Makkot 19a

Question: Rava bar Adda in the name of R’ Yitzchak: From what point does one get a penalty for eating Bikkurim?

Answer: When they enter the courtyard of the Beit HaMikdash.

Support: R’ Eliezer taught in a Baraita: if Bikkurim were found partly inside the courtyard and partly outside (some fruits were inside the courtyard, and some were not) – the fruits that are inside are like regular fruits, and the fruits that are outside are considered Hekdesh.

Statement: Rav Sheishet: For Bikkurim, the placement before the Mizbeach is essential, while the reading of the Pesukim is not.

Question: Which Tanna does this agree with?

Introduction to Answer: In a Baraita: R’ Yose taught three things in the name of three elders, here is one of them: R’ Yishmael says: You might think that you could bring your Maaser Sheni to Jerusalem and eat it, even when there is no Beit HaMikdash. This argument is refuted, though. We can form a connection between the Bechor offering and Maaser Sheni – just as Bechor offering requires going to Jerusalem, so too Maaser Sheni requires going to Jerusalem; therefore, just as Bechor can only be brought during the times of the Beit Hamikdash, so too Maaser Sheni can only be brought during the times of the Beit Hamikdash. However, this connection is refuted because how can you connect Maaser Sheni to the Bechor offering, which requires placing blood and sacrificial parts on the Mizbeach, while Maaser Sheni does not require that? Therefore we cannot say through this connection that Maaser Sheni can only be brought to Jerusalem/eaten during the times of the Beit Hamikdash. Perhaps, maybe we can say that we can learn this from a connection to Bikkurim – since they also are only eaten during the times of the Beit HaMikdash. However, this connection is also refuted because Bikkurim require one to place them before the Mizbeach, while Maaser Sheni does not. Therefore we cannot say through this connection either that Maaser Sheni can only be brought to Jerusalem/eaten during the times of the Beit Hamikdash. Instead, let us derive this rule from a textual source. The Pasuk says “And you shall eat before HaShem, your G-d…the Maaser [Sheni] of your grain…and the first-born of your cattle and your flocks”. There is a Hekeish between Maaser Sheni and Bechor offering here because the Torah states their requirement together in the same pasuk. This Hekeish teaches us that just as the Bechor offering can only be eaten/brought during the times of the Beit HaMikdash, so too the Maaser Sheni can only be eaten/brought during the times of the Beit HaMikdash. Answer: If R’ Yishmael holds that recitation of the verses is essential, then he would have said that we can not connect Maaser Sheni to Bikkurim because of the requirement to place them before the Mizbeach AND to recite the verses. Therefore, since he did not mention the requirement to recite the verses as a reason we can’t connect them, we can infer that R’ Yishmael thinks that the placement before the Mizbeach is essential and not the recitation of the verses.

Attack: Rav Ashi: Even if the recitation is not essential, there is still a mitzvah to recite the verses. Therefore, let R’ Yishmael say that there is a mitzvah to recite the verses before eating the Bikkurim, and then Bikkurim and Maaser Sheni would be different because of that mitzvah!

Answer: Rav Ashi: R’ Yishmael could not state the requirement to recite the verses because there could be a case where a convert brings Bikkurim, and then he would have to say the pasuk about the land “that HaShem has promised to our fathers”, which he would not be able to say since HaShem did not promise it to his fathers. Therefore, R’ Yishmael did not mention the recitation.

Question: Why didn’t R’ Yishmael learn this rule about Maaser Sheni from the Bechor offering and Bikkurim together? Even though both have an individual difference with Maaser Sheni, they should be able to teach the rule together. 

Answer: R’ Yishmael still needed a textual source because Maaser Sheni is different than Bechor offering and Bikkurim together – both the Bechor offering and Bikkurim have involvement with the Mizbeach, while Maaser Sheni has no involvement with the Mizbeach. Therefore, we can’t learn the rule from here; we need a textual source to prove that Maaser Sheni can only be eaten/brought during the times of the Beit HaMikdash.

Question: Why does R’ Yishmael assume that are not allowed to eat the Bechor offering when it is not during the times of the Beit HaMikdash? If it is the site of the Beit HaMikdash that makes the offering holy from then on, then we should be able to eat it now in Jerusalem. And if it is only for that time that it is holy, then why would we be able to eat it now anyway?

