The Gemoro in the Sugya of Pigul on the Omud Aleph asks an interesting question in the name of Rav Yannai about if someone had a Machshovoh to feed his dogs Bosor Kodshim if its Pigul or not and proves it from a Loshon of a Possuk in Melochim Beys that the wicked Queen Izevel had a Loshon of Achilas Kelovim used with her.
My question is why does the Gemoro NOT use the earlier Possuk in Melochim Aleph Perek 14 Possuk 11 with Yerovom where a similar loshon is used, rather than use the later 1 of Izevel in Melochim Beys?
Boruch Kahan , London England
The Gemara probably preferred the proof from Melachim 2 because it is more specific - as it refers to eating the flesh of Izevel, as opposed to eating the flesh of Yerav'am's (anonymous) offspring.
Be'Vichas kol tuv
Eiiezer Chrysler.
The problem is that there are earlier pesukim that mention Achilas Kelavim by Izevel in Melachim Alef.
Shmuel
Tosfos (Eruvin 15b, DH b'Kesivah) states a rule concerning the way the Gemara cites verses. He writes that the Gemara mentions the simpler Derashah even though it might not be the most accuirate source (see Tosfos, Shabbos 128a, DH v'Nasan, for further examples of this idea).
I think that in our Gemara, to cite Melachim I 21:23, "The dogs will eat Izevel 'b'Chel' Yizre'el," may have been slightly more complicated than Melachim II 9:10, "And the dogs will eat Izevel 'b'Chelek' Yizre'el," because the word "b'Chel" is less well-known than the word "b'Chelek." "B'Chel" means "in the wall" while "b'Chelek" means "in the portion."
Therefore, the Gemara chose to cite the verse containing "b'Chelek" instead of the verse containing "b'Chel."
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom