We continue in Kerisos chapter 5, from where we left off. Rabbi Tarfon held that there is no point in bringing one asham now and another asham later, but rather he should bring only one ram and make it conditional. To this, Rabbi Akiva replies: "Nirin devarecha bime'ilah mu'etes" - your words make sense and are logical when we are dealing with a small sum.
When the doubt is in a me'ilah of a small amount of money - a principal and a fifth that amount to a mere pittance - it is indeed appropriate to bring the money out of doubt and be done with the matter, and thus everything will be resolved peacefully.
"Harei sheba leyado safek me'ilah beme'ah maneh":
What is the law when the doubt he encountered is a questionable me'ilah involving a large sum of money? He did not eat a steak, but rather questionably committed me'ilah with a highly valuable object belonging to hekdesh, and perhaps it did not belong to hekdesh at all. In such a case, planning to bring the full amount plus a fifth out of doubt, just to save himself from bringing a second ram - this is completely unreasonable. Rather, "yafrish veyavi asham bishtei sela'im" - is it not easier for him, asks Rabbi Akiva, to set aside and bring one ram now worth two sela'im, and not bring the questionable me'ilah of a hundred maneh?
"Ha modeh Rabbi Akiva leRabbi Tarfon bime'ilah mu'etes" - the Mishnah notes that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon agree with each other, that for me'ilah of a small sum it makes sense to make this condition, a conditional asham, and to bring the money with it - the principal and the fifth - and turn it into a free-will offering if he was not obligated in it from the outset. Here this section of the Mishnah concludes.
A Note from Tosafos:
Tosafos note that there is necessarily a dispute here between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon, as they are debating practical monetary considerations, and from here we see that they dispute the very point itself:
According to Rabbi Tarfon: In his case of doubt, he is obligated to bring the money regardless, and therefore it is worthwhile for him to at least save himself the animals.
According to Rabbi Akiva: If you do not bring the asham me'ilos, bring only an asham talui, and there is no need to bring money at all.
The discussion in Tosafos is fascinating in its own right, and one can look into it at length, but it is not the halachah. For halachah, an asham talui is not brought for any of the inadvertent sins that obligate ashamos, but only for chattaos, as has been explained until now.
A Bird Chattas Brought out of Doubt:
The Mishnah has one more point to add. In the final words of the previous Mishnah, Rabbi Tarfon said: "Shekeshem shemevi al hoda, mevi al lo hoda" - the exact same korban is brought when there is knowledge and when there is no knowledge. Now the Mishnah notes another case of a chattas brought out of doubt and on condition, and this is because the chattas brought out of doubt is identical to the chattas brought for certainty. Although generally a chattas is not brought out of doubt, there is an exception that was already mentioned earlier in the tractate - the bird chattas.
The case is of a woman who gives birth, where we do not know for certain whether she became obligated in the korbanos of a woman who gives birth or not. For example, she miscarried, and what emerged from her was lost, and we have no way of determining if it had the halachic status of a definite fetus. If it were definite, she would bring two korbanos: an olah (which is not our concern right now) and also a chattas - a bird chattas. And since she does not know whether she became obligated, it is stated here that she is able to bring a bird chattas out of doubt.
Why there is nothing preventing the bringing of a bird sin-offering out of doubt:
Slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard: One of the problems with bringing a sin-offering out of doubt is that if it turns out there was no obligation, it emerges that one slaughtered a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard. With a bird, there is no such concern, since there is no ritual slaughter, but rather melikah with the fingernail from the back of the neck.
Sacrificial portions (imurim): With an animal, there is a concern that non-sacred sacrificial portions will be offered on the Altar. In a bird sin-offering, however, there are no sacrificial portions at all, and it has no parts that are offered on the Altar.
The blood: The blood is indeed squeezed out and sprinkled on the Altar, but there is no problem whatsoever with placing non-sacred blood on the Altar.
It turns out that there is nothing preventing the bringing of a bird sin-offering out of doubt. The only issue is that since the killing of the bird is done by melikah with the fingernail from the back of the neck, and not by standard halachic slaughter with a knife from the front of the neck, if it turns out to be a valid sacrifice, it is permitted to eat it; but if it turns out that it did not come for an obligation and is not a valid sacrifice, it is nothing but an unslaughtered carcass (neveilah), since it was not slaughtered properly but rather underwent melikah. The implication of this is: we bring a bird sin-offering out of doubt and there is no problem doing so, except that we do not eat the bird, lest it be an unslaughtered carcass.
The doubt was resolved after the designation:
What is the law if she designated a bird for a sin-offering out of doubt, and before the bird underwent melikah, the true facts became clear, that she indeed gave birth to a definite offspring or that she miscarried it? Even though she designated it as a sin-offering out of doubt, it makes no difference: we offer it as a definite sacrifice - "ta'asena vadai" - she shall make it a definite offering - and it is even permitted to eat it.
However, if the matter became clear after the melikah, it is already too late: by rabbinic law it is too late even before the sprinkling of the blood, and even by Torah law after the sprinkling of the blood, and this bird is no longer eaten.
Setting this side note aside, the main point is that there is a possibility of bringing a sin-offering out of doubt when it comes to a bird, and we treat it like a definite offering, because it is exactly the same thing. And these words echo the final words of the previous Mishnah: the same type of sacrifice and the same order of offering, whether the woman brings it for a definite obligation or whether she brings it out of doubt - just as in the previous Mishnah we used the same language regarding a guilt-offering for a definite misuse of consecrated property compared to a suspensive guilt-offering, lest he did not misuse consecrated property.