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 relations with a designated maidservant five times is only liable to bring one guilt-offering, even if he became aware of his transgression between each instance of relations 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 relations with a designated maidservant, and again had relations, and designated an animal for the offering, and said: Wait for me before sacrificing the offering until I have relations 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 relations five times with a designated maidservant 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, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi 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.

כי אתא רבין אמר הכל מודים בשפחה חרופה והכל מודים בשפחה חרופה ומחלוקת בשפחה חרופה הכל מודים בשפחה חרופה דאינו חייב אלא אחת כדעולא והכל מודים בשפחה חרופה דחייב על כל אחת ואחת כרב המנונא ומחלוקת בשפחה חרופה למאן דאמר אשם ודאי בעי ידיעה בתחלה מחלוקת דרבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש:

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he cited several disputes concerning the halakhot of guilt-offerings and said: Everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant, and everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant, and there is a dispute with regard to a designated maidservant. The Gemara elaborates: Everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant; one is liable to bring only one guilt-offering, even for many acts of cohabitation, in accordance with the opinion of Ulla. Ulla said that since prior knowledge is not required for liability to bring a guilt-offering, even if one became aware of his transgression between each time he had relations, he brings only one sacrifice. And everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant; one is liable for each and every act of cohabitation, if it occurred after designation of an animal for a guilt-offering for the previous transgression, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna. And there is a dispute with regard to a designated maidservant; this refers to the one who said that, in order to designate a definite guilt-offering, one requires prior knowledge that he definitely sinned. In that case, the legal status of the guilt-offering is equal to that of the sin-offering and is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who disagree whether awareness between two unwitting transgressions demarcates and requires two offerings.

איתמר

It was stated that amora’im disagreed with regard to the halakha in the following case: