Patur said “While that may be true, the braisa is describing the chilazon to someone who doesn’t yet know that it is a snail. Saying that it looks like a fish is only helpful if we already know that it is a snail”.
????? ?????? ???? see page three of this link: torashatcheiles.blogspot.com. It is as ???? ??? as it gets.
If Chilazon was an ordinary word for any snail, as the Rishonim assume (and that’s what it means in every Semitic language and Persian till today) why would anyone assume it’s not a snail?
Furthermore, the hanacha that the braisa is coming to describe a Chilazon in order to find it is baseless:
1) we’re talkimg about a time when the chilazon so common use that ?????? ???? ???? must assume ????? ?????? ???????.
So why would the Braisa say how to find it?
2) If they were talking to a future generation looking for it and the simanim are so simply understood why didn’t we find it yet?
3) The ??? ????? bring hilchos tcheiles why did they skip this Braisa which is the one most relevant to their generarions (to know what isn’t tcheiles)?
4) The ??? ???? selects the ?????, why dose he brings this Braisa?