This tells me only of eating. Whence do I derive that it is even forbidden to derive benefit from it?—Do you ask? If follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from eglah arufah, (viz. Devarim 21:1-9) which atones for the spilling of blood, how much more so is it forbidden to derive benefit from a stoned ox, which is itself a spiller of blood!—But reverse it, viz.: If it were permitted to derive benefit from a stoned ox, which is a spiller of blood, how much more so would it be permitted to derive benefit from an eglah arufah, which atones for the spiller of blood! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 21:4) "and they shall break there the neck of the heifer in the river-bed" (from which it is derived [hermeneutically] that benefit may not be derived from it.)