Objection (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): This verse teaches R. Shimon's law!

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): "Ba'Kodesh...ba'Esh Tisaref" - this teaches that a [Pasul] Chatas is burned in the Kodesh (the Azarah).

Question: What is the source for other Kodshei Kodoshim and Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim?

Answer: "V'Chol...ba'Kodesh...ba'Esh Tisaref." (Answer #1 is rejected.)

Answer #2 (to Question 3:e, 23B - the Talmid): Your Rebbi, R. Yonason, learns [other Isurim] from "V'Im Yivaser mi'Besar ha'Milu'im...[Lo Ye'achel]";

Question: What do we learn from this? Obviously one may not eat it - it says "V'Sorafta Es ha'Nosar ba'Esh"!

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 Nosar is burned, we should say that all Isurim must be burned!

Rejection: "V'Sorafta Es ha'Nosar ba'Esh" - Nosar is burned, other Isurim are not.

Objection: We use "Lo Ye'achel" [in the verse of Milu'im] to teach R. Elazar's law!

(R. Elazar): "Lo Ye'achel Ki Kodesh Hu" - this is a Lav forbidding eating any Pasul Kodshim.

Defense of Answer #1 (Abaye): Really, we learn Isurei Hana'ah from "V'Chol Chatas..." - but not like we said before (we do not learn from "Ba'Esh Tisaref," rather, from "Lo Se'achel"):

Question: It would have sufficed to say "Ba'Esh Tisaref" - what do we learn from "Lo Se'achel"?

Answer: It need not teach about the Chatas itself - we learn [the Isur to eat it from "Ba'Esh Tisaref," and a Lav] from R. Elazar's teaching - we use it to teach about other Isurim [of Achilah] - since we need not learn Isur Achilah, we learn Isur Hana'ah.

Suggestion: Just like a Pasul Chatas is burned, we should say that all Isurim must be burned!

Rejection: "V'Sorafta Es ha'Nosar ba'Esh" - Nosar is burned, other Isurim are not.

Objection (Rav Papa): Perhaps "Lo Se'achel" comes to forbid a Pasul Chatas with its own Lav - it is not enough to rely on R. Elazar's Lav, for that is Lav shebi'Chlalos (different Isurim forbidden by one Lav), one is not lashed for it!

Answer #3 (Rav Papa): Rather, we learn from "Veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel ba'Esh Yisaref:"

Question: We do not need this for [a Lav] for it itself, a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser teaches this:

Ma'aser is more lenient [than Kodshim], yet it says "V'Lo Vi'arti Mimenu b'Tamei" (it is forbidden if the eater or the Ma'aser is Tamei) - all the more so, a Lav forbids Tamei Kodesh!

Question: A Kal va'Chomer cannot teach an Azharah (a Lav to Mechayev lashes)!

Answer: We learn from a Hekesh (a verse equates them) - "Lo Suchal Le'chol bi'Sh'arecha Masar Degancha...u'Vchoros Bekarcha...";

Answer: Since "Lo Ye'achel" is not needed for it itself, we use it to teach about other Isurim [of Achilah] - since we need not learn Isur Achilah, we learn Isur Hana'ah.

Suggestion: Just like Tamei Kodshim is burned, we should say that all Isurim must be burned!

Rejection: "V'Sorafta Es ha'Nosar ba'Esh" - Nosar is burned, other Isurim are not.

Question (Ravina): Perhaps the verse teaches about Tamei Kodshim itself, to Mechayev a second Lav, similar to Abaye's teaching!

(Abaye): If one ate a Putisa (a bug found in water), he receives four [sets of 39] lashes (there are two Lavim for Sheretz ha'Mayim, and two [general] Lavim for [all kinds of] Sheratzim);

If he ate an ant, he is lashed five times (the two general Lavim, and three for Sheretz ha'Aretz);

If he ate a wasp, he is lashed six times [for the above five and for Sheretz ha'Of].

Answer (Rav Ashi): Whenever we can expound to learn a new law we do so, rather than to say that the Torah forbids the same matter with multiple Lavim.

Question: What do we learn from "Veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel"?

Answer: This includes wood and frankincense [of Hekdesh, one is liable for eating them b'Tum'ah].

Question: What do we learn from the end of this verse, "Veha'Basar Kol Tahor Yochal Basar"?

Answer: This includes the Eimurim [the parts offered on the Mizbe'ach].

Question: A different verse includes them!

(Beraisa): "Veha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Besar mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim Asher la'Shem" - this includes the Eimurim.

Answer: That is Mechayev Kares for a Tamei person who ate Eimurim - our verse is a Lav for eating Tamei Eimurim.

Version #1 (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): One is not lashed for eating any Isur in an abnormal way.

Question: What does he come to exclude?

Answer (Rav Simi Bar Ashi): He exempts one who eats raw Chelev.

Version #2 (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): One is not lashed for benefit from any Isur in an abnormal way.

Question: What does he come to exclude?

Answer (Rav Simi Bar Ashi): He exempts one who put Chelev of Shor ha'Niskal on a wound; all the more so, one who eats raw Chelev is exempt. (Its normal benefit is to burn it or smear it on hide.)

Support (R. Avya citing R. Yochanan): If one put Chelev of Shor ha'Niskal on a wound he is exempt, for one is not lashed for benefit from any Isur in an abnormal way.

Support (R. Zeira - Mishnah): The only liquids of Orlah for which one is lashed [for drinking them] are wine and olive oil.

Inference: One is not lashed for juice of strawberries, dates and pomegranates.

Suggestion: This is because this is not the normal way to consume them!

Rejection (Abaye): If it would exempt consuming the fruits themselves abnormally, this would be a support;

But the Mishnah only exempts for [the juice, which is] a mere secretion!

(Abaye): All agree that one is lashed for benefit from Kil'ai ha'Kerem even in an abnormal way.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The Isur for Kil'ai ha'Kerem is not expressed regarding eating [rather, "Pen Tikdash" - this is expounded Pen Tukad Esh, lest it will [have to] be burned].

Question (Beraisa - Isi ben Yehudah) Question: What is the source forbidding Basar v'Chalav (meat cooked with milk)?

Answer: It says "Ki Am Kadosh Ata la'Shem Elokecha [...Lo Sevashel Gedi ba'Chalev Imo]" and "V'Anshei Kodesh Tihyun Li" - just like the latter verse discusses [Tereifah, an] Isur, also the former.

Question: This forbids eating - what is the source to forbid benefit?

Answer: We learn from a Kal va'Chomer - Orlah did not result from transgression, yet it is Asur b'Hana'ah - Basar v'Chalav results from a transgression, all the more so it is Asur b'Hana'ah!

Question: We cannot learn from Orlah, for it never was permitted - meat and milk were permitted [before they were cooked together]!

Answer: Chametz b'Pesach shows that Isur Hana'ah does not depend on this - it is Asur b'Hana'ah, even though it was once permitted!

Question: We cannot learn from Chametz, which is punishable by Kares, to Basar v'Chalav, which has no Kares!

Answer: Kil'ai ha'Kerem shows that Isur Hana'ah does not depend on this - it is Asur b'Hana'ah, even though it has no Kares!

Summation of question: According to Abaye, we cannot learn from Kil'ai ha'Kerem, for one is lashed for benefit from it even in an abnormal way!