A woman who gave birth many times: if she aborted a female within the eighty days, and then again aborted a female within the eighty days, or if she aborted a multiple birth. R’ Yehudah says: She brings [an offering] for the first, but she does not bring for the second, she brings for the third, but she does not bring for the fourth. These bring a variable-offering: for [the sin of] hearing the voice [of adjuration], for uttering [an oath], for contaminating the Temple or its consecrated foods, the woman who has given birth, and the metzora. And what is the difference between the slavewoman and all [other] forbidden intimacies? She is similar to them neither regarding the punishment nor regarding the offering: For all forbidden intimacies require a chatas; but the slavewoman, an asham; all forbidden intimacies require a female [animal], but the slavewoman, a male; regarding all forbidden intimacies, both the man and the woman are the same regarding lashes or an offering, [whereas] regarding the slavewoman, [the Torah] did not equate the man to the woman concerning lashes, nor the woman to the man regarding an offering; in all forbidden intimacies, [the Torah] considers a partial union as a complete one, and he is liable for every act of intimacy. [With] the following stringency, [the Torah] dealt more stringently with the slavewoman: Regarding her case, [the Torah] equated the willful transgression with the inadvertent one.

Which is the slavewoman? Anyone who is half slave and half free, as it is stated (Lev. 19:20): ‘‘And redeemed she was not redeemed’’ — [these are] the words of R’ Akiva. R’ Yishmael says: This is she who is a real slavewoman. R’ Elazar ben Azariah says: All forbidden intimacies are stated explicitly, and what is the exception? We must conclude that it is she who is half slave and half free.

In all forbidden intimacies, if one was of age and one was a minor, the minor is exempt; if one was awake and one was asleep, the one who was asleep is exempt; if one was unintentional and one was intentional, the unintentional one is liable for a chatas, and the intentional one is liable to kares.

[If] they said to him: ‘‘You ate forbidden fat,’’ he brings a chatas. [If] a witness says: ‘‘He ate,’’ and [another] witness says: ‘‘He did not eat,’’ [or if] a woman says: ‘‘He ate,’’ and [another] woman says: ‘‘He did not eat,’’ he must bring an asham talui. [If] a witness says: ‘‘He ate,’’ and he says: ‘‘I did not eat,’’ he is exempt. [If] two say: ‘‘He ate,’’ and he says: ‘‘I did not eat,’’ R’ Meir declares him liable. Said R’ Meir: If two can bring him to the more severe death penalty, can they not bring him to the lighter penalty of an offering? They said to him: What if he would want to say: ‘‘I was an intentional transgressor!’’?