This is simply a question about the gemara's flow:
After Mar Zutra's question is answered, we seem to have concluded that "Lo Yeiachel" refers to achilah, and the issur hanaah is derived from "UBaal haShor naki."
However, the gemara then asks, "Now that we derive the issur hanaah from 'Lo Yeiachel,' what do we learn from "UBaal haShor naki?" I don't see where the gemara ever concluded any such thing regarding "Lo Yeiachel."
I checked your "point-by-point summary" page, but that did not clarify this for me.
Thank you,
Mordechai Torczyner, Allentown, US
Dear Mordechai,
The Gemara wants to use Lo Ye'achel to teach the Isur Achilah after Shechitah, and Naki to teach the Isur Hana'ah.
Asks the Gemara, "Let Lo Ye'achel teach the Isur Hanaah after Sekilah based on Rebbi Abahu (and not for after Shechita)?" Answers the Gemara: it can't only be for Hana'ah since we already know the Isur Achilah by Sekilah so those words should not be used to make only the Isur Hana'ah point. So it must also be used to teach the Isur Achilah after Shechitah. And now, notice the Gemara is able to go back and use Lo Ye'achel also for Achilah (for after Shechitah) and for Hana'ah (everywhere) like Rebbi Abahu - so Naki is not needed!
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
After rejecting the suggestion that "Lo Ye'achel Es Besaro" refers to where the animal was stoned (in which case it is obvious that it is Asur be'Hana'ah), the Gemara concludes that it must be speaking where the owner Shechted it after the Gmar Din, and according to Rebbi Amar R. Elazar, who holds that "Lo Ye'achel" incorporates an Isur Hana'ah.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler
Hello Reb Reuven,
Thank you very much for this answer, but I'm afraid it doesn't fit the words of the gemara.
The gemara's answer to the question of "why not use lo yeiachel for hanaah, like R' Avahu," is to say that you may only use R' Avahu's approach if Lo Yeiachel is also used for issur achilah - but here, the issur achilah comes from 'sakol yisakel.'
So the gemara's conclusion is that lo yeiachel cannot be used for the issur hanaah here. But you seem to say that the gemara's conclusion is that lo yeiachel is being used for both achilah and hanaah?
Kol tuv,
Mordechai
Dear Mordechai,
I'll explain again. The Gemara first uses Lo Yeachel for not eating after Shechita after Gemar Din. Then it asks that maybe its not for that but to tell me Isur Hanaah after Sekila- answers the Gemara -no- since, then, Yeachel is not the proper word. So therefore go back to Yeachel for eating after Shechitah--Once we use Yeachel for eating (after shechitah) we can apply R Abahu that Yeachel is eating and Hanaah (also after Sekilah)--so Naki is extra !
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
I'm sorry, but this is not an adequate read of the gemara. The gemara explicitly rejects the view R' Avahu citing R' Elazar, for two reasons:
1) Per R' Avahu it should not use the term "achilah," since we already knew achilah from sakol yisakel.
2) Per R' Avahu it should not specify "es besaro," since we are dealing with a broader issur hanaah.
Kol tuv,
Mordechai
I apologize for my previous answer, which as you pointed out, was incorrect.
The correct answer lies in Rashi in Bava Kama 41b, who comments 've'Hashta de'Nafka-Lan ... ' - ke'Rebbi Avahu le'Heicha de'Shachteih, ve'Kol-she'Kein le'Heicha de'Sakleih ... '.
What Rashi means is that now that we know the Isur Hana'ah in a case where he Shechted it from "ve'Lo Ye'achel" (like R. Avahu), it is certainly Asur be'Hana'ah there where he stoned it, in which case we no longer need "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" to teach it to us.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler