פסחים כא

פסחים כא

אֵין הַכְרָעַת שְׁלִישִׁית מַכְרַעַת.

The decision of the third opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, is not considered a decision in this case, as the other two Sages do not raise the issue of a stumbling block at all.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה סְאָה חוּלִּין טְמֵאִין.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to a barrel of teruma that broke in an upper press and was flowing down into the lower press applies only to a case where one se’a of teruma fell into less than one hundred se’a of impure, non-sacred wine in the lower press.

אֲבָל נָפְלָה לְמֵאָה חוּלִּין טְמֵאִין — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל תֵּרֵד וְתִטַּמֵּא, וְאַל יְטַמְּאֶנָּה בַּיָּד.

However, if the teruma wine fell into one hundred se’a of ritually impure, non-sacred produce, everyone agrees that the wine should be allowed to descend and become ritually impure by itself, and one should not actively render it impure with his hand. The reason is that if teruma falls into non-sacred produce one hundred times greater in quantity than itself, the teruma is nullified by the non-sacred produce, and therefore, it would be permitted for a non-priest to eat it. Although it becomes ritually impure, the legal status of the nullified teruma is that of non-sacred produce.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: חָבִית שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה בַּגַּת הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, וְתַחְתֶּיהָ מֵאָה חוּלִּין טְמֵאִין — מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית בְּטׇהֳרָה — יַצִּיל, וְאִם לָאו — תֵּרֵד וְתִטַּמֵּא וְאַל יְטַמְּאֶנָּה בַּיָּד.

The Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that broke in the upper winepress, and in the lower press there is one hundred times that amount of ritually impure, non-sacred wine, Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log from the barrel that broke and keep the wine in a state of ritual purity, he should rescue it. And if not, one should let the teruma wine descend and become impure on its own, but he should not actively render it impure with his hand.

הַאי ״מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ״, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רָבָא: אֵיפוֹךְ.

After citing proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, from this source, the Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita itself. This expression: Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua, is puzzling, as Rabbi Eliezer ruled that one may never directly render the barrel impure. The baraita should say the opposite: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabbi Eliezer, as it is Rabbi Yehoshua who concedes that one may not render impure the barrel of teruma in the upper vat. Rava said: Reverse the names, so that it is Rabbi Yehoshua who concedes to Rabbi Eliezer.

רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר, לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בִּכְלִי שֶׁתּוֹכוֹ טָהוֹר וְגַבּוֹ טָמֵא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא נִיגְזוֹר דִּילְמָא נָגַע גַּבּוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Actually, do not reverse the names. Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are referring to a case where it is possible to collect the wine only in a vessel whose interior is ritually pure and whose exterior is impure by rabbinic law, having become impure through contact with impure liquids. Lest you say that we should issue a decree that one may not rescue even a quarter-log, lest the vessel’s exterior touch the teruma and render it impure, the baraita teaches us that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that despite that concern, it is permitted to rescue a quarter-log of pure teruma.

הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ אוֹר לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר

מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל שָׁעָה שֶׁמּוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל, מַאֲכִיל לַבְּהֵמָה לַחַיָּה וְלָעוֹפוֹת, וּמוֹכֵר לַנׇּכְרִי, וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ. עָבַר זְמַנּוֹ — אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ, וְלֹא יַסִּיק בּוֹ תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ אֶלָּא שְׂרֵיפָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַף מְפָרֵר וְזוֹרֶה לְרוּחַ אוֹ מֵטִיל לַיָּם.

MISHNA: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may also feed it to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds; and one may sell it to a gentile; and it is permitted to derive benefit from it. After its time passes, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, and one may not even light an oven or a stove with leavened bread. With regard to the manner of removal of leavened bread, Rabbi Yehuda says: The removal of leavened bread is to be accomplished only through burning. And the Rabbis say: Burning is not required, as one may even crumble it and throw it into the wind or cast it into the sea.

גְּמָ׳ כׇּל שָׁעָה שֶׁמּוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל — מַאֲכִיל, הָא כׇּל שָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל — אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא אִיכָּא חָמֵשׁ דְּאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל — וּמַאֲכִיל. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אוֹכְלִין כׇּל חָמֵשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִלַּת שֵׁשׁ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אוֹכְלִין כׇּל אַרְבַּע, וְתוֹלִין כׇּל חָמֵשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִלַּת שֵׁשׁ!

