The gemara says on 15b that reb yochanon holds of Bitlo v'Lo Bitlo and that's why he holds that Kol Yamav is an Aseh that you could always go and marry her. However Reish Lakish holds of Kiymo v'Lo Kiymo and according to him we are going to have to explain the passuk of Kol Yamav that it's speaking about before Gerushin and the passuk means Kol Yamav Tihyeh Lo l'Ishah Lo Yeshalchenah. My question is that according to Reish Lakish if the passuk is speaking about before Gerushin and the passuk means that you could never divorce her then how could the gemara say that if you do divorce her you don't get malkus if you take her back, but l'ch'Orah the din should be that you do get malkus since according to Reish Lakish the passuk is only speaking about before Gerushin however if you do divorce her you will be Chayav Malkos?
Benzi, London
Rashi 15b (end DH Ha'Amer Leih) answers this question. He writes that he does not get malkus for divorcing her since the Beis Din warn him to take her back and if he does so he thereby fulfils the Aseh immediately and annuls the Lav, so he is exempt from Malkus.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Follow-up reply:
Rashi writes that the reason he does not get malkus is because Resh Lakish maintains that if a Lav comes after an Aseh one does not receive malkus for transgressing the Lav. On this point he disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan cited on the bottom line of 14b. In this case there was an Aseh to keep with his wife all the time and he annuled that Aseh when he performed the Lav of divorcing her. However Resh Lakish holds that if he takes her back immediately he thereby neutralises the Lav, so he he does not receive Malkus.
Dovid Bloom
So according to reish lakish if the passuk is speaking about before gerushin that you should always remain married to her then how do we know that there is such a halacha that if you do divorce her you have to take her back but the passuk is only speaking about before divorcing her ?
And if you say that we see it from the fact that the passuk says that you should always remain married to her then it comes out its a ,Lav ha'Nitak l'Ashe so how could we say according to reish lakish that it's a Lav she'Kadmo Aseh?
1) Devorim 22:19 states "And she shall be to him a wife". This is an Aseh. The verse continues "He may not send her away all his days". This is a Lav. If he divorces her this a lav that was preceeded by an Aseh, and therefore he does not get malkus according to Resh Lakish. However even after he divorced her, the original aseh still exists; that she should be his wife. He has to take her back; not in order to be menatek the lav, but in order to fulfil the aseh. By taking her back, he does not abolish the lav, because he would never anyway get malkus for that, since it is a Lav She-kadmo Aseh. But by taking her back he is mekayem an aseh that never disappeared merely because he divorced her. Rashi writes that the Beis Din warn him to fulfil this Aseh and he must do this immediately.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom