Rav and Shmuel hold one who is Jewish but was raised by gentiles and never knew halachah as liable for a chatas for breaking Shabbos. Munmaz exempts. I thought the concept of a shogeg was an INADVERTENT sinner. That implies that he knew and erred inadvertently. One who never knew can't err inadvertently.
How do I better understand Rav and Shmuel's position?
Barry Epstein, Dallas, TX 75252
There are levels of sin - Meizid, Shogeg and Oneis. If as you assume someone who never knew is not a Shogeg, then he must be an Oneis.
Whether someone who thinks that he is permitted to do what he is doing ('Omer Mutar') is called an Oneis or a Shogeg is a Machlokes between Abaye and Rava in Makos (7b). Rashi equates Rebbi Yochanan (and Munbaz) with Rava in Makos, who holds that Omer Mutar is considered an Oneis (like your assumption). Rav and Shmuel (and R. Akiva) will therefore hold like Abaye, who holds Omer Mutar is considered a Shogeg.
Tosfos disagrees with Rashi. In their opinion, everyone holds that Omer Mutar (even Rava in Makos) is considered shogeg, everywhere other than by Galus, and the reason that Munbaz exempts the Tinok she'Nishba from a Chatas is due to a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (and not due to logic).
It seems that you will have to reassess your understanding of 'Shogeg'. Oneis, it seems, is confined to someone who either did not mean to do what he did, or who was forced to do a sin.
Rav Eliezer Chrysler