## Shabbat Daf 72a

###### Shabbat 72a:1
[Shabbat 72a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/72a:1)

בָּעַל חָמֵשׁ בְּעִילוֹת בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה בָּעַל וְחָזַר וּבָעַל וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְאָמַר: הַמְתִּינוּ לִי עַד שֶׁאֶבְעוֹל, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַעֲשֶׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה קָאָמְרַתְּ?! מַעֲשֶׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה לָא קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Shabbat 72a:2
[Shabbat 72a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/72a:2)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אָשָׁם וַדַּאי בָּעֵי יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה, בָּעַל חָמֵשׁ בְּעִילוֹת בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי חַטָּאת, דְּבָעֵינַן יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה, וּפְלִיגִי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ! אִישְׁתִּיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא בְּמַעֲשֶׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה קָאָמְרַתְּ, וְכִדְרַב הַמְנוּנָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shabbat 72a:3
[Shabbat 72a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/72a:3)

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה, וְהַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה, וּמַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה. הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת — כִּדְעוּלָּא. וְהַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה דְּחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת — כְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא. וּמַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה — לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אָשָׁם וַדַּאי בָּעֵי יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה, מַחֲלוֹקֶת דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shabbat 72a:4
[Shabbat 72a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/72a:4)

אִיתְּמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated** that *amora’im* disagreed with regard to the *halakha* in the following case: