ISUREI ACHILAH THAT ONE MAY BENEFIT FROM
Question: Since "Va'Araltem..." forbids all Hana'ah, why does it say "Lachem"?
Answer (Beraisa): "Lachem" includes a tree planted for the public (Orlah applies to it);
R. Yehudah says, it excludes a tree planted for the public.
Question: What is Chachamim's reason?
Answer: "U'Ntatem" connotes only a tree planted for an individual - therefore, "Lachem" includes trees planted for the public.
Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
Answer: "U'Ntatem" connotes a tree planted for an individual or for the public, and also Lachem connotes both of these;
There are two Ribuyim (sources to include trees planted for the public) - two Ribuyim [for the same thing] come to exclude.
Question (against R. Avahu): Regarding Terumah it says "V'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh," yet a Zar may benefit from it!
(Mishnah): One may make an Eruv [Techumim - Tosfos; Rashi - or Eruv Chatzeros] on behalf of a Nazir with wine, and on behalf of a Yisrael with Terumah.
Answer (Rav Papa): One may benefit from Terumah because it says "Terumaschem" - it will be yours [to benefit from].
Question: According to Chizkiyah, why does it say "Terumaschem"?
Answer: It discusses Terumah of all of Yisrael.
Question (against both of them): Regarding a Nazir it says "Me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag Lo Yochal," yet the Mishnah permitted making an Eruv for a Nazir with wine!
Answer #1 (Mar Zutra): It says "Nizro" - [benefit is permitted] to him;
Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): "Kodesh Yihyeh Gadel Pera Se'ar Rosho" - only his hair is Kodesh, no other Isur Nazir is Asur b'Hana'ah.
Objection: The verse does not say that only his hair is Kodesh!
Conclusion: We must rely on Answer #1.
Question (against R. Avahu): Regarding Chodosh [which is forbidden until the Omer is brought] it says "V'Lechem v'Kali v'Charmel Lo Sochlu Ad Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh" [yet one may benefit from it]!
(Mishnah): One may harvest [Chodosh] fodder and feed it to animals.
Answer (Rav Shemayah): There is different for it says "Ketzirchem" - the harvest is yours [to benefit from].
Question: According to Chizkiyah, why does it say "Ketzirchem"?
Answer: It discusses the harvest of all of Yisrael.
BENEFIT FROM SHERATZIM, CHAMETZ AND CHELEV
Question (against both of them): Regarding Sheratzim it says "Sheketz Hu Lo Ye'achel," yet one may benefit from them!
(Mishnah): If hunters of Chayos, birds and fish happened to catch Tamei species, they may sell them to Nochrim.
Answer: There is different for it says "Lachem" - they are yours [to benefit from them].
Question: If so, it should be permitted to hunt them l'Chatchilah (the Mishnah permits only if one happened to catch them)!
Answer: It says "Yihyu" - they will be in their status (you will detest them).
Question: According to Chizkiyah, why does it say "Lo Ye'achel" [which normally forbids Hana'ah] and "Lachem" to permit - it should forbid eating with a different word, and "Lachem" would not be needed!
Answer: This is Chizkiyah's source [that "Lo Ye'achel" forbids Hana'ah - we know this because the Torah needed to write Lachem to permit Hana'ah]!
Question: It says "Lo Ye'achel Chametz," yet some permit Hana'ah!
(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Gelili): Hana'ah from Chametz is permitted during Pesach.
Answer: It says "V'Lo Yera'eh Lecha" - this teaches that it is yours [to benefit from it].
Chachamim [who forbid Hana'ah] expound V'Lo Yera'eh Lecha - but you may see Chametz of others or of Hekdesh.
R. Yosi ha'Gelili learns this from a second verse that says "Lecha."
Chachamim use the second "Lecha" to permit even a Nochri who is under your control and lives with you in the Chatzer.
R. Yosi ha'Gelili learns this from a third verse "Lecha."
Chachamim require separate verses to teach about Chametz and Se'or - we could not learn one from the other (perhaps Se'or is more stringent, for it causes other things to ferment; perhaps Chametz is more stringent, it is fit to eat).
Suggestion: Tana'im argue as R. Avahu and Chizkiyah do:
(Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from "[V'Chelev...] Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah"?
