QUESTIONS AGAINST R. AVAHU
Answer #1: R. Yehudah learns from "La'Kelev Tashlichun Oso" - you may give a Tereifah to dogs (you may benefit from it, even though you may not eat it), but you may not benefit from other Isurei Achilah.
R. Meir [does not need to learn this from here - he] expounds you may give it to dogs, but not Chulin b'Azarah (Chulin slaughtered in the Mikdash, for it is Asur b'Hana'ah).
R. Yehudah holds that mid'Oraisa, one may benefit from (Rashi; Tosfos - one may slaughter) Chulin b'Azarah.
Question (R. Yitzchak Nafcha): Regarding Gid ha'Nasheh it says "Al Ken Lo Yochlu Venei Yisrael Es Gid ha'Nasheh" (yet one may benefit from it)!
(Mishnah): Reuven may send a thigh to a Nochri with the Gid ha'Nasheh inside, because [even if Shimon knows that Reuven sent it and will buy it from the Nochri, Shimon will not assume that the Gid was removed, for] it is recognizable that it was not removed. (Even if Reuven sends the leg for free, the Nochri will show more appreciation for receiving a nicer thigh - Reuven benefits from the Gid!)
Answer: R. Avahu holds that when the Torah permitted [to give a Neveilah to a Ger to eat, this permits benefit from [every edible part, including the Chelev and] the Gid.
Question: This is according to the opinion that the Gid has taste - but according to the opinion that it has no taste [nevertheless, the Torah obligates for eating it] how can we answer?
Question: Who holds that it has no taste?
Answer: R. Shimon says so:
(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): One who eats the Gid of a Tamei animal receives two sets of lashes [for eating a Gid, and for eating meat of a Tamei animal - he holds that the Gid has taste];
R. Shimon says, he is not lashed (he holds that the Torah did not forbid the Gid of a Tamei animal, and that the Gid has no taste, it is not considered as if he ate meat of a Tamei animal).
Answer: Indeed, R. Shimon forbids benefit from the Gid!
(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): One may benefit from the Gid ha'Nasheh;
R. Shimon forbids.
Question: It says "Kol Nefesh Michem Lo Sochal Dam," yet one may benefit from it!
(Mishnah): Leftover blood of both of these (outer Chata'os and inner Chata'os) flows together into the stream [that runs through the Mikdash,] and flows into Nachal Kidron (a valley); gardeners buy it, Me'ilah applies to it (Tosfos - mid'Rabanan, if one uses it without paying Hekdesh; Rambam - mid'Oraisa).
Answer: Blood is different because it is equated to water - "Lo Tochalenu Al ha'Aretz Tishpechenu ka'Mayim;"
Just like water is permitted, blood is permitted.
Question: Perhaps it is like water poured on the Mizbe'ach [on Sukos, which is forbidden]!
Answer #1 (R. Avahu): It is like most water, which is permitted.
Objection: The verse does not say that it is like most water!
Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It is like water that is spilled, not like water that is Nisach (poured for a libation, which is forbidden).
Question: Perhaps it is like water that is spilled in front of idolatry, which is forbidden!
Answer: That is also called Nisuch - "Yishtu Yayin Nesicham."
QUESTIONS AGAINST R. AVAHU AND CHIZKIYAH
Question: According to Chizkiyah [there was no reason to think that blood is Asur b'Hana'ah], why is blood equated to water?
Answer: This teaches R. Chiya bar Aba's law:
(R. Chiya bar Aba) Question: What is the source that blood of Kodshim is not Machshir?
Answer: "Lo Tochalenu Al ha'Aretz Tishpechenu ka'Mayim" - only blood which is spilled like water is Machshir [but not blood of Kodshim, which is caught in a Keli to be thrown on the Mizbe'ach].
Question: Regarding Ever Min ha'Chai (a limb from a living animal) it says "V'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh Im ha'Basar" (yet one may benefit from it)!
(Beraisa - R. Noson) Question: What is the source to forbid extending wine to a Nazir or Ever Min ha'Chai to a Ben Noach?
Answer: "V'Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol" (do not cause someone to sin).
Inference: It is permitted to give Ever Min ha'Chai to a dog!