GEMARA: The Gemara reads the mishna precisely: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may feed it to his animals. However, apparently, for the entire time that it is not permitted to eat leavened bread, one may not feed his animals. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, isn’t there the fifth hour, when one may not eat leavened bread but one may feed it to his animals? As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Meir says: One may eat leavened bread on the morning of the fourteenth day of Nisan for the entire fifth hour, and he burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may eat it for the entire fourth hour, he suspends his consumption of it for the entire fifth hour, and he burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour. Apparently, there is an hour in which it is prohibited to eat leavened bread, but it is permitted to feed it to one’s animals.

וְאֶלָּא מַאי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא? הַאי ״כׇּל שָׁעָה שֶׁמּוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מַאֲכִיל״ — ״כׇּל שָׁעָה שֶׁאוֹכֵל מַאֲכִיל״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: Rather, what can be said? This mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir. If so, this statement: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread one may feed, is imprecise. It should have said: For the entire time that one eats leavened bread he may feed. As it stands, there is no parallel between the phrase: It is permitted to eat, and the phrase: One may feed. Therefore, it appears that the mishna is referring to two different people or cases.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: מַתְנִיתִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא. דִּתְנַן, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: חוּלִּין נֶאֱכָלִין כׇּל אַרְבַּע, תְּרוּמָה כׇּל חָמֵשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִלַּת שֵׁשׁ. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל שָׁעָה שֶׁמּוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל כֹּהֵן בִּתְרוּמָה, יִשְׂרָאֵל מַאֲכִיל חוּלִּין לַבְּהֵמָה לַחַיָּה וְלָעוֹפוֹת.

Rabba bar Ulla said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. As we learned in a mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: Non-sacred leavened bread may be eaten on the fourteenth of Nisan during the entire fourth hour, leavened bread that is teruma may be eaten during the entire fifth hour, and one burns the leavened bread at the beginning of the sixth hour. And this is what the mishna is saying: For the entire time that it is permitted for a priest to partake of teruma, although an Israelite may not eat leavened bread at that time, an Israelite may feed non-sacred food to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds.

לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנָא בְּהֵמָה, לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנָא חַיָּה? צְרִיכָא. דְּאִי תְּנָא בְּהֵמָה — דְּאִי מְשַׁיְּירָא חָזֵי לַהּ. אֲבָל חַיָּה, דְּאִי מְשַׁיְּירָא קָמַצְנְעָא לַהּ — אֵימָא לָא.

The Gemara continues to read the mishna precisely. The mishna states that one may feed his leavened bread to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach about the case of domesticated animals, and why do I need it to teach about non-domesticated animals as well? The halakha should be the same for both cases. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach us both cases, as had it taught only about domesticated animals, one would have said that it is permitted feed them because if the animal leaves over some leavened bread one will see what is left over and dispose of it. However, with regard to a non-domesticated animal, if it leaves over any of the leavened bread, it hides it to save for later. Therefore, one could say that it is not permitted to feed it so close to the time when leavened bread is prohibited.

וְאִי תְּנָא חַיָּה — מִשּׁוּם דְּאִי מְשַׁיְּירָא מִיהַת מַצְנְעָא. אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה, זִימְנִין דִּמְשַׁיְּירָא וְלָא מַסֵּיק אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ, וְקָאֵי עֲלֵיהּ בְּ״בַל יֵרָאֶה וּבְבַל יִמָּצֵא״ — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

And had it taught only the case of a non-domesticated animal, one might say that it is permitted to feed leavened bread to such an animal because if it leaves over any food in any case it will hide it, and the owner will not violate the prohibition: It shall not be seen. However, with regard to a domesticated animal, sometimes it leaves over food, and it does not enter his mind that the animal will do so. And in that case both prohibitions: It shall not be seen and it shall not be found, would apply to him. Consequently, one could say that it would not be permitted for him to feed a domesticated animal. Therefore, it was necessary to teach both cases.

עוֹפוֹת לְמָה לִי? אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, תְּנָא נָמֵי עוֹפוֹת.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to mention birds as well? The Gemara answers: There is no inherent need to mention birds; however, since the mishna taught the cases of domesticated animals and non-domesticated animals, it also taught the case of birds, as these are normally grouped together.

