Five bring a single offering for many transgres-sions, and five bring a variable sin-offering. These bring a single offering for many transgressions: He who cohabits with a slavewoman many times, a nazir who became tamei many times, he who warned his wife concerning many men, and a metzora who became afflicted with many lesions. [If] he brought his birds and was then [again] afflicted, they do not count for him, until he brings his chatas. R’ Yehudah says: Until he brings his asham.

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!’’?

[If] he ate two portions of cheilev in one lapse of awareness, he is liable to only one chatas. [But] if he ate cheilev, blood, leftover offerings, and piggul in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for each one. In this, many kinds are more stringent than one kind. But [in the following], one kind is more stringent than many kinds: If he ate half an olive’s bulk, and again ate half an olive’s bulk — [if they were] of one kind, he is liable; of two kinds, he is exempt.

And how much time may it take for him to eat them? As if he would eat them as parched grains of corn; [these are] the words of R’ Meir. But the Sages say: Until it takes no more from the beginning to the end than it would take to eat a peras. [If] he ate tamei foodstuffs or drank tamei beverages, or if he drank a reviis of wine and entered the Temple and tarried [in their consumption] for as long as it takes to eat a peras [he is liable]. R’ Eliezer says: If he interrupted, or if he diluted it with the least bit of water, he is exempt.

There is [an instance of] one who performs one act of eating and is liable for it to four chataos and one asham: a tamei [person] who ate cheilev, which was leftover from consecrated food, and [it was] on Yom Kippur. R’ Meir says: If it was the Sabbath and he carried it out in his mouth, he is [additionally] liable. They said to him: That is not in the [same] category.

There is one who performs one act of cohabitation and is liable for it to six chataos. He who cohabits with his daughter may be liable for her as his daughter, his sister, his brother’s wife, his father’s brother’s wife, a married woman, and a menstruant. And he who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter may be liable for her as his daughter’s daughter, his daughter-in-law, his wife’s sister, his brother’s wife, his father’s brother’s wife, a married woman, and a menstruant. R’ Yose says: If the [great-]grandfather transgressed and married her, he is liable for her as his father’s wife, and so is he who cohabits with his wife’s daughter or with his wife’s daughter’s daughter.

He who cohabits with his mother-in-law may be liable for her as his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law, his wife’s sister, his brother’s wife, his father’s brother’s wife, a married woman, and a menstruant. And so is he who cohabits with his motherin-law’s mother or his father-in-law’s mother. R’ Yochanan ben Nuri says: He who cohabits with his mother-in-law can be liable for her as his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him: The three of them are of one denomination.