Clarification: Since the Beraisa states ' ...and it is the year of Ma'aser Sheini and he is in Yerushalmi', we can extrapolate that he was in another location, he would receive three sets of Malkos.

Clarification: Therefore as far as the Din of redeeming is concerned, we do not apply the principle 'Matanos she'Lo Hurmu, k'Mi Shehurmu Damyan' to say that the walls of Yerushalayim has gathered it in and it is forbidden to redeem it; whereas with regard to receiving Malkos for eating them outside Yerushalayim, we do.

Clarification: When the Tana rules that outside Yerushalayim he receives three sets of Malkos, he is speaking in a case where the owner is standing inside, and the cane which he is holding is still outside. And it is coming to teach us that he receives Malkos, because on the one hand, this is considered 'Re'iyas P'nei Bayis, whilst on the other, he will receive Malkos if he eats it where it is, since he is not completely inside.

Clarifying the Text: Rashi omits 'be'Bas Achas', and reads just 'Ela be'Chada Hasra'ah'. In other words, the Beraisa is still speaking about 'Zeh Achar Zeh', only with one warning.

Reason for Rashi's Text'. Perhaps Rashi's reason is because if the Tana was speaking about 'Bas Achas', then it would all be one bald patch (so why would he be Chayav four or five Malkos)?

Justifying First Text: One can however, justify the first text ('be'Bas Achas'), by establishing the case where he made five separate bald patches in one go, each the specified size of a Korchah.

Explanation: The Gemara could in fact, have asked the same Kashya ('Mi Mechayev') had we established the Beraisa by 'Zeh Achar Zeh' (like Rashi), only the Gemara is asking on the assumption that the Beraisa is speaking even by 'Bas Achas' and with one Hasra'ah'.

Question: What has the Gemara answered? Seeing as there was only one warning, the question remains, why is he Chayav five Malkos?

Implied Answer: Maybe it is because he did it all in one go?

Refutation: So what if he did? If a person eats two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one go and with one warning, will he also receive two sets of Malkos, because the warning goes on each k'Zayis?

Answer: This case is different, seeing as the Pasuk has revealed that one is Chayav for each Bald patch.

Question: The question remains however, why the Gemara finds it necessary to establish the case where he smeared his five ointment-tipped fingers on his head simultaneously, and not when he simply made a large bald patch, the size of five without stopping, and still, unlike the case of Nazir drinking wine, he will be Chayav five Malkos, due to the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, which teaches us that the patches divide in the same way as bodies do?

Answer: It is not possible to establish the case like we suggested, because an extra-large bald patch without the interruption of a hair in between is considered one bald patch, for which one would only receive one set of Malkos. And the only way that we can apply the term 'on each and every patch', is where one makes five simultaneous patches slightly apart from one another.

Question: But the question still remains, why we cannot establish the case where he made five patches even one after the other, by pulling out hair from five spots slightly apart from one another, and not necessarily simultaneously?

Rashi's Answer: From Rashi it appears that if he made five patches one after the other, he would only be Chayav for the first one, which was performed within the Shi'ur of 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the warning, but not for the others, which were preformed after that, since he can always claim that he forgot.

Refutation: Since he began to transgress 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the warning however, he cannot claim that he forgot ...

Proof: ... as the Gemara clearly states in Kidushin, in the case of a Kohen Gadol who receives Malkos, for having had relations with five Almanos, even if he only received one warning, because they are five bodies, despite the fact that it is only with the first Almanah that he transgressed 'Toch K'dei Dibur'.

Answer (according to the first text(: It therefore seems that the Gemara could indeed have answered by establishing the case by 'Zeh Achar Zeh', only the Gemara preferred to establish it by 'Bas Achas', to demonstrate that he is Chayav five Malkos, even in the case which we initially queried, as we explained earlier (so the Shitah Mekubetes explains).

Question: This answer holds water according to the first text ('be'Bas Achas ... '), but how will we answer the Kashya according to the second text ('Ela be'Chada Hasra'ah', and it speaks by 'Zeh Achar Zeh')?

Answer: The Beraisa nevertheless prefers to establish the case by 'bas Achas', to teach us a bigger Chidush, that even where he did it in one go it is possible to make five separate bald patches with a space of a hairsbreadth in between them - in the case where he smeared all ointment-tipped five fingers simultaneously on his head; and how much more so one after the other, where it is easy to establish the case (where he removed the hairs with his hand).

Clarification: The Rashbam establishes this ruling like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah (a Melachah that one does not actually need) is Chayav.