וּמוֹכְרוֹ לְגוֹי. פְּשִׁיטָא! לְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהַאי תַּנָּא דְּתַנְיָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם חֲמֵצוֹ לְגוֹי אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ שֶׁיִּכְלֶה קוֹדֶם פֶּסַח. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל שָׁעָה שֶׁמּוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל — מוּתָּר לִמְכּוֹר.

It was stated in the mishna that whenever it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may also sell it to a gentile. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, as the mishna already taught that one may benefit from it? The Gemara answers: This is stated to exclude the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his leavened bread to a gentile unless he knows that the leavened bread will be consumed before Passover. According to Beit Shammai, a person retains some responsibility for his leavened bread even when it is no longer in his possession. And Beit Hillel say: For the entire time that it is permitted for a Jew to eat leavened bread, it is also permitted for him to sell it to a gentile. The Jew ceases to be responsible for leavened bread sold to a gentile from the moment it is sold.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: כּוּתָּח וְכׇל מִינֵי כוּתָּח — אָסוּר לִמְכּוֹר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם קוֹדֶם לַפֶּסַח.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who agrees in principle with Beit Shammai’s opinion, says: With regard to kutaḥ, a dip that contains leavened breadcrumbs, and all types of kutaḥ, it is prohibited to sell it to a gentile thirty days before Passover. Because kutaḥ is spicy, people use only a bit at a time, so it will likely last until Passover.

וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא שֶׁחֲרָכוֹ קוֹדֶם זְמַנּוֹ. וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: חֲרָכוֹ קוֹדֶם זְמַנּוֹ — מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ.

It was stated in the mishna that as long as leavened bread may be eaten, it is permitted to derive benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this in a case where one charred the leavened bread with fire before its time, i.e., before it became prohibited, rendering it inedible. And it teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava said: If one charred leavened bread before its time, it is permitted to derive benefit from it even after its time, since it no longer has the legal status of leavened bread.

עָבַר זְמַנּוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, לְשָׁעוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן. דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה, אֲפִילּוּ בְּחִיטֵּי קוּרְדִּנְיָתָא — אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִדּוּשִׁין.

It was stated in the mishna: After its time passes, it is prohibited to benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach that it remains prohibited to benefit from leavened bread during additional hours that are delineated by rabbinic law. As Rav Giddel said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to one who takes wheat grains that may have come into contact with water and become leavened and betroths a woman with the leaven from the beginning of the sixth hour, when the leaven is prohibited by rabbinic law, and onward on Passover eve, even if he betrothed her with wheat from the mountains, which is especially hard and unlikely to become leavened, nonetheless, we are not concerned that this betrothal is valid. This is because when performing a betrothal with money one must give the woman an object worth as least the value of a peruta, and leaven from which one is prohibited to benefit is considered worthless.

וְלֹא יַסִּיק בּוֹ תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר אֵין בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ אֶלָּא שְׂרֵיפָה. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִצְוָתוֹ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָא שָׂרֵיף לֵיהּ לִיתְהֲנֵי מִינֵּיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

It was stated in the mishna: And one may not even light an oven or a stove with leavened bread once it becomes prohibited. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, as this is also a type of benefit? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this due to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the removal of leavened bread is to be performed only through burning. Otherwise, it could enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Yehuda said that its mitzva is performed through burning, while one is burning it let him benefit from it. Therefore, it teaches us that it is prohibited to benefit from leavened bread even while burning it.

אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מִנַּיִן לְחָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח שֶׁאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ״ — לֹא יְהֵא בּוֹ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה: טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ״, הָא לָא כְּתַב ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה — מַשְׁמַע, אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה — לָא מַשְׁמַע.

Ḥizkiya said: From where is it derived in the mishna that it is prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread on Passover? As it is stated: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” (Exodus 13:3). Since the verse uses the passive, it should be understood as follows: There shall be no permitted consumption of it at all, even deriving benefit, as benefit could be exchanged for money, which could be used to buy food. The Gemara reads precisely: The reason deriving benefit is prohibited is that the Merciful One writes in the Torah: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten.” Had the Torah not written: “Shall not be eaten,” and instead used the active form: You shall not eat, I would have said that the prohibition of eating is implied but that the prohibition of deriving benefit is not implied.

