1)

(a)The Torah in Mishpatim refers to ...

1. ... Bikurim as "Mele'ascha" - because the Mitzvah begins as soon as the fruit is ripe (see also Rabeinu Gershom).

2. ... Terumah as "Dim'acha" (which means a mixture) - because when it mixes with (less than a hundred of) Chulin it becomes Bateil.

(b)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina now learns from the Pasuk "Mele'ascha ve'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher" that - someone who reverses the order and separates Terumah before Bikurim receives Malkos.

(c)This La'av extends to - Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Sheini (since they are included in "Dim'acha").

(d)Consequently, the order in which the four current Matanos must be separated is - Bikurim, Terumah, Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Sheini.

(e)The Yerushalmi ascribes this order to the fact that - Bikurim has four names (Reishis, Me'eilah, Terumah and Bikurim), Terumah, three (Reishis, Dim'ah and Terumah), Ma'aser Rishon, two (Ma'aser and Terumas Ma'aser), and Ma'aser Sheini, only one.

2)

(a)Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina argue over - whether someone who separates Terumah before Bikurim receives Malkos or not.

(b)We assume that the one who holds Lokeh is Rebbi Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina - based on his statement currently under discussion.

3)

(a)We counter this however, with a statement of Rebbi Elazar in connection with a Mishnah in D'mai, that if someone who has two baskets of Tevel and declares ...

1. ... 'Ma'aser shel Zu be'Zu' - the first basket is rectified (even though he has not yet separated the various Ma'asros), and the same applies in a case where he says ...

2. ... 'Ma'aser shel Zu be'Zu, ve'shel Zu be'Zu'.

3. ... 'Ma'asroseihen Ma'aser Kalkalah ba'Chavertah' - then both baskets are rectified, but he receives Malkos.

(b)In the middle case, the second basket is not rectified - because when he adds 've'shel Zu be'Zu', the first basket has already been rectified, in which case it is Patur, and one cannot Ma'aser from P'tur on to Chiyuv.

(c)Rebbi Elazar comments on the first case (and on the middle one) that he receives Malkos - for designating Ma'aser Sheini from the second basket before having designated Ma'aser Rishon from the first one (see Tosfos DH 've'Itmar Alah').

(d)This proves that - Rebbi Elazar is the one who holds that reversing the order of the Ma'asros is subject to Malkos ...

(e)... and when Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina commented 'Af ha'Makdim Terumah le'Bikurim' to Rav Idi bar Avin's list of La'avin she'Ein bahen Ma'aseh, he was referring (not to his first statement 'Kol Lo'Sa'aseh she'ba'Torah Asah Ma'aseh, Lokeh, but) to his second statement 'Lo Asah Ma'aseh, Ein Lokeh'.

4)

(a)We learned earlier that Meimar receives Malkos because it causes the animal to become Kadosh, and is therefore considered an act. This creates a problem with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina - since, for the same reason, why Makdim Terumah le'Bikurim ought to be considered an act; so why does he preclude it from Malkos?

(b)Rebbi Avin answers that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina declares it Patur from Malkos - because it is Nitak la'Asei, as we will now see), and a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei is not subject to Malkos.

(c)Meimar too is Nitak la'Asei. The Asei by Terumah is the Pasuk in Korach "mi'Kol Matnosechem Tarimu", and that of Meimar to the Pasuk on Bechukosai - "Vehayah Hu u'Temuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh".

(d)When Rav Dimi repeated Rebbi Avin's answer to Abaye, the latter asked him why Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina does not then argue with Rav Idi bar Avin with regard to Meimar as well, since it too, is Nitak la'Asei (as we just explained). Rav Dimi replied that - Meimar constitutes two La'avin ("Lo Yachlifenu ve'Lo Yamir Oso"), and one Asei cannot be Menatek two La'avin.

5)

(a)Abaye then queries Rebbi Avin from Oneis (see Tosfos DH 've'Chol La'av'). The Beraisa rules that if a man divorces the woman he raped (in spite of the prohibition to do so), assuming he is ...

1. ... a Yisrael - he takes her back, thereby avoiding Malkos.

2. ... a Kohen - is forbidden to take her back, and he therefore receives Malkos.

(b)The Yisrael is obligated to take her back - because the Torah writes in ki Seitzei "ve'lo (with a 'Vav') Sih'yeh le'Ishah".

(c)According to Rebbi Avin, the Kohen is not permitted to take her back (despite the fact that it is a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei) - because, the extra Mitzvos that the Torah places on the Kohanim gives them an extra Kedushah, which they are not permitted to defile.

6)

(a)Whether La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei is subject to Malkos is actually a Machlokes Tana'im (in connection with the La'av of leaving over the Korban Pesach until the morning). Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk in Bo "ve'ha'Nosar Mimenu ad Boker ba'Eish Tisrofu" that - someone who leaves over part of the Korban Pesach until the morning is not subject to Malkos (because it is Nitak la'Asei).

(b)Rebbi Ya'akov maintains that - this is not the reason why he is Patur, but because it is a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh.

(c)Rebbi Ya'akov's D'rashah from the Pasuk conforms to the Mishnah in Pesachim. The Tana there learns that bones and sinews that are left over from the Pesach until the morning of the fifteenth, if the sixteenth falls ...

1. ... on a weekday - must be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan (since their burning does not override Yom-Tov).

2. ... on Shabbos - must be burned on the seventeenth (since it does not override Shabbos either).

(d)Chizkiyah (as well as Tana de'bei Chizkiyah) explains that this D'rashah is based - on the double mention of "ad Boker" ("Lo Sosiru Mimenu ad Boker, ve'ha'Nosar mimenu ad Boker ba'Eish Tisrofu", adding a day from the time that the meat becomes Nosar until one actually burns it.

7)

(a)Abaye maintains that whenever one contravenes a La'av in the Torah, whatever one did is effective (I Avid Mehani) - because otherwise, why would he receive Malkos.

(b)Rava counters Abaye's argument - by explaining that the Malkos is for having contravened the Torah's command (and not for the achievement).

(c)Rava explains that the Beraisa exempts a Yisrael from Malkos for divorcing the woman he raped - because "Kol Yamav" that follows "Lo Yuchal Leshalchah" implies that one does not transgress the La'av unless the divorce is permanent (see Also Tosfos DH 'Amar lach').

(d)According to Abaye, the Torah adds "Kol Yamav" to teach us that - he is obligated to take her back (which is why he is Patur from Malkos). Otherwise, having committed a sin, he would have the option of taking her back, but would not be obligated to do so, in which case, he would receive Malkos.