Intentional or Unwitting
(כב) אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָשִׂ֖יא יֶֽחֱטָ֑א וְעָשָׂ֡ה אַחַ֣ת מִכׇּל־מִצְוֺת֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹהָ֜יו אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂ֛ינָה בִּשְׁגָגָ֖ה וְאָשֵֽׁם׃ (כג) אֽוֹ־הוֹדַ֤ע אֵלָיו֙ חַטָּאת֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטָ֖א בָּ֑הּ וְהֵבִ֧יא אֶת־קׇרְבָּנ֛וֹ שְׂעִ֥יר עִזִּ֖ים זָכָ֥ר תָּמִֽים׃
(22) In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of his God יהוה ought not to be done, and he realizes guilt— (23) or the sin of which he is guilty is made known—he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish.

Sin occurs either intentionally or unwittingly. Some rabbis have opined as to the power of repentance with regard to intentional or unintentional sin. Others do not assume that unwitting sin is any less odious. We should know the law and be vigilant to act within the law.

מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: הַתּוֹרֵם קִישּׁוּת וְנִמְצֵאת מָרָה, אֲבַטִּיחַ וְנִמְצֵאת סָרוּחַ — תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתְרוֹם! שׁוֹגֵג אַמֵּזִיד קָרָמֵית? שׁוֹגֵג — לָא עֲבַד אִיסּוּרָא, מֵזִיד — קָעָבֵד אִיסּוּרָא. וּרְמִי שׁוֹגֵג אַשּׁוֹגֵג — הָכָא קָתָנֵי: בְּשׁוֹגֵג תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, הָתָם קָתָנֵי: תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחְזוֹר וְיִתְרוֹם! הָתָם — שׁוֹגֵג קָרוֹב לְמֵזִיד, דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיטְעֲמֵיהּ. וּרְמִי מֵזִיד אַמֵּזִיד — הָכָא קָתָנֵי: בְּמֵזִיד לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם, הָתָם תְּנַן: הַתּוֹרֵם מִשֶּׁאֵין נָקוּב עַל נָקוּב — תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחְזוֹר וְיִתְרוֹם!
The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (Terumot 3:1): With regard to one who separates teruma from a serpent melon [kishut] and it was discovered to be bitter, or from a watermelon and it was discovered to be spoiled, it is teruma, and yet he must go back and separate teruma from another serpent melon or watermelon. No concern is expressed in this mishna that one might neglect to set aside teruma a second time. The Gemara answers: Are you raising a contradiction between the case of an unwitting sinner and that of an intentional sinner? There is a difference between them, as one who was unwitting did not commit a transgression and consequently does not deserve to be penalized, whereas one who was an intentional sinner did commit a transgression. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this ruling involving an unwitting sinner and another halakha of an unwitting sinner: Here, it is taught that if the one who separated ritually impure produce instead of ritually pure produce was unwitting, his teruma is teruma, which indicates that he does not have to separate teruma again. However, there, with regard to rotten fruit, it is taught that it is teruma and yet he must separate teruma again. The Gemara explains: There, his was an unwitting act that is close to an intentional one, as he should have tasted it first to ensure that he was separating quality fruit. His failure to do so renders him virtually a willful sinner, and therefore the Sages penalized him by obligating him to set aside teruma again. In the case of impure teruma, in contrast, he may not have been able to investigate the matter when he separated the portion. And the Gemara also raises a contradiction between one case involving an intentional sinner and another case of an intentional sinner. Here, it is taught that in the case of an intentional sinner who separates teruma, he has done nothing. There, we learned in a mishna (Demai 5:10), that with regard to one who separates teruma from produce growing in a vessel that is not perforated, for produce that grew in a perforated vessel, which is considered connected to the ground, it is teruma, but he must go back and separate teruma a second time. This ruling is based on the principle that anything that grew in a pot without a hole does not require separation of teruma by Torah law. In this case, the fact that he must again set aside teruma does not mean that the portion he separated is not consecrated at all.
אֶלָּא: הַנַּח לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מוּטָב שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שׁוֹגְגִין וְאַל יִהְיוּ מְזִידִין. הָכָא נָמֵי: הַנַּח לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מוּטָב שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שׁוֹגְגִין וְאַל יִהְיוּ מְזִידִין.
Rather, the accepted principle is: Leave the Jews alone; it is better that they be unwitting sinners and not be intentional sinners. If people engage in a certain behavior that cannot be corrected, it is better not to reprove them, as they are likely to continue regardless of the reproof, and then they will be sinning intentionally. It is therefore preferable for them to be unaware that they are violating a prohibition and remain merely unwitting sinners. Here, too, with regard to clapping and dancing, leave the Jews alone; it is better that they be unwitting sinners and not be intentional sinners.
ר"ש בן יוסי אומר משום ר"ש (ויקרא ד, כב) אשר לא תעשינה בשגגה ואשם השב מידיעתו מביא קרבן על שגגתו אינו שב מידיעתו אינו מביא קרבן על שגגתו
Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that the verse states: “And does unwittingly one of the things…that may not be done, and he becomes guilty, or if his sin that he sinned became known to him” (Leviticus 4:22–23). From the words “become known to him” it is inferred: One who repents due to his awareness that he performed a transgression, as had he known that the action is prohibited he would not have performed it, brings an offering for his unwitting transgression in order to achieve atonement. But one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., a transgressor who would have sinned even had he been aware that the act is prohibited, does not bring an offering for his unwitting action.
מִי שֶׁנִּפְרְקָה יָדוֹ כּוּ׳. רַב אַוְיָא הֲוָה יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, שַׁנְיָא לֵיהּ יְדֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי מַאי? אָסוּר. וְהָכִי מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָסוּר. אַדְּהָכִי אִיתְּפַח יְדֵיהּ.
We learned in the mishna that one whose hand was dislocated may not treat it by vigorously moving it about in water. The Gemara relates that Rav Avya was once sitting before Rav Yosef and his hand became dislocated. Rav Avya then displayed a variety of hand positions and he said to him: What is the ruling with regard to this? Am I permitted to place my hand in this way, or is it a violation of the prohibition against healing on Shabbat? Rav Yosef said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Avya again asked: And what is the ruling if I position my hand in this way? Rav Yosef said to him: It is prohibited. In the meantime, his hand was restored to its proper location and was healed.

(יג) רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי זָהִיר בַּתַּלְמוּד, שֶׁשִּׁגְגַת תַּלְמוּד עוֹלָה זָדוֹן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה כְתָרִים הֵם, כֶּתֶר תּוֹרָה וְכֶתֶר כְּהֻנָּה וְכֶתֶר מַלְכוּת, וְכֶתֶר שֵׁם טוֹב עוֹלֶה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן:

(13) Rabbi Judah said: be careful in study, for an error in study counts as deliberate sin. Rabbi Shimon said: There are three crowns: the crown of torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty, but the crown of a good name supersedes them all.