We are up to Mishnah 2 in the fifth chapter, and we return to the topic of an asham talui. In this Mishnah, we will see that Rabbi Akiva, based on an exegesis from a verse, holds that just as one who is in doubt whether he committed a sin that requires a chatas brings an asham talui, so too is the law regarding an asham: one who may have obligated himself in an asham offering brings an asham talui to suspend the consequences.
The case of the Mishnah - an asham me'ilos:
An asham me'ilos is brought for misusing hekdesh (consecrated property). For example: A person consecrated his steak to the Beis Hamikdash, and there are two steaks sitting in the kitchen. The eater assumes both are permissible and eats one of them, while his roommate eats the second. Afterward, it becomes known that one of the steaks was hekdesh.
Two situations are before us:
He knows with certainty that he ate the hekdesh steak: He must bring an asham me'ilos, which is the asham offering brought for misusing hekdesh, and additionally return the value of the steak plus a fifth. If it was worth four dollars, he pays five: four for the steak, and a fifth dollar - the additional fifth - for atonement.
He is in doubt whether he ate the hekdesh steak: He does not pay the money, for everyone agrees that a person does not pay when he is not certain that he owes money; and he also cannot bring an asham me'ilos, since he does not know if he ate it. The question is what his status is regarding an asham talui.
Rabbi Akiva holds, based on a derivation, that he is obligated to bring an asham talui until the facts become clear to him, just like the law of doubt regarding a chatas. And this is what the Mishnah says: Rabbi Akiva obligates an asham talui in a situation where a person is in doubt whether he did or did not commit the sin that obligates an asham me'ilos, whereas "chachamim potrin" - there is no such thing, and an asham talui only applies to transgressions whose definite violation obligates a chatas. The halachah follows the Sages, but nevertheless, we will discuss Rabbi Akiva's approach in this Mishnah, and to some extent in the next Mishnah as well.
The source of Rabbi Akiva's derivation:
In Vayikra 5 appears the section dealing with an asham me'ilos, and at its conclusion it says "ve'im nefesh" - with the conjunctive letter vav. This vav is extra, and from it the derivation is expounded: The upper section deals with an asham me'ilos, while the lower section, which follows it in the Chumash, adds "velo yada" - that if he did not know, he brings an asham talui. According to Rabbi Akiva, the vav in "ve'im" comes to teach that an asham talui applies even to what is stated before it, to the asham me'ilos. And according to the Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishnah, this applies to all asham offerings.
The Sages' approach to the derivation of the vav:
The Sages do not expound this vav regarding an asham talui, but rather to teach that the monetary value of the asham talui is equal to the value of an asham me'ilos. The shekels mentioned in the Chumash are the sela'im in the language of the Mishnah, and from here we learn that one must bring a ram - for the asham brought for a sin is always a ram - worth at least two sela'im. These four asham offerings must be of this value:
Asham me'ilos.
Asham shifchah charufah.
Asham gezeilah.
Asham talui.
The other two asham offerings can be less than this value.
Rabbi Akiva also agrees with this principle, that one must pay two shekels in Torah terminology, which are two sela'im in Mishnaic terminology, for the Asham Talui, but he derives this from a different source. The Sages, who do not expound the letter "vav," learned the limitation of the Asham Talui from a separate derivation: a gezeirah shavah from the word "mitzvos," which appears both in the passage of the Asham Talui and in the passage of the Chatas and appears to be superfluous. This gezeirah shavah of "mitzvos" "mitzvos" teaches that one only brings an Asham Talui in a situation where, had he known with certainty that he committed the act, he would bring a Chatas. This is the technical background to the matter.
"Umodeh Rabbi Akiva" - and Rabbi Akiva concedes:
Rabbi Akiva, who requires an Asham Talui for a doubtful eating that involves me'ilah, concedes "she'eino mevi es me'ilaso ad shetivada lo" - he does not pay the me'ilah money, those five dollars in our example, until he knows for certain. "Veyavi imah asham vadai" - if and when it becomes clear to him that he indeed ate the hekdesh steak and violated the prohibition of me'ilah, he is obligated at that time to bring the money that accompanies the Asham Me'ilos offering, and even preceding it, since part of the atonement is the restitution of the money alongside bringing the offering.
