he was referring not to liability for lashes, but to the exemption from lashes stated in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan (3a). And this is what he is saying: One is not flogged for transgressing a prohibition that does not involve an action…They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, that also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is not flogged, since he performs no action.

The Gemara asks: And what is different about one who effects substitution, that he is flogged despite not having performed an action? Is it because he has performed an action with his speech, by consecrating the animal? If so, one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits should be flogged as well, because he has performed an action with his speech, by consecrating the produce.

Rabbi Avin said: It is different there, in the case of one who tithes produce in the wrong order, as it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva. As a rule, if the Torah specifies a positive mitzva to be performed after transgressing a prohibition to rectify it, that prohibition does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is the case here, as it is written: “Out of all of your tithes you shall set apart all of that which is due to the Lord” (Numbers 18:29), which teaches that one who separated tithes in the incorrect order or who separated teruma before separating the first fruits, must still separate the earlier tithes even after the later tithes, or the first fruits even after the teruma.

§ Rav Dimi was sitting and saying this halakha, that one who separates teruma prior to separating the first fruits is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified. Abaye said to him: And is it correct that one is not flogged for transgressing any prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva?

But there is the case of one who effects substitution, which is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva, as the verse states: “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall at all change animal for animal, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy” (Leviticus 27:10). And even so, one who effects substitution is flogged, as we learned in the mishna (2a): That is not to say that it is permitted for a person to effect substitution; rather, it means that if one substituted a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, the substitution takes effect and the one who substituted the non-sacred animal incurs the punishment of the forty lashes.

Rav Dimi answered: There are two prohibitions specified in the verse as transgressed by one who effects substitution: “He shall not exchange it,” and: “Nor substitute it.” But there is only one positive mitzva: “Both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy.” And one positive mitzva does not come and uproot two prohibitions. Therefore, although generally, one who transgresses a prohibition that can be rectified is not flogged, one who effects substitution is flogged.

The Gemara counters: But there is the case of the rapist who forces himself upon a virgin, who is obligated to marry the victim if she wishes and is then prohibited from divorcing her. As here the verse states one prohibition: “He may not send her away all his days,” and one positive mitzva: “And she shall be his wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29). This teaches that he can rectify the transgression of divorcing her by remarrying her. And yet, the one positive mitzva does not come and uproot the prohibition, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a rapist who married and then divorced his victim, if he is an Israelite, who is permitted to marry a divorcée, he remarries her and he is not flogged. But if he is a priest, who is prohibited from marrying a divorcée, he is flogged and he does not remarry her.

The Gemara answers: You say that a case that concerns priests challenges the principle that a rectifiable transgression does not make one liable for flogging. But in the case of priests there is another reason why they are flogged, as the Merciful One increased the severity of their transgressions, for they have greater holiness. By contrast, one who transgresses a prohibition unrelated to the priesthood will not be flogged if its violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva.

§ Which prohibitions carry the punishment of lashes is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning the Paschal offering: “And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to place a positive mitzva after the prohibition in order to say that one is not flogged for transgressing it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Ya’akov says: He is not exempt from lashes for that reason, but rather because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, and one is not flogged for transgressing any prohibition that does not involve an action. The Gemara comments: By inference, it may be concluded that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is flogged for transgressing a prohibition that does not involve an action.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Ya’akov, who holds that the exemption from lashes stems from the prohibition’s not involving an action, for what purpose does the clause “but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire” come?

The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 83a): The bones of the Paschal offering that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is prohibited to break the bones of the Paschal offering, and the sinews, and the leftover meat must all be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. If the sixteenth occurs on Shabbat, they must be burned on the seventeenth, because the mitzva to burn them does not override Shabbat or the Festival. Therefore, they are burned on the first weekday.

And Ḥizkiyya says, and so it is taught in the school of Ḥizkiyya: What is the reason for this? The verse states: “And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire.” By using the word “morning” twice, the verse comes to provide a second morning for the offering’s burning if the first morning falls on Shabbat or a Festival.

§ Abaye said: With regard to any matter that the Merciful One states in the Torah not to perform, if one performed it, his action is effective, but the violator is flogged. As, if it enters your mind that it is not effective, why would he be flogged for accomplishing nothing? Rava said: If one performed it, it is not effective at all. And this is the reason that he is flogged: Because he transgressed the statement of the Merciful One.