We continue with Mishnah 2 in the fifth chapter of Tractate Kerisos, and before us is the same kind of scenario we saw in the previous Mishnah. This time we are dealing with two pieces of food: a piece of chelev, and a piece of chelev that is kodesh. Both are chelev, meaning one who eats one of them inadvertently is certainly obligated to bring a chatas. But one of them is also kodesh: the animal from which the chelev came was consecrated, meaning the chelev in it is hekdesh. Therefore, one who eats it is obligated not only to bring a chatas for eating the chelev, but also an asham me'ilos for eating the hekdesh. Here too, the Mishnah is divided into three cases.
Case 1 - He ate one of the pieces:
"Achal es achas meihen ve'eino yode'a eizo meihen achal" - Reuven ate one of the two pieces, and he does not know which of them he ate: perhaps just chelev, or perhaps chelev that is kodesh. The halachah is "meivi chatas" - because he certainly ate chelev, and for that he is obligated to bring a chatas. As for the hekdesh aspect, it is a doubt whether he ate it or not:
The Tanna Kamma holds like the opinion of the Sages: anytime it is not known if he transgressed a prohibition that obligates one to bring an asham, he does not bring an asham at all.
"Rabbi Akiva omer: meivi asham talui" - in addition to the chatas he is certainly obligated to bring for eating the chelev, he must also bring an asham talui. This is Rabbi Akiva's approach as we saw above: one who is in doubt whether he transgressed a prohibition for which one is obligated an asham, brings an asham talui.
Case 2 - He ate the second piece as well:
"Achal es hasheniyah, meivi shtei chata'os ve'asham vadai" - since Reuven ate the second piece as well, he has certainly eaten chelev and also chelev that is kodesh, and he must bring a korban for everything: two chata'os, one for each piece of chelev, and one certain asham me'ilos for eating the kodesh.
It should be noted that we are dealing here with two lapses of awareness (he'elamos), in two separate events of forgetting: he ate the first piece, and afterward they informed him that he was forbidden to eat because there was chelev on the table, and then he forgot again and ate the second. If he had eaten both of them during a single lapse of awareness - he approached the table, ate his meal, and ate both pieces - he would only bring one chatas for both pieces of chelev, and in total one chatas and one asham me'ilos. Therefore, the Mishnah speaks of a situation of two lapses of awareness, in which he is obligated two chata'os and a certain asham, which is the asham me'ilos.
Case 3 - One ate the first and another came and ate the second:
"Achal echad es harishonah uva acher ve'achal es hasheniyah" - like the third case in the previous Mishnah: Reuven ate one piece and Shimon ate the second piece, and neither of them knows which piece he ate. Both certainly ate chelev, and therefore "zeh meivi chatas vezeh meivi chatas". As for the kodesh - each of them has a doubt whether he ate it or not, a doubt whether he committed me'ilah or not, and on this the Tanna'im disagree:
The Tanna Kamma holds like the opinion of the Sages, that they do nothing in this regard.
"Rabbi Akiva omer: zeh meivi asham talui vezeh meivi asham talui" - according to his approach, anytime one may have transgressed a prohibition obligating an asham, he brings an asham talui for it. It turns out that each of them, Reuven and Shimon, brings a chatas for the certain part - the chelev he certainly ate - and an asham talui for the doubt of perhaps committing me'ilah by eating the kodesh.
Rabbi Shimon, according to his approach, says "zeh chatas vezeh chatas" - because each of them certainly ate chelev, "ushneihem meivi'in asham echad" - because between the two of them the kodesh was certainly eaten, and therefore they bring between them one certain asham, an asham me'ilos, and again conditionally: that whichever of them actually transgressed, the korban should be offered on his behalf.
"Rabbi Yosei omer: ein shneihem meivi'in asham echad" - according to his approach, there is no such thing as a joint conditional korban. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as well as the opinion of the Tanna Kamma which is the halachah, neither of them brings an asham at all, rather each brings a chatas for the chelev he certainly ate, and they bring nothing for the doubt of whether there was me'ilah here or not.
In summary: In this Mishnah we dealt with two pieces of chelev, one of which is also kodesh, and the three cases: One who eats one of them and does not know which it was - brings a chatas for the certain part, and according to Rabbi Akiva also an asham talui for the doubt of me'ilah; one who eats both of them in two lapses of awareness - brings two chata'os and a certain asham; and two who each ate a piece - each brings a chatas, and regarding the asham they disagreed: the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Yosei exempt them, Rabbi Akiva obligates each in an asham talui, and Rabbi Shimon obligates both of them in one conditional asham.