27.2 Makkos Daf 17 B (12 lines Dn)Rava praised Rabbi Shimon’s explanation of a _possuk_ (26.4-26.6) although the entire explanation does not hold up logically.SummaryRabbi Shimon said (26.5) that _bechor_ is more lenient than _chatas_ and _asham._ _Bechor_ is _kodshim kalim_ while _chatas_ and _asham_ are _kodshei kodshim._However, _bechor_ acquires _kedusha_ from birth but not _chatas_ and _asham. Bechor_ is thus not necessarily more lenient.Rabbi Shimon said (26.6) that _chatas_ and _asham_ are more _lenient_ than _olah.__Chatas_ and _asham_ are only partly burned on the _mizbeach_ while the _olah_ is entirely burned on the _mizbeach._However, _chatas_ and _asham_ wipe out _aveiros,_ but not _olah. Chatas_ and _asham_ are thus not necessarily more lenient.Additionally, all _korbanos_ have an advantage over _olah_ in that they can be eaten by _kohanim_ , but not _olah._Question: Since Rava refuted everything Rabbi Shimon said; why did he praise Rabbi Shimon (26.6) so strongly?Answer: Rava was praising Rabbi Shimon’s methodology in dissecting the _possuk_ not his logic.Rabbi Shimon derived certain lavin from a possuk (24.4-24.6) based on logical arguments.Challenge: A lav cannot be derived from logic! _[“Ein mazhirin min hadin” A lav must be openly stated by the Torah]._Even those who hold that we can punish based on logic _[onshin min hadin, 7.3, 21.6]_ agree that a _lav_ cannot be derived from logic.Resolution: Rabbi Shimon did not derive a _lav,_ only a prohibition _(The Rov spoke about laws of burial here)._ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.