Shabbat 72: Intentional Sins on Shabbat, Transgressing Other Mitzvot, and Offerings

In discussing the option of single punishments for multiple sins, we are introduced to Rav Dimi's opinion.  Ulla says that if one has sexual relations with a designated maidservant five times, he is only liable to bring one guilt-offering even if he became aware of his transgression between each relation.    Rav Hamnuna objects. He says that one could knowingly wait until having relations five times before bringing an offering. Ulla says that one referred to an action that was performed after a guilt offering had been designated.  One must set aside one guilt offering for each wrongdoing.

Ravi Dimi came to Bavli from Eretz Yisrael.  He shared that a definite guilt-offering requires on to know that he has sinner before sinning.  Abaye disagrees, saying that sin-offerings require prior knowledge but that Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagree about whether or not awareness of a transgression is required. We are told that Rav Dimi was silent and did not repond.  Abaye says, "Perhaps you said your statement regarding an act that one commits after designating an animal as a guilt-offering but wants to attain atonement for with that same designated sacrifice.  This is what Rav Hamnuna says.  Rav Dimi then remembers and agrees with Abaye.

Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Bavli and said about guilt offerings that everyone agrees that a designated maidservant twice, and there is a dispute regarding a designated maidservant.  The Gemara notes that in this case one is liable to bring only one guilt-offering, even for many acts of cohabitation, which is in line with the opinion of Ulla.  The other statement about designating an animal for a guilt-offering is agreeing with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna. A definite guilt-offering requires prior knowledge of definite sins.

We learn that the amora'im disagreed regarding a specific case.  One who intended to lift a plant detached from the ground on Shabbat and accidentally severed a plant still attached to the ground.  This is not actually reaping and one is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for that act.  The intention is what matters.  A stricture on Shabbat is greater than other strictures.  In other mitzvot, if the stricture is greater than that regarding Shabbat,  one who performs an act unwittingly without intent is liable.  This is not the case regarding Shabbat. 

The rabbis speak about unintentional transgressions, like bowing to an idol when one thought it was a synagogue.  There is no transgression at all here. Rava and Rav Nachman consider whether one might be liable to bring one or two sin-offerings.  Rava did not even consider the possibility of exempting this transgressor from bringing sin-offering.