We continue the progression we began in Tractate Kerisos, chapter 5, mishnah 6, and before us is the third case out of five. Here there are two pieces: a piece of chelev (forbidden fat) and a piece of hekdesh (consecrated property). Both are forbidden to eat, but each for a different reason:
The piece of chelev: One who eats it intentionally is liable to kares, and one who eats it inadvertently is liable for a chatas (sin offering).
The piece of hekdesh: It is consecrated, and is subject to the prohibition of me'ilah (misappropriation of consecrated property), and one who eats it brings an asham me'ilos (guilt offering for me'ilah).
The doubt before us is that it is not known who ate what, and the mishnah revolves around this doubt.
He ate one of the pieces:
The first case: "Achal es achas mehen v'ein yadua eizeh mehen achal" - Reuven ate one of the two pieces and does not know which of them. Perhaps he ate chelev and is liable for a chatas, and perhaps he ate hekdesh and is liable for an asham me'ilos. Therefore, according to the Tanna Kamma, he brings an asham talui (suspensive guilt offering), for it is possible he violated the prohibition of eating chelev and it is possible he did not, and for such a doubt one brings an asham talui.
Rabbi Akiva also agrees that he brings an asham talui, but according to his view, this asham talui does double duty: he holds that even one who ate the hekdesh may become liable for an asham talui. Regardless, whether the doubt is regarding the chelev or regarding the hekdesh, in the end he brings an asham talui.
He ate the second piece as well:
If he continued and also ate the second piece, it is then known that he ate both chelev and hekdesh, and therefore he brings a chatas and a definitive asham: a chatas for eating the chelev, which he certainly ate, and an asham me'ilos for eating the hekdesh, which he also certainly ate.
Two people who ate the two pieces:
The next case: "Achal echad es harishonah, uva acher v'achal es hasheniyah" - Reuven ate one piece and Shimon ate the second, and it is not known who ate what. Regarding this, the Tannaim argue:
The Tanna Kamma (and also the view of Rabbi Akiva): "Zeh mevi asham talui vezeh mevi asham talui" - each one brings an asham talui, since it is possible he ate the chelev for which one is liable for a chatas, and it is possible he did not. And according to Rabbi Akiva it makes no difference: they both bring an asham talui, since aside from the fact that one of them ate the chelev, one of them also ate the hekdesh, and they do not know which of them did what.
Rabbi Shimon: "Sheneihem mevi'in chatas ve'asham" - why should they bring ashamos teluyim (suspensive guilt offerings)? After all, it is known that the prohibition of eating the chelev was violated between them, and it is known that the prohibition of me'ilah was violated between them, and therefore they bring a chatas and an asham me'ilos conditionally: each one will say that if he is the one who ate the chelev, the chatas is his and the ram is his friend's asham; and if he is not the one who ate the chelev, then he ate the hekdesh, and the ram is his own asham, and he has ownership in the she-goat or ewe that goes for his friend.
Rabbi Yosi: "Ein sheneihem mevi'in chatas ve'asham" - there is no such thing as bringing a chatas or asham in partnership between them, and therefore they cannot do so; rather, each one brings an asham talui, and thus the matter is simple and clear.
In summary: In this mishnah we learned the law of a piece of chelev and a piece of hekdesh that became mixed up: one who eats one of them brings an asham talui, and if he ate the second one as well, he brings a chatas and a definitive asham. And regarding two people who each ate one piece - according to the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Akiva, each one brings an asham talui; according to Rabbi Shimon, they bring a conditional chatas and asham between them; and according to Rabbi Yosi, there is no sacrifice brought in partnership, and they revert to an asham talui for each one.
In the next section, we will continue to the fourth case in the series of Mishnayos before us.