Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

When a person prostrates himself to a false deity, poured a libation to it, offers a burnt-offering to it, and slaughters an animal as a sacrifice to it in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for four sin-offerings. Similarly, if he defecated to Peor and threw a rock to Mercury in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for two sin-offerings. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. The person will be liable for every act of service performed.

When does the above apply? When he consciously desired to serve a false deity, but was unaware that these acts constituted service. If, however, he willfully performed these acts, but inadvertently served a false deity, he is liable for only one sin-offering.

What is implied? He knew that a particular image was a false deity and that it is forbidden to serve it, but did not know that bowing down to it or pouring a libation constituted a transgression and bowed down and poured a libation, he is liable for two sin-offerings. If, however, he knew that these were ways in which false deities were served and that it is forbidden to perform these acts in service of a false deity, but did not know that a particular image was considered a false deity, because it was not made of gold or silver and he was under the mistaken impression that only images of gold and silver were considered as false deities and hence, performed all these acts of service to it, he is liable for only one sin-offering.

A great general principle was stated with regard to the violation of the Sabbath prohibitions: Anyone who forgets the fundamental principle of the Sabbath, failing to recall that the Jews were commanded to observe the Sabbath or was captured and taken among gentiles while a child or converted in his childhood and remained living among gentiles, he is liable for only one sin-offering even though he performed many forbidden labors on many different Sabbaths, for it is all one lapse of awareness.

Similarly, he is liable for one sin-offering for all the forbidden fat that he ate, one sin-offering for all the blood that he ate. Similar laws apply to all analogous situations regarding these sins. Whenever one knows the fundamental principle of the Sabbath, but forgot that a given day was the Sabbath and thought it was an ordinary day, he is liable for only one sin-offering for the entire day, even though he performed many forbidden labors on it. Similarly, he is liable for a sin-offering for every Sabbath that he inadvertently desecrated.

Anyone who knows that a given day is the Sabbath, but inadvertently performed forbidden labors without knowing that these labors are forbidden or knew that they were forbidden, but did not know that one was liable for karet for their violation, is liable for a sin-offering for every general category of forbidden labor. Even if he performed all 39 forbidden labors in one lapse of awareness, he must bring 39 sin-offerings.

If he forgot that the day is the Sabbath and also forgot that these labors were forbidden, he is only liable for one sin-offering.

When a person performs an action that is the primary forbidden activity of a particular category of labor and also a derivative in one lapse of awareness, he is only liable for one sin-offering. Needless to say, if he performs many derivatives of one category of forbidden labor, he is only liable for one sin-offering.

If he performs derivatives of one category of forbidden labor and derivatives of another category of forbidden labor in one lapse of awareness, it appears to me that he is liable for two sin-offerings.

If he performs several activities comprising a single category of forbidden labor in one lapse of awareness, e.g., he sowed, extended a vine by replanting one of its branches, grafted a branch onto a tree, he is liable for only one sin-offering. In Hilchot Shabbat, it has already been explained which activities are primary labors, which are derivatives, and which activities comprise a single category of forbidden labor.

When a person performs activities comprising a single category of forbidden labor on many Sabbaths, whether he was aware that it was the Sabbath, but unaware that he was performing forbidden labors or he was unaware that it was the Sabbath, but aware that the labor he performed is forbidden on the Sabbath, he is liable for a sin-offering for every forbidden labor he performs.

What is implied? He knew that it was the Sabbath and sowed on that day, because he did not know that sowing constituted forbidden labor. Similarly, on the following Sabbath, he knew that it was the Sabbath and planted because he did not know that planting constituted forbidden labor. Similarly, on the third Sabbath, he extended a vine, because he did not know that extending constituted forbidden labor, he is liable for a sin-offering for each one, even though they all comprise a single category of forbidden labor, because the different Sabbaths are considered like different bodies.

When a person was unaware that it was the Sabbath and sowed upon it, although he knew that sowing is a forbidden labor, on the following Sabbath, he forgot that it was Sabbath and planted, although he knew that planting is a forbidden labor, and on the third Sabbath, he forgot that it was Sabbath and extended, although he knew that extending is a forbidden labor, he is liable for a sin-offering for every Sabbath. The rationale is that the days between each Sabbath are considered equivalent to gaining awareness of one's transgression and create a distinction.

When a person harvested and ground a dried-fig-sized measure of grain without being aware that it is Sabbath, but knowing that these labors are forbidden on the Sabbath, he is only liable for one sin-offering. Afterwards, he harvested and ground a dried-fig-sized measure of grain while aware that it is the Sabbath, but forgetting that these labors were forbidden, in which instance, he is liable for a sin-offering for every forbidden labor. He then became aware of the harvesting performed without being aware that it is Sabbath, but knowing that these labors are forbidden on the Sabbath. In such an instance, the one act of harvesting draws the other after it and the one act of grinding draws the other after it. Thus it is as if he performed all four acts without being aware that it is Sabbath, but knowing that these labors are forbidden on the Sabbath, in which instance he is liable for only one sin-offering. After he brings that sin-offering, he has secured atonement for all the other forbidden labors he performed. When he later becomes aware of them, he does not have to bring another sin-offering.

If, however, he first becomes conscious of the harvesting performed while aware that it is the Sabbath, but forgetting that these labors were forbidden, and brings a sin-offering, he receives atonement for the harvesting that he became aware of and on the harvesting and grinding performed without being aware that it is Sabbath, but knowing that these labors are forbidden, because the two are considered as one labor and the harvesting and grinding are drawn after the harvesting performed when he was aware that it was the Sabbath. Thus there remains without atonement, only the grinding performed when he was aware that it was the Sabbath until he becomes aware of it and brings a second sin-offering.

If a person harvested half a dried-fig-sized measure without being aware that it is Sabbath, but knowing that this labor is forbidden and then harvested half a dried-fig-sized measure while aware that it is Sabbath, but not aware that this labor is forbidden, these two activities are combined. One harvesting draws the other after it. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations with regard to the other forbidden labors.

When, on the Sabbath, a person had the intent to cut an object that was already severed from the ground, but instead, cut an object that was connected to the ground, even though he had the intent to cut, since his desired intent was not fulfilled, he is exempt from a sin-offering. He is considered as one who is merely busying himself and the Torah forbade only purposeful labor, as we explained several times.

The following rule applies when a person stirs coals on the Sabbath, in which instance, he extinguishes the upper ones and ignites the lower ones. If he intended to extinguish and ignite, he is liable for two sin-offerings. If he stirred the coals to become warm and they were ignited on their own, he is liable, because one is liable for performing a forbidden labor even if he has no need for the actual labor he performed, as explained in Hilchot Shabbat. Just as he is liable for karet for the intentional performance of forbidden labor, he is liable for a sin-offering for unintentional violation.