Clarification: And since we find an Azharah by Mekalel, we establish the Pasuk of Malkos by someone who curses is friend, rather than by someone who pronounces Hash-m's Name in vain, by which we do not find a specific warning.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Torah calls it "Mele'ah" because as soon as the produce is piled up and the Melachah is finished, it is fixed for Bikurim ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Whereas "Dim'acha" refers to T'rumah since it is Medama'as (if it falls into Chulin), the Torah presents it with a Lashon 'Dimu'a'.

Refutation: This is not correct however - since this is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Explanation #2: Therefore Rav Moshe from Pontoize explains that the Torah calls T'rumah 'Dema' because it applies even to liquids, whereas Bikurim is confined to solids.

Reason: Because one can only bring Bikurim from fruit ...

Source: As the Gemara say in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Chulin, Daf 120b) 'You must bring 'P'ri' and not liquid'.

Clarification: It speaks where each basket contains a hundred figs, and he declared ten figs from the second basket Ma'aser Rishon on the first one, and nine Ma'aser Sheini ...

Clarification (cont.): All hundred in the first basket are rectified.

Case: And it is speaking about D'mai ...

Proof: Since it does not mention T'rumah.

Source: This Mishnah is learned in Maseches D'mai (Perek 7, Mishnah 6).

Clarification: Because as soon as he declares 'Shel Zu be'Zu', it is rectified and becomes Patur ...

Clarification (cont.): Consequently, when he then says 've'shel Zu be'Zu', it transpires that he is Ma'asering from P'tur on to Chiyuv, and it is invalid.

Reason: Seeing as they are rectified simultaneously one on the other.

Implied Question: And even though we Pasken that 'Whatever does not take effect one consecutively does not not take effect simultaneously either' ...

Answer: In this case, since he had in mind to rectify them both, it is as if he said 'The Ma'aser of the first basket shall take effect in the second one except for ten, which shall remain Tevel in the first one to rectify the second one.

Conclusion: And the Ma'aser then takes effect in the second basket on the first one and vice-versa.

Clarification: Since the Ma'aser Rishon and Sheini of the first basket are separated, and the Ma'aser Rishon of the second one remains Tevel inside it (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos).

Clarification (cont.): And it refers to the Reisha, which states 'Ma'aser shel Zu be'Zu, Me'useres'.

Yerushalmi (Text #1): 'On the first basket he transgresses an Asei, and on the second one, a La'av'.

Explanation: 'On the first basket' - If he fixes his Ma'asros in it, he transgresses an Asei - because he should have given Ma'aser Rishon precedence over Ma'aser Sheini, whereas he declared them both simultaneously.

Explanation (cont.): He does not transgress a La'av however - since he did not declare Ma'aser Sheini before Ma'aser Rishon.

Explanation (concl.): 'And on the second one, a La'av' when he rectifies the first one inside it - since he gave precedence to the Ma'aser Sheini of the first one over the Ma'aser Rishon of the of the second one.

Yerushalmi (Text #2): An alternative text reads 'On the first one he transgresses a La'av and on the second one' an Asei' ...

Explanation: On the Reisha of the Mishnah - where he declares 'Ma'aser shel Zu be'Zu, 'he transgresses a La'av' - because he gave precedence to the Ma'aser Sheini of the first one, as Tosfos explained ...

Explanation (cont.): Whereas on the second one, with reference to the Seifa of the Mishnah - where he declared 'The Ma'asros of each basket shall take effect on the other one', there is only an Asei, since they take effect simultaneously.

Implied Question: Even though the Pasuk is only speaking about Bikurim and T'rumah ...

Answer: Nevertheless, it also refers to Ma'aser Rishon vis-?-vis T'rumah and Ma'aser Sheini vis-?-vis Ma'aser Rishon ...

Source: Since it writes "ve'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher" - 'Do not delay whatever is subject to Dimu'a' ...

Reason #1: The Tana explains this in T'rumos (3:7) - 'Bikurim precedes T'rumah - because it is called 'Bikurim' (first-fruits), T'rumah precedes Ma'aser - because it is called both 'T'rumah' and 'Reishis' ...

Reason #1: (cont.): And Ma'aser Rishon precedes Ma'aser Sheini - because it contains Reishis (i.e. T'rumas Ma'aser).

Reason #2 (Mechilta): But the Mechilta gives a different reason, which Rashi explains as follows ...

Mechilta (cont.): 'Bikurim precedes T'rumah - because it has four names ('Reishis', 'Mele'ah', T'rumah' and 'Bikurim'), whereas T'rumah has only three ('Reishis', Dema and T'rumah') ...

Mechilta (cont.): T'rumah precedes Ma'aser Rishon - since it (the latter) has only has two names ('Ma'aser and 'T'rumas Ma'aser') ...

Mechilta (cont.): And Ma'aser Rishon precedes Ma'aser Sheini - since it (the latter) has only the one name ('Ma'aser Sheini' ...

Mechilta (concl.): From here they concluded that 'Someone who gives T'rumah before Bikurim, Ma'aser Rishon before T'rumah or Ma'aser Sheini before Ma'aser Rishon, although he has transgressed a La'av, what he did is valid ...

Source: Because the Torah writes "Mele'ascha ve'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher" - implying that the Torah ia referring to all of them, not to delay the more stringent but to give it precedence over the one that is more lenient ...

