Question: Why does the Tana not include them both in the thirty-six K'risus (to make it thirty-seven?

Answer: The Yerushalmi poses the question, and answers that since they both pertain to the same man, they are counted as one.

Clarification: And the reason that the Torah repeated it is to teach us that it applies even after the death of his son, as Rashi explains

Question: But from there we only know the Azharah (which would sentence him to Malkos), but from where do we know that she is also subject to the punishment (after the death of his son) ...

Precedent: ... just as earlier, where we required a Pasuk, for the punishment of Eishes Av after the father's death, as well as for the warning.

Answer: We learn it from the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Demeihem" "Demeihem" from Eishes Av, who is subject to punishment after the father's death just like during his lifetime.

Implied Question: Why does the Tana not include someone who brings the animal on himself?

Answer: Because it is only learned from a D'rashah, and is not written explicitly.

Implied Question: The question remains however, why he does not include someone who brings a male on himself, even though the Torah explicitly writes "Sheneihem Mos Yamusu"?

Answer: One can say that the Tana merely follows the Lashon of the Pasuk in 18:22 which writes "ve'es Zachar Lo Sishkav ... ".

Clarification: The Gezeirah-Shavah of "Demeihem Bam" does not seem to him to include Onesh like Azharah (just as it does there).

Question: This is fine with regard to 'Zachar', where the Torah specifically writes "To'evah"; but from where will we learn 'Nishkav' by Beheimah, where it does not?

Implied Answer: Rashi answers that the Torah writes in the Parshah of Arayos "Ki es Kol ha'To'evos ... " ...

Refutation: In that case however, all Arayos ought to be subject to two Isurim, one because of "Lo Yih'yeh Kadesh", the other, because of the La'av that is written specifically by them?

Answer: The answer is because after 'Zachar' the Torah writes "u've'Chol Beheimah", with a 'Vav Mosif' (an extra 'Vav') connecting it to the previous issue ('Zachar'), as a result of which it is as if the Torah had written "To'evah" by Beheimah explicitly.

Implied Question: How does this differ from the Sugya at the beginning of K'risus, which requires a special Pasuk to divide (Chata'os) by a sister who is both the sister of his father and of his mother?

Answer #1: Nevertheless, here R. Yishmael declares two Chata'os (even though there is no Pasuk to divide between them), since two Bi'os take place.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Sugya here holds like R. Elazar, who says there that wherever one finds two La'avin and one Kareis, there is a division of Chata'os, since the La'avin divide.

Implied Question: According to R. Avahu, why does the Torah use a Lashon of "Shochev" when it is speaking about 'Nishkav'.

Answer: To teach us that both he and his animal require a Beis-Din of twenty-three (as we learned in Bava Kama, 15a).

Clarification: Even though they are different bodies, R. Yishmael only declares one Chatas.

Implied Question: Why then, in Perek Amru lo (Kerisos, 15a), does he obligate one Chatas for each of five Nidos , and in Perek Arba'ah Mechusrei Kipurim (Ibid., Daf 9a), one for each of five Shifchos Charufos?

Answer: Because in the case of the five Nidos we Darshen "ve'Ishah", to divide between each Nidah, and in the case of the five Shifchos Charufos, we Darshen "ve'Hi Shifchah", to divide between each Shifchah.