85b (Mishnah): We offer bones, sinews, horns and hooves if they are still attached - "v'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol."

86a (Mishnah): If any of these, or a coal, came off the Mizbe'ach, we do not return it.

(Beraisa): Me'ilah applies to bones of Kodshim before Zerikah, but not after Zerikah.

Me'ilah 9a (Rav): Me'ilah does not apply to ashes on the heap on top of the Mizbe'ach.

9b Question: The latter Mishnah says that we do not return bones... or a coal that flew off the Mizbe'ach. Had it flown to a different part of the Mizbe'ach, we would return it. (This shows that the Mitzvah is not finished and Me'ilah still applies!)

Pesachim 21b (Chizkiyah): The passive tense "v'Lo Ye'achel Chametz" teaches that one may not even benefit from Chametz on Pesach.

Inference: Had it said Lo Yochal, he would permit benefit. This is unlike R. Avahu, who says that wherever the Torah says "Lo Yochal", it forbids eating and benefit, unless there is a source to permit benefit, like there is for Neveilah.

22a - Question (R. Yitzchak Nafcha): It says about Gid ha'Nasheh "Lo Yochlu" (yet one may benefit from it)!

(Mishnah): Reuven may send a thigh to a Nochri with the Gid ha'Nasheh inside. (Even if it is a gift, the Nochri will show more appreciation for a nicer thigh. Reuven benefits from the Gid!)

Answer: R. Avahu holds that when the Torah permitted Neveilah (one may give it to a Ger to eat), this permits benefit (even) from the Chelev and Gid.

Question: This is like the opinion that Gidim have taste. According to the opinion that it has no taste (it is not called Neveilah), how can we answer?

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): One who eats the Gid of a Tamei animal is lashes twice (for eating a Gid, and for meat of a Tamei animal, i.e. for Gidim have taste);

R. Shimon says, he is not lashed. (The Torah did not forbid the Gid of a Tamei animal, and Gidim have no taste, so it is not called meat of a Tamei animal).

Answer: Indeed, a Beraisa teaches that R. Shimon forbids benefit from the Gid (and R. Yehudah permits).

23a (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Gelili): "Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah" permits even Chulin uses of Chelev;

(R. Akiva): The verse is Metaher Chelev even for Hekdesh.

Suggestion: R. Yosi holds that "Lo Sochlu Chol Neveilah" forbids Hana'ah (like R. Avahu), so he needs a verse to permit. R. Akiva needs no verse, like Chizkiyah.

Rejection: No, all agree that Lo Sochlu forbids even Hana'ah. They argue about whether the verse that permits Hana'as Neveilah permits Hana'as Chelev or Gid.

Question: R. Yosi ha'Gelili permits Hana'ah from Chelev due to "Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah" (but not from Neveilah.) 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 forbids Hana'ah. He refutes the Kal va'Chomer, for Chelev is totally permitted in Chayos. R. Yosi limits the Kal va'Chomer to Behemos.

Chulin 89b (Mishnah): The Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh applies to Chulin and Kodshim.

Objection: This is obvious! Do not say that the Tana holds that Gidim have taste, and teaches that the Isur of (benefit from) Kodshim is also Chal on it. If so, he should, he holds that Gidim have no taste. The Isur of Kodshim does not apply to the Gid.

90a (Beraisa): "V'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol ha'Mizbechah" includes bones and Gidim, even if they separated. "Ha'Basar veha'Dam" teaches about what flies off the Mizbe'ach when being burned. We return meat, but not bones and Gidim.

Rebbi: One verse teaches that we burn everything, and one says only blood and meat! Rather, we burn everything that is attached. What separated, even on the Mizbe'ach, is brought down.

99b: The Halachah is, Gidim have no taste.

Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 8:14): One may benefit from the Gid ha'Nasheh.

Hagahos Maimoniyos (7): Re'em ruled that the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah. We rule that it has no taste, and the one who permits Hana'ah holds that it has taste. Also Sefer ha'Mitzvos says so in the name of Re'em.

Magid Mishneh: The Halachah follows R. Yehudah against R. Shimon, especially since the Stam Mishnah (which permits sending a thigh) is like him. Even though the Gemara says that the one who holds that Gidim have no taste forbids Hana'ah from Gid ha'Nasheh, and we hold that Gidim have no taste, the Ramban answered that the Gemara said so needlessly. The conclusion is that even the opinion that Gidim have taste the Gid ha'Nasheh is Mutar b'Hana'ah. One does not depend on the other. The Rambam holds like this. This is primary.

Pleisi (65:2 DH v'Lachen): R. Shimon holds that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur (an Isur does not take effect on an Isur). If so, the Isur Gid never took effect on Neveilah, so he cannot say that it was permitted with Neveilah. We hold that Isur Chal Al Isur, so we can say that the Gid ha'Nasheh was permitted along with Neveilah, even if it has no taste.

