פסחים כד

פסחים כד

וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַאֲכִילָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְאִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה.

And if it does not apply to the matter of the prohibition against eating, as the prohibition against eating these items has already been mentioned, apply it to the matter of the prohibition of deriving benefit.

אִי, מָה כָּאן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה — אַף כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בִּשְׂרֵיפָה! אָמַר קְרָא ״בַּקֹּדֶשׁ … בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״, בַּקֹּדֶשׁ — בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

The Gemara continues: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the sin-offering is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire” (Leviticus 6:23). This indicates that only that which is disqualified in the sacred place is disposed of with burning, but all other prohibited items in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning.

וְהַאי ״בַּקֹּדֶשׁ … בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן! דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״בַּקֹּדֶשׁ … בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״ — לִימֵּד עַל חַטָּאת שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ. וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד, פְּסוּלֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְאֵמוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״(וְכׇל) בַּקֹּדֶשׁ … בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani asked: And did this verse: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire,” come to teach this halakha? It is needed to teach in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire”; this taught that one must burn a disqualified sin-offering in the sacred place, and not outside the Temple. And I have only derived this, meaning the sin-offering. From where do I derive that disqualified offerings of the most sacred order and portions consumed on the altar, such as the fats of offerings of minor sanctity that become impure, are burned in the Temple courtyard? The verse states: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire.” This indicates that any disqualified offering must be burned in the sacred place.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן רַבָּךְ מֵהַאי קְרָא קָאָמַר לַהּ: ״וְאִם יִוָּתֵר מִבְּשַׂר הַמִּלֻּאִים וּמִן הַלֶּחֶם עַד הַבֹּקֶר וְגוֹ׳״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״ — אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּהָא כְּתִיב ״וְשָׂרַפְתָּ אֶת הַנּוֹתָר בָּאֵשׁ״, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִשְׁאָר אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַאֲכִילָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְאִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה.

The Sage who taught this halakha to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said to him: Rabbi Yonatan, your teacher, said that same halakha from this verse: “And if the flesh of the consecration offering, or of the bread, remains until the morning, then you shall burn the leftover with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is sacred” (Exodus 29:34). As there is no need for the verse to state: “It shall not be eaten,” what is the meaning when the verse states: “It shall not be eaten”? If it does not refer to the subject matter itself, as it is already written explicitly: “Then you shall burn the leftover with fire,” which indicates that one may not eat it, refer it to the matter of the other prohibitions in the Torah. And if it does not refer to the matter of the prohibition against eating, as eating these items is explicitly prohibited, refer it to the matter of the prohibition of deriving benefit. This indicates that it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from any item that it is prohibited for him to eat.

אִי, מָה כָּאן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, אַף כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בִּשְׂרֵיפָה! אָמַר קְרָא ״וְשָׂרַפְתָּ אֶת הַנּוֹתָר״ — נוֹתָר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

The Gemara continues: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the sin-offering is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah, from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: “You shall burn the leftover,” indicating that the leftover sacrificial meat must be disposed of with burning; however, all other prohibitions in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning, despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them.

וְהַאי ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הוּא״ — כׇּל שֶׁבַּקֹּדֶשׁ פָּסוּל, בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ.

The Gemara challenges: And did this phrase: “It shall not be eaten,” come to teach this prohibition against deriving benefit? This phrase is needed to teach in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said with regard to the statement in the verse: “It shall not be eaten, because it is sacred,” that the verse comes to place a negative mitzva of eating on whatever has been rendered disqualified in the sacred place. In other words, this verse teaches a general halakha that one who eats from offerings that have been disqualified in the Temple transgresses a negative mitzva and is liable to be flogged. It teaches nothing with regard to a prohibition against deriving benefit.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם מִקְרָא קַמָּא, וְאֵיפוֹךְ: דְּלִיכְתּוֹב ״בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״לֹא תֵאָכֵל״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא תֵאָכֵל״ — אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְגוּפוֹ, דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַאֲכִילָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְאִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה.

