Coming to the same conclusion using a different method TB Pesakhim 24

Concerning all the eating prohibitions, Hizkiya learns the prohibition of deriving benefit is included when the passive form of the verb to eat is used. Rabbi Abbahu teaches that any form of the verb to eat, passive or active, the prohibition of deriving benefit is included. Starting on yesterday’s daf and continuing for most of today’s daf TB Pesakhim 24, we learn that although Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani agrees with the conclusion that the prohibition of deriving benefit is included in the prohibition of eating, he needs to use a completely different explanation.[1] 

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani uses the exegetical method “if it is not of interest to…be of interest to” (וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן .., תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן ). A phrase in the Torah that cannot be interpreted as being directed to the content of the verse it is in, one may apply the halakha to something else (מקרא בתורה שאי אפשר לפרשו שהוא מכוין לתוכן המדובר בו, תפרשו שמכוין לדבר אחר.). This principle is among the thirty-two virtues that Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yossi HaGelili says that the Haggadah - and some argue the Torah is explained.[2]

“Rav Pappa said that one derives this halakha from here: “And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:19). As there is no need for the verse to state: “It shall not be eaten,” what does it mean when the verse states: “It shall not be eaten”? (If the flesh of the sacrifice becomes impure and needs to be burnt by fire, of course it can’t be eaten. “It shall not be eaten” has no logical purpose in this context.-gg)

“…The Gemara continues explaining Rav Pappa’s opinion: For what purpose then does the verse state: “It shall not be eaten” with regard to impure consecrated meat? If it does not apply to the subject matter of this verse itself, as that prohibition is derived from the second tithe[3], then apply it to the matter of all prohibited items in the Torah. And if it does not apply to the prohibition against eating, since that is clear, apply it to the prohibition of deriving benefit.” 

So far everybody except Rabbi Yosei HaGelili agrees that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from hametz on Passover.[4]

---

[1] To see why see the bottom third of TB Pesakhim 23b starting with the words “One of the Sages sat before Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani,”

[2] https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=iw&u=https://www.yeshiva.org.il/wiki/index.php/%25D7%259E%25D7%2599%25D7%25A7%25D7%25A8%25D7%2595%25D7%25A4%25D7%2593%25D7%2599%25D7%2594_%25D7%25AA%25D7%259C%25D7%259E%25D7%2595%25D7%2593%25D7%2599%25D7%25AA:...%25D7%2590%25D7%259D_%25D7%2590%25D7%2599%25D7%25A0%25D7%2595_%25D7%25A2%25D7%25A0%25D7%2599%25D7%259F_%25D7%259C..._%25D7%25AA%25D7%25A0%25D7%2594%25D7%2595_%25D7%25A2%25D7%25A0%25D7%2599%25D7%259F_%25D7%259C&prev=search&pto=aue

[3] If Ma’aser Sheni, a less extreme type of holiness,  has to be eaten in ritual readiness, how much more so sacrifices which are a much more stringent type of holiness have to be eaten in ritual readiness. See TB Pesakhim 24a

[4] TB Pesakhim 23a