Another similar case (R' Yehudah): (Vayikra 23,42), "In succos (booths) you shall dwell'' - a succah that may be constructed from any material, as R' Yehudah would expound a Kal va'Chomer that a succah should only be made from one of the four species (taken each day of succos). If Lulav, which is not taken at night only comes from the four species, [the mitzvah of] succah which is kept at nighttime as in the daytime, should surely only come from the four species!

(Chachamim respond): Any Kal va'Chomer expounded that begins as a stringency but ultimately leads to a leniency is not a valid Kal va'Chomer. If he did not find [materials] from the four species, will he dwell without a succah? The Torah says "dwell in succos'' - succos constructed from any material. And so said Ezra (Nechemiah 8,15), "that they should announce and a proclamation should pass through all of their cities and in Yerushalayim saying 'Go out to the mountains (and bring olive leaves, pine leaves, myrtle leaves etc.' - to be used on succos).

Continuing the discussion in 25-2(a) and (b): R' Yehudah retracted and expounded differently - Chametz is prohibited to eat and nosar is prohibited to eat. Just as nosar must be burned, so Chametz must be burned. (This is not a Kal Vechomer but rather a Ma Matzinu, which is not subject to the objection made by the Chachamim in (b) - this follows the explanation of Rav Chaim Kanievski.)

(Chachamim respond): Neveilah will disprove it, as it is prohibited to eat but it is not burned?!

Rebuttal (R'Yehudah): It is prohibited to eat and to derive benefit from both from Chametz and from nosar - do not disprove it from Neveilah where it is not prohibited to derive benefit!

Question (Chachamim): Surely it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from an ox that was stoned but nevertheless it is not burned?!

Rebuttal (R' Yehudah): It is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from both Chametz and nosar and one is punished with kares (for eating them) - do not disprove it from an ox that was stoned where one is not punished with kares (for eating it)!

Question (Chachamim): Surely the fats of an ox that was stoned will disprove it, as it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from it and one is punished with kares (for eating it), but it is not burned?!

Rebuttal (R' Yehudah): Both Chametz and nosar are prohibited to eat and derive benefit and one is punished with kares (for eating them) and they have a specific time (until which they are permitted) - do not disprove it from the fat of an ox that was stoned that does not have a specific time!

Question (Chachamim): Surely according to your opinion, an Asham Talui offering will disprove it as it is prohibited to eat and to derive benefit and one is punishable with kares (for eating it) and it has a specific time, but it is not burned (rather it is buried according to R' Yehudah)?!

Conclusion: R' Yehudah was silent (and had no response).