Abaye said: Actually, derive this halakha from the first verse cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: “And any sin-offering, of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the sacred place, shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire” (Leviticus 6:23). And reverse the construct of his exposition. Let the verse write: “It shall be burnt with fire,” and it will not need to write: “Shall not be eaten.” For what purpose then does the verse state: “It shall not be eaten”? If it does not apply to the subject matter itself, as that was already derived from the statement of Rabbi Elazar that whatever has been rendered disqualified in the sacred place may not be eaten, apply it to all other prohibitions in the Torah, including leavened bread on Passover and a stoned ox. And if it does not apply to the prohibition against eating, which is written explicitly, then apply it to the prohibition of deriving benefit.

אִי מָה כָּאן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, אַף כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמַר קְרָא ״הַנּוֹתָר״ — הַנּוֹתָר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

The Gemara asks: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the leftover sacrificial meat is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah, from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: “You shall burn the leftover,” indicating that the leftover sacrificial meat must be disposed of with burning; however, all other prohibited items in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְאֵימָא לְיַחוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לָאו לְגוּפֵיהּ הוּא דַּאֲתָא, דְּאִי מִדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר — אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And why do you hold that the phrase: “You shall not eat,” describing the sin-offering that was sacrificed inside the Sanctuary, is not needed for other purposes? Say that this expression comes in order to designate a negative mitzva for this prohibition itself. As, if this prohibition were derived only from the source quoted by Rabbi Elazar, there will be a prohibition to eat the meat of the sin-offering whose blood was brought into the sanctuary; however, one would not be liable to be flogged for violating it, because one is not flogged for violating a negative mitzva stated in general terms. One is not flogged for violating a negative mitzva that contains several different prohibitions, such as this one, which refers to all disqualified offerings. This is because the negative mitzva is formulated too broadly. Therefore, it is possible to say that when the Torah states: “You shall not eat” with regard to this issue, it is teaching that there is a particular prohibition here and that one is flogged for violating it. If so, the verse cannot indicate a general prohibition against deriving benefit.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, מֵהָכָא: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל בָּאֵשׁ יִשָּׂרֵף״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״?

Rather, this suggestion should be rejected, and Rav Pappa said that one derives this halakha from here: “And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:19). As there is no need for the verse to state: “It shall not be eaten,” what does it mean when the verse states: “It shall not be eaten”?

אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְגוּפוֹ, דְּהָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל: וּמָה מַעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״לֹא בִעַרְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ בְּטָמֵא״ — בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ חָמוּר לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

If it does not refer to the subject matter itself, as that can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the second tithe, the halakhot of which are more lenient than those of offerings, then it must refer to something else. As it is possible to say: If with regard to the second tithe, which is more lenient because it does not have the status of an offering, the Torah said that when one recites the confession over the tithes, when destroying the tithes remaining in one’s possession that had not yet been given to the appropriate recipient, he says: “I have not eaten from it in my mourning, neither have I removed it while impure” (Deuteronomy 26:14), indicating that it is prohibited for one to remove tithes while impure, then with regard to consecrated meat, which is more stringent, all the more so is it not clear that it may not be eaten while a person is impure?

וְכִי תֵּימָא ״אֵין מַזְהִירִין מִן הַדִּין״. הֶקֵּישָׁא הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ תִּירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְגוֹ׳״ —

And if you say that there is a general principle that we do not warn, i.e., we may not deduce a prohibition, through logical derivation alone, then one could respond that his issue is not only derived through an a fortiori inference; rather, it is also derived from an analogy based on a juxtaposition. As it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you have vowed, nor your voluntary offerings, nor the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). Since the verse itself juxtaposes tithes to offerings, it indicates that there is a prohibition with regard to offerings just as there is with regard to tithes.

מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְגוּפוֹ, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַאֲכִילָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לַהֲנָאָה.

The Gemara continues explaining Rav Pappa’s opinion: For what purpose then does the verse state: “It shall not be eaten” with regard to impure consecrated meat? If it does not apply to the subject matter of this verse itself, as that prohibition is derived from the second tithe, then apply it to the matter of all prohibited items in the Torah. And if it does not apply to the prohibition against eating, since that is clear, apply it to the prohibition of deriving benefit.