Answer: Ravina: R’ Yishmael holds that the holiness of the site of the Beit HaMikdash is what makes the offering holy for its time only. But here, this is a case where the Beit HaMikdash was already destroyed, but the meat of the offering was not eaten yet. Therefore, according to R’ Yishmael the meat can not be eaten anymore because we connect the meat of the Bechor offering to its blood through a Hekeish. Just as the service of the blood is dependent upon there being a Mizbeach, so too the eating of the meat is dependent upon there being a Mizbeach. And in the Baraita R’ Yishmael connects Maaser Sheni to Bechor offering through the Hekeish and shows that just as with the Bechor offering you can not eat it without the Beit HaMikdash, so too with Maaser Sheni you can not eat it without the Beit HaMikdash.

Question: But with regard to ‘sacrificial matters’, can something be derived from a double Hekeish?

Answer: Maaser Sheni is not a sacrificial matter.

QUESTION: R’ Yishmael rejected the (non-textual) connections between Maaser Sheni and Bechor offering/Bikkurim because Maaser Sheni is different than them in certain ways. But why should this be a reason not to learn one thing from another? Of course they are going to be different - no two mitzvot are ever going to be exactly the same. So how can we say that you can only learn one thing from another if there are no differences between them if that is not going to happen?

A priest who eats from an offering before the sprinkling of the blood gets lashes.

Why is this?

The passuk implies a lo taaseh in a taaseh which gives it the status of a lo taaseh which, if violated gets lashes. 

Rava's challenge: Then why does it need to say when talking about kashrut the animals you can eat directly followed by the animals you cannot eat? Can we say the lo taaseh is implied?

We cannot say that because in a case of a lo taaseh implied in a taaseh, if the taaseh does not apply to the person, then the lo taaseh does not apply as well and we cannot punish him for violating it. 

Regarding the first fruit ceremony:

Rabbi Eleazar said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia that if you don't set the fruit in front of the altar you cannot eat it but if you don't do the recital (but do set it in front of the altar) you can. Did Rav Hoshaia really say that? Isn't the reason if they are not set in front of the altar they are left to rot BECAUSE the recital was not done on them? This is in accordance to Rav Zera's statement who says wherever the conditions for mingling [oil with flour for a meat offering] are present, the omission of the mingling is not a bar. However, wherever they are not present, the omission is a bar [Therefore, not putting them on the altar would be a bar here because the conditions for a meat offering are not present]. 

Rav Aha bar Jacob taught a similar statement in the name of Rav Assi reporting for Rabbi Yonatan. Rav Yonatan made a seemingly contradictory statement in which he said that for the fruit that were brought at the proper time of the recital, they can be eaten right after the recital (implying that both the recital and the placement on the altar are necessary for the eating of the fruit) but for the fruit that are brought after the proper time, they may be eaten right after they are brought to the temple (implying that both the recital and the placement are not instrumental to the permissability of eating the fruit). The gemara rectifies these contradictions, saying the first contradiction [in regard to the recital] is the difference in opinion between Rav Simeon and Rabbis, while the second contradictions [in regard to the placement on the altar] is the difference in opinion between Rav Judah and Rabbis.

NOTE: RAV JUDAH HOLDS THAT THE PLACEMENT ON THE ALTAR IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE FRUIT TO BE EATEN.

The Gemara asks for the statement of Rav Judah that this is referring to. The statement brought: And the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand and set it down before the altar- the phrase set it down teaches us that the placement is not necessary (set it down refers to a ceremony called 'waving' not ordinary placing and therefore does not teach us we need the placement). The Gemara asks which Tanna disagrees with Rav Judah and brings up Rabbi Eliezer bar Jacob who says we do need the placement because set it down does NOT refer to waving, rather, ordinary placement in front of the altar. 

How do you think the Gemara gets from the punishment of a priest who eats a korban too soon to the process of bichurim? 

Sorry the post is late and sorry if it is confusing, I don't have a great translation of the Gemara and my first summary deleted itself so I had to write a new one :(. Hope its acceptable!!

