Shiur Supplement #23: 22b-23a
The gemara continues to question the rule of R. Abahu that an issur hana'a (injunction against gaining benefit) is implied whenever the Torah uses the phraseology of " lo yokhal," " lo tokhal," or " lo tokhlu."
A. Ve-harei SHOR ha-NISKAL [lines 17-32] Background: The Torah (Shemot 21:28) commands that an ox which gores someone to death must be stoned. Furthermore, it may not be eaten and one may not derive any benefit from it. The gemara's question on R. Abahu is based on the source of this issur hana'a - despite the fact that the Torah mentions " lo yei'akhel," a DIFFERENT phrase is used to learn the issur hana'a. In fact, this passuk is problematic even for Chizkiya, since he agrees that " lo yei'akhel" implies issur hana'a. (See Rashi s.v. Issur hana'a lo mashma.)
B. Ve-tnan me'arvin le-nazir [lines 9-10] Background: One who wishes to walk on Shabbat more than the prescribed limit of 2000 amot outside of the city is required to place enough food for a meal outside of the city, thereby allowing him on Shabbat to walk an extra 2000 amot from where the food has been placed. A non-Kohen may use teruma for this purpose even though he is forbidden to eat it.
C. Ve-im eino inyan le-akhila [line 1] According to this principle, a verse which is redundant may be used to teach a halakha concerning a different aspect of the subject matter.