Shabbat 72a (עב.) — the Talmud in English

If so, one who

had intercourse five times with a shifha harufa

unintentionally, and became aware of it between one act of intercourse and the next [and all the more so if the awareness came after them one by one]—

is liable for only one.

Since awareness is not required for a guilt-offering, and it is not a factor in the atonement, it is not significant enough to divide the acts into separate obligations.

But according to the one who says that a guilt-offering does require awareness at the outset, the matter depends on the dispute mentioned above: According to Rabbi Yohanan, for whom awareness after the acts divides sin-offerings, so too, in the case of a shifha harufa, it divides them.

According to him, the awareness itself is considered a division, as though he had brought the offering [and therefore he maintains that even if he ate two olive-bulk quantities of forbidden fat in one period of unawareness, once he became aware first of the initial one, it is as though he had already brought the offering at that point, and the second cannot be atoned for by it]. If so, also in the case of a shifha harufa, although he brings one offering for several acts of intercourse committed intentionally, when the acts were unintentional and he became aware of them even after the final act of intercourse [one by one], it is as though he became aware of the second act after the atonement provided by the first offering, and he must bring another offering for the second. And certainly when he became aware between one act of intercourse and the next, for it is as though he had brought an offering between them.

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection to this: If so, one who had intercourse

with a shifha harufa

and then had intercourse again [

the Bach deletes this]

and set aside an offering, saying: “Wait for me

before offering the sacrifice

until I have intercourse

again, would

likewise

be said to be the case that he

is liable for only one?!

Would we say that the offering atones even for the act of intercourse that occurred after it was set aside?

And just as you say that awareness between the acts of intercourse does not divide them [according to that authority], so too the setting aside of the offering between the acts of intercourse should not divide them.

Ulla said to him:

Ulla,

Are you speaking of

an act of intercourse

that occurred after the offering was set aside?

I do not stand by an act that occurred after the offering was set aside!

For certainly the offering cannot atone for an act of transgression committed after it was set aside.

When Rav Dimi came, he said: According to the one who says that a definite guilt-offering requires awareness at the outset, one who had intercourse five times with a shifha harufa

unintentionally and became aware of it between one act of intercourse and the next—

is liable for each and every one.

Abaye said to him:

Your words imply that this is the view of everyone. How can that be said?

And

there is the case of a sin-offering, for which awareness at the outset is required,

and Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disagree above [71b], with Reish Lakish maintaining that awareness does not divide the acts.

It follows that, according to him, even where awareness is significant, it is nevertheless not considered equivalent to bringing an offering. If so, in the case of a shifha harufa, even if the awareness occurred between one act of intercourse and the next, it should follow that he brings only one offering.

And although Reish Lakish disagrees only with regard to awareness after the acts, while with regard to awareness between one act and another he agrees that it divides them, this applies specifically to a sin-offering brought for an unintentional transgression. Even if awareness is not considered equivalent to bringing an offering, since it occurred between one unintentional transgression and another, it divides them into two unintentional transgressions.

But in the case of a guilt-offering for a shifha harufa, it makes no difference that they are two unintentional transgressions, since he brings one offering even for an intentional transgression and even for many acts of intercourse. Only awareness that is equivalent in force to bringing an offering can divide them.

The general principle is: The status of awareness between one act and another in the case of a shifha harufa is like that of awareness after the acts in the case of a sin-offering.

Rav Dimi fell silent Rav Dimi!

Abaye said to him:

Abaye,

Perhaps you were speaking of an act that occurred after the offering was set aside,

meaning that the offering was set aside between one act of intercourse and the next,

as in the case of Rav Hamnuna

to which Ulla responded. 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 awareness between the acts of intercourse, the matter depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, as stated by Ulla.

Rav Dimi said to him: Rav Dimi, Yes!

to which Ulla responded. In that case, he is certainly liable for each act, and this position is indeed accepted by everyone. But if there was merely awareness between the acts, the matter depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, as Ulla stated.

That is what I intended.

When Ravin came, he said: Everyone agrees,

both Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish,

with regard to a shifha harufa

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

And everyone agrees, with regard to a shifha harufa

that he is liable for each and every act of intercourse.

And the dispute

is between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish

with regard to a shifha harufa,

as to how many guilt-offerings he is liable to bring.

And we explain:

Everyone agrees with regard to a shifha harufa that he is liable for only one—

as stated by Ulla.

That is, according to the one who says that a definite guilt-offering does not require awareness at the outset. According to him, even Rabbi Yohanan agrees that awareness does not divide the acts.

Everyone agrees with regard to a shifha harufa that he is liable for each and every one—

as stated by Rav Hamnuna with regard to an act committed after the offering was set aside. Even Reish Lakish agrees, for even according to the one who says that a guilt-offering does not require awareness, designations divide one act of intercourse from the next.

And the dispute with regard to a shifha harufa—

according to the one who says that a definite guilt-offering requires awareness at the outset.

According to him, there is

a dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish.

According to Rabbi Yohanan, who maintains that awareness after the acts divides them in the case of a sin-offering, the same applies in the case of a shifha harufa: awareness after the acts divides the guilt-offerings. And all the more so, awareness between the acts of intercourse divides them.

But according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that awareness after the acts does not divide them, the same applies in the case of a shifha harufa: it does not divide them, even when the awareness occurred between one act of intercourse and the next.

And according to him, it is

the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish.

According to Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that awareness after the acts divides them in the case of a sin offering, the same applies to a betrothed maidservant: awareness after the acts of intercourse divides the guilt offerings. And all the more so does awareness between the acts of intercourse divide them.

But according to Reish Lakish, who holds that awareness after the acts does not divide them, the same applies to a betrothed maidservant: it does not divide them, even when the awareness occurred between one act of intercourse and the next.