When can we derive benefit and when can’t we? TB Pesakhim 22

The Mishna on yesterday’s daf TB Pesakhim 21a says that we are prohibited from deriving any benefit from the hametz at the onset of the sixth hour of the day. “For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may also feed it to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds; and one may sell it to a gentile; and it is permitted to derive benefit from it. After its time passes, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, and one may not even light an oven or a stove with leavened bread.” (Sefaria.org translation.)

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!  Hizkiya 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.

“Ḥizkiya said: From where is it derived in the mishna that it is prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread on Passover? As it is stated: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” (Exodus 13:3). Since the verse uses the passive, it should be understood as follows: There shall be no permitted consumption of it at all, even deriving benefit, as benefit could be exchanged for money, which could be used to buy food. The Gemara reads precisely: The reason deriving benefit is prohibited is that the Merciful One writes in the Torah: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten.” Had the Torah not written: “Shall not be eaten,” and instead used the active form: You shall not eat, I would have said that the prohibition of eating is implied but that the prohibition of deriving benefit is not implied.

“The Gemara comments: And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that wherever it is stated: “It shall not be eaten,” “You, singular, shall not eat,” or “You, plural, shall not eat,” both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit are implied, unless the verse specifies that one may benefit, in the manner that it specified with regard to an unslaughtered animal carcass. As it was taught in a baraita: “You shall not eat of any unslaughtered animal; you may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a sacred people to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:21)…” (TB Pesakhim 21b)

Today’s daf TB Pesakhim 22 tests both Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Abbahu’s interpretation in the following cases: 1, the sciatic nerve (גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה); 2. The prohibition of eating blood (דָּם); 3, a limb cut from a living animal (אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי); 4, an ox that is stoned because the gored another person to death (שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל); 5, e prohibition of fruit that grows on a tree during the first three years after it was planted (עׇרְלָה). In each one of these cases the prohibition of eating either uses the passive or the active form. May one derive benefit from each one of these examples?

Even though what looks like a great difference in interpretation, both sages eventually come to the same conclusion either using other verses or an interpretive principle to permit benefit or forbid it. Although one is forbidden to eat the sciatic nerve, blood, and a limb cut from a living animal, he may derive benefit from them like selling it to a non-Jew, fertilizing a garden, or feeding it to a dog. One is forbidden not only to eat but also derive any benefit from the stoned ox and the fruit of the first three years of the trees life.