The practical difference is not relevant today TB Pesakhim 23

Today’s daf TB Pesakhim 23 continues to test Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Abbahu’s interpretation when deriving benefit is included in the prohibition of eating. To review what we learn yesterday concerning the sages positions: There are many verses prohibiting the eating of hametz on Passover. But how do we know that we are not permitted to drive any benefit from the hametz because there’s no explicit verse teaching us this!  Ḥizkiya says is all depends upon the verb. When the Torah only writes about eating in the passive tense, both eating and deriving benefit are forbidden. When the Torah uses the active form of the verb only eating is forbidden.  Rabbi Abbahu disagrees and says when active verb of eating is used both eating and deriving benefit is forbidden.

The Gemara examines the cases of 1) the nazirite (נָזִיר); 2), new grain, which was harvested before the bringing of the omer offering (חָדָשׁ); 3) the prohibition against eating creeping animals (שְׁרָצִים); and fat (חֵלֶב).

Even though the two sages interpret differently the passive and active voices of the verb to eat, there is no difference in the practical halakha for the Gemara always finds mitigating circumstances for each view. So what’s the difference? That’s the question that the Gemara now asks.

“After discussing numerous cases that involve prohibitions of eating and deriving benefit, the Gemara asks: Since we raised objections from all of these verses and answered them, and in every case it is apparent that despite the fact that the verse said: “You shall not eat” there was no dispute as to whether or not one may derive benefit from these items, then with regard to what issue do Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Abbahu disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to leavened bread on Passover, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who prohibit one to derive benefit from it; and they disagree with regard to an ox that is stoned, in accordance with everyone. The Gemara explains: Ḥizkiya derived that it is prohibited to derive benefit in this case from the words: “It shall not be eaten,” and Rabbi Abbahu derived that it is prohibited from the fact that the Torah explicitly had to permit one to derive benefit in the case of an animal carcass.

“However, Rabbi Abbahu holds that according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintained that the prohibition against eating an animal carcass cannot be used to derive the prohibition against deriving benefit: “It shall be thrown to the dog” comes to exclude these two cases, leavened bread and an ox that is stoned, where deriving benefit is prohibited. And the prohibition to derive benefit from non-sacrificial animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is not by Torah law, as there is no source from which to derive this prohibition. Therefore, the only practical difference between them is whether the prohibition of deriving benefit from non-sacrificial animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is by Torah law or by rabbinic law.”

 The answer: not so much especially in our time when the Temple doesn’t exist and we neither offer up sacrifices or slaughter non-sacramental animals in the Temple courtyard. Nevertheless, the good news is that we got to review 11 different halakhot that all deal with eating.