It emerges according to Rabbi Akiva: he brings an Asham Talui now, and if it becomes known to him afterward that he indeed transgressed, he brings a definite Asham at a later date, which is the Asham Me'ilos, and with it the payment. Earlier, in the words of the Tanna Kamma, it was discussed whether only the principal, the four dollars that the steak is worth, is indispensable, or even the fifth. In any event, Rabbi Akiva concedes that one must bring the money, but only then; previously he is exempt.
The view of Rabbi Tarfon:
Rabbi Tarfon agrees with Rabbi Akiva's principle, that one who is in doubt whether he committed a transgression for which, had he certainly committed it, he would bring an Asham Me'ilos, brings an Asham Talui. However, he argues that this is not logical: the Asham Talui and the Asham Me'ilos are the exact same ram, and they are identical in all their details. Why, then, should he bring a ram now and an additional ram later? He should bring only one ram, and conditionally.
Although a Chatas is not brought conditionally, as a person cannot say, "If I am obligated I will bring it, and if not, not," an Asham (Rabbi Tarfon says, and Rabbi Akiva indeed agrees with him on this) can be brought conditionally. He brings the ram and says: if I am obligated in me'ilos, let this be for me'ilos; and if I am obligated in a talui, let this be for a talui. It turns out he brings one ram instead of two.
However, he must concede that if the ram is brought for the sake of an Asham Me'ilos, he must bring the money with it as well: five dollars for the steak that is worth four, and one ram worth at least two sela'im, which is brought conditionally. And this is explicitly described by the Mishnah:
"Amar Rabbi Tarfon: mah lazeh mevi shetei ashamos?" - why should this person bring two separate rams as Asham offerings, one now as an Asham Talui and one later as an Asham Me'ilos?
"Ela yavi me'ilah vechumshah" - he should come to the Beis Hamikdash with five dollars in his hand, four for the steak and an additional dollar for the fifth. "Veyavi asham bishtei sela'im" - he should buy a ram for an Asham at the required value, two sela'im.
"Veyomar: im vadai ma'alti - zo me'ilasi vezeh ashami" - if the steak that I ate was indeed a hekdesh steak and I committed me'ilah with it, these five dollars will be the payment of the principal and the fifth, and this ram will be an Asham Me'ilos and not an Asham Talui.
"Ve'im safek - hama'os nedavah" - and if I will forever remain in doubt, without knowing whether I ate the hekdesh steak or the chullin steak, the five dollars that I brought for the sake of the principal and the fifth will be a gift to the Beis Hamikdash, as they are permitted to accept five dollars as a nedavah; and the ram that I bring will be an Asham Talui, which suspends the punishment for the doubt, and not a definite Asham Me'ilos.
"Shemin shehu mevi al hoda, mevi al lo hoda" - Rabbi Tarfon points out that the exact same species of animal, and even the manner in which it is offered in the Beis Hamikdash, are identical for both an asham me'ilos and an asham talui, and therefore he can bring it conditionally. Even though this cannot be done with a chatas, it is possible with an asham.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned that Rabbi Akiva expounds the letter vav in the words "ve'im nefesh" to obligate one to bring an asham talui even for a case of doubtful me'ilah, whereas the Sages exempt him. They expound this vav to teach the minimum value of two sela'im, and they limit the asham talui, through a gezeirah shavah of the word "mitzvos", to transgressions that carry a chatas obligation - and the halachah follows their view. We also learned that Rabbi Akiva concedes that one does not bring the repayment for the misappropriation until the matter becomes a certainty, at which point he brings a definite asham along with it. Rabbi Tarfon, however, teaches that one ram brought conditionally is sufficient, since the species of the offering and the manner in which it is offered are identical whether the sin is known or unknown.