that maybe the korban is meacev. According to tosafot this is not a problem because the gemara is kinda asking a shaila meaning we agree with the beraita that the korban is not meacev, now what time is it taluy in. So now it's acceptable to answer from another beraita that says tzeis hakochavim, that's why it's not a question on tosafot that they should bring a proof from our mishna, but now let's go back to rashi, that the question is a question on the basis of the first beraita, it seems another beraita wouldn't solve anything, because the beraita said what it said and the gemara wants to know why, and then the maarava just bring another beraita, it seems counterintuitive.
Marcus Abisror, Long Branch
Shalom Marcus,
I may not be fully catching your point, so I will answer as I understood it.
Rashi explains the doubt of Bnei Ma'arava, really Rabbi Shela's issue, as a two-way read of the verse: does "u'Va haShemesh, v'Taher" mean the end of Sheki'as haChamah, which is Tzais haKochavim, so the Kohen, though he can bring his Korban only the next morning since Korbanos are not brought after sunset, still becomes permitted to eat Terumah that very evening once his days of Tumah have ended at sunset; or does "v'Taher" refer to the next day when he brings his Korban, and "u'Va haShemesh" would then be read as morning, meaning only after the day shines, the eighth day with the Korban, may he eat Terumah.
Tosafos agrees to the first side of course, but explain the other side differently: "u'Va haShemesh" means the beginning of the end of the seventh day Shekiah but not yet Tzais haKochavim, ending the days of Tumah, but "v'Taher" refers specifically to bringing the Korban, not just becoming Tahor. On that read too, the implication would be to wait until the next morning when the Korban can be brought.
If so, once we find a Beraisa that states explicitly that a Kohen eats Terumah at Tzais haKochavim, it proves there is no need to wait until the next morning, both according to Rashi and according to Tosafos.
If I missed something in your intent, please correct me.
Aharon Steiner
I'll only speak in rashi for the sake of clarity: the gemara brought a beraita that the korban is not meacev. Then the gemara asks how do I know that this is the right way of reading the pasuk maybe the korban is meacev. We see it's a question on the beraita. Skip ahead to the maarava for the gemara says they had the same question (a question on the beraita) how does bringing another beraita help, we just asked on the beraita how is it mashma like that in the pasuk, so I could ask the same thing on this beraita.
This is not a problem according to tosafot, because tosafot learns both sides that the korban is not meacev, so the gemara was not asking on the beraita, rather was wondering when is the right time that your allowed to eat teruma, now the first beraita doesn't answer the question, but the second one does, so now it make sense to answer from this beraita.
Shalom again,
Now I got your point! Thank you for clarifying. I think the Gemara means that Bnei Ma'arava did not hear Rav She'ila's "Shi'ur" in which he dealt with the question what the Pshat in the Pasuk is, and after they found a Beraisa that specifically says after Tzeis ha'Kochavim it is permitted for a Tamei Kohen to eat Terumah, they said the same "Shi'ur" and got to the same Pshat as Rav She'ila on their own. The Beraisa is not a Ra'ayah, but rather a trigger to say the same explanation as Rav She'ila without hearing it beforehand from him or his students.
Aharon Steiner