 

Daf 18a

Summary:

Continuation from previous daf- How can R' Shimon derive prohibitions on the basis of a kal v'chomer when these are prohibitions that incur malkus, and prohibitions that incur malkus cannot be derived from a kal v'chomer

Answer: R' Shimon means those prohibitions are derived from the extra verse, "You may not eat in your outlying cities (list of what is forbidden to eat there)."(Devarim 12:17) This pasuk is extra because it already stated that "you shall eat them there before Hashem," in a previous verse. Rather, pasuk 17 mentioned it again to assign a specific prohibition to each of the items listed.

Gufa\Return to previous text: the text stated that Rava said, if a non-Kohen eats from an olah before the throwing of its blood, outside the wall of Jerusalem, according to R' Shimon, he gets five separate penalty lashes.

Question: Why only guilty of five transgressions? Why is he not also guilty for  violating the law prohibiting a non-Kohen from eating the kodshei kodashim (includes the olah)?

Answer: This prohibition only applies when Kohanim can eat the offering, but an olah can't be eaten by anyone. So the prohibition doesn't apply here

Question: But let him also get lashes for violating the prohibition against eating meat once it has gone out of its bounds

Answer: This prohibition only applies where the meat is fit to be eaten inside the courtyard, but here, the olah can't be eaten anywhere, so prohibition does not apply.

Question: But let him also get lashes for violating the prohibition in accordance with the teaching of R' Eliezer- can't eat leftover meat.

_________________________________________________________________

Question on the daf: Korbanot were meant as a means for Bnei Yisrael to connect with Hashem. If there are so many minute details and prohibitions relating to the giving of the Korbanot, how do you think one would be able to connect to the giving of a korban? Can you think of other places where a lot of details can actually enhance the performance of an action\mitvzah?

Continued from 17a:

Attack: R. Shimon says that that this cannot forbid eating Olah outside the since we learn this from a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser!

Answer: Rather, this is obligating malkot for eating Olah, even after Zerikah inside the hangings.

Statement: Rava compliments R’ Shimon and says that everyone should have children like R. Shimon!

Attack: Yet, he continues to refute all of R’ Shimon’s previous kal vechomrim:

1) One should be more machmir for maaser than for bikurim since maaser is even forbidden to an onen (one who lost a family member on that day)!

2) Also, ma'aser is more machmir than todah and shlamim since maaser can only be redeemed on minted money!

3) Todah and shelamim are actually more stringent than bechor since they require semichah, nesachim and waving the chest and legs!

4) Bechor is more machmir than Chatas and Asham since it is kodesh from the moment it is born!

5) Chatas and Asham are more stringent than Olah because they are for atonement. In fact, all Korbanot are more stringent than Olah, because both the Mizbe'ach and people consume them!

Question: Why did Rava say that one should have children like R. Shimon if he just refuted all of his kal vechomrim?

Answer: Because we learn many new laws from these kal vechomrim.

Question: Do we truly warn to give malkot on account of a kal ve'chomer?! Even if you would say that we generally punish on account of a kal vechomer, we cannot derive this lav from a kal vechomer!

Answer #1: R. Shimon did not mean for someone to be given lashes for these, just that they are forbidden.

 Question: But Rava just said that R. Shimon holds that he is to be lashed five times (sets of 39 lashes)!

Answer:  He really meant that he would be violating five prohibitions.

Question for discussion: Rava says that everyone should have children like R’ Shimon right before he refutes all of R’ Shimon’s kal vechomrim. The Gemara is confused by this as well and asks why Rava would compliment him like this if he immediately criticizes him afterwards? It answers that it is because we still learn many new laws from these refuted statements of R’ Shimon.

How can we see the partial truths even in the views that we reject? Is it even possible to find the merit and appreciate the values of an individual person or a movement even if we disagree with their point of view? What are the benefits and what are the costs to adhering to one position?

Daf Yud Zayin Amud Alef

Rabbi Yosef: it is an argument amongst תנאים (whether the טבל of מעשר עני is prohibited דאורייתא

Beriata: Rabbi Eliezer says that you don’t have to designate מעשר עני of דמאי (even by name), but the Chachamim say that one needs to designate מעשר עני of דמאי by name, but does not need to physically separate it from the rest of the produce.

Suggestion: The Chachamim hold that a definite obligation to separate מעשר עני makes the produce prohibited to eat as טבל while Rabbi Eliezer holds that a definite obligation to separate מעשר עני doesn’t make the produce prohibited to eat as טבל.

