Question: Let him also receive Malkos for being Mo'el be'Hekdesh, since someone who is Mo'el be'Meizid is subject to Malkos?

Answer: The Tana is only discussing La'avin which are punishable for less than the value of a P'rutah (see also Tosfos Shantz).

Question: In our Sugya, the Gemara asks many questions and gives no answers, in which case one is forced to apply the principle 'Tana ve'Shayer' (the Tana deliberately omits some cases); whilst earlier the Gemara asked 'the Tana said "eight" and you say "Tana ve'Shayar!" '?

Answer: The Ram answers that we cannot compare the cases. Above, where the Tana specifically said 'eight', and then it lists Yom-Tov, had there been an additional Malkos because of Yom-Tov, he should have listed it as two; whereas here it is perfectly plausible to say that the Tana is simply not discussing all those cases of planting in a Nachal Eisan and erasing the Name of Hash-m.

Question: It is still not subject to both 'La'av ve'Hen' ('I won't' and 'I will'), as the Gemara asks in Shevu'os, in connection with the case of 'I will not eat Neveilah or an animal that has been Shechted', where it asks 'But this is not subject to 'La'av ve'Hen?'

Answer: Perhaps one can answer that it is indeed subject to 'La'av ve'Hen', if for example, there is soft earth, where he will not be Chayav min ha'Torah for plowing there.

Statement: Rashi explains this according to his version of the text.

Explanation: Rabeinu Tam explains it beautifully 'like a bag of spices' - Because the Torah writes in connection with it (Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) "ka'Tzvi ve'cha'Ayal" ("like a deer and like a gazelle"), which are two species.

Proof (Part 1): Based on this explanation, we can understand what the Gemara says in Bechoros "Tzvi ve'Ayal" is written three times in connection with it; one like Rebbi Yitzchak and one like Rebbi Hoshaya. Rashi comments there that he does not know which statements of Rebbi Yitzchak and Rebbi Hoshaya it is referring to ...

Proof (Part 2): ... According to Rabeinu Tam however, it refers to their statements in our Sugya.

Clarification: This speaks specifically where the ox is pulling a load with its body ...

Proof: Otherwise, one would never be permitted to lead an ox that is Pesulei ha'Mukdashin from one place to another.

Explanation (Part 1): On the same day that they assessed that he was able to take the full amount, they retracted and declared that he couldn't, our Mishnah rules that if he did not yet receive Malkos, he is subject to the full amount, since we go after the initial assessment, and that is what he will receive after he has recovered.

Explanation (Part 2): Whereas if the second assessment took place on the following day, then we take into account the possibility that he may have become weaker after the first assessment, in which case we go after the latter assessment and he is Patur, since they declared that he is unable to take anything.

Explanation (Part 3): Likewise, regarding the Din in the Seifa, where they initially assessed him for eighteen, and on the same day they declared that he could take the full amount, we go after the second assessment, provided he had not already received all eighteen (because the first assessment was made in error, so we go after the second one).

Explanation (Part 4): ... whereas the Beraisa speaks where they assessed him on a later day, so we go after the first assessment, and he is Patur from Malkos altogether (See Hagahos ha'Bach).