When we are trying to figure out what olas ish excludes, and according to r yehuda it excludes olas hekdesh which we suggest is mosaros. but according to the shitah that mosaros is nidvas yochid we say "ha'olah"...
Why do we need olas ish anymore? Cant we just use ravas derasha?
I suggest that we are not really using haolah, but only referencing rava as a mnemonic to plug back into olas ish. Otherwise, the gemara would just learn the derasha and not need to reference rava. Rather it is applying ravas derasha within the context of the exclusion to olas hekdesh to modify r yehudas opinion of olas hekdesh
Hope this makes sense. Sorry in my phone in the car.
Moshe Rubin
That is a very good Kashya! I don't fully understand your answer. However, the Mar'eh Kohen (in the back of the Gemara) explains that Rebbi Yehudah really precludes Olas Hekdesh from "ha'Olah" (as you pointed out), and he cited "Olas Ish" only because it is the "beginning" of the verse.
As for "Olas Ish," Rebbi Yehudah actually agrees with Rebbi Yosi and expounds "'Olas Ish' -- Prat l'Olas Gerim."
B'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler
1) I found that Rav Chaim Greineman zt'l, in Chidushim u'Vi'urim, gives the same answer as the Mar'eh Kohen. He writes, "Tana Reisha d'Kra Nakit" -- the Tana took hold of the beginning of the verse ("Olas Ish") when in fact the Derashah is from the end of the verse ("Or ha'Olah"). In reality, "Olas Ish" is required for the Derashah mentioned in the Mishnah, "Olah she'Alsah l'Ish."
2) I found that some commentators quote the G'ra as saying (in a completely different context) that the Gemara in several places cites the beginning of the verse, but in fact the Derashah is really from the end of the verse. The G'ra is in Aderes Eliyahu on the Chumash, Parshas Emor. He is referring to the famous Derashah from Vayikra 21:8 on "v'Kidashto," from which Chazal expound that the Kohen always comes first for every matter of holiness. This is not the place to go into all the details of that Derashah, but the G'ra writes that the Derashah is really from the continuation of that verse, "for he eats the bread of your G-d." The G'ra points out that this fits in very well with Rashi in Gitin 59b, DH v'Kidashto, becase immediately after writing "v'Kidashto," Rashi writes "Ki Es...." This is because the Derashah is really from "Ki Es...." In fact, Rashi on the Chumash cites the law that the Kohen always comes first on the words "Kadosh Yiheyeh," and not on the word "v'Kidashto."
However, upon looking up the G'ra in Aderes Eliyahu (Parshas Emor) inside, I found that while those who quote the G'ra use the abbreviation "BK'M," which I originally thought meant "b'Kamah Mekomos" (in several places), the G'ra actually writes "b'Kol Makom." He means that in every place that "v'Kidashto" is mentioned in Shas, the Derashah is not actually from "v'Kidashto" but from the end of the verse. So the G'ra is not refering explicitly to any other Derashos apart from "v'Kidashto."
3) However, even though the G'ra does not say this explicilty, it is still true that the Gemara often cites the beginning of the verse when it is really learning something from the end. I found an example of this in Bava Kama 90b, where the Mishnah states that one is not allowed to cut down one's own tree. Rashi cites the source as Devarim 20:19, "Bal Taschis." The Tosfos Yom Tov asks that this verse is referring to a war-time seige, where the fruit may be needed by the soldiers, but how do we know that in peace-time scenarios, one also may not cut down a fruit trees? The Tosfos Yom Tov answers that indeed the real Derashah is from the end of the verse, "v'Oso Lo Sichros." This is an apparently superfluous phrase, and thus we understand that it is coming to teach that it is not only in war-time that one may not cut down fruit trees, but also in peace-time.
4) We have now learned that the two famous Derashos of "v'Kidashto" and "Bal Tashchis" are not the real Derashos. The real Derashah is from the end of each verse. However, we observe that neither in Gitin 59b nor in Bava Kama 90b is there any mention of "v'Gomer," so we learn that the concept of "Reisha d'Kra Nakit" applies even if the word "v'Gomer" is not mentioned.
Hatzlachah Rabah,
Dovid Bloom
1) I must make an amendment to what I wrote above. The Gra that I cited does not in fact write that the Gemara in several places cites the beginning of the verse even though the drasha is from the end. I was relying on a citation I saw of the Gra, but I have only now actually looked up the Aderes Elyahu inside. I saw the abbreviation "B'K'M", which I thought meant "BeKama Mekomos" but in fact the Gra writes "BeKol Mokom". He means that in every place that Vekidashto is mentioned in Shas, the drosho is not actually from Vekidashto but rather from the end of the verse. So the Gra is not refering explicitly to any other droshos apart from Vekidashto.
2) However even though the Gra does not say this explicilty, it is still true that the Gemara often cites the beginning of the pasuk but really learns from the end. I found an example of this in Bava Kama 90b where the Mishnah states that one is not allowed to cut down one's own tree. Rashi cites the source as Devarim 20:19 "Bal Taschis". Tosfos Yomtov asks on Rashi that this verse is referring to a wartime siege, where the fruit may be needed by the soldiers, but how do we know that in peacetime scenarios also one may not cut down trees?! Tosfos Yomtov answers that indeed the real drosho is from the end of the verse "veOso Lo Sichros". This is a superfluous verse which teaches that it is not only in wartime that one may not cut down fruit trees.
3) So we have now learnt that the 2 famous droshos of Vekidashto and Bal Tashchis are not the real droshos, but the real drosho is from the end of the posuk. However we can observe that neither in Gitin 59b or in Bava Kama 90b is there any mention of veGomer, so we learn that the concept of "Reisha deKra Nakit" applies even if the word veGomer is not mentioned.
Dovid Bloom