If one ate a hornet, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. Since a hornet creeps along the ground, all of the previously mentioned prohibitions with regard to an ant apply to it as well. An additional prohibition is stated in the following verse: ''And all flying insects are impure to you; they shall not be eaten'' (Deuteronomy 14:19). Based on this precedent, it is possible to say that the addition of the phrase ''It shall not be eaten'' with regard to impure meat indicates merely an additional negative mitzva for which one would be punished; however, it does not necessarily indicate a prohibition to derive benefit. Rav Ashi said to him: Anywhere that it is possible to expound a new halakha, we expound, and we do not establish the verse as containing additional negative mitzvot with regard to that same prohibition.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the beginning of the verse: ''And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten'' (Leviticus 7:19)? The Gemara explains: This comes to include wood and incense; although they are not eaten, they are susceptible to ritual impurity of foods. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the end of this verse: ''And as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat of it'' (Leviticus 7:19)? The Gemara answers: This comes to include the sacrificial parts of the animal offered on the altar, such as the fats; they, too, have the legal status of meat and are susceptible to ritual impurity of foods. If these portions become ritually impure and one eats them, even if he is pure, he is liable to be flogged.

The Gemara challenges: The halakha that these sacrificial parts can become impure and are then prohibited to be eaten is derived from there, i.e., from another source, as it was taught in a baraita: ''But the soul that eats from the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which belong to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people'' (Leviticus 7:20). The added words ''which belong to the Lord'' come to include these sacrificial parts, which are meant to be offered to God and not eaten by other people, within this prohibition against eating sacrificial meat when it is impure.

The Gemara rejects this: There, it is referring to a case of impurity of the body; if one who is ritually impure eats sacrificial parts he is punishable with karet. Here, it is referring to a case of impurity of the flesh, where the meat is impure but the person eating it is pure; one who does so is merely in violation of a negative mitzva.

After discussing the prohibitions against eating and deriving benefit from certain items, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to all prohibitions against eating in the Torah, one may be flogged for violating them only if he eats the prohibited item in its usual manner of consumption. The Gemara asks: To exclude what case did Rabbi Yoḥanan say this? Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude a case where one eats raw fat; he teaches that one who does so is exempt, since this is not the usual manner of eating it.

Some say that this is what Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to all prohibitions against deriving benefit in the Torah, one is flogged for violating them only if he derives benefit from the prohibited item in the usual manner. The Gemara asks: To exclude what case did Rabbi Yoḥanan say this? Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude a case where one placed the fat of an ox that is stoned on his wound to help it heal. He teaches that, although one generally may not derive benefit from forbidden fats, in this case he is exempt because these fats are not normally used for medicinal purposes. And all the more so one who eats raw fat is exempt, as this is certainly not an ordinary way to benefit from fat.

It was also stated that Rav Aḥa bar Avya said that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one placed the fat of an ox that is stoned on his wound for medicinal purposes, he is exempt, because with regard to all prohibitions against deriving benefit in the Torah, one is flogged for violating them only if he derives benefit from the prohibited item in its usual manner.

Rabbi Zeira said: We, too, have also learned in a mishna that the Rabbis said: One absorbs the forty lashes due to drinking the juice squeezed from orla fruits only for that which seeps from olives, oil, and from grapes, wine. In contrast, for drinking the juice that seeps from mulberries, figs, and pomegranates one is not flogged, despite the fact that it is prohibited to consume those juices. What is the reason for this? Is it not because he is not eating them in their usual manner of deriving benefit? Generally, these fruits are eaten and not squeezed for their juice.

Abaye said to him that this mishna does not necessarily prove this same point: Granted, had the mishna taught us the case of the fruit itself, as he is not eating it in its usual manner of deriving benefit, it would work out well. However, here, where the case is with regard to their juice, the reason he is not flogged is because it is merely moisture that drips from the fruit, which is not considered to be an essential part of the fruit.

Abaye said: All concede with regard to prohibited mixtures of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard that one is flogged for deriving benefit from them even if he does not benefit from them in their usual manner. What is the reason for this? It is because no prohibition against eating is written about them explicitly in the Torah. Therefore, the verse is interpreted to mean that it is prohibited to benefit from them in any manner; rather, one must burn them immediately.

The Gemara raises an objection. Isi ben Yehuda says: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to eat meat that has been cooked in milk? It is stated here: ''For you are a sacred people unto the Lord your God. You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk'' (Deuteronomy 14:21). And it is stated there: ''And you shall be sacred men unto Me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field [tereifa]; you shall cast it to the dogs'' (Exodus 22:30). Just as there, with regard to a tereifa, it is prohibited to eat it, so too here, with regard to meat in milk, it is prohibited to eat it.

From the above comparison I have derived only that it is prohibited to eat it, as it is prohibited to eat a tereifa; from where do I derive that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it as well? You may state an a fortiori inference: If with regard to orla, through which no sin has been committed, as it is part of the ordinary growth process of the tree to produce fruit during the first three years, yet still it is prohibited to deriving benefit from it; then with regard to meat in milk, through which a sin has been committed, as the two were illicitly cooked together, is it not right that it should be prohibited to derive benefit from it?