Answer: Ever Min ha'Chai is equated to blood - "Rak Chazak l'Vilti Achol ha'Dam Ki ha'Dam Hu ha'Nefesh" (we learned that one may benefit from blood).
Question: According to Chizkiyah, why is Ever Min ha'Chai equated to blood?
Answer: Blood is equated to Ever Min ha'Chai - just like Ever Min ha'Chai is forbidden, also blood [Min ha'Chai] is forbidden [like blood from a dead animal, i.e. with Kares].
Question: Which blood does this refer to?
Answer: It refers to blood let [from a living animal] in which the Nefesh leaves (Dam ha'Nefesh is as long as it is flowing, or from the first black drop and onwards).
Question: Regarding Shor ha'Niskal (an ox sentenced to be stoned) it says "V'Lo Ye'achel Es Besaro" [but this did not suffice forbid Hana'ah - even Chizkiyah holds that v'Lo Ye'achel forbids Hana'ah]!
(Beraisa) Question: "Sakol Yisakel ha'Shor" - since it is stoned, it becomes a Neveilah, one may not eat it - why must it say "V'Lo Ye'achel Es Besaro"?
Answer: "V'Lo Ye'achel Es Besaro" forbids eating it [even] if it was slaughtered after it was sentenced.
Question: What is the source forbidding benefit from it?
Answer: "U'Va'al ha'Shor Naki."
Question: How do we learn this from the verse?
Answer (Shimon ben Zoma): This is like people say, Ploni was wiped clean of his property and got no benefit from it.
Summation of question: If not for "U'Va'al ha'Shor Naki," we would have forbidden only eating on account of "V'Lo Ye'achel Es Besaro," not Hana'ah!
Answer: Really, "V'Lo Ye'achel Es Besaro" forbids eating and Hana'ah - "U'Va'al ha'Shor Naki" forbids benefit from the skin - both of these must be taught:
Had it only taught "V'Lo Ye'achel Es Besaro" we would have said that this forbids only the meat, but not the skin.
Question: (If an animal Muchzak to gore kills a person, the owner must pay Kofer (the value of himself or the victim); if a man hit a pregnant woman and caused her to miscarry, he pays her husband the value of the fetus aborted.) Other Tana'im expound "U'Va'al ha'Shor Naki" differently, to exempt [the owner of] an animal not established to gore from [even] half Kofer, and the owner of any animal from paying for a fetus - what is their source to forbid benefit from the skin?
Answer: "V'Lo Ye'achel Es Besaro" - this includes what is secondary to the meat, i.e. the skin;
The Tana of the Beraisa [who expounds "U'Va'al ha'Shor Naki"] does not expound "Es":
(Beraisa): Shimon ha'Amsoni used to expound every 'Es' in the Torah [to include something]; for "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira," he found nothing to include [that should be feared like Hash-m].
His Talmidim: If so, how can you justify what you expounded from [other occurrences of the word] 'Es'!
R. Shimon: Indeed, I retract all of them! Just as I will receive reward for what I expounded (at the time, I believed that it was true), I will be rewarded for retracting.
R. Akiva: "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" includes [fearing] Chachamim.
Question: Regarding Orlah it says "Arelim Lo Ye'achel";
(Beraisa) Question: "Arelim Lo Ye'achel" forbids eating - what is the source to forbid benefit from Orlah, using it for dye or to burn a lamp? (Tosfos - one might have thought that even though normal Hana'ah is forbidden, one may benefit from it while destroying (burning) it, or that dyeing (small Hana'ah) is permitted; Rashi - one might have thought that shells (which are used to dye) are permitted.)
Answer: "Va'Araltem Orlaso...Arelim Lo Ye'achel" forbids all of these.
Summation of question: If not for Va'Araltem Orlaso...Arelim Lo Ye'achel, we would have forbidden only eating, not Hana'ah!
Answer: Really, "Lo Ye'achel" normally forbids eating and Hana'ah - regarding Orlah we would have permitted Hana'ah because it says "Lachem."
One might have thought that "Lachem" teaches that it is yours [to benefit from] - "Va'Araltem..." teaches that this is not so.