Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if not for "Oso", we could not learn it from the Pasuk itself, since the Pasuk is needed to teach us that Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu does not withhold the reward of any creature.

Explanation #2: The Ri from Orleans however, we need it to permit a fetus that stuck out a foot, because at the beginning of Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin 68:) from the Pasuk of "Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah" we Darshen the Din of Kodshim that left their respective boundaries.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And we would have forbidden deriving benefit from the fetus' foot, since it is compared to Kodshim (See Maharsha) which are Asur be'Hana'ah, and we have learned that 'Whatever is Pasul by Kodesh, must be burned in fire' (See also Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz).

Conclusion: Consequently, we need "Oso" for all Isurim.

Explanation #1: Rashi establishes this with regard to the Isur Hana'ah (but the Isur Achilah is Asur d'Oraysa).

Refutation #1: This is not however, what the Gemara implies ...

Explanation #2: But rather that the entire prohibition is not d'Oraysa.

Refutation #2: Likewise conclusion of the Sugya, where it says that 'the difference between them is Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah' cannot be explained in any other way.

Refutation #3: And in Perek Mi she'Amar Hareini Nazir ... (in Nazir 29:) the Gemara queries the opinion that holds (with regard to a father declaring his son a Nazir 'in order to educate him in Mitzvos' - 'But is he not then bringing Chulin into the Azarah'?

Refutation #3 (cont.): And it answers that 'Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah' is not d'Oraysa.

Refutation #3 (concl.): And if the Isur of eating them is d'Oraysa, then the question remains how the Korban can be eaten (and it is implied there that it is eaten).

Question: The Rashba asks from the Toras Kohanim in Parshas Tzav (in connection with Nosar) - where Rebbi Yehudah Darshens "Lo Yochal ki Kodesh Hu" 'We would have thought that a Chatas ha'Of that is brought on a Safek, an Asham Taluy and Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah must be burned; Therefore the Torah writes "Hu".

Question (cont.): Now, since we need to preclude them from having to be burned, it implies that they are Asur be'Hana'ah min ha'Torah?

Inference: This implies that the case of 'Someone who sends a thigh to a Nochri' goes according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Question: The Riva asks that Rebbi Yehudah himself holds in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (20. & 20:) that 'One may not give a Nochri a free gift'?

Answer: It says there that if he is a neighbor, it is permitted, since it is akin to selling it to him.

Question: The Ri from Orleans asks how it can possibly go like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Chulin 100.) that Gid ha'Nasheh is forbidden to B'nei No'ach, in which case, one would transgress the La'av of "Lifnei Iver Lo Sitein Michshol"?

Answer #1: The Ri explains however that this is not a problem, since Rebbi Yehudah confines the Isur to the B'nei Ya'akov ... who, before Matan Torah, were called 'B'nei No'ach.

Answer #2: Moreover, the Mitzvah of Gid ha'Nasheh was not repeated at Har Sinai (in which case it was not said to the B'nei No'ach).

Question: One can query Chizkiyah from Rebbi Shimon, who holds that "Lo Sochlu" incorporates Isur Hana'ah, seeing as he declares Gid ha'Nasheh Asur?

Answer #1: Since he holds 'Ein be'Gidin be'Nosein Ta'am it makes sense to say when the Torah forbids it when the Torah forbids it, it forbids it even regarding deriving Hana'ah from it, seeing as it is not eaten.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Chizkiyah does not hold like Rebbi Shimon, only like Rebbi Yehudah. Just as it would seem, he does not hold like Rebbi Meir - according to whom it is obvious (earlier in the Sugya) that since the Torah finds it necessary to permit Neveilah, all Isurim are Asur be'Hana'ah.

Answer #2 (cont.): Likewise later (Daf 23:) in connection with the case 'Where that member of the Rabbanan' ... where the Gemara takes for granted that Rebbi Meir learns (the Isur Hana'ah) from Neveilah.

