אֶלָּא לָאוֹכֵל מִן הָעוֹלָה לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, אֲפִילּוּ בִּפְנִים, שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה.

to teach only with regard to one who partakes of the flesh of a burnt-offering after the sprinkling, even inside the courtyard, that he is flogged.

אֲמַר רָבָא: דִּילִידָא אִימֵּיהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – תֵּילֵיד, וְאִי לָא – לָא תֵּילֵיד. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לְהוּ פִּירְכָא.

Rava says with regard to Rabbi Shimon’s statement in the baraita : With regard to anyone whose mother is bearing a child who is like Rabbi Shimon, she should bear that child, and if not, it is preferable that she does not bear him at all. Rava was so impressed by Rabbi Shimon’s statement that he praised him and characterized him as the model of a wise man. Rava added: And I say this even though there is a refutation for each of his conclusions. What are the refutations?

מַאי חוּמְרָא דְּבִכּוּרִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂר – שֶׁכֵּן אֲסוּרִים לְזָרִים, אַדְּרַבָּה מַעֲשֵׂר חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן אָסוּר לְאוֹנֵן;

What is the stringency of first fruits vis-à-vis second- tithe produce? It is that first fruits are forbidden to non-priests, who are permitted to eat second-tithe produce. That can be refuted; on the contrary, second- tithe produce is more stringent than first fruits, in that it is forbidden to an acute mourner, i.e., one whose close relative died that day, which is not the case with regard to first fruits according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon (see Yevamot 73b).

וּמַאי חוּמְרָא דְּתוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂר – שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אַדְּרַבָּה מַעֲשֵׂר חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין כֶּסֶף צוּרָה;

And what is the stringency of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering vis-à-vis second- tithe produce? It is that the thanks-offering and the peace-offering require the placement of blood and sacrificial portions upon the altar. That can be refuted; on the contrary, second- tithe produce is more stringent than the thanks-offering and the peace-offering, in that the redemption of second-tithe produce requires money minted into a coin.

וּמַאי חוּמְרָא דִּבְכוֹר מִתּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים – שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם, אַדְּרַבָּה תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים חֲמוּרִים, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִים סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וְשׁוֹק;

And what is the stringency of a firstborn offering vis-à-vis a thanks-offering and a peace-offering? It is that the sanctity of the firstborn takes effect from the womb, while the other offerings are consecrated by their owners. That can be refuted; on the contrary, a thanks-offering and a peace-offering are more stringent, in that they require placing hands on the head of the offering before its sacrifice, and libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh, which is not the case with regard to a firstborn offering.

וּמַאי חוּמְרָא דְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם מִבְּכוֹר – שֶׁכֵּן קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, אַדְּרַבָּה בְּכוֹר חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם;

And what is the stringency of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering vis-à-vis a firstborn offering? It is that a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are offerings of the most sacred order. That can be refuted; on the contrary, a firstborn offering is more strin-gent, in that its sanctity takes effect from the womb, not from consecration by its owner.

וּמַאי חוּמְרָא דְּעוֹלָה מֵחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל, אַדְּרַבָּה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם חֲמִירִי, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפְּרִי;

And what is the stringency of the burnt-offering vis-à-vis a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? It is that it is burnt in its entirety upon the altar, and no part of it is given to the priests. That can be refuted; on the contrary, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering are more stringent, in that they atone for one’s sins, and a burnt-offering is brought as a gift offering.

וְכוּלְּהוּ חֲמִירִי מֵעוֹלָה, דְּאִית בְּהוּ שְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת!

And all of those matters listed in the baraita are more stringent than the burnt-offering because there are two consumptions with regard to each of these matters, as they are consumed upon the altar and consumed by their owner and the priests, whereas the burnt-offering is consumed in its entirety upon the altar.

אֶלָּא מַאי דִּילִידָא אִימֵּיהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּלְמַאי דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ, מְסָרֵס לֵיהּ לִקְרָא וְדָרֵישׁ לֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the meaning of this statement of praise: With regard to anyone whose mother is bearing a child who is like Rabbi Shimon, she should bear that child, and if not, it is preferable if she does not bear him at all? Ultimately, all of his derivations can be refuted. The Gemara answers: The praise is based on the fact that in order to arrive at what he himself holds, he transposes the verse and interprets it. Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the verse from beginning to end; rather, he begins with the final case of first fruits, in order to arrive at the desired conclusion. Rava was impressed with Rabbi Shimon’s interpretation.

וְכִי מַזְהִירִין מִן הַדִּין? הָא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין, אֵין מַזְהִירִין מִן הַדִּין! אִיסּוּרָא בְּעָלְמָא.

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Shimon, who derived prohibitions not written in the Torah by means of a fortiori inferences: And does one derive a prohibition from an a fortiori inference? But even according to the one who says that if there is a prohibition written explicitly in the Torah, one administers punishment based on an a fortiori inference, one does not derive a prohibition from an a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon does not derive prohibitions for which one is flogged from those inferences; rather, he derives a mere prohibition.

וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: זָר שֶׁאָכַל מִן הָעוֹלָה לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה חוּץ לַחוֹמָה, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ! חֲמִשָּׁה אִיסּוּרִין הָווּ.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rava say: With regard to a non-priest who ate the flesh of a burnt-offering before sprinkling its blood, outside the walls, according to Rabbi Shimon he is flogged with five sets of lashes: One because he is a non-priest; one for eating a burnt-offering; one for eating the flesh of an offering before its blood was sprinkled; one for eating offerings of the most sacred order outside the Temple courtyard; and one for eating sacrificial food outside of Jerusalem. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon holds that all these are actual prohibitions for which one is flogged. The Gemara answers: It does not mean that one is actually flogged; rather, it means that they are five prohibitions.

וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן הַלּוֹקִין:

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And these are the people who are flogged by Torah law? Among them is a priest who eats first fruits before the recitation of the accompanying Torah verses, and the Gemara established that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.