אותו אתה משליך לכלב ואי אתה משליך לכלב כל איסורין שבתורה ורבי מאיר אותו אתה משליך לכלב ואי אתה משליך לכלב חולין שנשחטו בעזרה
The Gemara concludes: It, i.e., a tereifa, you may throw to a dog, but you may not throw all other items prohibited by Torah law to a dog, as both eating and deriving benefit are prohibited. The Gemara asks: And what halakha does Rabbi Meir learn from this verse? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir draws the following inference: It, you may throw to a dog, but you may not throw the meat of a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard to a dog, as it is prohibited to benefit from it.
ואידך חולין שנשחטו בעזרה לאו דאורייתא היא
And from where does the other Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, learn this halakha about non-sacrificial meat that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: He holds that the prohibition of deriving benefit from the meat of a non-sacrificial animal that was slaughtered in the courtyard is not by Torah law; rather, the Sages decreed that it is prohibited. Since it is not prohibited by Torah law, no verse is necessary.
מתיב רבי יצחק נפחא והרי גיד הנשה דרחמנא אמר על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה ותנן שולח אדם ירך לגוי וגיד הנשה בתוכו מפני שמקומו ניכר
Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa raised an objection: And yet there is still the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, as the Merciful One says: “Therefore the children of Israel may not eat the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33), and we learned in a mishna: A person may send the thigh of an animal to a gentile as a gift with the sciatic nerve inside it, he is not required to remove it. This is due to the fact that its place is clear, and it is obvious that this nerve has not been removed. Therefore, there is no concern that another Jew will assume that the first Jew removed this portion of the animal, which might cause him to accidentally eat the sciatic nerve. Apparently, one may benefit from this prohibited portion of the animal even though the verse says that one may not eat it.
קסבר רבי אבהו כשהותרה נבילה היא וחלבה וגידה הותרה הניחא למאן דאמר יש בגידין בנותן טעם אלא למאן דאמר אין בגידין בנותן טעם מאי איכא למימר
The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Abbahu holds that when it was permitted by the Torah to derive benefit from an animal carcass, it, its fats, and its sinews, such as the sciatic nerve, were all permitted. Therefore, the sciatic nerve is included in this exception and one may benefit from it. The Gemara challenges: It works out well according to the one who said that sinews give flavor, meaning that they have the taste of meat and therefore have the legal status of meat of an animal carcass. However, according to the one who says that sinews do not give flavor and are not categorized as meat, what can be said? If they are not considered to be meat, why are they included in the exception made for an animal carcass?
מאן שמעת ליה דאמר אין בגידין בנותן טעם רבי שמעון דתניא האוכל מגיד הנשה של בהמה טמאה רבי יהודה מחייב שתים ורבי שמעון פוטר
The Gemara answers: Whom did you hear that said that sinews do not give flavor? It is Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve from a non-kosher domesticated animal, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to receive two sets of lashes: One for eating the sciatic nerve and one for eating the meat of a non-kosher animal. And Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely, since according to his opinion the prohibition to eat the sciatic nerve applies only to a kosher animal. In addition, one violates the prohibition of eating from a non-kosher animal only when it has the flavor of meat.
רבי שמעון הכי נמי דאסר בהנאה דתניא גיד הנשה מותר בהנאה דברי רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון אוסר
And it indeed follows logically that just as Rabbi Shimon exempts one who eats the sciatic nerve in that particular case, so too here, Rabbi Shimon prohibits deriving benefit from the sciatic nerve. As it was taught in a baraita: It is permitted to derive benefit from the sciatic nerve; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon prohibits it. Since Rabbi Shimon holds that the sciatic nerve does not give flavor, it cannot be included in the exception of the animal carcass. Therefore, from the verse that prohibits eating the sciatic nerve he learns that one may not benefit from it either, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu. Rabbi Abbahu’s position fits according to both opinions. However, the mishna that indicates that it is permitted to derive benefit from the sciatic nerve is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as he holds that the sciatic nerve gives flavor and is therefore included in the exception of the animal carcass.
והרי דם דרחמנא אמר כל נפש מכם לא תאכל דם ותנן אלו ואלו מתערבין באמה ויוצאין לנחל קדרון ונמכרין לגננין לזבל ומועלין בו
The Gemara further challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion: And yet there is the prohibition of eating blood, as the Merciful One says: “Therefore I said to the children of Israel: No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any convert that dwells among you eat blood” (Leviticus 17:12). According to Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion, one may derive from this verse that in addition to the prohibition against eating blood, it is prohibited to benefit from it as well. And we learned in a mishna: Both these and these, the remnants of the blood from sin-offerings brought on the altar and other blood sprinkled on it, descend and mix in the canal from which water leaves the Temple. They then exit to the Kidron Valley and are sold at a special price to gardeners as a fertilizer. And one who does not first purchase the blood from the Temple misuses consecrated property. Apparently, under certain circumstances, one may benefit from blood which it is prohibited to consume.
שאני דם דאיתקש למים דכתיב לא תאכלנו על הארץ תשפכנו כמים מה מים מותרין אף דם מותר
The Gemara answers: Blood is different, as it is juxtaposed in the Torah to water. As it is written with regard to blood: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:24). From here it is derived: Just as it is permitted to benefit from water, so too, it is permitted to benefit from blood.
ואימא כמים המתנסכים על גבי המזבח אמר רבי אבהו כמים רוב מים מידי רוב מים כתיב אלא אמר רב אשי כמים הנשפכין ולא כמים הניסכין
The Gemara asks: And say instead that blood is meant to be like water offered as a libation on the altar, which is consecrated and from which one is prohibited to benefit. Rabbi Abbahu said: The comparison to permitted water can be deduced from that which the verse says: “Like water [kamayim],” meaning, like most water; and one is permitted to benefit from most types of water. The Gemara asks: And is it written: Most water? The Torah wrote: “Like water,” which could indicate a comparison to any type of water. Rather, Rav Ashi said that the verse should be understood as follows: Like water that is poured out, from which one may benefit, and not like water that is offered as a libation. Water offered on the altar is described using the term libation, and not using the term poured as found in the verse.
ואימא כמים הנשפכין לפני עבודה זרה התם נמי ניסוך איקרי דכתיב ישתו יין נסיכם
The Gemara asks: And say that blood is meant to be like water poured before idolatry, from which one may not benefit. The Gemara rejects this: There, that is also called a libation and not pouring, as it is written: “Who did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drink the wine of their libations” (Deuteronomy 32:38).