Whether the Sons of Eli Truly Sinned

"And the two sons of Eli were there, Hophni and Phinehas" (1 Samuel 1:3). Rabbi Samuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: whoever says the sons of Eli sinned is simply mistaken. He holds like Rav, who said Phinehas did not sin; he likens Hophni to Phinehas: just as Phinehas did not sin, so Hophni did not sin. Then how do I uphold "how they lay with the women" (1 Samuel 2:22)? Because they delayed their bird-offerings [of women after childbirth] so the women could not return to their husbands, Scripture accounts it to them as though they had lain with them. Rav said: Phinehas did not sin, as it is said, "And Ahijah son of Ahitub, brother of Ichabod, son of Phinehas, son of Eli, the priest of the LORD in Shiloh" (1 Samuel 14:3). Is it possible that a sin came to his hand, yet Scripture traces his lineage? But is it not written, "May the LORD cut off the man who does this" up to "and the one who answers" (Malachi 2:12)? If he is an Israelite, he shall have none awake among the sages and none answering among the disciples; and if he is a priest, he shall have no son offering a meal-offering to the LORD of hosts. Rather, learn from this that Phinehas did not sin. But is it not written "they lay" [yishkevun]? Rabbi Nachman bar Isaac said: it is written yishkevun [defectively, read as singular intent]. But is it not written, "No, my sons, for the report is not good" (1 Samuel 2:24)? Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Isaac: "my son" is written [singular]. But is it not written, "making the LORD's people transgress"? Rav Huna son of Rav Joshua said: "making him transgress" is written. But is it not written, "And the sons of Eli were worthless men" (1 Samuel 2:12)? Because Phinehas should have protested against Hophni and did not protest, Scripture accounts it to him as though he sinned.