Sanhedrin 61A

אסורה, וריש לקיש אמר: מותרת.

Deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited, as it is considered an offering of idol worship, even if its blood was not ultimately sprinkled for idol worship or its forbidden fat burned for that purpose. And Reish Lakish says: Deriving benefit from the animal is permitted.

הניחא לרבי יוחנן, אלא לריש לקיש בעי קרא.

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan concludes his analysis: According to R' Yoḥanan, who derives this halakha from another source, this statement in the baraita works out well. The verse that mentions the slaughter of an animal in idol worship apparently teaches a principle, as it is superfluous with regard to the halakha of slaughter itself, as stated in the baraita. But according to Reish Lakish, who does not derive from any verse that one can have intention from one rite to another rite, one needs this verse to derive precisely this halakha, that one can have intention from one rite to another rite. Consequently, the verse is not superfluous, and it cannot be assumed that it teaches a principle with regard to the forms of idol worship that are punishable by death.

מתקיף לה רב פפא: ולרבי יוחנן לא בעי קרא? עד כאן לא קא אסר רבי יוחנן אלא בהמה, אבל גברא לא בר קטלא הוא! ואתא קרא לחיובי גברא לקטלא.

Rav Pappa objects to this: And according to R' Yoḥanan, does one not need a verse to teach the halakha in a case of intention from one rite to another rite? R' Yoḥanan initially only prohibits deriving benefit from the animal; but if not for this verse, the man who slaughtered the animal would not be liable to receive the death penalty. And therefore the verse comes to render the man liable to receive the death penalty. Therefore this verse is not superfluous according to R' Yoḥanan either.