Answer #1 (R. Yosi ha'Gelili): One might have thought that it is permitted only for needs of Hekdesh, but not for Chulin uses - this permits even Chulin uses;
Answer #2 (R. Akiva): One might have thought that it is Tahor only for Chulin, but not for Hekdesh - this is Metaher even for Hekdesh.
R. Yosi does not need a verse to teach about Tum'ah and Taharah, only about Heter Hana'ah (permission to benefit); R. Akiva does not need a verse to teach about Heter Hana'ah, only about Tum'ah and Taharah.
Suggestion: (Regarding Chelev it says "Lo Sochlu Chol Neveilah.") R. Yosi holds that "Lo Sochlu" forbids eating and Hana'ah [like R. Avahu], therefore we need a verse to permit Hana'ah; R. Akiva holds that "Lo Sochlu" forbids only eating, but not Hana'ah [like Chizkiyah] - therefore, "Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah" teaches about Taharah.
Rejection: No, all agree that it forbids even Hana'ah;
R. Yosi holds that the verse that permits Hana'ah from a Neveilah ("La'Ger...Titnenah") does not permit benefit from the Chelev and Gid [which are forbidden even in slaughtered animals] - therefore, "Ye'aseh..." permits the Chelev;
R. Akiva holds that when the Torah permitted [Hana'ah from] a Neveilah, it permitted even the Chelev and the Gid - therefore, "Ye'aseh..." comes to Metaher.
Question: According to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, this verse permits Hana'ah from Chelev - but will he forbid Hana'ah from the Gid?!
Answer #1: Indeed, he forbids!
Answer #2: He permits it from a Kal va'Chomer:
Eating Chelev is a Lav with Kares, yet one may benefit from it - eating the Gid is only a Lav, all the more so one may benefit from it!
R. Shimon (22A) forbids Hana'ah - he refutes the Kal va'Chomer because Chelev is totally permitted in Chayos.
R. Yosi learns the Kal va'Chomer regarding Behemos [therefore he does not consider this a refutation] - Chelev of Behemos is never permitted.
WHAT THEY ARGUE ABOUT
Question: We answered all of the questions - in conclusion, what do R. Avahu and Chizkiyah argue about?
Answer #1: They argue about Chametz during Pesach according to Chachamim, and Shor ha'Niskal according to everyone - Chizkiyah forbids them on account of "Lo Ye'achel," R. Avahu learns from Neveilah.
Objection: Both of them forbid Hana'ah - practically, what do they argue about?
Answer #2: They argue about Chulin slaughtered in the Mikdash (no verse directly discusses it):
Chizkiyah holds that "Lo Ye'achel" forbids these (Chametz and Shor ha'Niskal); "[La'Kelev Tashlichun] Oso" [permits Hana'ah from a Tereifah, but] excludes Chulin b'Azarah;
R. Avahu holds that "Oso" forbids these (it implies that other Isurei Achilah are Asur b'Hana'ah); he holds that Chulin b'Azarah is permitted mid'Oraisa.
(A Talmid citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi) Question: What is the source that all Isurei Achilah are also Asur b'Hana'ah, i.e. Chametz b'Pesach and Shor ha'Niskal?
Question: He should learn from "Lo Ye'achel"!
Answer: He holds that "Lo Ye'achel" only connotes Isur Achilah, but not Isur Hana'ah.
Question: He should learn from Neveilah (a verse is needed to permit benefit from it - this implies that other Isurei Achilah are also Asur b'Hana'ah)!
Answer: He holds like R. Yehudah, who says that the verse of Neveilah specifies how to benefit (a gift to a Ger or selling to a Nochri, but not vice-versa).
Question: If so, he should learn from R. Yehudah's source - "La'Kelev Tashlichun Oso"!
Answer: He holds that Chulin b'Azarah is forbidden mid'Oraisa [from this verse].
(The Talmid citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi) Answer #1 - Question: "V'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah...[Lo Se'achel] ba'Esh Tisaref" - what do we learn from this?
It need not teach that we burn a Chatas [if its blood was brought inside the Heichal] - it says [regarding the goat burned on the day of Chanukas ha'Mishkan] "V'Hine Soraf"!
Answer: Rather, we use it to teach about other things forbidden [to eat] - since we do not need this to learn Isur Achilah, we learn Isur Hana'ah.
Suggestion: Just like the Chatas was burned, we should say that all Isurim must be burned!
Rejection: "Ba'Kodesh...ba'Esh Tisaref" - Pasul Kodshim are burned, other Isurim are not.