Kerisos Chapter 1, Mishnah 4. This is the second of three mishnayos in a series dealing with women who bring a chatas after giving birth or miscarrying. The mishnah opens: "Elu meivios ve'eino ne'echal" - The women listed below bring a bird chatas after miscarrying, but this chatas is not eaten. This refers to scenarios of doubt, where it is not known with certainty whether she became obligated in a korban, since the nature of the miscarriage is unknown to us.
The rule: One does not bring a chatas out of doubt - and why the halachah is different here:
As a rule, a person cannot bring a korban chatas out of doubt. This is not a regular occurrence at all. However, here the halachah departs from the rule for two reasons:
There is no sin here: One who brings a korban chatas is required to bring it with certainty, as it is designated for that person and for that specific sin. There is no concept of bringing a conditional chatas - "perhaps I am obligated in it," or "perhaps it comes for a sin that I do not know what it is." A chatas always comes for a specific sin. Here, on the other hand, the woman brings a chatas that is prescribed for childbirth, and in the case before us for a miscarriage, and there is no sin here at all.
There is no slaughtering of chullin in the Azarah here: One who brings a chatas out of doubt, perhaps it is not a chatas at all, may find himself offering a chullin animal that is not kodashim - since if he is not obligated in a chatas, his consecration does not take effect and the animal remains unconsecrated, and there is a special prohibition against slaughtering chullin in the Azarah. However, here we do not bring an animal: a regular chatas is a female goat or a female sheep, whereas here we are dealing with a bird, and with a bird there is no slaughtering but rather melikah - killing the bird with a thumbnail from the back of the neck. Technically this is not slaughtering, and therefore there is no problem here of slaughtering chullin in the Azarah.
Another problem that might arise when bringing a chatas out of doubt is offering the eimurin, the sacrificed parts, of chullin on the mizbe'ach - something that is strictly prohibited. However, in a bird chatas there is no part whatsoever that goes up on the mizbe'ach, since it is entirely eaten by the kohen. Therefore, there is no concern that chullin eimurin will be offered on the mizbe'ach. Granted, the blood of the bird is placed on the mizbe'ach during the sprinkling of the bird chatas, but there is no prohibition in this, since there is no prohibition against placing chullin blood on the mizbe'ach.
The result is, therefore, that technically one can bring a bird chatas out of doubt, by stipulating a condition, as will be explained below.
Nevertheless, it must be emphasized: Even though the korban is brought, the kohen cannot eat this bird. Since if she was truly not obligated to bring it, it turns out that the bird was killed by melikah and not by shechitah, and melikah with a fingernail from the back of the neck is not a valid shechitah - it is neveilah. Its kosher status depends on it being a korban, and when it is not a korban it is neveilah. Therefore, the kohen does not eat it, due to the doubt of it being neveilah.
The first case: "Hamapeiles ve'ein yadua mah hipilah":
A woman who miscarried and does not know what she miscarried. For example, and this is not a rare occurrence, she miscarried in the toilet and flushed the water, and did not see what came out of her, and she has no possibility of checking if the matter matches the requirements we saw in the previous mishnah. We do not know what it was. Therefore, she brings the possible set of korbanos for a woman who gives birth:
The olah: She can bring it either from a bird or from a sheep, and she brings it conditionally - if she is obligated in a korban, this is her obligatory olah; and if she is not obligated, since what she miscarried is not an offspring and does not render her a woman who gave birth, this is a voluntary olah. And this is perfectly fine.
The chatas: With this she does not stipulate conditions at all. She brings it, and the kohen does not eat it, since perhaps she was not obligated in it and it turns out to be neveilah.
The second case: "Shtei nashim shehipilu, achas mimin petur ve'achas mimin chovah":
One woman miscarried something that exempts her - it is not an offspring and she does not become obligated in the korbanos of a woman who gives birth; and the second miscarried an offspring and became obligated in the pair of korbanos - but the miscarriages became mixed up. Since neither of them knows which of them is the obligated one, each brings a korban: the olah conditionally - "If I am obligated, this is my obligatory olah, and if not, this is a voluntary olah" - and she brings the chatas without any condition, and the kohen knows not to eat it.
The Opinion of Rabbi Yosi:
Rabbi Yosi says: "Eimasai? Bizman shehalchu zo lamizrach vezo lamaarav" - "When is this? When this one went to the east and this one to the west." That is, the two women, after handing over their birds for the sacrifice, went in opposite directions and are not in the same place at the same time. In this situation, each one stands on her own, and therefore each brings a pair of birds: the olah is offered, and the chatas is offered but is not eaten.
However, "im hayu shteihen omdos ke'achas - mevios korban vene'echal" - "if they were both standing together, they bring a sacrifice and it is eaten": each one brings her own olah on condition, that it is her obligatory olah or her voluntary olah, while for the chatas they bring one bird for the two of them. This one says: "If I am the one obligated in this chatas, it is mine, and if it is not mine, I relinquish my ownership," and her friend says the same. In this manner, one bird is brought for both women, since certainly only one of them is obligated in a chatas.
A Dispute Among the Rishonim:
The Rishonim disagree whether Rabbi Yosi comes to explain the words of the Tanna Kamma or to argue with him:
The Opinion of the Rosh (and similarly Tosafos): Rabbi Yosi comes to explain, and there is no dispute here. Therefore, the halachah is that if the women are standing together, each brings a bird for an olah conditionally, and one bird for a chatas for both of them; and if they were separate, they bring two chatas offerings, one for each woman.
The Opinion of the Rambam: Rabbi Yosi argues with the Tanna Kamma, and the halachah follows the Tanna Kamma. Therefore, even when the two women come together, each one brings two birds: the olah is either obligatory or voluntary, and the chatas is brought out of doubt. There is no possibility to make stipulations in order to share a chatas, there is no such thing at all, and both of these chatas offerings are not eaten.
In Summary: In this Mishnah we learned that although we do not bring a chatas out of doubt, with a bird chatas of a woman who gave birth this is possible - since it does not come for a sin, it has no shechitah but rather melikah, and there are no parts of it (eimurin) burned on the Altar. Therefore, a woman who miscarries and does not know what she miscarried, as well as two women who miscarried and their sacrifices became mixed up, bring an olah on condition and a chatas out of doubt - and the chatas is not eaten, due to the concern of it being an unslaughtered carcass (neveilah). We also discussed the words of Rabbi Yosi who distinguishes between standing together and going this one to the east and this one to the west, and the dispute among the Rishonim whether he comes to explain or to argue.