(R' Abahu quoting R' Yochanan): One who makes a bandage from [the fat of] an ox that was stoned [by Beis Din] or from Chametz [that was owned by a Jew on Pesach], he does not receive lashes, since its negative command [against deriving benefit] is not explicit (as the verse only says "you shall not eat''). However, if he made a bandage from K'lai Ha'Kerem (fruits grown in a vineyard in which crossbreeds were planted), he receives lashes.

Reason (R' Chanina): (Devarim 22,9) "pen tikdash''-''...lest it become forbidden'' - Chazal expound "pen tukad eish'' - lest it require burning. (The verse did not express the prohibition in relation to eating.)

Question: Would one receive lashes for making a bandage from orlah (fruits of a tree in its first 3 years of growth)? The positive commandment about orlah does not mention eating (implying that even deriving benefit is prohibited), but the negative commandment uses the term "lo yochal'' - don't eat, implying only eating is prohibited. Should the prohibition against deriving benefit therefore be applied to the negative commandment aswell?

Question - Beraisa (Against R' Yochanan in (a)): From the phrase (Shemos 21,28) "you shall surely stone the ox'', do we not know that its flesh may not be eaten (since it was not slaughtered)?! Why then did the verse continue to say "you shall not eat its flesh''? The verse comes to teach that just as it is prohibited to eat, it is prohibited to derive benefit.

Answer: It is needed in a case when the owner slaughtered it before the Beis Din had decided to stone it.

Question (Against R' Abahu): Earlier (1(a)(corresponding to Bavli 22)) you said that "lo yochal'' includes a prohibition to derive benefit and here (1(a)) you said that it implies only a prohibition to eat it?

Answer: Here it was said in the name of R' Yochanan and there it was said in the name of R' Elazar.

(Rabanan of Kisarin quoting R' Abahu quoting R' Yochanan): The verse is expounded as follows:

Whenever a verse states "lo sochal'' or "lo sochlu'', it is not prohibited to derive benefit even though it is prohibited to eat.

However, if the verse states "lo se'achel'' or "lo ye'achel'', this implies that it is also prohibited to derive benefit (as the words imply that one should not be permitted to do anything that will bring a person to eat - and normally, benefitting brings about eating, as one buys food with the money).

The Binyan Av (source case) for this is (Vayikra 6,23) "And any Chatas (sin-offering) that some of its blood is brought to the altar to atone in sanctity, you shall not eat it ("lo se'achel''), it shall be burned in fire''.(If the verse said it must be burned, it should not need to say that one may not eat it. Therefore, the verse must be teaching that whenever a verse says "lo se'achel'', it is including a prohibition against deriving benefit.)