To counter Rebbi Yitzchak in our Mishnah, who precludes Chayvei K'risus from Malkos from the fact that the Torah mentions Kareis by 'Achoso', the Rabbanan (Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva) explain Kareis by 'Achoso' like Rebbi Yochanan who rules that - if someone transgresses all the eighteen Arayos in one He'elam (without being aware in the middle that he sinned), he is nevertheless Chayav to bring eighteen Chata'os.

We need the Pasuk by Achoso to teach us this, because - since the Torah incorporates all the K'risos in one Pasuk, we might otherwise have thought that he is only Chayav one Chatas.

Rebbi Yitzchak learns this from the word "Ishah" (in the Pasuk Acharei-Mos "ve'El Ishah be'Nidas Tum'asah") - from which he Darshens 'Lechayev al Kol Ishah ve'Ishah'.

To the question why the Rabbanan do not agree with that D'rashah we answer that - in fact, they do.

And they learn from "Achoso" - that, in a case where a man commits incest with his sister, with his father's sister and with his mother's sister in one He'elam, he is Chayav three Chata'os.

We retract from this D'rashah however, because it is obvious - seeing as they are both three different sins and three different women.

The Torah must therefore be referring - to a man who commits incest with a woman who is both his sister, his father's sister and his mother's sister.

We establish this in the case of 'Reshi'a bar Reshi'a' meaning that - a man fathers two daughters from his own mother and a son from one of his daughters, and that son then commits incest with her.

Rebbi Yitzchak learns the current ruling from a 'Kal Vachomer', as Rebbi Akiva taught in the name of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua - whom he asked this She'eilah when they were at the butcher, buying meat for Rabban Gamliel's son's wedding.

Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua learned the 'Kal va'Chomer' from - someone who had relations with five Nidos, which is only one La'av, yet he is Chayav five Chata'os, how much more so 'Achoso she'Hi Achos Aviv va'Achos Imo', which incorporates three different La'avin.

The 'Pircha' on this 'Kal va'Chomer' however, is that - whereas the former constitutes three different women, the latter constitutes only one.

Rebbi Yitzchak concedes to this 'Pircha', and he therefore learns the Din of the three Achosos from "Achoso de'Seifa ("Ervas Achoso Gilah"). The Rabbanan learn from there that one is Chayav Kareis (and Malkos) for a full sister (who is both from the father's side and from the mother's).

We cannot learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a half-sister - due to the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' (which we actually learn from here).

Rebbi Yitzchak learns the punishment of a full sister either from the Azharah (in Kedoshim, where the Torah specifically writes "Achoscha hi" to include a full sister) or - from the word "Achoscha" in the Reisha (by the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos containing the Azharah ["ve'Ish ki Yikach es Achoso ... ", seeing as the Torah could just as well have written "ve'Ish Ki Yikach es bas Aviv O es bas Imo ... ").

The Rabbanan learn from "Achoso" de'Reisha 'Lechalek Kareis li'Mefatem ve'Sach' (that if someone makes a replica of the anointing oil and anoints someone with it, he is subject to two Chata'os) ...

... since the Pasuk in Ki Sisa writes an independent La'av for each one ("Al B'sar Adam Lo Yisach, u've'Maskunto Lo Sa'asu Kamohu" ) ...

... despite the fact that it writes only one Kareis ("Ish asher Yikach Kamohu ... ve'Nichras me'Amav"), for which reason we would otherwise have thought that he brings only one Chatas.

Rebbi Yitzchak does not need this D'rashah however, because he holds like Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya, who maintains that - wherever the Torah writes two La'avin and one Kareis, someone who transgresses both La'avin be'Shogeg is automatically Chayav two Korbanos.

This effects our case of three Achosos - inasmuch as there too, the Torah writes three separate La'avin but only one Kareis, which will therefore not require a Pasuk either.

Alternatively (he does not hold like Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya, but) he learns it from the (otherwise superfluous) Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ish asher Yishkav es Ishah Davah". The Rabbanan learn from there the Din of Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, who says that - a woman only becomes Tamei Nidah if the blood flows from her womb, but not if it flows from an incision that was made in that area of the body.

The connection between the Pasuk in Chukas "es Mishkan Hash-m Timei ve'Nichresah" and the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Lo Yetam'u es Machaneihem" is that - they constitute the Onesh and the Azharah, respectively, for entering the Beis-Hamikdash be'Tum'ah.

The Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Nefesh asher Tochal Basar mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim asher la'Hashem ve'Tum'aso alav, ve'Nichresah" is the Onesh for Tamei she'Achal es ha'Kodesh. We cannot learn the Azharah from the Pasuk "be'Kodshim Lo Yochal" - since "Kodshim" there means Terumah (as we shall soon see).

Resh Lakish learns the Azharah from "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga". Rebbi Yochanan (citing a Beraisa quoted by Bard'la) learns it from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - "Tum'aso" "Tum'aso" from ha'Ba el ha'Mikdash be'Tum'ah.

Resh Lakish does not agree with Rebbi Yochanan, because he did not receive the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from his Rebbes, whereas Rebbi Yochanan declines to learn like Resh Lakish - because in his opinion, "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" pertains to someone who eats Terumah when he is Tamei (and not Kodesh).

Resh Lakish learns the Azharah to eat Terumah be'Tum'ah from the Pasuk in Emor (that we quoted earlier) "Ish Ish me'Zera Aharon ... be'Kodshim Lo Yochal", which must be speaking about Terumah and not Kodshim - because "Zera Aharon" incorporates B'nos Aharon, who are permitted to eat Terumah, but not Kodshim (that are confined to Kohanim).

Despite the fact that a bas-Aharon is eligible to eat Chazeh ve'Shok of Kodshim Kalim, the Pasuk cannot be referring to B'nos-Aharon - since a bas Kohen who returns to her father's house when her Yisrael husband dies leaving her without children, is not permitted to eat Chazeh ve'Shok, whereas Terumah she is.

Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless requires the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" by Terumah as well - one for eating be'Tum'ah, and the other, for touching it be'Tum'ah.

In an independent Machlokes, Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" by a Tamei who touches Terumah. According to Resh Lakish, the Pasuk - pertains to a Tamei who touches Kodesh.

And he applies the same Pasuk to a Tamei who eats Kodesh (because, whereas on the one hand, the Torah uses the Lashon of 'touching', on the other) - since that same Pasuk compares Kodesh to Mikdash, which is Chayav Kareis, the case of Kodesh must include one of Chiyuv Kareis (and there is no Chiyuv Kareis for touching Kodesh, only for eating it).

In a third Machlokes, Rebbi Yochanan confines the Din of Malkos by a Tamei who eats Kodesh to Kodshim after the Zerikah - which he knows because the Pasuk of "Tum'aso" (the source of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah') speaks specifically after the Zerikah.

Whereas Resh Lakish learns that he is Chayav even he eats them before the Zerikah - from the word "be'Chol" (in the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga"), which is otherwise superfluous'

It is the opinion of - Resh Lakish that is supported by a Beraisa ...

... which cites the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh", and goes on to prove from the Hekesh to Mikdash that it must be referring to eating the Kodesh and not touching it, as we just explained according to Resh Lakish.