אִי, מָה כָּאן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה — אַף כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בִּשְׂרֵיפָה! אָמַר קְרָא ״הַנּוֹתָר״ — הַנּוֹתָר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

And if you say: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the meat that became impure in the Temple is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: “The leftover,” indicating that the leftover sacrificial meat must be disposed of with burning; however, all other prohibited items in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאֵימָא, לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין. לָאו מִי אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָכַל פּוּטִיתָא — לוֹקֶה אַרְבַּע.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And say that this expression: “It shall not be eaten,” comes to teach not the prohibition against deriving benefit, but rather that one who transgresses this negative mitzva violates two prohibitions. And there is precedent for such an explanation, as didn’t Abaye say with regard to a parallel case: If one ate a small water creature [putita], he is flogged with four sets of lashes because one violates four prohibitions when eating such a creature? Two of these prohibitions are found in the verse that discusses all types of creeping animals: “You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, neither shall you make yourselves impure with them, that you should be defiled by them” (Leviticus 11:43). A third prohibition applies to creeping animals that live in the water, as the verses say: “And all that have neither fins nor scales…They shall be a detestable thing unto you; you shall not eat of their flesh” (Leviticus 11:10–11). A fourth prohibition is cited in the verse: “And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is impure unto you” (Deuteronomy 14:10).

נְמָלָה — לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ.

Similarly, if one ate an ant, he is flogged with five sets of lashes, two sets for the previously mentioned prohibitions of eating a creeping animal, a third based on the verse: “And every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41), and a fourth based on the verse: “All creeping things that swarm upon the earth, them you shall not eat; for they are a detestable thing” (Leviticus 11:42). A fifth prohibition is stated in the verse: “You shall not make yourselves impure through every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:44).

צִירְעָה — לוֹקֶה שֵׁשׁ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמִדְרַשׁ — דָּרְשִׁינַן, וְלָא מוֹקְמִינַן בְּלָאוֵי יַתִּירֵי.

If one ate a hornet, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. Since a hornet creeps along the ground, all of the previously mentioned prohibitions with regard to an ant apply to it as well. An additional prohibition is stated in the following verse: “And all flying insects are impure to you; they shall not be eaten” (Deuteronomy 14:19). Based on this precedent, it is possible to say that the addition of the phrase “It shall not be eaten” with regard to impure meat indicates merely an additional negative mitzva for which one would be punished; however, it does not necessarily indicate a prohibition to derive benefit. Rav Ashi said to him: Anywhere that it is possible to expound a new halakha, we expound, and we do not establish the verse as containing additional negative mitzvot with regard to that same prohibition.

״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל״ דְּרֵישֵׁיהּ לְמָה לִי? לְרַבּוֹת עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה. ״וְהַבָּשָׂר כׇּל טָהוֹר יֹאכַל בָּשָׂר״ דְּסֵיפֵיהּ לְמָה לִי? לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרִין.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the beginning of the verse: “And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 7:19)? The Gemara explains: This comes to include wood and incense; although they are not eaten, they are susceptible to ritual impurity of foods. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the end of this verse: “And as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:19)? The Gemara answers: This comes to include the sacrificial parts of the animal offered on the altar, such as the fats; they, too, have the legal status of meat and are susceptible to ritual impurity of foods. If these portions become ritually impure and one eats them, even if he is pure, he is liable to be flogged.

אֵימוּרִין מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אֲשֶׁר לַה׳״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאֵימוּרִין!

The Gemara challenges: The halakha that these sacrificial parts can become impure and are then prohibited to be eaten is derived from there, i.e., from another source, as it was taught in a baraita: “But the soul that eats from the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which belong to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20). The added words “which belong to the Lord” come to include these sacrificial parts, which are meant to be offered to God and not eaten by other people, within this prohibition against eating sacrificial meat when it is impure.

הָתָם טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף — בְּכָרֵת, הָכָא טוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר — בְּלָאו.

The Gemara rejects this: There, it is referring to a case of impurity of the body; if one who is ritually impure eats sacrificial parts he is punishable with karet. Here, it is referring to a case of impurity of the flesh, where the meat is impure but the person eating it is pure; one who does so is merely in violation of a negative mitzva.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ אֲכִילָתָן. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: לְמַעוֹטֵי שֶׁאִם אָכַל חֵלֶב חַי, שֶׁפָּטוּר.

After discussing the prohibitions against eating and deriving benefit from certain items, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to all prohibitions against eating in the Torah, one may be flogged for violating them only if he eats the prohibited item in its usual manner of consumption. The Gemara asks: To exclude what case did Rabbi Yoḥanan say this? Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude a case where one eats raw fat; he teaches that one who does so is exempt, since this is not the usual manner of eating it.