Conclusion: And just as Rebbi Elazar says that one receives Malkos for giving Ma'aser Sheini precedence over Ma'aser Rishon, so too, will one receive Malkos for giving precedence to Ma'aser Rishon over Trumah and to T'rumah over Bikurim.

Question: Does Abaye really think that he will receive Malkos for a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei'?

Source #1: But we have Shilu'ach ha'Kein, about which the Mishnah says in Maseches Chulin (Daf 141a) that 'Someone who takes the mother and the babies does not receive Malkos - because it is a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei'?

Source #2: And similarly with regard to Nosar it says 'The Torah gives an Asei after a Lo Sa'aseh to teach us that he does not receive Malkos'?

Source #3: And again regarding Oneis the Tana (later on Daf 5a) says that 'If he divorces her, he must take her back and does not receive Malkos'?

Answer: The Ri explains that it is obvious to Abaye that by Shilu'ach ha'Kein, Nosar and Oneis, where the Asei juxtaposes the La'av, there is no Malkos ...

Answer (cont.): But he wondered about Ma'aser, where "mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu" is not next to the La'av of "Lo Se'acher", which is why he asks 'How about Meimar?' ...

Implied Question: And even though there the Asei does follow the La'av ...

Answer: Nevertheless, it compares the two - since just as Temurah is subject to Malkos by a La'av a'Nitak la'Asei - because he one does not fulfill the Asei with one's hands ...

Answer (cont.): So too, we ought to say that "mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu", despite the fact that one does fulfill the Asei with one's hands, yet since is not juxtaposed to the La'av, we ought not to consider it a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei ...

Implied Question: And although 've'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah asher Gazal" (Vayikra 5) is not juxtaposed to the La'av ...

Answer: Nevertheless it is a proper Nituk ...

Reason: Seeing as it is only possible to return the article after having transgressed the La'av ...

Conclusion: Whereas "mi'Kol Matnoseichem ... " one can carry out even without having transgressed the La'av, which is why he compares it to Meimar.

Clarification: What he means to ask is 'according to you who learns that "mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu" is speaking specifically about giving precedence to T'rumah over Ma'aser, yet it also renders Menatek giving precedence to Bikurim over T'rumah ...

Clarification (cont.): From which we see that if part of a La'av is Nitak, so too is the entire La'av.

Clarification (concl.): But there is Oneis, the La'av of which has a Nituk with regard to a Yisrael, but not with regard to a Kohen ...

Conclusion: So we see that if part of the La'av has a Nituk, it does not extend to the entire La'av.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that they are more stringent in that they receive Malkos even on a La'av that does not pertain to everyone.

Refutation: But this is not correct!

Refutation: Because - is that a reason to sentence them to Malkos for a La'av that is Nitak to an Asei?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it is due to the fact that, since the Torah forbids them to marry a Gerushah, it is not Nitak la'Asei ...

Clarification: It is not therefore comparable to the case above, where "Tarimu" is a Nituk also to where one gives precedence to T'rumah over Bikurim ...

Clarification (cont.): From which we learn that one is able to rectify in the event that he sinned by giving T'rumah precedence over Bikurim, because there is no difference between giving precedence to Ma'aser over T'rumah and giving precedence to T'rumah over Bikurim.

Clarification: This does not refer to the current Sugya of 'L'a'av ha'Nitak la'Asei' (See Hagahos ha'G'ra), but to the Sugya of 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh'.

Question: It is needed to teach us that it must be burned?

Answer #1: The Gemara is asking from the juxtaposition - Why it insert it here next to the La'av, if not to make it Nituk? ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Why not insert it somewhere else?

Answer #2: Alternatively, it should not have inserted it at all ...

Reason: Seeing as it is obvious that all Nosar myust be burned, from the Pasuk "And you shall burn the Nosar in fire" (Sh'mos, 29:34).

Reason (cont.): And the Gemara answers that the Torah needs to insert it next to "Lo Sosiru", as the Beraisa will shortly explain "Boker Boker", to teach us that one may not burn Kodshim on Yom-Tov.

Question: If so, if someone Shechts a Pesach when he has Chametz, it ought to be Pasul?

Answer: The Yerushalmi Darshens from the Pasuk "Lo Sishchat al Chametz Dam Zivchi" that - even if he Shechted it, it is still called 'My Zevach' (See also Tosfos Pesachim 63a DH 'ha'Shochet').

Question: If someone nicks the ear of a B'chor, it should become Asur?

Question (cont.): And we know for a fact that it is only Asur due to a K'nas?

Answer: It is not worse than if a blemish occurred to it by itself, in which case it is permitted.

Question: And by the same token, the question as to why if someone nicks the ear of a B'chor why is it not Asur due to the principle 'Whatever the Torah forbids may not be eaten'

Precedent: Such as Basar be'Chalav? (See also Tosfos, Chulin, 115a DH 'Kol she'Ti'avti lach') ...

Answer: Because it is specifically Basar be'Chalav which we learn from there, since, even if the met fell into the milk by itself, it would be Asur ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas if he nicked the ear, where, if it occurred by itself, it would be permitted, it is not forbidden to eat it, even if he did it with his hands.

Question: Why, if one plows withy an ox and a donkey, is what he plowed not forbidden (See Tosfos, Chulin, 115a, DH 'Choresh').

Answer: Since the Torah forbids K'lai ha'Kerem, we can extrapolate that other forms of Kil'ayim are permitted.