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
Sholom Rav,
A good Kashya! I don't fully understand your answer. However, the L'kat He'aros (at the back of the 've'Shinnatam' edition), citing the Mar'eh Kohen, explains that R. 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 Pasuk.
As for "Olas Ish", R. Yehudah actually agrees with R. Yossi and Darshens 'Olas Ish", P'rat Le'Olas Geirim.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler
Hi thank you so much!!!!!!
- I figured I would take one more shot at articulating my question...
On 84b: the Gemara discusses sources for the respective opinions of R' Yehuda and R' Shimon relating to what may stay on the mizbeach. As part of the discussion, the gemara uses the fact that a "lan" of b'sar shelamim is mutar, so too is "lan" of emurei shelamim, i.e. the meat of the shelamim cannot be a valid source of how to apply the issur of linah because the meat of a shelamim is not invalidated to begin with by being kept overnight (as opposed to the eimurim). "v'chi danin davar she'lo b'hechsheiro..."
The gemara responds: The Tanna is not really using lina of basar as a source limud. Actually the halacha comes from "zos toras ha'ola" that there is one law... The gemara, however, needs to figure out how to broadly and where to apply zos toras ha'olah and for that the braissa looks to factors in other sitautions.
I thought that perhaps we could apply a similar dynamic in this context that might fit more cleanly in how the gemara presents the derasha. Really, the exclusion is from "olas ish". The problem is how to apply olas ish according to the opinion that mosaros is not excluded because it is nidvas yochid. Therefore, the gemara looks for another situation and finds Rava's application of "olah rishona". I was further suggesting that if the gemara wanted to learn the derasha of Ha'olah" here it would have just said it rather than quote a different case where rava applied the drasha. I would seem that it makes sense to look to another place for a sevara application - but if the derasha is valid and there is a mesora for it in our sugyah, why need the validation from the fact that Rava used it elsewhere.
In a certain sense, this is the other side of the answer of Mareh Kohen, that the gemara uses one pasuk as a derasha and another as a point of reference. Although, the mareh Kohen seems perhaps harder to fit in. Also, the gemara often it if quotes from the end of the pasuk might say Vgomer, as it often does although I am not sure if this is a solid rule.
Tizku l'mitzvos Moshe Rubin
1) I found that Rav Chaim Greineman zt'l, in Chidushim uBiurim, gives the same answer as Ma'areh Cohen. He writes "Tana Reisha d'Kra Nakit"; the Tana took on the the beginning of the verse; Olas Ish; but in fact the drasha is from the end of the verse; "Or Ha'olah". In reality Olas Ish is required for the drasha mentioned in the Mishnah "Olah She-Alsah Le'Ish".
2) I found that the Gra also writes, in a completely different context, that the Gemara in several places, cites the beginning of the verse, but in fact the drasha is really from the end of the verse. The Gra is in Aderes Eliyahu on the Chumash Parshas Emor. He is referring to the famous drasha from Vayikra 21:8 on "veKidashto" which Chazal tell us that it means that the Cohen always comes first for every matter of holiness. This is not the place to go into all the details of that drasha, but the Gra writes that the drasha is really from the continuation of that verse "for he eats the bread of your G-d". Gra points out that this fits in very well with Rashi Gitin 59b DH veKidashto becase immediately after writing veKidashto, Rashi writes "Ki Es etc.". This is because the drsaha is really from "Ki Es...". In fact Rashi in the Chumash brought the din that the Cohen always comes first, on the words "Kadosh Yihyeh", not on the word "Vekidashto".
Behatzlochah 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