Rejection (Abaye): If this is true, they should argue over whether or not someone can eat definite טבל before separating מעשר עני, rather, since they argue in a case of דמאי means shows that everyone holds that a definite מעשר עני requirement makes the produce טבל

Rabbi Eliezer holds that we are not suspicious of uneducated people concerning מעשר עני of דמאי since מעשר עני is permitted to anyone and an uneducated person separates and eats it himself. The Chachamim are concerned since it’s hard for an educated person to separate מעשר עני and therefore he does not separate it.

Mishna: How much טבל must one eat…?

Rav Bivi: The argument between the Chachamim and Rabbi Eliezer is about a person who eats a wheat kernel of טבל, but for flour that is טבל, they agree that he is not liable for eating less than a כזית

Rabbi Yirmiyah says that they do argue about the flour

Mishna:  Rabbi Shimon said do you not agree that someone is liable for eating an ant of any size? The Chachamim answered it is different because it is in the form of its creation. Rabbi Shimon replied that a wheat kernel is also in the form of its creation. Inference: for a wheat kernel he is held accountable but for eating a small amount of flour, he is not.

Rabbi Shimon is responding to the Chachamim according to their own opinion: I hold that even the טבל of flour, someone is held accountable for any amount. At least admit that eating a kernel in its form of creation makes the person liable. The Chachamim say that an ant is significant because it is a living creature but a kernel is not significant.

Beriata (support Rabbi Yirmiyah): the smallest amount of a prohibited food is significant and warrants lashes. The כזית only applies to קרבנות

 Mishna: The following are punished by lashes: someone who eats בכורים before the owner recites, or one who eats קדשי קדשים outside of the curtains, or who eats קדשים קלים and מעשר שני outside of walls of ירושלים. Someone who breaks the bone of a קרבן פסח that is טהור, but someone who leaves meat overnight of a טהור קרבן פסח, or breaks the bone of a קרבן פסח that is טמא does not receive 40 lashes. Rabbi Yehuda: someone who takes a mother bird who is sitting on her eggs/chicks is lashed and has no מצוה to send it away. The Chachamim say that he sends her away and does not get lashes. This is a rule: someone is not lashed for any prohibition that has a positive commandment.

Gemara: Rabbah bar bar Chanah says these are the words of Rabbi Akiva but the Chachamim say that putting the בכורים down is important but the recital is not essential (cannot eat before putting them down but can before reciting)

Let the words of the Mishna be according to Rabbi Shimon.

This is what he is telling us, that Rabbi Akiva has the same opinion as Rabbi Shimon.

Which statement of Rabbi Shimon shows that he has the same opinion?

Beriata: "ותרומת ידך" refers to בכורים. Rabbi Shimon asks what this teaches. Answer: it forbids the eating of בכורים outside of the wall. Rejection: we learn this from a קל וחומר from מעשר שני (מעשר שני is lenient but someone who eats outside of the wall is lashed, בכורים, which is strict, all the more so). Answer: it obligates lashes for eating from the בכורים before the reciting. "ונדבתיך" refers to the תודה and שלמים. Rabbi Shimon says this does not forbid from eating them outside of the wall. A קל וחומר from מעשר שני teaches this. Rather, it obligates lashes for eating תודה or שלמים before the throwing of the blood. "ובכרת" refers to the בכור. Rabbi Shimon says that this does not forbid eating them outside of the wall because a קל וחומר from מעשר שני teaches this. It cannot forbid eating before throwing the blood because a קל וחומר from קרבן תודה and שלמים teaches this. Rather, this obligates lashes for a non-kohen eating בכור, even after throwing the blood. "בקרך וצאנך" refers to קרבן חטאת and אשם. Rabbi Shimon says this cannot forbid from eating outside the wall, before throwing the blood, or a non-kohen who eats it. A קל וחומר from מעשר שני (or תודה and שלמים or בכור) teaches this. Rather, it obligates lashes for eating חטאת or אשם outside the curtains, even after the throwing of the blood. "נדריך" refers to קרבן עולה. Rabbi Shimon says this cannot forbid eating outside the wall, or before throwing the blood, or outside the curtains, or for a non-kohen who eats it. A קל וחומר from מעשר שני teaches this.

In our Gemara, there are two discussions about what types of prohibitions are punishable by מלקות. The only definite grouping seems to be related to people who use something that is set aside for holy use. What other categories ofעבירות are punishable by מלקות?

