A KORBAN FOR EACH ERVAH
(Beraisa - R. Yitzchak): The Torah taught that (all) Arayos are Chayavei Kerisus, and (superfluously) mentions Kares for Bi'ah with a sister;
This teaches that it (and all other Chayavei Kerisus) are punishable by Kares, and not by lashes.
Question: What do Chachamim learn from this?
Answer #1: This Kares individualizes the Arayos, like R. Yochanan taught.
(R. Yochanan): If one forgot several Chayavei Kerisus and transgressed them (without remembering in between), he brings a Korban for each one. (Since one verse obligates Kares for all the Arayos ("mi'Kol ha'To'evos ha'Eleh v'Nichresu"), one might have thought that they are all considered one Kares, and only one Korban is brought for many transgressions in one Helam (forgetting)).
Question: What is R. Yitzchak's source to individualize the Arayos?
Answer: "V'El Ishah b'Tumas Nidasah" obligates for every woman.
Objection: Also Chachamim should learn from "v'El Ishah..."!
Answer #2: (Indeed, they do. Rather,) the Kares for Bi'ah with a sister teaches that if one has Bi'ah with his sister, and the sisters of his father and mother, he is liable for each one.
Objection: This is obvious! They are different transgressions and different women!
Answer #3: Rather, it teaches that if one has Bi'ah with his sister, who is also the sister of his father and mother, he is liable (a separate Korban) for each (of the three reasons she is forbidden to him).
Question: How can his sister be the sister of his parents?
Answer: His father was a Rasha. (Zimri fathered Rachel and Leah from his mother, and he fathered Doson from Rachel. Leah is Doson's (paternal) sister, and she is the maternal sister of his parents.)
Question: What is R. Yitzchak's source for this?
Answer #1: He learns from a Kal va'Chomer;
(Beraisa - R. Akiva) Question: If one has Bi'ah with his sister, who is also the sister of his father and mother, is he is liable once, or for each transgression?
Answer (Raban Gamliel and R. Yehoshua): We heard only the following. If one has Bi'ah with five Nidos in one Helem, he is liable for each woman. All the more so, in your case he is liable for each!
If he is liable for each when they are the same transgression (Nidah), and all the more so for different Arayos (sister, paternal aunt, maternal aunt)!
Chachamim reject this Kal va'Chomer. He is liable for each Nidah because they are different women!
Objection: R. Yitzchak must admit that the Kal va'Chomer is refuted!
Answer #2: He learns from the end of the verse ("Ervas Achoso Gilah").
Chachamim learn from this that one is liable for a full sister, for we do not punish based on a Kal va'Chomer (we cannot learn from a Kal va'Chomer, if he is liable for a half sister, and all the more so for a full sister!)
Question: What is R. Yitzchak's source to obligate for a full sister?
Version #1 (our text, Rashi) Answer #1: He learns liability from the Lav. ("Achoscha Hi" forbids a full sister.)
Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #1: R. Yitzchak holds that we punish based on a Kal va'Chomer, therefore it suffices that there is a Lav for a half-sister. (end of Version #2)
Answer #2: He learns from the beginning of the verse ("Achoso Bas Aviv Oh Vas Imo." 'Achoso' is extra to teach about a full sister).
Chachamim use that 'Achoso' to teach that one who makes oil like Shemen ha'Mishchah and anoints with (the original) Shemen ha'Mishchah is liable twice.
R. Yitzchak learns like R. Elazar.
(R. Elazar): Whenever the Torah writes separate Lavim for two transgressions but mentions Kares only once, they are separate regarding Korbanos (if done in one Helem, two Korbanos are brought).
Alternatively, he does not learn like R. Elazar. Rather, he learns from an extra Kares written regarding Nidah - "v'Ish Asher Yishkav Es Ishah Davah... v'Nichresu."
Chachamim use this to teach R. Yochanan's law.
(R. Yochanan): A woman becomes Nidah only if the blood leaves through her Ervah (i.e. to exclude blood that comes out through Caesarian section).
MALKUS FOR A TAMEI WHO ATE KODESH
(Mishnah): If a Tamei person eats Kodesh (or enters the Mikdash, he is lashed).
Question: We understand why a Tamei who enters the Mikdash is lashed (and is listed with transgressions of Kares):
The punishment is explicit - "Es Mishkan Hash-m Timei v'Nichresah";
The Lav (the warning for lashes) is explicit - "vV'Lo Yetam'u Es Machaneihem."
The Kares for eating Kodesh is explicit - "veha'Nefesh Asher Tochal... ha'Shlamim... v'Tum'aso Alav";
However, what is the warning against eating Kodesh?
Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): It is "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga."
Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Tum'aso-Tum'aso":
It says here "v'Tum'aso Alav", like it says (about a Tamei who enters the Mikdash) "Od Tum'aso Vo";
Just like there the Torah specifies warning and punishment, also regarding eating Kodesh.
Question: Granted, Reish Lakish did not learn like R. Yochanan, for he has no tradition for the Gezerah Shavah.
However, why didn't R. Yochanan learn like Reish Lakish?
Answer: He holds that "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" discusses Terumah.
Question: Where does Reish Lakish learn that a Tamei is warned not to eat Terumah?
Answer: "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon v'Hu Tzaru'a Oh Zav ba'Kodoshim Lo Yochal";
Question: Why does it say "mi'Zera Aharon"?
Answer: The verse discusses something that all seed of Aharon (i.e. including women) may eat, i.e. Terumah.
R. Yochanan agrees that this forbids a Tamei to eat Terumah. He holds that "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" forbids touching Terumah.
Question: (Reish Lakish cannot say that "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" forbids a Tamei to eat Kodesh.) He uses it to forbid a Tamei to touch Kodesh!
(Reish Lakish): If a Tamei touches Kodesh he is lashed - "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga";
(R. Yochanan): He is not lashed. That is a warning not to touch Terumah,
Answer: Since it says "Lo Siga", it forbids touching;
The verse ("b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga v'El ha'Mikdash Lo Savo"), equates Kodesh to the Mikdash. Just like a Tamei may not enter the Mikdash, he may not eat Kodesh.
Question: We need the verse to forbid a Tamei to eat Kodesh before Zerikah (throwing the blood)!
(Reish Lakish): If a Tamei ate Kodesh before Zerikah, he is lashed. "B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" applies before and after Zerikah;
(R. Yochanan): He is not lashed. A Gezerah Shavah "Tum'aso-Tum'aso" (written regarding the punishment), teaches that one is liable only for Kodesh permitted to Tehorim, i.e. after Zerikah.
Answer: Reish Lakish says, "b'Chol Kodesh" includes before Zerikah.
Support (for Reish Lakish - Beraisa): "B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" forbids eating Kodesh;
Suggestion: Perhaps it forbids touching!
Rejection: "B'Chol Kodesh... v'El ha'Mikdash" equates Kodesh to the Mikdash. A Tamei who enters the Mikdash is Chayav Misah (b'Yedei Shamayim, this is included in Kares). The prohibition of Kodesh also entails Misah;
One is not Chayav Misah for touching,