Conclusion: And when the Gemara suggests later that it is a Machlokes Tana'im, that goes according to Rebbi Avahu, because, Chizkiyah, cannot hold like all the Tana'im.

Inference: This implies that blood is not included in 'Beheimah', since the Gemara does not answer that 'When Neveilah was permitted, so was its blood.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks from the Gemara in 'ha'Motzi Yayin' (Shabbos 77. & 77:) that 'Beis Hillel declares the blood of a Neveilah Tamei'.

Question (cont.): And Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns there that 'Beis Hillel only declare it Tamei if there is a Revi'is of blood, since it is then fit to congeal and become a k'Zayis'. Implying that it is considered Basar?

Answer: The Ri answers that this is not because it is considered Basar, but rather because there is a Pasuk from which we Darshen that the blood of a Neveilah is Tamei, and from a S'vara that the Shi'ur is a Revi'is (as the Gemara states there).

Answer (cont.): But where there is no specific Pasuk that includes it, we do not consider blood like Basar.

Conclusion: And in Me'ilah (Daf 17.) too, we learn the blood of a Sheretz from "ve'Zeh lachem ha'Tamei", and not from a Sheretz itself.

Clarification: mi'de'Rabbanan, but not mi'd'Oraysa.

Proof: Since at the end of 'Hotzi'u lo' (Yoma 59: & 60.) the Gemara says that 'There is nothing whose Mitzvah is completed that is still subject to Me'ilah'.

Explanation: The Ri therefore refers to the Gemara in Perek V'lad Chatas (Me'ilah Daf 11.) where the Beraisa states that according to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon, the blood (of Korbanos after it has been poured on to the Y'sod) is subject to Me'ilah; whereas according to the Chachamim it is not ...

Explanation (Cont.): And the Machlokes applies to after the blood has flowed to the valley of Kidron (since before it has been sprinkled, Rebbi Shimon specifically learns that it is not subject to Me'ilah).

Clarification of Text: The text there read 'What is the reason of those who hold 'Ein Mo'alin?'

Clarification of Text (cont.): However, we need to erase the words 'of those who hold', since that would imply that, according to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon, it is subject to Me'ilah min ha'Torah!

Correct Version: The correct version is therefore 'Why is there no Me'ilah?', and it is with reference to the Mishnah, which states that 'Blood initially is not subject to Me'ilah' (See Maharsha)..

Implied Question: Even though the blood of Kodshim; which is not poured on the ground like water, is not compared to water.

Answer: Nevertheless, seeing as the Pasuk implies that the blood of Chulin is Mutar be'Hana'ah, and "Lo Sochal" that is written by it therefore refers to eating and not to Hana'ah, the same ought to apply to the blood of Kodshim.

Implied Question: And even though there are two independent La'avin, one for the blood of Chulin and one for the blood of Kodshim ...

Answer: Nevertheless, it is merely a revelation (Giluy Milsa), that all the La'avin concerning blood are confined to eating exclusively.

Refuted Explanation: The Gemara is not coming to ask that we should learn that blood is Asur be'Hana'ah.

Reason: Because that we already know from "Lo Sochal".

Correct Explanation: What it is coming to ask is that we cannot learn fropm here that it should be Mutar be'Hana'ah.

Question: Seeing as it is speaking about the Eiver min ha'Chai of a Nochri ...

Proof: As the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 6: and 7.), since the Tana says 'Lo Yoshit' and not 'Lo Yiten' (See Maharsha) ...

Question (cont.): How can the Gemara then extrapolate that it would be permitted to benefit from it if not for "Lifnei Iver"?

Answer: Seeing as it is forbidden to hand it to him for remuneration, since it is forbidden to benefit from Isurei Hana'ah, even though Bedi'eved, the remuneration is permitted, as is implied in the last Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 60.), nevertheless, it is forbidden Lechatchilah ...

