Yevamot

And who is this Tanna  that admits the force  of a 'comprehensive prohibition', a 'prohibition of a wider range' and 'simultaneous prohibitions'?  -Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: It is R. Meir; for we learnt:  A man may sometimes consume one piece of food  and incur thereby the penalty of four sin-offerings and one guilt.offering. [If. e.g., a man levitically] unclean ate suet  that remained over from holy sacrifices,  on the Day of Atonement  R. Meir said: If this happened on  the Sabbath and [the consumer] carried out [the suet] in his mouth, liability is incurred [for this act  also].  They said to him: This  is an offence of a different character. Whose view, however, IS R. Meir  following? If he follows R. Joshua.  surely the latter had said that he who made a mistake in respect of a commandment  is exonerated!  — Rather he follows the view of R. Eliezer.  If you prefer I might say: He may. in fact, follow the view of R. Joshua, for R. Joshua's statement, that he who made a mistake in respect of a commandment is exonerated, may only be applicable to the case of the children,  where one is pressed for time.  but not in such a case as this,  where time is not pressing. What about terumah,  where one is not pressed for time, and he  nevertheless exonerates! For we learnt: In the case of a priest who was In the habit of eating terumah and it then transpired that he was the son of a divorced woman or of a haluzah,  R. Eliezer imposes payment of the principal and of a fifth,  and R. Joshua exonerates!  — Surely, in relation to this it was stated that R. Bibi b. Abaye said: We are here speaking of terumah  on the Eve of Passover when time is pressing.  If you prefer I might say: [Our Mishnah speaks] of simultaneous prohibitions, and may represent even the View of R. Simeon. All these,  it may well be conceded, may occur [simultaneously] where [the brothers] appointed an agent  and [the sisters also] appointed an agent  and one agent met the other;  but how could such [simultaneity] occur with menstruation?  - R. Amram in the name of Rab replied: When the women's menstrual discharge continued from [the men's] thirteenth, until after their thirteenth [birthday], when these become subject to legal punishments; and from their own twelfth, until after their twelfth [birthday], when they themselves become subject to punishments. THEY MUST BE KEPT APART. Surely, no woman conceives from the first contact!  R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abuha: Where contact was repeated. Why, then, did R. Hiyya state, 'Behold sixteen offerings are here involved',  when, in fact,  there should be thirty-two?  And according to your line of reasoning, following the opinion of R. Eliezer who deems they are guilty for every sexual effort, are there not more?  But [your own answer would be] that he only takes into consideration the first effort. Well, here also, only the first contact is taken into consideration. Said Raba to R. Nahman: