Makkot 28
ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לחלק כרת למפטם ולסך
And [what do the Rabbis, i.e. Rebbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael do with achoso d'reisha, if they do not learn out the principle of not deriving punishments]? That verse is needed to teach us that there is a separate kares prohibition for concocting [the anointing oil] and for anointing [with the original anointing oil].
ואידך סבר כר' אלעזר א"ר הושעיא דאמר רבי אלעזר אמר רבי הושעיא כל מקום שאתה מוצא שני לאוין וכרת אחד חלוקין הן לקרבן
And [where does Rebbi Yitzchak learn to separate the two]? He holds like what Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah. That Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah, any place that you find two prohibitions with one kares, they are separated with regards to [bringing] a sacrifice [for an inadvertent transgression].
ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יוחנן דאמר ר' יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי מנין שאין האשה טמאה עד שיצא מדוה דרך ערותה שנאמר ואיש אשר ישכב את אשה דוה וגלה את ערותה וגו' מלמד שאין האשה טמאה עד שיצא מדוה דרך ערותה:
And the Rabbis need that verse to teach Rebbi Yochanon's ruling, that Rabbi Yochanon said in the name of Rebbi Shimoen ben Yochai, from where do we know that a woman is not made impure until the flux exits through the ervah? That the Torah says (Leviticus 20, 18) "And if a man shall lie with a woman sick and he uncovers her ervah". This teaches us that a woman is not made impure until the flux exits through the ervah.
וטמא שאכל את הקדש: בשלמא הבא למקדש טמא כתיב עונש וכתיב אזהרה עונש דכתיב (במדבר יט, יג) את משכן ה' טמא ונכרתה אזהרה (במדבר ה, ג) ולא יטמאו את מחניהם אלא טמא שאכל את הקדש בשלמא עונש כתיב (ויקרא ז, כ) והנפש אשר תאכל בשר מזבח השלמים אשר לה' וטומאתו עליו ונכרתה אלא אזהרה מנין
And an impure person who ate sacrificial food: [Receiving malkus by] enters the Temple while impure is understandable as both the punishment and the scriptural warning are written in the Torah. The punishment is written (Numbers 19,13) "The Tabernacle of G-d he has defiled and he shall be cut off". The scriptural warning is written (Numbers 5,3) "And he shall not defile the camps". But as for an impure person who ate sacrificial [meats] the punishment is easily understandable as it is written (Leviticus 7,20) "And the soul that eats meat from the alter of the Sh'lamim that are for G-d while his impureness is upon him will be cut off", only from where is the scriptual warning derived?
רבי יוחנן אומר תני ברדלא אתיא טומאתו טומאתו כתיב הכא וטומאתו עליו ונכרתה וכתיב התם (במדבר יט, יג) טמא יהיה עוד טומאתו בו מה להלן עונש ואזהרה אף כאן עונש ואזהרה
[that we derive it from the gezaira shava of] טומאתו טומאתו. It says here [by entering the temple impure] (Leviticus 7,20) "and his impureness (טומאתו) is upon him and he will be cut off" and it says there [by touching sacfical meats while impure] (Numbers 19,13) "Impure he shall be; his impureness (טומאתו) is still upon him". Just as there [by entering the temple impure] there is both punishment and scriptural warning, so too here [by touching sacfical meats while impure] there is both punishment and scriptual warning.
בשלמא ריש לקיש לא אמר כרבי יוחנן גזירה שוה לא גמיר אלא ר' יוחנן מאי טעמא לא אמר כריש לקיש אמר לך ההוא אזהרה לתרומה
It is understandable why Reish Lakash does not hold like Rebbi Yochanon, [as he can say that] he does not learn that gezaira shava. But what is the reason that Rebbi Yochanon does not say like Reish Lakash? [Rebbi Yochanon] would say to you, [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is giving a scriptual warning for [consuming] Terumah [while impure],
וריש לקיש אזהרה לתרומה מנא ליה נפקא ליה (ויקרא כב, ד) מאיש איש מזרע אהרן והוא צרוע או זב אי זהו דבר שהוא שוה בזרעו של אהרן הוי אומר זו תרומה ואידך ההוא לאכילה והא לנגיעה
And then where does Reish Lakash derive a scriptual warning for Terumah [if he uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach against eating sacrificial meats]? He derives it from (Leviticus 22,4) "Any man from the seed of Ahron, who is a lepor or zav". What is fit [only] for the seed of Ahron? You must say that this is referring to Terumah. And what does Rebbi Yochanon use that verse for [if he learns Terumah from elsewhere]? That verse is for consuming [Terumah while one is impure] and this verse [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is for touching [Terumah while one is impure].
וריש לקיש האי בכל קדש לא תגע להכי הוא דאתא ההוא מיבעי ליה לטמא שנגע בקדש דאיתמר טמא שנגע בקדש ריש לקיש אומר לוקה רבי יוחנן אומר אינו לוקה ריש לקיש אומר לוקה בכל קדש לא תגע רבי יוחנן אומר אין לוקה ההוא אזהרה לתרומה הוא דאתא
And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].
טמא שנגע בקדש מדאפקיה רחמנא בלשון נגיעה אזהרה (לאוכל) אתקוש קדש למקדש
[Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach touching sacrificial meats, not consuming them. How do we resolve this contradiction?] An impure person who touches sacrificial meats [is learned] out from the fact that the Torah uses the expression of touching. The scriptural warning for eating is derived from the hekesh [juxtaposition] of sacrificial meats to the temple.
ואכתי להכי הוא דאתא ההוא מיבעי ליה לטמא שאכל בשר קדש לפני זריקת דמים דאיתמר טמא שאכל בשר קדש לפני זריקת דמים ריש לקיש אומר לוקה רבי יוחנן אומר אינו לוקה
But still I ask does Reish Lakash indeed use [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] to teach this? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who ate sacrifical meats before the blood was thrown. [z'rikas hadam]. That it was said about an impure person who ate sacrifical meats before z'rikas hadam. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus.
ריש לקיש אומר לוקה בכל קדש לא תגע לא שנא לפני זריקה ולא שנא לאחר זריקה רבי יוחנן אומר אינו לוקה רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר קרא טומאתו טומאתו וכי כתיב טומאתו לאחר זריקה הוא דכתיב ההיא מבכל קדש נפקא
Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]
תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש בכל קדש לא תגע אזהרה לאוכל אתה אומר אזהרה לאוכל או אינו אלא אזהרה לנוגע ת"ל בכל קדש לא תגע ואל המקדש וגו' מקיש קדש למקדש מה מקדש דבר שיש בו נטילת נשמה אף כל דבר שיש בו נטילת נשמה ואי בנגיעה מי איכא נטילת נשמה אלא באכילה
A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].