The Gemara asks: According to Ḥizkiya, who says that: You shall not eat, indicates only that eating is prohibited but that benefit is permitted, for what halakha is blood juxtaposed to water? According to his opinion, there is no need for the verse to teach that one may benefit from blood. The Gemara answers that he needs this verse to derive that which was taught by Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that the blood of sacrifices does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity? As it is stated: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:24). Blood that is poured out like water, such as that of a slaughtered, non-sacrificial animal, renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. However, sacrificial blood, which is not poured out like water and is instead sprinkled on the altar, does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Gemara further challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion: And yet there is the prohibition against eating a limb cut from a living animal, as it is written: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). And it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a person may not offer a cup of wine to a nazirite, who is prohibited from drinking wine, and that he may not offer a limb cut from a living animal to a descendant of Noah, who is prohibited by Noahide law from eating a limb from a living animal? The verse states: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). Causing another person to sin is like placing a stumbling block before a blind person; one who does so violates this prohibition. The prohibition of giving a limb from a living animal to a gentile is apparently due only to the prohibition of placing a stumbling block. However, it is permitted for one to throw it to dogs. Therefore, despite the fact that the verse says: “You shall not eat it,” apparently there is no prohibition against benefiting from this prohibited item. This challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s principle.

The Gemara answers: A limb from a living animal is different, as it is juxtaposed in the Torah to blood. As it is written: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). Just as it is permitted to benefit from blood, it is likewise permitted to benefit from a limb torn from a living animal.

The Gemara asks: And according to Ḥizkiya, in order to teach what halakha is the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal juxtaposed to the prohibition against eating blood? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the juxtaposition comes to teach the opposite. It is blood that is juxtaposed to a limb from a living animal to teach the following: Just as a limb from a living animal is prohibited, so too, blood of a living being is prohibited. And to which blood is this referring? This is referring to blood spilled in the process of bloodletting, through which the soul departs. That is considered to be blood from a living being, and even the descendants of Noah are prohibited from eating it (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).

The Gemara asks: And yet there is the prohibition against eating the meat from an ox that is stoned, as the Merciful One says: “And if an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be surely stoned, and of its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be clear” (Exodus 21:28). And it was taught in a baraita: By inference from that which is stated: “The ox shall surely be stoned,” in which case it is not to be slaughtered properly, don’t I know that it is an animal carcass, and it is prohibited to eat an animal carcass? What does it mean when the verse states: “Its flesh shall not be eaten”? The verse is telling you that even if one slaughtered the ox after its verdict had been reached but before it had been carried out, it is still prohibited.

The baraita continues: I have derived only that one is prohibited from eating this ox; from where do I derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from it as well? The verse states: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear [naki].” The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that one may not benefit from this ox? Shimon ben Zoma says: This is like a person who says to his fellow: So-and-so was left clear [naki] of his property, and he has no benefit from it at all. Similarly, “But the owner of the ox shall be clear” means that he has no benefit from the ox.

The Gemara infers from the verse that the reason that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the ox is that the Torah specifically wrote: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear.” As, if this prohibition were derived from: “It shall not be eaten,” apparently the prohibition of eating would be implied, but the prohibition of deriving benefit would not be implied. This presents a challenge even for Ḥizkiya, who agrees that the passive formulation: “It shall not be eaten,” indicates that in addition one may not benefit from the item.

The Gemara answers: Actually, the phrase: “It shall not be eaten” indicates both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit. And the phrase: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear,” comes to prohibit deriving benefit from the hide of the ox that has been stoned. And it is necessary to mention this explicitly, as it could enter your mind to say that since it is written: “Its flesh shall not be eaten,” with regard to its flesh, yes, it is prohibited, but with regard to its hide, no, it is not. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is prohibited to benefit from its hide as well.

The Gemara asks: And according to those tanna’im who expound this verse: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear,” for another interpretation, namely, to teach that the owner of an innocuous ox, i.e., one that is not known to cause damage with the intent to injure, is exempt from the payment of half of the indemnity if that ox killed a person, or that he is exempt from payment for offspring if his ox gores a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry; from where do they derive this prohibition against benefiting from the ox’s hide? The Gemara answers: They derive this halakha from the wording: “Of [et] its flesh.” The verse could have been formulated: And its flesh shall not be eaten. The addition of the word et comes to include that which is secondary to the flesh, i.e., the hide.

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, who derives the prohibition against benefiting from the hide from the verse: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear,” what does he learn from the additional word et? The Gemara answers: This Sage does not interpret the word et as a means to derive new halakhot. He considers the word et to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition.

As it was taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmmassoni, and some say that it was Neḥemya HaAmmassoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word et in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall be in awe of [et] the Lord your God; you shall serve Him; and to Him you shall cleave, and by His name you shall swear” (Deuteronomy 10:20), he withdrew from this method of exposition, as how could one add to God Himself? His students said to him: Rabbi, what will be with all the etim that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the interpretation, so I shall receive reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition. The word et in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: “You shall be in awe of [et] the Lord your God”: The word et comes to include Torah scholars, and one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any case, Shimon HaAmmassoni no longer derived additional halakhot from the word et.

The Gemara further challenges: And yet there is the prohibition of fruit that grows on a tree during the first three years after it was planted [orla], as the Merciful One says: “And when you come into the land, and you shall plant all types of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit thereof as prohibited; three years shall it be prohibited [arelim] to you; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 19:23). And it was taught in a baraita: “Shall it be prohibited to you; it shall not be eaten”: I have only derived a prohibition to eat it. From where do I derive that one may not even benefit from it, e.g., that he may not paint with the dye that can be extracted from the fruit, nor may he light a lamp with its oil? The verse states: “You shall count the fruit thereof [orlato] as prohibited [araltem]; three years shall it be prohibited [arelim] to you; it shall not be eaten.” This repetition of the term arel comes to include all forms of benefit.

The Gemara reads precisely: The reason that all forms of benefit are prohibited is that the Merciful One writes: “You shall count the fruit thereof as prohibited [araltem]; three years shall it be prohibited [arelim].” The double use of the word arel indicates a two-fold prohibition. However, were that not the case, I would have said: The prohibition of eating is indicated here; however, the prohibition to derive benefit is not indicated. This is a challenge even to Ḥizkiya’s opinion, as the verse says: “It shall not be eaten,” indicating that it is prohibited to derive benefit as well.

The Gemara rejects this. Actually, in general, “it shall not be eaten” indicates both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition to derive benefit. However, it is different there, with regard to orla, as it is written: “Three years shall it be prohibited [arelim] to you.” And, therefore, it was necessary for the verse to repeat the prohibition using several terms, as it could enter your mind to say that since it wrote “to you” it means that it shall be yours, namely that one is permitted to benefit from it. Therefore, it teaches us that it is prohibited to derive benefit.

The Gemara asks: However, now that these words in the verses are written, indicating the prohibition to derive benefit from orla, why do I need the words “to you,” i.e., what does this phrase teach us here? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: That which is stated: “To you,” comes to include that which is planted