Question: Why do we need the Pasuk in Kedoshim? Why can we not learn Achoso bas Aviv u'Bas Imo from the superfluous Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Achoscha Hi", in connection with the Azharah, where it writes in Vayikra 18 "ve'Nichr'su ha'Nefashos ha'Osos"?

Answer: Because "ve'Nichr'su ... " there only pertains to a sister who is the daughter of his father's wife and his father, about whom the Pasuk specifically writes, but not to one who is the daughter of both his father and his mother, which we only learn from the Ribuy "Achoscha Hi".

Clarification: This refers to R. Yitzchak, who learns the Onesh from the Azharah.

Clarification #1: The Gemara in Kerisus explains that, R. Yitzchak follows his reasoning of 'Onshin min ha'Din', whereas the Rabbanan follow theirs, of 'Ein Onshin ... '.

Clarification #2: And the same goes for the Gemara later in the Perek, which refers to the opinion that holds 'Onshin min ha'Din', which Rashi explains is R. Yitzchak.

Question: All the answers in our Sugya imply that R. Yitzchak can hold 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din without any problem?

Answer: It seems that, according to this answer (that we learn the Onesh from the Azharah) R. Yitzchak holds 'Onshin min ha'Din, because what this means is that since there is a 'Kal va'Chomer to punish for a sister who is the daughter of one's mother and one's father, we say that since the Torah equates them regarding the Azharah, the same will apply to the Onesh. And that being the case, R. Yitzchak will always hold 'Onshin min ha'Din -wherever they are equal regarding the Azharah.

Proof: Clearly, we can only learn the Onesh from the Azharah where one can punish him from a Kal va'Chomer, because otherwise, by the same token, we would have to say by Chayvei La'avin too, such as Mamzer and Amoni, that they are Chayav Kareis, because we learn the Onesh from the Azharah, because just as the Torah compares them regarding the Azharah, so too, are they compared regarding the Onesh.

Conclusion: It is therefore as we explained - it is only where one can punish from a Kal va'Chomer that we learn the Onesh from the Azharahia (see Tal Torah). So it seems to Mashi'ach, though it needs looking into.

Clarification: That is why 'Mefatem & Sach', which have independent La'avin, also bring independent Chata'os.

Question: Seeing as Achoso she'Hi Achos Aviv she'Hi Achos Imo are three independent La'avin, why do we need "Achoso" in the Seifa to divide them?

Answer #1: Rashi explains that in fact, now that, according to R. Yitzchak, we have cited R. Elazar Amar R. Hoshaya, Arayos, according to him, do not require a distinction, nor is it necessary to Darshen "ve'el Ishah", as we did earlier. Neither do we need the Pasuk of "Achoso" in the Reisha to draw a distinction, releasing it to learn that Chayvei Kareis are not subject to Malkos. And what's more, we do not require "Achoso" in the Seifa for Achoso who is bas Aviv and bas Imo, to teach us 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din,

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is the way of the Torah to insert "Achoso", even though it is not necessary.

Answer #3: Yet others explain that we do need the D'rashah of "Achoso" in the Reisha for Achoso who is also Achos Aviv and Achos Imo. This is because, granted they have independent La'avin, nevertheless, they are all in one body, and as such we would have thought that they should only receive one set of Malkos; in spite of 'Mefatem and Sach', two separate Avodos that are not performed together and that therefore receive two sets of Malkos from the D'rashah of R. Elazar.

Refutation: The Gemara in the first Perek of K'risus however, supports Rashi. The Gemara there asks on this very case (Achoso she'Hi Achos Aviv she'Hi Achos Imo) 'Now that they are all independent La'avin, why does the Torah need to write Kareis by "Achoso". Nnow that we Darshen Chiluk by Arayos like R. Elazar, why do we not learn the distinction here from the fact that they have independent La'avin, like Mefatem and Sach. But according to the previous answer, what is the Gemara's Kashya, seeing as they are not comparable?

Conclusion: That explains why Rashi's explanation appears to be the correct one.

Question #1: Where do we find a precedent that Terumah is more stringent than Kodshim, that R. Yochanan can say here that the Pasuk "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" refers to Terumah (implying that touching Terumah be'Tuma'h is subject to Malkos, when touching Kodesh is not?

Answer: R. Shlomoh from D'royes (Nishmaso Eiden), explains that when the Gemara says 'ha'Hu li'Negi'as Terumah Hu de'Asa', it means that until the completion of a Yoledet's days of Taharah, she invalidates Terumah like a T'vul-Yom, but not that she is subject to Malkos.

Question #2: The question nevertheless arises, how can R. Yochanan establish a Pasuk which mentions 'Kodesh' with regard to Terumah?

Answer #1: Bearing in mind that Kodshim remains forbidden until after she has brought her Kaparah (Mechusar Kipurim), when the Torah writes here "ad M'los Yemei Taharah" (T'vul-Yom), it must be talking about Terumah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, R. Yochanan learns the Azharah by Kodesh from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Tum'aso" "Tum'aso", as we learned earlier.

Question: The La'av of Gezeilah is a La'av she'Kadmo Asei, seeing as the Asei of "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah (in Vayikra) precedes the La'av (in Kedoshim), yet the Gazlan does not receive Malkos?

Answer: Seeing as it is impossible to perform the Asei of "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah" before one has transgressed the La'av of Gezeilah, it is really a 'La'av she'Nitak la'Asei'. Whereas a 'La'av she'Kodmo Asei' that is mentioned here refers to cases where it is possible to fulfill the Asei before transgressing the La'av.