THE ISUR TO CURSE
Question: Perhaps it teaches about one who says His name in vain!
Answer: Cursing is also a vain mention of His name! (In any case he is lashed.)
Clarification: We meant that perhaps lashes suffice for saying His name in vain, but not for cursing with His name, for this additionally pains people!
Answer: This cannot be, for it says "Lo Sekalel Cheresh";
Granted, if "v'Hifla... " is the punishment for cursing, then "Lo Sekalel Cheresh" is the Azharah (warning);
However, if "v'Hifla... " is for saying His name in vain, what is the warning?
Suggestion: "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira v'Oso Sa'avod" is the warning!
Rejection: That is an Aseh. A warning must be a Lav.
SEPARATING TERUMAH BEFORE BIKURIM
R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina says, even one who designates Terumah before Bikurim (is lashed, even without an action).
Question: What is his reason?
Answer: "Mele'ascha v'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher" refers to Bikurim. (Rashi - it is designated once the produce becomes Malei (fully grown); R. Gershom - it is designated when the field is Malei, before anything was harvested);
Dim'acha refers to Terumah (R. Gershom - it should be taken when the produce is Dimu'a (a mixture; it is Chulin with respect to Bikurim (they have already been taken) and Tevel with respect to Terumah); Tosfos - it applies to liquids, e.g. wine and oil);
The Torah forbids delaying Mele'ascha (Bikurim) until after Dim'acha (Terumah)!
(R. Elazar or R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): If one designated Terumah before Bikurim, he is lashed;
(The other of R. Elazar and R. Yosi): He is not lashed;
Since R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina said above (3a) that even one who designates Terumah before Bikurim is lashed, surely R. Elazar exempts.
Rejection: R. Elazar is Mechayev!
(Mishnah): If Reuven had two barrels of Tevel and said "the Ma'aseros (that need to be taken) for barrel A are in barrel B," barrel A is permitted;
If he said "the Ma'aseros for barrel A are in B, and those for B are in A," A is permitted. B contains (Ma'aser and) Tevel (once the Ma'aseros for A take effect, A is Chulin, so no part of it can become Ma'aser to permit B);
If he said "the Ma'aseros for the barrels are in each other," both contain (Ma'aser and) Chulin (it is as if he said "the Ma'aseros needed for barrel A excluding the part of A needed to become Ma'aser for B are in B, and those needed for B excluding what will be Ma'aser for A are in A").
(R. Elazar): (In the first two cases,) he is lashed for taking Ma'aser Sheni (from Tevel in B) before taking Ma'aser Rishon (on the produce that became Ma'aser Sheni! Tosfos - the Mishnah discusses Demai (produce bought from an Am ha'Aretz. We assume that the seller separated Terumah, so the buyer needs to separate only Ma'aseros). Chok Nasan - we must understand R. Elazar to say that in a parallel case of Tevel, he would be lashed. (Surely, there cannot be lashes mid'Oraisa for Ma'aseros mid'Rabanan! Further, a Mishnah (Demai 1:4) says "there is no problem" if Demai was tithed out of order.) Rambam - the Mishnah discusses Tevel from which Terumah was already taken. (The Rosh says that Terumah is normally taken immediately at the Goren). Some say that the Mishnah discusses Ma'aseros, and the same applies to Terumah.)
Question: If R. Elazar obligates, R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina must exempt. Above, he obligated!
Answer: R. Yosi said "even one who designates Terumah before Bikurim." He refers to the Reisha, and teaches that even this is a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, and he is not lashed. (The Chidush is that it is not considered a Ma'aseh even if he physically separates the Terumah, because mental designation alone makes it Terumah.)
Question: Presumably, there are lashes for Temurah because his words take effect (they are Mekadesh an animal). Similarly, he should be lashed for preceding Terumah to Bikurim, because his words take effect!
