רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּב עַל סְפֵק מְעִילוֹת אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִים. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אֶת מְעִילָתוֹ עַד שֶׁתִּתְוַדַּע לוֹ, וְיָבִיא עִמָּהּ אָשָׁם וַדָּאי. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מַה לָּזֶה מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי אֲשָׁמוֹת. אֶלָּא יָבִיא מְעִילָה וְחֻמְשָׁהּ, וְיָבִיא אָשָׁם בִּשְׁנֵי סְלָעִים, וְיֹאמַר, אִם וַדַּאי מָעַלְתִּי, זוֹ מְעִילָתִי וְזֶה אֲשָׁמִי. וְאִם סָפֵק, הַמָּעוֹת נְדָבָה וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. שֶׁמִּמִּין שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עַל הוֹדַע, מֵבִיא עַל לֹא הוֹדַע:

This mishna resumes discussion of the provisional guilt offering addressed in the previous chapter. Rabbi Akiva deems one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for a case where he is uncertain whether he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property, a transgression that renders one liable to bring a definite guilt offering (see Leviticus 5:15). And the Rabbis deem him exempt, as one brings a provisional guilt offering only in a case of uncertainty as to whether he is liable to bring a sin offering, not a guilt offering. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that one does not bring payment for his misuse until it becomes definitely known to him that he is guilty of misuse, as then he will bring a definite guilt offering with his payment. Rabbi Tarfon said: For what purpose does that person bring two guilt offerings, one provisional and one definite? Rather, at the outset one brings the payment for misuse of consecrated property and its additional payment of one-fifth, as mandated by Torah law, and he will then bring a guilt offering worth two sela and say: If it is certain that I misused consecrated property, this is payment for my misuse and this is my definite guilt offering. And if it is uncertain whether I misused consecrated property, the money is a contribution to the Temple fund for the purchase of communal offerings and the guilt offering is provisional, as from the same type of animal that one brings a guilt offering for a case where it is known to him that he is guilty of misuse, he likewise brings a guilt offering for a case where it is unknown to him.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, נִרְאִים דְּבָרֶיךָ בִּמְעִילָה מְעֻטָּה. הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא עַל יָדוֹ סְפֵק מְעִילָה בְּמֵאָה מָנֶה, לֹא יָפֶה לוֹ שֶׁיָּבִיא אָשָׁם בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים וְאַל יָבִיא סְפֵק מְעִילָה בְּמֵאָה מָנֶה. הָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בִּמְעִילָה מֻעָטֶת. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֵבִיאָה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף סָפֵק, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְלְקָה נוֹדַע לָהּ שֶׁיָּלְדָה וַדַּאי, תַּעֲשֶׂנָּה וַדַּאי. שֶׁמִּמִּין שֶׁהִיא מְבִיאָה עַל לֹא הוֹדַע, מְבִיאָה עַל הוֹדַע:

Rabbi Akiva says: The statement of Rabbi Tarfon appears correct in the case of minimal misuse, but in a case where he is confronted with a case of uncertainty with regard to misuse valued at ten thousand dinars, would it not be preferable for him that he will now bring a provisional guilt offering valued at two sela and he will not bring payment now for uncertain misuse valued at ten thousand dinars? The mishna concludes: Apparently, Rabbi Akiva concedes to Rabbi Tarfon in the case of minimal misuse. He agrees that at the outset one brings payment for misuse and its additional payment of one-fifth, and conditionally brings a guilt offering. Apropos the previous case in which one brings the same type of animal when liability is certain as when liability is uncertain, this mishna teaches: With regard to a woman who brought a bird sin offering in a case of uncertainty whether she miscarried a fetus that would have rendered her liable to bring a sin offering or whether what she expelled would not render her liable to bring an offering, in which case this sin offering may not be eaten by priests, the halakha is as follows: If before the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth, i.e., miscarried, in a manner that obligates her to bring a sin offering, she should render the offering a definite sin offering, as from the same type of animal that she brings a sin offering for a case where it is known to her that she miscarried, she brings a sin offering for a case where it is unknown to her.

חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֻלִּין וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ, אָכַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן אָכַל, פָּטוּר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּב בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, מֵבִיא אָשָׁם וַדָּאי. אָכַל אֶחָד אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, זֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְזֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵיהֶם מְבִיאִים אָשָׁם אֶחָד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵין שְׁנַיִם מְבִיאִים אָשָׁם אֶחָד:

The mishna resumes discussion of the provisional guilt offering. If one had a piece of non-sacred meat and a piece of sacrificial meat, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Akiva deems him liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, in accordance with his opinion in the previous mishna that one brings a provisional guilt offering even in a case of uncertainty with regard to misuse. If he then ate the second piece, he brings a definite guilt offering, as it is certain that he ate the sacrificial meat. If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this first person brings a provisional guilt offering and that second person brings a provisional guilt offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them bring one definite guilt offering as partners, and they stipulate that the one who ate the non-sacred meat grants his share of the animal to the one who ate the sacrificial meat, and the guilt offering is sacrificed on his behalf. Rabbi Yosei says: Two people do not bring one guilt offering, as one may not sacrifice atonement offerings conditionally.

חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֻלִּין וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֵלֶב, אָכַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן אָכַל, מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. אָכַל אֶחָד אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, זֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְזֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵיהֶם מְבִיאִים חַטָּאת אֶחָת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵין שְׁנַיִם מְבִיאִים חַטָּאת אֶחָת:

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of non-sacred meat, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a provisional guilt offering, as perhaps he ate the forbidden fat. If he then ate the second piece, he brings a sin offering, as it is certain that he ate the fat. If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a provisional guilt offering and that person brings a provisional guilt offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them bring one sin offering as partners, and they stipulate that the sin offering should be credited to the one who ate the fat. Rabbi Yosei says: Two people do not bring one sin offering.

חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֵלֶב וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ, אָכַל אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן אָכַל, מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, מֵבִיא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם וַדָּאי. אָכַל אֶחָד אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, זֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וְזֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵיהֶם מְבִיאִים חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵין שְׁנַיִם מְבִיאִים חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם:

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial permitted fat and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a provisional guilt offering, as perhaps he ate the forbidden fat. If he then ate the second piece, he brings a sin offering, as he certainly ate the fat, and a definite guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a provisional guilt offering and that person brings a provisional guilt offering. Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them bring a sin offering and a guilt offering as partners, and they stipulate that each offering should be credited to the one who is liable to bring it. Rabbi Yosei says: Two people do not bring one sin offering and one guilt offering.

חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֵלֶב וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֵלֶב קֹדֶשׁ, אָכַל אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן אָכַל, מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת וְאָשָׁם וַדָּאי. אָכַל אֶחָד אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, זֶה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת וְזֶה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, זֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְזֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, זֶה חַטָּאת וְזֶה חַטָּאת, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְבִיאִים אָשָׁם אֶחָד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵין שְׁנַיִם מְבִיאִין אָשָׁם אֶחָד:

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial forbidden fat and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a sin offering as he certainly ate forbidden fat. Rabbi Akiva says: He also brings a provisional guilt offering, as perhaps he ate the sacrificial fat, in accordance with his opinion that one brings a provisional guilt offering even in the case of uncertainty with regard to misuse of consecrated property. If he then ate the second piece, he brings two sin offerings, as he ate two pieces of forbidden fat, and a definite guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a sin offering and that person brings a sin offering. Rabbi Akiva says: This person and that person each bring a provisional guilt offering as well, due to the uncertainty as to which of them ate the sacrificial fat. Rabbi Shimon says: This person brings a sin offering and that person brings a sin offering and both of them bring one guilt offering as partners, and they stipulate that the offering should be credited to the one who ate the sacrificial fat. Rabbi Yosei says: The two of them do not bring one guilt offering.

חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֵלֶב וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֵלֶב נוֹתָר, אָכַל אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֶת אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן אָכַל, מֵבִיא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, מֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת. אָכַל אֶחָד אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, זֶה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְזֶה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, זֶה חַטָּאת וְזֶה חַטָּאת, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְבִיאִים חַטָּאת אֶחָת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כָּל חַטָּאת שֶׁהִיא בָאָה עַל חֵטְא, אֵין שְׁנַיִם מְבִיאִים אוֹתָהּ:

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notar, an offering whose designated time has passed for which one is liable to receive karet if he ate it intentionally and liable to bring a sin offering if he ate it unwittingly, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a sin offering, as he certainly ate forbidden fat, and a provisional guilt offering, due to the possibility that he ate the notar. If he then ate the second piece, he brings three sin offerings, two for the forbidden fat and one for the prohibition against eating notar. If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a sin offering and a provisional guilt offering, as he certainly ate forbidden fat and it is uncertain whether he ate the notar, and that person brings a sin offering and a provisional guilt offering. Rabbi Shimon says: This person brings a sin offering and that person brings a sin offering and both of them bring one additional sin offering as partners, and they stipulate that the offering should be credited to the one who ate the notar. Rabbi Yosei says: Two people do not bring any sin offering that comes as atonement for a sin.