(R. Elazar): R. Yochanan ben Nuri (in our Mishnah) and Sumchus taught the same idea:

(Mishnah): If one slaughtered a cow, its daughter's daughter, and then its daughter, he receives 40 lashes;

Sumchus says, he receives 80 lashes.

Rejection #1 (Rava): No. Perhaps R. Yochanan ben Nuri obligates for each because they are Shemos Muchlakim (different Isurim), i.e. Chamoso, Em Chamoso and Em Chamav. There, it is only one Isur, Oso v'Es Beno.

Rejection #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): There, Sumchus obligates twice because they are Gufim Muchlakim (different entities). Here, it is all one woman. Perhaps he holds like R. Avahu:

(R. Avahu): "Sha'arah Henah Zimah Hi" - all prohibitions of a woman and her daughters or granddaughters (i.e. if he marries one of them, he is forbidden to the others) are considered like one.

(Mishnah - R. Akiva) Question: If one has relations with his sister, his father's sister, and his mother's sister, is he is Chayav for each, or only once?

Answer (R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua): We did not hear this law, but we can learn from a different law we heard:

If one has relations with five Nidos (e.g. his wives) in one He'elem, he is Chayav for each. All the more so, in your case he is liable for each!

(Gemara) Question: What is the case?

If the Mishnah is literal (the sisters are different women), why was R. Akiva unsure? They are Shemos Muchlakim and Gufim Muchlakim! (Surely, he is liable for each.)

Answer: Rather, the case is, his sister is also his father's sister and his mother's sister;

Perhaps he is Chayav three times, since they are Shemos Muchlakim;

Or, perhaps he is Chayav only once, since they are not Gufim Muchlakim!

(Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua): We did not hear this law, but we can learn from a different law we heard;

If one has relations with five Nidos in one He'elem, he is Chayav for each, even though it is all one Shem Isur. In your case, they are Shemos Muchlakim. All the more so he is liable for each!

Objection: This is not a Kal va'Chomer. The Nidos are Gufim Muchlakim, but the sister is not! (R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua hold that it depends solely on Shemos. The Gemara disagrees, and gives its own reason for the law.)

Rather, "Ervas Achoso Gilah" is Mechayev for (each Shem Isur for) a sister who is also his father's sister and his mother's sister.

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The case occurs through transgression, e.g. if Esav fathered two girls through his mother, and fathered a son (Elifaz) through one of the girls;

The other girl is the sister of Elifaz and of his mother (Esav fathered all three of them) and of his father (her mother is Esav's mother).

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If a man had several acts of relations with an Ervah in one He'elem, he is liable for each act;

Chachamim say, he is liable only once;

Chachamim agree that if one has relations with five Nidos in one He'elem, he is Chayav for each, because he caused each of them to be liable.

Objection (Rava): One is not liable for each just because he caused each of them to be liable!

Version #1 (our text) (Beraisa): If (a man had relations five times with an Ervah,) for him it was one He'elem, but (she realized in between, so) for her it was five Ha'alamos, he is liable only once, and she is liable for each;

Version #2 (Beraisa): If he (had relations five times with each of five Arayos) in one He'elem (altogether, or with each Ervah in one He'elem), and for each of them it was five Ha'alamos, he is liable only once for each Ervah, they are liable for each Bi'ah. (end of Version #2)

He is not Chayav for each Bi'ah, even though he caused her (or them) to be liable for each!

Correction (Rava): Rather, the reason Chachamim agree about one who has relations with five Nidos in one He'elem is because they are Gufim Muchlakim.

Question: If one reaped twice (on Shabbos) in one He'elem, how many Chata'os is R. Eliezer Mechayev?

If he is (always) Mechayev for each transgression, he is liable for each;

Or, perhaps he is Mechayev for each because different Bi'os cannot be done at once. Here, it is possible to reap two Grogeros (one fig is the Shi'ur to be Chayav for Melachos involving food) at once!

Answer #1 (Rabah): He obligates for each Bi'ah, and similarly for each Melachah;

Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): He is Mechayev for each Bi'ah because they cannot be done at once. Here, since one can reap two Grogeros at once, he is liable only once.

Question (Abaye, against Rabah - Beraisa): R. Eliezer obligates (a second Korban) for a Vlad (derivative of a) Melachah done (in one He'elem) with its Av (the primary Melachah it is derived from)..

Inference: He is Mechayev only once if the Av was done twice. According to Rabah, he should be liable twice!

Answer (Mar brei d'Ravna and Rav Nechumi): The Beraisa discusses a date branch that was supported by an empty vine shoot, and he cut them together;

He is liable twice because they are Gufim Muchlakim and Shemos Muchlakim. (Cutting a branch for the wood is pruning, which is a Vlad of reaping);

The corresponding case of reaping twice is cutting off two figs at once. (It is neither Gufim nor Shemos Muchlakim);

If he cut a fig and later cut another, R. Eliezer obligates twice!

(Mishnah - R. Akiva) Question: What is the law of a dangling limb of an animal? (Is it Tamei like Ever Min ha'Chai, as if it fell off?)

Answer (R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua): We did not hear this law, but we can learn from a different law we heard, that a dangling limb of a person is Tahor;

In Yerushalayim, a person with a dangling limb would go to a doctor on Erev Pesach to cut it off (to look nice for the festival - Rashi. Rashash - it is a Chatzitzah that disqualifies immersion.) The doctor would cut, and leave it dangling by a strand. The patient would totally detach it through (walking by) a thorn. The patient and doctor (remained Tahor. They) would go to offer Korban Pesach afterwards.

