Study Shabbat folio 72A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
בעל חמש בעילות בשפחה חרופה — אינו חייב אלא אחת. מתקיף לה רב המנונא: אלא מעתה בעל וחזר ובעל והפריש קרבן, ואמר: המתינו לי עד שאבעול, הכי נמי דאינו חייב אלא אחת? אמר ליה: מעשה דלאחר הפרשה קאמרת?! מעשה דלאחר הפרשה לא קאמינא.
one who had sex with a designated female slave 5 times is only liable to bring one guilt-offering, even if he became aware of his transgression between each instance of sex with her. Because awareness is insignificant with regard to this sacrifice, it does not demarcate in terms of the number of guilt-offerings that he is liable to bring. Rav Hamnuna strongly objects to this halakha: But if what you say is so, one who had sex with a designated female slave, and again had sex, and designated an animal for the offering, and said: Wait for me before sacrificing the offering until I have sex again, so that the guilt-offering will atone for this transgression as well, would you say that the same applies in that case too, that he is only liable to bring one guilt-offering? Ulla said to him: You referred to an action performed after designation of an animal for the guilt-offering. I did not say that halakha with regard to an action that was performed after designation.
כי אתא רב דימי אמר: למאן דאמר אשם ודאי בעי ידיעה בתחלה, בעל חמש בעילות בשפחה חרופה — חייב על כל אחת ואחת. אמר ליה אביי: הרי חטאת, דבעינן ידיעה בתחלה, ופליגי רבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש! אישתיק. אמר ליה: דלמא במעשה דלאחר הפרשה קאמרת, וכדרב המנונא? אמר ליה: אין.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: According to the one who said that in order to designate a definite guilt-offering one requires prior knowledge that he definitely sinned, one who had sex 5 times with a designated female slave is liable to bring a guilt-offering for each and every one. Because awareness is significant with regard to guilt-offerings, the awareness between the acts of cohabitation renders each a separate transgression. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: That is not so, as with regard to a sin-offering for which we require prior knowledge, R' Yoḥanan and R' Shimon ben Lakish disagree whether or not awareness following an unwitting sin demarcates one transgression from another. Rav Dimi was silent and had no response. In an attempt to resolve the problem, Abaye said to him: Perhaps you said your statement with regard to an act that the sinner seeks to commit after designating an animal as a guilt-offering but wants to attain atonement for by means of that same designated sacrifice. That statement is in accordance with the statement of Rav Hamnuna. Rav Dimi remembered and said to Abaye: Yes, that was what was originally stated.