Or Some'ach: The Ramban says that the Rambam rules like a Stam Mishnah that learns Heter Hana'ah from a Kal va'Chomer. (Note - I could not find the Ramban, and the Gemara (not a Mishnah) made the Kal va'Chomer.) Even R. Shimon would have learned from the Kal va'Chomer, if not for the question from Chelev (unlike the Pleisi). However, in one answer, the Gemara said that R. Yosi forbids Hana'ah. It seems that they argue about whether we put the Gid ha'Nasheh on the Mizbe'ach when it is attached (still in the thigh). The one who forbids offering it on the Mizbe'ach cannot learn a Kal va'Chomer from Chelev and blood, which go on the Mizbe'ach, therefore Yisraelim may benefit from them. The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 6:4) rules that we remove it. Therefore, he cannot learn the Kal va'Chomer. Why does he permit Hana'ah? One Chacham said that Hana'ah must be permitted, for if not, how is one liable for sale of a stolen Seh or ox? He did not sell the entire animal, for one cannot sell the Gid! This is wrong. Even if we say that one can own Isurei Hana'ah, one is exempt for stealing it. Therefore, this (selling a stolen animal with a Gid ha'Nasheh) is like stealing (and selling) an animal missing a forleg. He is liable for selling everything (that he stole). Also, one may benefit from the Gid in non-standard ways. Since they are unusual, it is not considered to have monetary value. This is after death. While it is alive, the Gid has value, for it helps to keeps the animal alive! It is the owner's property, and he may sell it. In Chulin, we ask that surely, the Isur Kodshim should apply. We do not say that he cannot be Makdish the Gid, for it is not his! Kedushah does not spread to what one does not own!

Oneg Yom Tov (75): In Chulin, we say that Gid ha'Nasheh applies even to Kodshim. How could the Gemara suggest that the Tana holds that Gidim have no taste, and the Isur of Kodshim does not apply to the Gid? Gidim and bones of Kodshim are forbidden, and Me'ilah applies to them (Zevachim 86a). Even though Gidim have no taste and they are not considered meat, they are no worse than bones. (Note: the Beraisa says Stam that Me'ilah applies to bones, i.e. even if they have no marrow. Also Me'ilah connotes that Me'ilah applies to Gidim - PF.) Why should there be no Isur Kodshim?! Granted, if the Gid ha'Nasheh is Mutar b'Hana'ah, only the Isur Gid applies, but not the Isur Kodshim. It is like wood, but the Torah obligates for eating it. However, if it is Asur b'Hana'ah, why is there no Isur Kodshim? Granted, there is no Isur Kodshim to eat it, but if he fed it to a cat or used it for a thread, he should be liable for Hana'ah from Kodshim. It is no less than bones of Kodshim! Since the Gemara said that there is only the Isur Gid, this shows that the Isur is only for eating it. Since the Mishnah says that the Isur Gid applies to Kodshim, we must say that Gidim have no taste, and the Isur b'Hana'ah is due to Kodshim; there is no Isur Hana'ah of a Chulin Gid. This defends the Rambam.

Rosh (Chulin 7:17): The Rambam permits Hana'ah from Gid ha'Nasheh. Chachamei Lunil answered him that it is forbidden. Tana'im argue about this; the Halachah follows R. Yehudah (who permits) against R. Shimon. The Halachah does not follow R. Avahu. We hold that Gidim have no taste, so we must say that the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah. R. Yonah said that Pesachim proves that it is Asur b'Hana'ah, but he did not write the proof. Presumably, he holds that the Halachah follows R. Avahu. However, the Halachah always follows Chizkiyah against his Talmid R. Yochanan, and all the more so against R. Yochanan's Talmid R. Avahu. In Pesachim, the Rif brought only Chizkiyah. The Gemara suggested that Tana'im argue as R. Avahu and Chizkiyah do, and rejected this; all could hold like R. Avahu. This is no proof that the Halachah follows R. Avahu, for the Gemara could not have said that all hold like Chizkiyah. Also, the Gemara concluded that Chizkiyah and R. Avahu argue about Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah. We hold like Chizkiyah, that the Torah forbids them (Kidushin 56b). In Ashkenaz they sell the Gid ha'Nasheh to Nochrim. In other lands they are careful even not to feed it to a cat. Therefore, I researched, and it seems that it is Mutar b'Hana'ah.

Rebuttal (Kesef Mishneh): The Rambam cannot hold that the Halachah does not follow R. Avahu, for he brings R. Avahu's words in the next Halachah! Rather, we must say like the Magid Mishneh.

Tosfos (99b DH v'Hilchesa): We rule that Gidim have no taste, so the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah. This is clear from Pesachim 22a. We sell to Nochrim what we remove from meat, even though the Gid is mixed in, for they pay only for what has taste. However, one may not send a full thigh, for it is more honorable when it is whole. We said that the Mishnah that permits this is unlike R. Shimon, who says that Gidim have no taste and the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah.

Shulchan Aruch (YD 64:10): One may benefit from the Gid ha'Nasheh.

Beis Yosef (DH v'Yesh): The Rashba says some of his Rebbeyim forbid Hana'ah, and some permit; he favors the latter opinion, and says that this is the custom. However, the Zohar connotes that it is forbidden; it is good to be careful.

Gra (27): The Shulchan Aruch permits, like Chizkiyah. Even R. Avahu agrees. We hold that Gidim have no taste, but Heter Hana'ah does not depend on this. The Halachah follows R. Yehudah against R. Shimon.