Daf 16 Amud 2

Once again I would like to give thanks to both Artscroll and R' Aryeh Lebowitz on YUtorah.

continuation from amud alef:

..that is case of ger who is actually chayav to pay (not malkot)

 Suggestion: maybe case of peah is an example of laav hanitak l'aseh (lo taaseh that is fixed with an aseh) that you're punishable by malkot?

Response:The torah allows that even if you violated that commandment and did NOT leave peah in the field, you can take the peah out of the produce itself- and so it is both bitlu vilo bitlu and kimu vlo kimu (he used the product without taking the peah and didn't immediately separate when warned to do so by beit din). If he didn't take peah from the crop, he  can take it from the sheaves, and if not the sheaves, he can take it from the pile. But once he has ground it, he can no longer take peah.

R' Yishmael says: even after you grind it up and make bread out of it you can still take peah!

Gemara responds: but what if he eats it?

Response: Fine- up until that case. But when R' Yochanan told us that there are 2 cases of laav hanitak l'aseh with malkot he meant shiluach hakan and peah--not ones!

 The case of ones on the other hand doesn't have malkot because he could never do an aseh in the case that he made a strong neder to never give her hanaah (remarrying her).

Response: But you can undo the neder For the purpose of a mitzvah! -- Just like a teacher of torah who beats up the kids. R' Acha took a neder that the teacher should never be allowed in a classroom again! But Ravina overturned it because all the kids from the class came out knowing a lot of torah.

Quote from mishna: You get malkos for eating nevailot and traifot and sheratzim...etc/

Gemara: If one eats a worm in cabbage, and R' Yehuda gave him 5 malkot. If a water creature, 4 malkot. A nemala- 5 malkot. A hornet- 6 malkot, because fulfills all the issurim for kinds of insects.

New Topic: R' Achai says, if you have to go the bathroom and you hold it in, you violate the issur of lo tishaktzu-- don't be "gross". R' Bibi bar abaye says drinking from bloodletting utensils also violates this prohibition. Another example of lo tishaktzu is if you crush 9 bugs and one is still whole and together they make a kezayit you get 6 malkot- 5 for the issur of eating a whole bug and 1 for nevailah. Rava says doesn't even have to be 9- could be 2 and a full! R' Yosef says depends on size of bugs.

Mishna quote: If you eat tevel and maaser rishon-- malkot.

Gemara: If you eat tevel of maaser ani you get malkot. This is like the opinion of the tannah who sausin a braiita-- R' Yosi says that you might think you're only chayav if you didn't take anything from tevel. But if you took some but not all, you still get malkot because of the pasuk lo tuchal. (For just maaser ani would be assur)

R' Elazer says you don't have to designate maaser ani of dimai.

 _________________________________________________________________________________

QUESTION: 

The gemara gives 3 examples of the mitzvah of "lo tishaktzu" which seem somewhat random. Is this issur limited to these 3 cases  or are there more things which are "gross" or "abominable" that fall under this category? Also, these 3 issurim under lo tishkatzu are all related to some kind of impurity relating to human/animal bodies. Is this the codified by the halacha in the pasuk (vayikra 20:25)?

Daf 16 Amud Alef

1. HASRA'AS SAFEK AND LAV SHE'EIN BO MA'ASEH

(a) Each of them teaches like he taught elsewhere.

1. R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish: If Reuven swore 'I will eat this loaf today' and he did not eat it, he is not lashed;

i. R. Yochanan: He is not lashed because this Lav does not come through an action;

ii. Reish Lakish: He is not lashed because he cannot receive definite warning (perhaps he will eat the loaf later), and Safek warning is invalid.

(b) They both explain R. Yehudah.

1. Beraita - R. Yehudah: "Lo Sosiru (do not leave over from the Korban Pesach until morning)... veha'Nosar... ba'Esh Tisrofu (burn what is left over)" - the verse gives an Aseh to fix the Lav, therefore one is not lashed for it.

2. R. Yochanan infers, had the Torah not given an Aseh, one would be lashed for it, even though the warning is doubtful (perhaps he will finish eating before morning)!

3. Reish Lakish infers, had the Torah not given an Aseh, one would be lashed for it, even though Ein Bo Ma'aseh.

Question: Why doesn't Reish Lakish also learn like R. Yochanan, that doubtful warning is (proper) warning?

