Shabbat 72a — the Talmud in English

If so, one who

had five acts of intercourse with a designated maidservant

unintentionally, and it became known to him between one act of intercourse and the next [and all the more so if the knowledge was after them, one after another]—

is liable for only one.

Since knowledge is not required for an asham offering, and it does not constitute a factor in atonement, it is not significant to divide the acts by it.

But according to the one who says that an asham requires knowledge at the outset, the matter depends on the dispute above: according to Rabbi Yohanan, for whom knowledge after the acts divides sin-offerings, so too, with a designated maidservant, it divides them.

For according to his view, the knowledge itself is considered a division, as though he had brought an offering [and therefore he holds that even if he ate two olive-sized portions of forbidden fat in one period of unawareness, once it became known to him first concerning the first one, it is as though he had already brought the offering then, and the second one cannot be atoned for by it]. If so, also with a designated maidservant, although he brings one offering for several intentional acts of intercourse, when the act was unintentional and he had knowledge even after the last act of intercourse [one after another], it is as though he became aware of the second act of intercourse after the atonement of the first offering, so that he must bring another offering for the second one. And all the more so when it became known to him between one act of intercourse and the next, for it is as though he had brought an offering between them.

Rav Hamnuna challenged him: If so, one who had intercourse with

a designated maidservant

and again had intercourse

[the Bach deletes]

and designated an offering, and said: Wait for me

before offering the offering

until I have intercourse

again, would

so too

be said

that he is liable for only one?!

And would it be said that the offering atones also for the act of intercourse that occurred after its designation?

And just as you say that knowledge between the acts of intercourse does not divide [according to that Sage], so too, designation between the acts of intercourse should not divide.

He said to him

Ulla:

The act

of intercourse

that occurred after designation, are you speaking of?

The act that occurred after designation—I do not stand by it!

For certainly the offering cannot atone for an act of transgression that was committed after its designation.

When Rav Dimi came, he said: According to the one who says that a definite asham requires knowledge at the outset, one who had five acts of intercourse with a designated maidservant

unintentionally and it became known to him between one act of intercourse and the next—

is liable for each one individually.

Abaye said to him:

It follows from your words that this is the view of everyone. And how can this be said?

And

is it not the case with a sin-offering, for which we require knowledge at the outset,

and Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish disagree

above [71b], with Resh Lakish holding that knowledge does not divide?

It follows that, according to his view, even where the knowledge has significance, nevertheless it is not considered like the bringing of an offering. If so, with a designated maidservant, even if the knowledge was between one act of intercourse and the next, the law should be that he brings only one offering.

And although Resh Lakish disagrees only with regard to knowledge after the acts, but with regard to knowledge between one act and another he agrees that it divides, this applies specifically to a sin-offering that comes for an unintentional act: even if the knowledge is not considered like the bringing of an offering, nevertheless, since it is between one unintentional act and another unintentional act, it divides them into two unintentional acts.

But with the asham of a designated maidservant, it does not matter to us that they are two unintentional acts. For he brings one offering both for an intentional act and for many acts of intercourse. Only knowledge that has the force of the bringing of an offering can divide.

The general principle is: the law of knowledge between one act and another with a designated maidservant is like the law of knowledge after the acts with a sin-offering.

Rav Dimi was silent

!

Abaye said to him

Abaye:

Perhaps you were speaking of an act that occurred after designation,

where designation occurred between one act of intercourse and the next.

And in accordance with Rav Hamnuna,

to whom Ulla replied. In that case, he is certainly liable for each act of intercourse, and this is indeed the view of everyone. But if there was merely knowledge between the acts of intercourse, the matter depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish, and is in accordance with Ulla.

He said to him

Rav Dimi:

No!

That is what I intended.

When Ravin came, he said: Everyone agrees,

both Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish,

with regard to a designated maidservant

that he is liable for only one [offering] for all the acts of intercourse.

And everyone agrees, with regard to a designated maidservant

that he is liable for each act of intercourse individually.

And the dispute

between Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish is

with regard to a designated maidservant,

how many asham offerings he is liable for.

And we explain:

Everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant that he is liable for only one—

in accordance with Ulla.

And this is according to the one who says that a definite asham does not require knowledge at the outset. According to him, even Rabbi Yohanan agrees that knowledge does not divide.

And everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant that he is liable for each one individually—

in accordance with Rav Hamnuna

with regard to an act that occurred after designation. For even Resh Lakish agrees that, even according to the one who says that an asham does not require knowledge, designations divide between one act of intercourse and the next.

And the dispute with regard to a designated maidservant—

according to the one who says that a definite asham requires knowledge at the outset.

And according to him, it is

the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish.

For according to Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that knowledge after the acts divides in the case of a sin-offering, the same is true with a designated maidservant: knowledge after the acts of intercourse divides the asham offerings. And all the more so, knowledge between the acts of intercourse divides them.

But according to Resh Lakish, who holds that knowledge after the acts does not divide, the same is true with a designated maidservant: it does not divide, even knowledge between one act of intercourse and the next.