Answer (cont.): It is forbidden free of charge too, because the fact that the Nochri owes him a debt of gratitude is considered Hana'ah.

Gemara Bava Metzi'a: And what we say at the end of Perek Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Metzi'a 32:) that 'If the animal is carrying Yayin Nesech, one is forbidden to help (unload it)'.

Gemara Bava Metzi'a (cont.): And if Tz'a'ar Ba'alei Chayim is d'Oraysa asks the Gemara, why one is forbidden to help?

Implied Question (cont.): Even though it is considered benefiting from Isurei Hana'ah, which is forbidden even free of charge (as we just explained).

Answer #1: Nevertheless, since one does have the intention to do him a favor, and moreover, Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is involved, it is included in the Din of 'Lo Efshar ve'Lo Michaven' (where neither does one have an option, nor does one actually intend to sin), which is Mutar.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the words 'One is forbidden to help (unload it)'implies even not in the presence of the Nochri, in which case he will not owe him a debt of gratitude..

Question: Then let the Torah omit both "Oro" and "Besaro"?

Answer: It needs to write "Besaro" to teach us that it is forbidden even though 'he made like Basar'.

Answer (cont.): And as for the opinion that does not agree with that D'rashah in Perek Shor she'Nagach ... (in Bava Kama 41.), he learns another D'rashah from it (as we have learned in Avodah-Zarah, Daf 34:).

Question: Having learned that it is Asur be'Hana'ah, why do we need to specifically forbid dyeing with it and lighting a fire with it?

Answer: We would otherwise have thought, the Ri explains, that dyeing is not considered a Hana'ah, since it is merely an appearance ...

Proof: As the Gemara states in in 'ha'Gozel' (Ibid 101. & 101:) regarding this very same issue.

Answer (cont.): And lighting a fire with it too, we would have thought is permitted, since one benefits even as one destroys it.

Implied Question: And according to those who hold that 'the benefit of the wood does not enter the bread', the Torah forbids it here ...

Answer: On account of the oil, which is in evidence as it burns in the lamp, unlike wood which first becomes coals, and the flame comes from the coals.

Question: Why does one need a Pasuk to permit burning Tamei T'rumah (as we Darshen "L'cha" - it belongs to you to burn underneath your pot!' Whilst here we need a Pasuk to forbid it?

Answer: Because we would otherwise have learned from Ma'aser (Sheini) which is lenient, yet the Torah forbids burning it, as the Pasuk writes "I did not burn from it ... ", as the Gemara explains in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos Daf 25. & 25:) - and if already Ma'aser which is more lenient ... '.

Question: The Ri asks why the Torah needs to insert three times "Areilim"? It could have written it two times, one for dyeing and the other, for burning, in which case "Lachem" must come to incorporate a tree that is planted for public use in the Din of Orlah.

Question (cont.): Because if it is coming to permit lighting a fire with it, let the Torah omit "lachem" together with one of the "Areilim", and we will forbid Hana'ah from "Lo Ye'achel" and dyeing from one of the "Areilim", leaving us without a Pasuk to forbid lighting a fire?

Refuted Answer: We cannot answer that "Lo Ye'achel" implies both dyeing and lighting a fire, and had it written Lo Yochal" and one "Areilim", we would have forbidden all Hana'ah from "Lo Ye'achel" and "Areilim"for some other D'rashah ...

Refuted Answer (cont.): And the reason that we need Pesukim to forbid dyeing and lighting a fire is because the Torah writes "Lachem" which implies that all Hana'ah is forbidden ...

Refuted Answer (cont.): And therefore, had the Torah written two "Areilim" as well as 'Lachem", we would have permitted lighting a fire.

Refutation: It is impossible to say this, because from "Lo Ye'achel" we would not have learned that dyeing is forbidden, since it is no more than an appearance, as the Gemara states in 'ha'Gozel' (Bava Kama, Daf 101.).