R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua: All the more so, a dangling limb of an animal is Tahor! (The text of Rashi and Shitah inserts the following line. It is not in our Gemara.)

(Gemara): Man can become Tamei while alive, yet his dangling limbs are Tahor. Animals cannot become Tamei while alive, all the more so their dangling limbs are Tahor! (Rashash - a person's (detached) Ever Min ha'Chai is Metamei for seven days, like a Mes, yet his dangling limb is Tahor. An animal's (detached) Ever Min ha'Chai is Metamei only Tum'as Erev, like a Nevelah. All the more so its dangling limb is Tahor!)

(Mishnah): If one grinds (Rashi; Tosfos - scrapes water off) leeks, or squeezes (water out of) hair or a garment:

The water inside is not b'Chi Yutan, but what comes out is b'Chi Yutan. (Water and the other six important Mashkim (liquids) are Machshir (enable food to become Tamei) only if they came (or came on food) willingly. This is called b'Chi Yutan. Tosfos - the water inside was not wanted. Rashi - absorbed liquids cannot become b'Chi Yutan.)

(Shmuel): The leek is Huchshar.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Water that comes out is Machshir it at the moment it leaves.

Question (Mishnah): On Erev Pesach, one with a dangling limb...

If water that separates is Machshir at the moment it leaves, likewise a limb should be Metamei a person at the moment it is cut off!

Answer: We answer like Rav Yosef answered a different question. The case is, it came off forcefully (instantaneously, therefore, it is not Metamei).

Question: What question did Rav Yosef answer?

Answer (Beraisa): If rain fell on a Zav or Tamei Mes, and he pressed on his garment, squeezing the water to the bottom, the water is Tahor (Rashi - it does not Metamei one who touches it. Because it will be absorbed in the bottom of the garment, it is unimportant. Tosfos - because he wants the water to come out, it is not l'Ratzon (and hence not Metamei nor Machshir) until it leaves the garment. Ra'avad - it is Batel to the garment until it leaves.)

When it leaves the garment, (it is still not Tamei, but) it is Machshir.

(Implied question: Why was the garment not Metamei the water when it left?)

Answer (Rav Yosef): The case is, he shook it off forcefully.

(Mishnah - R. Akiva) Question: If one slaughtered five Korbanos outside the Mikdash in one He'elem, is he liable once for all of them, or once for each?

R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua: We did not hear this law.

Answer (R. Yehoshua): We can learn from a different law I heard. One who eats from a Korban (before Zerikah) from five different plates in one He'elem is liable for Me'ilah for each;

All the more so, he is liable for each Korban slaughtered outside!

R. Shimon: R. Akiva did not ask about that. Rather, he asked the following:

Question (R. Akiva): If one eats Nosar from five different Korbanos in one He'elem, is he liable once, or for each?

R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua: We did not hear this law.

Answer (R. Yehoshua): We can learn from a different law I heard. One who eats from a Korban (before Zerikah) from five different plates in one He'elem is liable for Me'ilah for each;

All the more so, he is liable for each Korban from which he eats Nosar!

Rejection (R. Akiva): If you have a tradition about my question, I accept it. If you learn from Me'ilah, I can challenge this;

Me'ilah is more stringent. One who feeds Hekdesh to someone else is liable (through giving it to him, he makes it Chulin) as if he ate. One who gives Hekdesh to someone else to benefit from is liable as if he benefited. Also, benefit from Hekdesh joins (to a Perutah to be liable) without any time limit;

These do not apply to Nosar. (One is liable only if he ate a k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras.)

(Gemara) Question: Why was R. Shimon sure that R. Akiva did not ask about Shechutei Chutz?

Answer: R. Yehoshua could not learn (to be Mechayev for) Shechutei Chutz from eating (Kodshim), for one who eats gets Hana'ah;

Rather, he asked about eating Nosar from five Korbanos in one He'elem, and R. Yehoshua answered from Me'ilah for one Korban cooked in five plates.

They responded that they did hear this law.

R. Yehoshua: One Korban is not Gufim Muchlakim, yet plates are Mechalek to be Mechayev (for Me'ilah) for each. All the more so he is liable (for Nosar) for each Korban, for they are Gufim Muchlakim!

(Mishnah - R. Shimon) R. Akiva did not ask... (If you have a tradition, I accept it... )

Question: Did R. Yehoshua agree to R. Akiva's challenge?

Answer (Beraisa): If one ate five pieces of Nosar from one Korban cooked in five plates in one He'elem, he brings only one Chatas;

If he was unsure (about each, if it was Nosar or Heter) he brings only one Asham Taluy.

If he ate from five plates in five Ha'alamos, he brings a Chatas for each. If he was unsure, he brings an Asham Taluy for each.

If he ate from five Korbanos in one He'elem, he brings a Chatas for each;

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, even in this case he brings only one Chatas, and if he was unsure, only one Asham Taluy.

The general rule is, whenever one brings a Chatas for each definite transgression, he brings an Asham Taluy for each Safek transgression.

If he ate five pieces from five plates from one Korban before Zerikah, even in one He'elem, he is liable for Me'ilah for each.

Observation: The Tana is not Mechayev an Asham for Safek Me'ilah.

Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?

If it was R. Akiva, he should teach that he brings an Asham Taluy for each Safek Me'ilah!

(Mishnah - R. Akiva): One must bring an Asham for Safek Me'ilah.

Answer: The Beraisa is like R. Yehoshua, and it says that (even when he ate from five plates), Ha'alamos are Mechalek (but one Korban would suffice for one He'elem)!

Summation of answer: R. Yehoshua agreed to R. Akiva's challenge.