Daf 32b bottom line
The gemoro says that reb yochonon disagrees with ulla, who says that tashlumin comes b4 malkos, because, the you are mebatel the lav of ervas achoscho.
Why didn't the gemoro say, you are mevatel every lav which has with it tashlumin. There are probably dozens more examples of a lav which has no validity for malkos, at least in this h"a of the gemoro?
Avrumi Hersh, London england
I think you are correct. The Gemara's reasoning would apply to any other case of a Lav which has both Malkus and Tashlumin. Taking away the Malkus would in a sense be Mevatel "the Lav." So when the Gemara cites the case of Ones or Mefateh against one's sister, I understand that this is just an example. You are asking why it gives that particular example. I didn't see this discussed in the Mefarshim, but I would believe that it is because it is the first such example listed in our Mishnah on Daf 29a.
Warmest regards,
Yishai Rasowsky