Shalom Samuel,

It's great to hear from you! This is an excellent question. The thrust of your point seems to be exactly the grounds on which the Gemara in Temurah (4b and onward) objects to Rava.

The Machlokes cited there is regarding this very issue. Abaye says if a person performs an action that the Torah forbids, then that action is indeed effective, and the individual therefore gets a punishment.

But Rava argues and instead maintains that the action is not effective at all, and the only reason the person gets a punishment is because he went through the motions attempting to commit the violation.

As we know, the Beraisa states that if, Chas v'Chalilah, a man was Me'anes a woman, then he is obligated to stay married to her; but if he divorced her, then (if he is not a Kohen) he must remarry her and receive no punishment.

This presents a challenge to Rava, because seemingly according to his view the man should be punished for attempting even temporarily to end the marriage with the woman who was his victim.

According to Abaye, however, it makes sense that he is not punished, since his subsquent remarriage to her shows that his divorce was ultimately not effective.

But, to actually respond to your question, the Gemara's answer to this is that Rava agrees in that case, because the Pasuk says, "He may not send her away all his days," which teaches that for all his days he is obligated to remarry her. Therefore, once he does remarry her, it will turn out that his divorce was canceled and thus he did not violate the prohibition, which is the reason he is not given Malkus.

May you continue to attain greatness in Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!

Warmly,

Yishai Rasowsky