The following offer a sacrifice for wilful as well as for inadvertent transgression: one who has intercourse with a handmaid, a Nazirite who has become unclean, [one who swore falsely] the oath concerning evidence or the oath concerning a deposit.
t.Ker.2.2
A. All the same are he who eats and he who dissolves [produce into a liquid] and drinks it and one who anoints [with it]-
B. if he ate and went and ate again and went and ate again-
C. if there is from the beginning of the first act of eating to the end of the last act of eating sufficient time for the eating of a half-loaf of bread, the several acts of eating join together.
C. And if not, they do not join together [M.Ker.3.2E].
D. [If] he drank and went and drank again and went and drank again, if there is from the beginning of the first act of drinking to the end of the last act of drinking sufficient time for the drinking of a quarter-log, the several acts of drinking join together [to form the requisite volume to render him unclean or culpable].
E. And if not, they do not join together.
MISHNAH: m.Ker.2.2The following offer a sacrifice for wilful as well as for inadvertent transgression: one who has intercourse with a handmaid, a Nazirite who has become unclean, [one who swore falsely] the oath concerning evidence or the oath concerning a deposit.
MISHNAH: m.Ker.2.3A-CThere are five persons who bring one sacrifice for several transgressions, and five who bring a sacrifice of higher or lesser value. The following bring one sacrifice for several transgressions: one who has intercourse with a handmaid several times, and a Nazirite who became unclean several times.
GEMARA: Whence do we know the law concerning the handmaid? Our Rabbis taught: And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt-offering for his sin which he hath sinned; this teaches that one may bring one offering for several sins; and he shall be forgiven for his sin which he hath sinned: that wilful transgression is equal to transgression in error. A Nazirite who has become unclean. Whence do we know this? It is written, And if any man die in sudden [be-fetha`] unawareness [pithe`om] beside him: fetha` means unintentionally, for thus it is written: But if he thrust him unintentionally [be-fetha`] without enmity; pithe`om means unexpectedly, and thus it is written: And the Lord spoke suddenly [pithe`om] unto Moses. Another [Baraitha] taught: Pithe`om means intentionally, and thus it is written: A prudent man seeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple [petha`im] pass on, and are punished. Why has the text not written just pithe`om, which denotes error, intention and accident at the same time: intention and accident as has been explained before; it denotes, however, also error, as it is written: The thoughtless [pethi] believeth every word? Why then mention befetha`? If pithe`om alone was mentioned, which denotes both error and intention and accident, I might have thought that an offering nevertheless was brought only for transgression in error, as is the case with all the laws of the Torah, but not in the case of accidental or wilful transgression; therefore the Divine Law mentions also befetha`, which denotes error only, to indicate that pithe`om shall denote accident and wilfulness, so that also in these circumstances the Divine Law enjoins an offering. the oath concerning evidence. Whence do we know this? Our Rabbis have taught: In connection with the other laws the term it being hidden [from him] is used; in connection with this law this term is not used, to indicate that he is liable to an offering for wilful as well as for inadvertent transgression. The oath concerning a deposit. Whence do we know this? It is derived from the oath concerning evidence through the common term sinneth [teheta]. There are five persons who bring one sacrifice for several transgressions. It is stated one who has intercourse with a handmaid several times; whence do we know this? Our Rabbis have taught: And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt-offering for his sin which he hath sinned`: this teaches that one may bring one offering for several sins; `and he shall be forgiven for his sin which he hath sinned`: that wilful transgression is equal to transgression in error. But does not the text deal with the wilful transgression? Rather say: that transgression in error be equal to wilful transgression.
R. Hanina [PA1, PA3 or PA5] of Tirna`ah put the following query to R. Johanan [PA2]: If one had intercourse with five designated handmaids in one spell of unawareness, is he liable to a sacrifice for each of them or altogether only to one sacrifice? The latter replied: He is guilty for each of them. And why, the former asked, is this case different from one who had intercourse five times with one handmaid in different spells of unawareness? He replied: In the case of one handmaid one cannot argue that there were different bodies; in the instance of the five handmaids there were different bodies. And whence do we know that the argument of different bodies holds good in the case of the handmaid? He replied: Did you not say with reference to forbidden relations that the word `and a woman` implies that one is guilty for each woman? Also in connection with the handmaid it is written: And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman b.Ker.9b that is a bondmaid, etc., to enjoin separate offerings for each handmaid. a Nazirite who became unclean several times. Whose view does this represent? Said R. Hisda [BA3], That of R. Jose [T4] son of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] who holds that the naziriteship of cleanness counts from the seventh day, and the instance of our Mishnah is realised if he became unclean on the seventh day and then again on the seventh; since the time for the offering was not reached, he is liable only to one sacrifice. [How can the instance of the Mishnah be realised] according to Rabbi [T5] who holds that the naziriteship of cleanness does not count before the eighth day? If he became unclean on the seventh day and again on the [following] seventh day, is this not one long period of uncleanness? If he became unclean on the eighth day and again on the [following] eighth day, since the time of the offering has been reached, he should be liable to an offering for each uncleanness? It is thus proved that the Mishnah is in accordance with R. Jose [T4] son of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]. And where do we find R. Jose`s [T4] view? It has been taught: And he shall hallow his head that same day, refers to the day on which the sacrifices are offered; thus the words of Rabbi. R. Jose [T4] son of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says, On the day of the cutting of his hair.