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, ״לֹא תֹאכַל״, ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ״ — אֶחָד אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה וְאֶחָד אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה (מַשְׁמַע), עַד שֶׁיִּפְרֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁפָּרַט לְךָ בִּנְבֵילָה.

The Gemara comments: And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that wherever it is stated: “It shall not be eaten,” “You, singular, shall not eat,” or “You, plural, shall not eat,” both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit are implied, unless the verse specifies that one may benefit, in the manner that it specified with regard to an unslaughtered animal carcass.

דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כׇּל נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנׇכְרִי וְגוֹ׳״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לַגֵּר בִּנְתִינָה וְלַגּוֹי בִּמְכִירָה. לַגֵּר בִּמְכִירָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה אוֹ מָכֹר״. לַגּוֹי בִּנְתִינָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנָכְרִי״. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד גֵּר וְאֶחָד גּוֹי, בֵּין בִּמְכִירָה בֵּין בִּנְתִינָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

As it was taught in a baraita: “You shall not eat of any unslaughtered animal; you may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a sacred people to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:21). I have derived only that it is permitted to a resident alien through giving and to a gentile through selling. From where do I derive that it is permitted to a resident alien through selling? The verse states: “You may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates…or you may sell it,” meaning that one has the option to do either of these. From where is it derived that it is permitted to a gentile through giving and one is not required to sell it to him? The verse states: “You may give it…that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner.” Therefore, you may say that he may transfer it to both a resident alien and a gentile, both through giving and through selling. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, דְּבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן: לַגֵּר בִּנְתִינָה וְלַגּוֹי בִּמְכִירָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ וּמָכֹר״. ״אוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לִדְבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן.

The baraita concludes: Rabbi Yehuda says: These matters are meant to be understood as they are written; he may transfer an unslaughtered animal carcass to a resident alien only through giving and to a gentile only through selling. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: If it could enter your mind to understand the verse in accordance with that which Rabbi Meir said, then let the Merciful One write: You may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates that he may eat it and sell it to a foreigner. Why do I need the word “or” between these two options? Learn from it that the matters are to be understood as they are written.

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר? ״אוֹ״ לְהַקְדִּים נְתִינָה דְגֵר לִמְכִירָה דְּגוֹי. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? הָא לָא צָרִיךְ קְרָא: כֵּיוָן דְּגֵר אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה לְהַחְיוֹתוֹ, וְגוֹי אִי אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה לְהַחֲיוֹתוֹ, לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא, סְבָרָא הוּא.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir explain the formulation of the verse? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir would explain that the word “or” teaches one to give precedence to giving to a resident alien over selling to a gentile. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehuda derive this halakha? According to Rabbi Yehuda, this matter does not need a verse, since you are commanded to sustain a resident alien, as it is a mitzva for one to sustain a resident alien who has renounced idol worship, and you are not commanded to sustain a gentile. There is no need for a verse to teach this; it is based on a logical inference.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אֶחָד גֵּר וְאֶחָד גּוֹי, בֵּין בִּמְכִירָה בֵּין בִּנְתִינָה. מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמִישְׁרֵא נְבֵילָה בַּהֲנָאָה — הָא כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֲסוּרִין בֵּין בַּאֲכִילָה בֵּין בַּהֲנָאָה.

The Gemara applies this discussion to the previously mentioned topic. Granted, Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion is reasonable according to Rabbi Meir, who said that one may transfer an animal carcass to both a convert and a gentile, both through selling and through giving. From the fact that a verse was necessary to permit one to derive benefit from an animal carcass, one can learn that with regard to all other prohibitions in the Torah about which it states only that one may not eat an item, it is prohibited both to eat it and to derive benefit from it.

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: לִדְבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן הוּא דַּאֲתָא — הָא כׇּל אִיסּוּרִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה מְנָא לֵיהּ דַּאֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״לַּכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִיכוּן אֹתוֹ״.

However, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the word “or” comes to teach that the matters are to be understood as they are written, from where does he derive with regard to all prohibitions of eating mentioned in the Torah that it is prohibited to derive benefit as well? The Gemara answers: He derives it from another verse. It is stated with regard to an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa]: “And you shall be sacred men to Me, therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs” (Exodus 22:30).