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ הֲנָאָתָן. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: לְמַעוֹטֵי שֶׁאִם הִנִּיחַ חֵלֶב שֶׁל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל עַל גַּבֵּי מַכָּתוֹ, שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר. וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן אוֹכֵל חֵלֶב חַי, שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר.

Some say that this is what Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to all prohibitions against deriving benefit in the Torah, one is flogged for violating them only if he derives benefit from the prohibited item in the usual manner. The Gemara asks: To exclude what case did Rabbi Yoḥanan say this? Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude a case where one placed the fat of an ox that is stoned on his wound to help it heal. He teaches that, although one generally may not derive benefit from forbidden fats, in this case he is exempt because these fats are not normally used for medicinal purposes. And all the more so one who eats raw fat is exempt, as this is certainly not an ordinary way to benefit from fat.

אִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר עַוְיָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִנִּיחַ חֵלֶב שֶׁל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל עַל גַּבֵּי מַכָּתוֹ — פָּטוּר, לְפִי שֶׁכׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶם אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ הֲנָאָתָן.

It was also stated that Rav Aḥa bar Avya said that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one placed the fat of an ox that is stoned on his wound for medicinal purposes, he is exempt, because with regard to all prohibitions against deriving benefit in the Torah, one is flogged for violating them only if he derives benefit from the prohibited item in its usual manner.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: אֵין סוֹפְגִין אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים מִשּׁוּם עׇרְלָה, אֶלָּא עַל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַזֵּיתִים וּמִן הָעֲנָבִים בִּלְבַד. וְאִילּוּ מִתּוּתִים תְּאֵנִים וְרִמּוֹנִים — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא — לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קָאָכֵיל לְהוּ דֶּרֶךְ הֲנָאָתָן?!

Rabbi Zeira said: We, too, have also learned in a mishna that the Rabbis said: One absorbs the forty lashes due to drinking the juice squeezed from orla fruits only for that which seeps from olives, oil, and from grapes, wine. In contrast, for drinking the juice that seeps from mulberries, figs, and pomegranates one is not flogged, despite the fact that it is prohibited to consume those juices. What is the reason for this? Is it not because he is not eating them in their usual manner of deriving benefit? Generally, these fruits are eaten and not squeezed for their juice.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן פְּרִי גּוּפָא דְּלָא קָאָכֵיל לֵיהּ דֶּרֶךְ הֲנָאָתוֹ — שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּזֵיעָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

Abaye said to him that this mishna does not necessarily prove this same point: Granted, had the mishna taught us the case of the fruit itself, as he is not eating it in its usual manner of deriving benefit, it would work out well. However, here, where the case is with regard to their juice, the reason he is not flogged is because it is merely moisture that drips from the fruit, which is not considered to be an essential part of the fruit.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁלּוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ הֲנָאָתָן, מַאי טַעְמָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ אֲכִילָה.

Abaye said: All concede with regard to prohibited mixtures of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard that one is flogged for deriving benefit from them even if he does not benefit from them in their usual manner. What is the reason for this? It is because no prohibition against eating is written about them explicitly in the Torah. Therefore, the verse is interpreted to mean that it is prohibited to benefit from them in any manner; rather, one must burn them immediately.

מֵיתִיבִי, אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וְאַנְשֵׁי קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיוּן לִי״. מָה לְהַלָּן אָסוּר, אַף כָּאן אָסוּר.

The Gemara raises an objection. Isi ben Yehuda says: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to eat meat that has been cooked in milk? It is stated here: “For you are a sacred people unto the Lord your God. You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21). And it is stated there: “And you shall be sacred men unto Me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field [tereifa]; you shall cast it to the dogs” (Exodus 22:30). Just as there, with regard to a tereifa, it is prohibited to eat it, so too here, with regard to meat in milk, it is prohibited to eat it.

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּאֲכִילָה, בַּהֲנָאָה מִנַּיִן? אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה עׇרְלָה שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶבְדָה בָּהּ עֲבֵירָה, אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה. בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה?

From the above comparison I have derived only that it is prohibited to eat it, as it is prohibited to eat a tereifa; from where do I derive that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it as well? You may state an a fortiori inference: If with regard to orla, through which no sin has been committed, as it is part of the ordinary growth process of the tree to produce fruit during the first three years, yet still it is prohibited to deriving benefit from it; then with regard to meat in milk, through which a sin has been committed, as the two were illicitly cooked together, is it not right that it should be prohibited to derive benefit from it?