(Ula): According to the opinion that one can bring an Asham Vadai without Yedi'ah (he is not yet sure that he sinned), if one had five acts of relations with a Shifchah Charufah (a [half] slave designated for an Eved Ivri, even if he found out in between each Bi'ah, the Yedi'os are unimportant and hence do not Mechalek), he brings only one

Objection (Rav Hamnuna): If Reuven had relations with a Shifchah Charufah, was Makdish an Asham and said 'Do not offer it until I have relations again [so it will atone for both]', will you say that he is liable only once?!

Answer (Ula): I never said that a Korban atones for a transgression after Hafrashah.

(Rav Dimi): According to the opinion that Asham Vadai requires Yedi'ah, if one had five acts of relations with a Shifchah Charufah (and found out in between each Bi'ah, the Yedi'os Mechalek, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish agree that) he brings five Ashamos.

Question (Abaye): [Hakravas] Chatas requires Yedi'ah, yet R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about it! (Reish Lakish surely holds that Yedi'os are not Mechalek.)

Rav Dimi could not answer.

Abaye: Perhaps you mean, each Bi'ah after Hafrashah requires another Korban, like Rav Hamnuna taught!

Rav Dimi: Yes!

(Ravin): All agree about Shifchah Charufah, all agree about [another law of] Shifchah Charufah, there is an argument about [a third law of] Shifchah Charufah:

All agree that one is liable only once for many Bi'os [before Hafrashah], like Ula taught [according to the opinion that Asham Vadai does not require Yedi'ah];

All agree that one is liable for each Bi'ah [after Hafrashah], like Rav Hamnuna taught;

According to the opinion that Asham Vadai requires Yedi'ah, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue [about whether or not Yedi'os are Mechalek].

If one intended to pick up something detached, and picked up something attached (Tosfos - he did not realize that it was attached; Rashi - he was trying to pick up something else), detaching it, he is exempt;

(Rava): If he intended to cut something detached, and he cut something attached, he is exempt;

(Abaye): He is Chayav.

Rava exempts, for he did not intend to cut something that may not be cut;

Abaye obligates, for he intended to cut in any case.

Support (Rava, for himself - Beraisa): There is a stringency of Shabbos over other Mitzvos, and there is a stringency of other Mitzvos over Shabbos:

The stringency of Shabbos - if two Melachos were done in one Helam, he is liable for each one, this is not so regarding other Mitzvos.

The stringency of other Mitzvos - if someone transgressed b'Shogeg without intention he is liable, this is not so regarding Shabbos. (We seek to explain the Reisha, the support for Rava comes at the end (73A).)

(Reisha): The stringency of Shabbos over other Mitzvos is that if two Melachos were done in one Helam, he is liable for each.

Question: What is the case?

If he reaped and grinded - the corresponding case of other Mitzvos is eating Chelev and blood, also there he is liable for each!

Answer #1: We must say, regarding other Mitzvos he ate Chelev twice [in one Helam].

Rejection: Also regarding Shabbos, if he reaped twice [in one Helam] he is liable only once!

Answer #2: Really, he reaped and grinded - the corresponding case of other Mitzvos is idolatry, as R. Ami taught!

(R. Ami): If someone slaughtered, burned and poured libations to idolatry in one Helam, he is liable only one Korban.

Rejection: We cannot establish it regarding idolatry on account of the Seifa!

(Seifa): The stringency of other Mitzvos - if someone transgressed b'Shogeg without intention he is liable, this is not so regarding Shabbos.

Question: How could someone transgress idolatry b'Shogeg without intention?

If he thought he was bowing to a synagogue, and it really was idolatry, he intended to serve Hash-m (this is not idolatry)!

Answer #1: Rather, he bowed to a statue.

Rejection: If he accepted it to be his god, he was Mezid; if not, he did not serve idolatry!

Answer #2: Rather, he served idolatry on account of love or fear [of a person].

Question: This is like Abaye, who obligates for serving on account of love or fear - according to Rava, who exempts, how can we answer?

Answer #3: He thought that idolatry is permitted.

Rejection: If so, in such a case regarding Shabbos, he is exempt;

Rava only asked whether a person who forgot that it was Shabbos and forgot Melachos brings one Chatas, or for each Melachah - there was no side to say that he is totally exempt!