Shabbat 143

Chapter 143

א 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 א"ל מעשה דלאחר הפרשה קאמרת מעשה דלאחר הפרשה לא קאמינא
1 if one cohabits five times with a betrothed bondmaid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unwittingly. Between each act of coition he learnt of his previous offence. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> he is liable to one [guilt-offering] only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since knowledge of guilt is not required, the knowledge that he does possess is insufficient to separate his actions and necessitate a sacrifice for each. But on the view that previous knowledge is essential for a guilt-offering, this matter will be disputed by R. Johanan and Resh Lakish, as on 71b. — Though we do not find a doubtful guilt-offering for doubtful coition, and so it would appear that here at least knowledge is essential, for otherwise how does he know that he sinned at all, a sacrifice is nevertheless conceivable without previous knowledge. Thus: when in doubt one might bring a conditional sacrifice and stipulate: 'If I have sinned, let this be a certain guilt-offering; if not, let this be a peace-offering' (Tosaf.). ');"><sup>2</sup></span> R. Hamnuna objected: If so, if one cohabits, sets aside a sacrifice, and states, 'Wait for me until I cohabit again,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that this sacrifice may atone for both. — Even conscious coition with a betrothed bondmaid necessitates a sacrifice, though in all other cases only an unwitting offence entails an offering. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב 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 ר' יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אישתיק אמר ליה דלמא במעשה דלאחר הפרשה קאמרת וכדרב המנונא א"ל אין
2 is he then liable to only one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! ');"><sup>4</sup></span> — Said he to him, You speak of an act after separation [of the sacrifice]: in such a case I did not state [my ruling].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this certainly divides the offences, and a sacrifice is required for each. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> When R. Dimi came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 12, n. 9. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ג 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 למ"ד אשם ודאי בעי ידיעה בתחלה מחלוקת דרבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש:
3 he said: On the view that a certain guilt-offering requires previous knowledge: If one cohabits five times with a betrothed maiden, he is liable for each [act]. Said Abaye to him, But in the case of a sin-offering [definite] knowledge is required beforehand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an offence was committed. If one brings a sin-offering before he knows that he has sinned, and then learns that he has sinned, the sacrifice is invalid for atonement. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> yet R. Johanan and Resh Lakish differ [therein]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the same principle applies here. How then can you make a general statement? ');"><sup>8</sup></span> He remained silent. Said he to him, Perhaps you refer to an act after separation [of the sacrifice], and as R. Hamnuna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas R. Johanan and Resh Lakish differ where all his actions were committed before the separation of an animal for a sacrifice. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ד איתמר
4 Even so, he replied. When Rabin came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 12, n. 9. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> he said: All agree about a betrothed bondmaid [in one respect], and ali agree about a betrothed bondmaid [in another respect], and there is disagreement about a betrothed bondmaid [in a third respect].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'All' and 'there is disagreement' refer to the views of R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> [Thus:] All agree in the case of [coition with] a betrothed bondmaid, that one is liable only to one [sacrifice], as Ulla. All agree in the case of [coition with] a betrothed bondmaid, that one is liable for each, as R. Hamnuna. And there is disagreement about a betrothed bondmaid: on the view that a certain guilt-offering requires previous knowledge, there is disagreement between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 343. n. 5. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> It was stated: