4ד׳
1 א

סָפֵק אָכַל חֵלֶב, סָפֵק לֹא אָכַל. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָכַל, סָפֵק יֵשׁ בּוֹ כַשִּׁעוּר, סָפֵק שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ. חֵלֶב וְשֻׁמָּן לְפָנָיו, אָכַל אֶת אַחַד מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן אָכַל. אִשְׁתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ בַבַּיִת, שָׁגַג בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן שָׁגָג. שַׁבָּת וְיוֹם חֹל, וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה בְאַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן עָשָׂה. מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי:

If [a person was] in doubt whether he had eaten forbidden fat or not, or even if he had certainly eaten [of it] but [was] in doubt as to whether it had the requisite quantity or less; or [if there were] before him permitted fat as well as forbidden fat, and he ate of one of them and does not know of which of them he ate; Or if his wife and his sister were with him in the house and he unwittingly [had sex] with one of them and does not know with which of them he unwittingly [had sex]; Or if he did forbidden labor and does not know whether it was on Shabbat or on a weekday, He is liable for an asham talui.

2 ב

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם אָכַל חֵלֶב וְחֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת, כָּךְ עַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁלָּהֶן אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא אָשָׁם אֶחָד. אִם הָיְתָה יְדִיעָה בֵינְתַיִם, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא חַטָּאת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, כָּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם אָכַל חֵלֶב וְדָם נוֹתָר וּפִגּוּל בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, כָּךְ עַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁלָּהֶן מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. חֵלֶב וְנוֹתָר לְפָנָיו, אָכַל אַחַד מֵהֶם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם אָכַל. אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ בַבַּיִת, שָׁגַג בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן שָׁגָג. שַׁבָּת וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְאֵין יָדוּעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶם עָשָׂה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עַל הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, מִקְצָת מְלָאכָה עָשָׂה מֵהַיּוֹם, וּמִקְצָתָהּ לְמָחָר. וְעַל מַה נֶּחְלְקוּ, עַל הָעוֹשֶׂה בְּתוֹךְ הַיּוֹם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בְּשַׁבָּת עָשָׂה וְאִם בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים עָשָׂה. אוֹ עַל הָעוֹשֶׂה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מֵעֵין אֵיזוֹ מְלָאכָה עָשָׂה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, פּוֹטְרוֹ הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אַף מֵאָשָׁם תָּלוּי:

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

3 ג

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים, לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שֵׁם אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. וְעַל מַה נֶּחְלְקוּ. עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּן לְלַקֵּט תְּאֵנִים וְלִקֵּט עֲנָבִים, עֲנָבִים וְלִקֵּט תְּאֵנִים, שְׁחוֹרוֹת וְלִקֵּט לְבָנוֹת, לְבָנוֹת וְלִקֵּט שְׁחוֹרוֹת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, תָּמֵהַּ אֲנִי אִם יִפְטֹר בָּהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ד), אֲשֶׁר חָטָא בָּהּ. פְּרָט לְמִתְעַסֵּק:

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.