(Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan): If an Aseh precedes (can be fulfilled even before transgressing) a Lav, we do not consider this a Lav she'Nitak l'Aseh. One is lashed for the Lav.

Rabanan (Rashi - to R. Yochanan; Ritva - to Rabah bar bar Chanah): Did you really say this?

R. Yochanan (or Rabah bar bar Chanah): No.

Rabah: He did say it, and it is supported by a Pasuk and by our Mishnah!

"Vi'Shalchu Min ha'Machaneh (is an Aseh for Teme'im to leave the Mikdash). "V'Lo Yetam'u Es Machaneihem (is a Lav forbidding Teme'im in the Mikdash)";

(Mishnah): One who enters the Mikdash when Tamei (is lashed).

Question: Why did he retract?

Answer: It is because a Me'anes (rapist) is not lashed (for divorcing her).

(Beraisa): If a Yisrael raped a woman and divorced her, he remarries her, and he is not lashed;

If a Kohen did so, he cannot remarry her, so he is lashed.

A Yisrael is not lashed, even though the Aseh precedes the Lav!

(Ula): The Torah did not have to say "v'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" regarding a rapist. We could have learned from Motzi Shem Ra:

Motzi Shem Ra did not do an action, yet he must marry her (if she wants). All the more so, one who raped her must marry her!

Since we do not need "v'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" to teach that he must marry her, we use it to teach that if he divorces her, he must remarry her.

Objection: We cannot learn a rapist from Motzi Shem Ra. The latter is more stringent, for he is lashed and pays!

Correction: Rather, the Torah did not have to say "v'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" regarding Motzi Shem Ra. We could have learned from a rapist;

A rapist is not lashed, yet he must marry her. All the more so, Motzi Shem Ra must marry her, for he is lashed and pays!

Since we do not need "v'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" to teach that he must marry her, we use it to teach that if he divorces her, he must remarry her.

Objection: We cannot learn Motzi Shem Ra from a rapist. The latter is more stringent, for he did an action!

Correction: Rather, the Torah did not have to say "v'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" regarding Motzi Shem Ra, for he is already married to her;

We do not need it to teach that a Motzi Shem Ra must marry her, so we use it to teach that if a rapist divorces her, he must remarry her.

Question: We should use it to teach that if Motzi Shem Ra divorces her he is not lashed (rather, he remarries her)!

Answer: Indeed, that is true. We learn a rapist from Motzi Shem Ra.

Objection: How do we learn?

We cannot learn from a Kal va'Chomer or Mah Matzinu (precedent). Motzi Shem Ra did not do an action (therefore, he is not lashed)!

(Rava, and Ravin citing R. Yochanan): Rather, "Lo Yuchal Leshalchah Kol Yamav" - he is forever commanded to remarry her (if he will divorce her. This Aseh is after he transgresses, therefore he is not lashed. Ritva - this was R. Yochanan's reason all along. Rashi would say that after he retracted, he found a defense of his original teaching.)

Question (Rav Papa): (R. Yochanan says that one is lashed for a Lav preceded by an Aseh.) This is unlike the Lav of muzzling (the paradigm Lav for which one is lashed)!

Answer (Rava): It is no worse just because an Aseh precedes the Lav!

Question (Rav Papa): If so, we should say the same about a Lav she'Nitak l'Aseh!

Answer (Rava): There, the Aseh comes to avert the lashes!

Question: We understand according to the opinion (that lashes depend on) Bitlo v'Lo Bitlo (whether or not he made it impossible to fulfill the Aseh). As long as he can remarry her, he is not lashed;

However, according to the opinion (that lashes depend on) Kiymo v'Lo Kiymo (whether or not he fulfilled the Aseh), if he does not remarry her immediately, he is lashed!

Answer: We are answering for R. Yochanan. He holds Bitlo v'Lo Bitlo (like the following dialogue shows).

(A reciter of Beraisos): If a Lav has (is Nitak to) an Aseh, if (one transgressed and) fulfilled the Aseh; he is not lashed. If he was Mevatel the Aseh, he is lashed.

R. Yochanan: That is inconsistent!

If you say 'if he fulfilled the Aseh, he is not lashed', you must say 'if he did not fulfill it, he is lashed';

If you say 'if he was Mevatel the Aseh, he is lashed', you must say 'if he did not Mevatel it, he is not lashed'!

The correct text is 'if he was Mevatel the Aseh, he is lashed. If not, he is not lashed.'

(Reish Lakish): It depends on Kiymo v'Lo Kiymo.

Question: What is the source of their argument?

Answer: They argue about whether or not Safek warning is considered warning, (at the time he transgresses the Lav, we can give only Safek warning because we do not know whether or not he will Mevatel the Aseh.);

R. Yochanan says that it is good warning and he is lashed. He holds Bitlo v'Lo Bitlo, so the Lav is not 'complete' until he is Mevatel the Aseh;

At the time he transgresses the Lav, we can give only Safek warning (we do not know whether or not he will Mevatel the Aseh. Nevertheless, he is lashed);

Reish Lakish says that it is not proper warning. He holds Kiymo v'Lo Kiymo, so one is lashed for the Lav itself (just he can exempt himself from lashes if he will fulfill the Aseh). He receives definite warning.