What difference does it make when you start and when you finish?

What does “nafka mina” mean?

Nafk”m = nafka mina, a practical implication.

“Mai nafka mina” — what difference does it make?

A nafka mina is not only a practical implication, but any implication, and that also answers Haim’s question. The question of how long Jews were in Babylonia is a question whose point I understand; likewise the question of how much time passed from the destruction of the First Temple until the beginning of sacrifices in the Second Temple, or until its dedication, or anything else of that sort. But the question whether you start with the exile of Jeconiah and end with the restoration of the daily offering, or start with the destruction and end with the dedication, or any other possibility, seems to me completely devoid of meaning. As if there is some idea called “the Babylonian Exile” about which one can ask questions.

Wikipedia and other dictionaries claim that it specifically means a practical implication. The term nafk”m in the sense of any implication is borrowed.

In Niddah 22a, the Talmud says that one does not derive creation from formation. And on that it asks, “mai nafka mina”—meaning, what difference does it make whether the wording is that of creation or that of formation? (After all, we do derive from “and the priest shall return” and “and the priest shall come.”) It’s true that usually the expression is used to ask what the practical halakhic implication is, but its plain meaning is simply: “What difference does it make?”

You’re right. My mistake.