The dimensions of the sermon

Shalev’ Rabbi
We have now come to the study of the exemption from eating matzah during the days of Passover after the first Yom Kippur following the measure. Something that went out of the rule was not taught about itself but rather taught about the rule.
I am trying to understand what the logic is in the measure. Why not say that when something goes out of the rule, it alone goes out of the rule. Why does it teach about the entire rule – so that all six days are abolished?

The Gemara has examples in both directions. Sometimes there is a verse from which we learn that the law is usually reversed. And sometimes there are situations in which we learn from it a general general rule. I usually explain that this depends on what we would say in the explanation: if from the explanation we were to make a general rule, then we do. But if the explanation is the opposite of the verse, then we see it as an exception and learn that the general rule is the opposite.
Regarding something that was in the general and came out, this is a situation in which a rule is written and a detail is written that comes out of it. Here too, there are two interpretive options: either it comes to make an exception or it comes to teach. Indeed, here there are two options to explain why this option is chosen:
1. This is the agreed rule on the basis of which the Torah was written. God Almighty gave us this measure in the Talmud to say that we should interpret it this way and not the opposite. Therefore, such a measure is generally required and we do not learn it from logic.
2. Perhaps here too we can say that the matter depends on what the a priori explanation says (or interpretive explanation or on the merits of the matter), and this is what determines the direction of the sermon (as I described above). A suggestion for such an explanation (this is interpretive explanation, of course): Since there is a geza”sh of Tu-Tu (here in the Gemara a different teaching appears, and I did not check why. Surely the commentators will comment) that the obligation is only on the first night, it means that on the other days it is permissible. Another possibility (also interpretive) is that ”atret” usually continues and completes what came before, and does not begin something new. Therefore, we prefer the interpretation that it comes to teach.
Of course, according to option 2, it follows that we will not always require in a way that what is outside the rule comes to teach. This depends on the explanation. However, according to option 1.
There is still something to discuss, since here the exception was not at all, since the verse is talking about the six days and not the seven. The Rabbis really write that the rule is not the head of the verse but another verse, “Seven days you shall eat matzot,” and now this is out of the question.
Now I think that perhaps the “six days” in the verse cited here are the last six and not the first six (at least after the seventh came out to teach, this shows that at the head of the verse it is about the last six, and not literally). And the seventh was among them and came out to teach about them that everything is permitted. And this will explain everything, because there are two possibilities for reading the verse: either the six days are the first and then the last came out to be an exception, or the six days are the last and the seventh came out to teach. Since there is another verse that speaks of the seven days that matzot is eaten, and there are Makarot that exclude the first day (either Tu-Tu or those cited here), the way Chazal chose is to read the six days as the last days.
I wrote all this quickly without checking the commentators there. Of course, more research is still needed on all this.
All the best,
Miki

Regarding the difference between what we find and the Meitztrich, the Maharsha Kiddushin 1:2 on Tosafot 4:5 suggests something different (perhaps contradictory). If the verse is not new (for example, it says that a mission is not useful), then there is no benefit in building an Av, and therefore we do the Meitztrich. If it is new, then we do the usual building of an Av. It seems to me that this is a necessary and sufficient explanation.
If the explanation you propose to examine is one that is sufficient in itself to teach without a citation, then it is difficult to see why a building of an Av is needed, and there will also be a disagreement between you and the Maharsha. If it is a mediocre explanation, which is not sufficient in itself to teach but is sufficient to support the teaching (such as the Meitztrich Shavuot 22:2, 4:5, Ibid.), then it seems that there is no conflict between you and the Maharsha.

There is much to discuss in your words.
1. First, there is a difference between a situation where a verse does not renew and a situation where a sermon does not renew (see 2 below). A sermon that does not renew is not difficult, since there is no difficulty in why the verse was written. And the sermon may not be renewed (although there is a direct reference in which case there is a difficulty in the pana’ah).
2. The same goes for the rest of your words. In general, there is no difficulty in why a father’s construction is needed, since the Torah did not write anything specifically for the father’s construction. There is no pana’ah in the father’s construction, and the verse is written in its entirety. At most, one can ask why the Gemara needed to rely on a father’s construction and did not settle for an explanation, but that is not that difficult. Even if it is possible to rely on an explanation, if there is a father’s construction, the Gemara mentions this for reinforcement.
3. When there is a verse or sermon that teaches a law that is understood in explanation only after studying it (like what you called a mediocre explanation, although not exactly the same thing. It does not strengthen the study but rather explains it after we have studied it), then I would say that they are making a parent construction. And if the matter seems to be an innovation, then you have nothing to do with it except to innovate it and do what you read from Deitztrich.

So if I understand the matter correctly and correctly –
The Maharsha’s test (the “necessity test”) is only relevant to referenced verses (and then if the verse repeats the law that preceded it, then we learn from “Mad-Deitztrich” whether the explanation is with it or against it); and your test (the “explanation test”) is only relevant to non-referenced studies. And in fact, your words complement each other. Is that so?

I will quote the sources to make it easier
Tosafot Kiddushin above: And if you say, “My, it would not be better to send me to the holy places from the slaughtering of Aaron’s fruit from Deitztrich to say that he was in the possession of the bull of sin, as it is written, and he slaughtered the bull of sin, which he had from among the holy places, not in their possession.
From the Maharsha: [The slaughtering of Aaron’s fruit from Deitztrich, cf. [From the two holy things, all together with all the additions] Here is what we find in the rest of the holy things in the two books of Aaron's book, so I will not be afraid to read them all, because I gave them to them without the books of the prophets and all that.

Indeed.
Although my words are specifically about things that are taught in a seminar, and in such cases there is always a basis for them (otherwise there is no reason to demand the verse in this way). See, for example, the ’ Fear your God in this article:
http://www.mikyab.com/#!%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A1%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%99/cu6k/5769345b0cf2644549bdacab
The example of Thos’ And the Mahrash looks like a study of the verse itself and not a midrash, since it is written in the verse that a mission is not beneficial (although there is room to push the verse in another way). Here there is a matter of deception if we were to study in the building of the father.