Clarification: The Gemara currently thinks that the reason that does not receive Malkos is, not because it is Nitak la'Asei, but because the Gerushin is not effective

Reason: Since he is obligated to take her back ...

Clarification (cont.): And if you would say 'Someone who transgresses a Torah command receives Malkos, he too, should receive Malkos - posing a Kashya on Rava?

Clarification (concl.): According to Abaye, this is not a problem - because, it is because his actions did not take effect that he does not receive Malkos ...

Question #1: Since the Gerushin is not effective, why is whoever has relations with her not Chayav Malkos, even prior to taking he back?

Question #2: Moreover, why does the Kohen receive Malkos and may not take her back - why do we not rather say that the Get does not take effect at all?

Answer: Because Gerushin is compared to Misah ...

Source: As the Gemara says in the first Perek of Kidushin 'Misah is compared to Gerushin' - by the same token Gerushin is compared to Misah - and just as Misah takes her out of her husband's domain, so too does Gerushin ...

Answer (cont.): It is not however, effective regarding sending her away permenently, seeing as he is obligated to take her back.

Answer (cont.): And at this stage, it did not yet occur to the Gemara that "Kol Yamav" is Nituk la'Asei ...

Reason: Because it is a La'av which is preceded by the Asei...

Answer (concl.): Hence the Gemara asks on Rava 'Since it is not effective, let him receive Malkos?'

Clarification: And it is really 'Nitak la'Asei' - and not a 'La'av she'Kodmo Asei', which explains why we need "Kol Yamav" to teach us that this Shilu'ach cannot be permanent ...

Clarification (cont.): And what the Pasuk means is "He cannot send her away", and if he does, it may not be "permanently", seeing as he is obligated to take her back.

Implied Question: Because even though one can establish "Kol Yamav" without the 'Shilu'ach' ...

Answer: Seeing as the Torah did not write 'Lo Tih'yeh le'Ishah Kol Yamav', but rather inserted "Kol Yamav" after "Lo Yuchal Leshalchah", the Torah writes it to be Menatek the La'av ...

Source: Since the general rule is that wherever there is proof in the Pasuk that the Asei refers to after the La'av, it is not 'a La'av she'Kodmo Asei'.

Implied Question: But from "Lo Tih'yeh le'Ishah" without "Kol Yamav" we would not have been able to extrapolate that is a 'Nituk' ...

Answer: Since "Lo Tih'yeh le'Ishah" is speaking without Shilu'ach.

Question: Why can we not say that the Nesi'us Chet is due to the fact that he transgressed a Torah command?

Answer: Rabeinu Shimshon mi'Shantz answers that what the Gemara means is that 'If it is not Kadosh, why does the Torah write 'Nesi'us Chet'? (See Tosfos, Bava Metzi'a, 56a DH 'Nesi'as') ...

Answer (cont.): Seeing as without it we know that he sinned - since the Torah wrote "mi'Kol Chelbo", implying the best, yes, anything worse, no?

Answer (cont.): We must therefore say that the Torah inserts it to teach us that if he took T'rumah he is guilty of a greater sin than others who transgress a Torah command - since his act is effective.

Question: And from this one can answer why the Gemara does not ask from 'she'Lo min ha'Mukaf' (what is not close), in that the Torah says one should separate from what is Mukaf, yet if one did not, it is nevertheless effective ...

Question: As is evident from the Gemara's statement in Bava Metzi'a (38a) 'Perhaps he made it T'rumah and Ma'aser on another place'.

Answer: Just as "Lo Sisa alav Chet" refers to "Chelbo", so too does it refer to "Mimenu" - min ha'Mukaf.

Question: At the beginning of the last Perek of Bechoros (Daf 54b) Abaye Darshens this Pasuk to preclude each kind of Dagan?

Answer: The D'rashah there he learns from "Reishis" and the one here from "Reishisam" (See also Bechoros 54b, Tosfos DH 'Amar Abaye').

Question: In the last Perek of B'choros (Ibid.) Rava says that even without Reishisam one cannot say it, and that "Dagan" implies each kind of Dagan (See footnote)?

Answer: We are forced to say that the Sugya here goes according to the opinion that we need "Reishis" for each kind of Dagan.

Clarification: Since we would otherwise have thought that we learn 'Ha'avarah' 'Ha'avarah from Ma'aser.

Question: From where will Abaye, who interprets "Hu" to mean 'be'Havayaso Ye'hei', learn B'chor?

Answer: According to the Maskana', answers the Ram, the question is answered (See Shitah Mekubetzes, 37), inasmuch as we learn 'I Avid Lo Mehani' by B'chor, and Ma'aser 'Ha'avarah' 'Ha'avarah' from B'chor.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, we can learn Charamim 'Ge'ulah' 'Ge'ulah' from Ma'aser, in which case we do not need "Hu" by Charamim to teach us 'Behavayaso Yehei'.

Clarification: Which implies that it makes Chilulin but not Mamzerus, in which case Kidushin takes effect.

Source: And we have to say that we learn this from the second 'Lamed'.

Refuted Source: We cannot say that even without the second 'Lamed' we would Darshen that it makes Chilulin but not Mamzerus, and that Kidushin therefore takes effect ...

Refutation: Because Mamzerus and Kidushin taking effect cannot be interdependent ...

Proof: Since Rebbi Yehoshua says in Perek 'ha'Choletz (Yevamos, Daf 49a) that a Mamzeronly takes effect from Chayvei Misos Beis-Din, but not from Chayvei Kerisus even though everyone agrees that Kidushin do take effect on Chayvei Kerisus ...

Proof (cont.): So we see that the two issues are not interconnected.

Conclusion: Whereas from the extra 'Lamed' we can justifiably learn that Kidushin takes effect - because since it is not needed for Mamzerus, we use it for Kidushin taking effect.

Support: And it is also implied that we learn it from the superfluous 'Lamed', since the Gemara says 'Let the Torah say 'Lo Yachel"? Why does it say "Lo Yechalel"?