Answer (Rav Dimi citing R. Avin) He is exempt for Terumah, because it is Nitak l'Aseh (a positive Mitzvah fixes the Lav) - "mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu." (If you tithed out of order, now take the tithes which should have been taken.)
LASHES FOR A LAV SHE'NITAK L'ASEH
Question (Abaye): One is not exempt for a Lav she'Nitak l'Aseh (Tosfos - unless the Aseh is written near the Lav, and the sinner actively does the Aseh)!
(Mishnah): Temurah is not permitted. Rather, if one made Temurah, it takes effect, and he receives 40 lashes.
Version #1 (our text) Answer (Rav Dimi): One who makes Temurah transgresses two Lavim. One Aseh exempts only from one Lav.
Question (Abaye): One who divorces his Anusah (the woman he raped) transgresses one Lav. There is one Aseh, yet it does not (totally) exempt from lashes! (A Kohen is lashed.)
Version #2 (Shitah Mekubetzes) Answer (Rav Dimi): The Lav of Temurah is Shaveh b'Chol (applies to everyone), but the Aseh is not (partners or the Tzibur do not create new Kedushah), therefore it does not exempt from lashes.
Note: Perhaps Shitah Mekubetzes holds like Moshav Zekenim (Vayikra 27:10), that there is only one Lav; the Torah teaches which expressions make Temurah.
Version A (Rashi) Question (Abaye): The Lav of divorcing one's Anusah is not Shavah b'Chol (a Yisrael could do so many times, but a Kohen could do so only once, for he may not remarry her). The Aseh to marry her is Shaveh b'Chol (more inclusive), yet it does not exempt Kohanim from lashes! Note: seemingly, also the Aseh is not Shaveh b'Chol, for a Kohen cannot remarry her after he divorced her! - PF)
Version B (Tosfos) Question (Abaye): You exempt for taking Terumah before Bikurim because it is Nitak l'Aseh, even though the Aseh ("mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu") applies only to taking Terumah after taking Ma'aser. If so, the Aseh to remarry one's Anusah should exempt even a Kohen, even though it applies only to Yisraelim! (end of Version B)
(Beraisa): If one (married and then) divorced his Anusah:
If he is a Yisrael, he remarries her, and he is not lashed;
If he is a Kohen (who may not marry a divorcee), he is lashed.
Answer (Rav Dimi): Kohanim are different. The Torah gave to them extra Kedushah (Mitzvos, such as not to marry a divorcee (Version B, so the Aseh does not apply to them. Version A - even though the Aseh is more inclusive than the Lav, it does not exempt them from lashes.)
Tana'im argue about whether or not one is lashed for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh;
(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Lo Sosiru (do not leave over from the Korban Pesach until morning)... veha'Nosar... ba'Esh Tisrofu (burn what is left over)" is an Aseh to fix the Lav, therefore one is not lashed for it.
R. Yakov: No, he is exempt because it is a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh. One is not lashed for such Lavim.
Inference: R. Yehudah holds that one is lashed for a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh.
Question: What does R. Yakov learn from (Tosfos - the adjacency of "Lo Sosiru" and) "veha'Nosar... ba'Esh Tisrofu"?
Answer (Mishnah): Bones, sinews and Nosar (leftover meat) of Korban Pesach are burned on the 16th;
If the 16th is Shabbos, they are burned on the 17th.
This is because burning Nosar does not override Shabbos or Yom Tov.
(Chizkiyah): ("Lo Sosiru Mimenu Ad Boker" forbids leaving over until the morning of the 15th.) "Veha'Nosar Mimenu Ad Boker ba'Esh Tisrofu" teaches that it is burned on another morning (which is not Yom Tov, i.e. the 16th).
DOES THE TORAH PUNISH FOR AVEIROS THAT DO NOT TAKE EFFECT?
(Abaye): Wherever the Torah said not to do something, if one transgressed, he accomplished something;
Otherwise, he would not be punished!
(Rava): Wherever the Torah said not to do something, if one transgressed, it does not accomplish anything;
He is punished for acting contrary to Torah!