Answer: He holds like a different Tana according to R. Yehudah;

1. (Beraisa): If we are unsure if Reuven is the son of David or Moshe, and Reuven strikes or curses David and Moshe, one after the other or at the same time, he is liable (even though the warning is doubtful);

2. R. Yehudah says, he is liable only if he struck or cursed both at the same time.

Question: Why doesn't R. Yochanan also learn like Reish Lakish, that one is lashed for a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh?

Answer: He holds like the following teaching;

1. (R. Yochanan citing R. Yehudah citing R. Yosi ha'Galili): One is lashed for a Lav that is done through an action;

2. The only Lavim without an action for which one is lashed are swearing (falsely), Temurah and cursing a person with Hashem's name.

Question: According to both R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish, R. Yehudah contradicts himself!

Answer - part 1 (for Reish Lakish): Tana'im argue about the opinion of R. Yehudah.

Answer - part 2 (for R. Yochanan): R. Yehudah himself holds that one is lashed for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh. He said in the name of R. Yosi ha'Galili that one is not lashed.

2) LASHES FOR NOT FULFILLING THE ASEH

(a) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If one takes a mother bird sitting on her chicks or eggs, he is lashed, and he has no Mitzvah to send it away;

(b) Chachamim say, he sends it away, and he is not lashed;

1. The general rule is, one is not lashed for a Lav which has an Aseh.

(c) R. Yochanan: There is only one other such Mitzvah (in which lashes depend on failure to fulfill the Aseh).

Question (R. Elazar): Which is the other Mitzvah?

-R. Yochanan: Go investigate!

Answer #1 (R. Elazar - Beraisa): If a Yisrael raped a woman and divorced her, he remarries her, and he is not lashed;

1. If a Kohen (who may not marry a divorcee) did so, he is lashed, and he does not remarry her.

2. A Yisrael is not lashed, even though the Aseh precedes the Lav!

Question: We understand according to the opinion Kiymo v'Lo Kiymo. He is lashed if he does not remarry her.

1. According to the opinion Bitlo v'Lo Bitlo, we understand how he can (permanently) Mevatel the Mitzvah to send the mother bird (he can kill it), but how can a rapist be Mevatel the Mitzvah to remarry her?

 If he kills her, he is not lashed, for he is Chayav Misah!

Answer #1 (R. Simi of Chuzna'ah): He accepted Kidushin for her from another man.

Objection (Rav): If she made him her Shali'ach, she was Mevatel the Mitzvah. If she did not, he cannot accept Kidushin for her!

Answer #2 (R. Simi of Chuzna'ah): He vowed in public not to remarry her.

Question: This is like the opinion that a vow taken in public can never be permitted;

1. However, according to the opinion that it can be permitted, how can we answer?

Answer: He vowed Al Da'as Rabim (according to the will of many people).

1. (Ameimar): The Halachah is, a vow taken in public can be permitted, but a vow Al Da'as Rabim cannot be permitted.

Question: There are more (Mitzvos in which lashes depend on failure to fulfill the Aseh)!

Question #1: It says "v'Lo Sigzol", and "v'Heshiv Es ha'Gezelah" (a Mitzvah to return the theft)!

Question #2: "Lo Savo El Beiso La'avot Avoto" (do not enter the borrower's house to take a security. If you did, return it -) "Hashev Tashiv Lo Es ha'Avot"!

3. One can be lashed for these, whether one holds Kiymo v'Lo Kiymo (he does not return it) or Bitlo v'Lo Bitlo (he destroys it)!

Answer (to both qestions): Since he must pay for it, he is not lashed in addition to this.

Question (R. Zeira): If someone took a convert's security and the convert died (without heirs), there is no one to pay! (He should be lashed!

The Gemara here says that if a Yisrael rapes a woman and divorces her, he remarries her, and he is not lashed. This seems to imply that the man gets a "second chance" to fulfill his obligation of being married to the woman whom he raped, even though he did an areyah by divorced her.  He divorced her, but is not punished for this action because he "undoes" his action by remarrying her.  Are there any other mitzvoth like this where we receive a second chance to undo an averah before being punished for it, and if so, why do we get this second chance for only particular aveyrot?