Question (Mishnah): If we are unsure whether it is a nine month baby... (the same Mishnah asked above against Rava)... they bring an Asham Taluy.

Answer: That Mishnah is like R. Eliezer.

Question (Mishnah): If a woman found blood...

(Beraisa): They must bring an Asham Taluy.

Answer: That Beraisa is like R. Eliezer.

(Rav Nachman citing Rav): One is liable only if there were two pieces.

Repetition of Question (4:b, 17b): What is Rav's reason?

Answer #3 (Rav Nachman): Rav obligates when there are two pieces, because the Isur was Nikva. (There definitely was Isur there.) He exempts regarding one piece because the Isur was not Nikva.

Question: What is the difference between (Rava's answer,) this answer and R. Zeira's?

Answer: If there were two pieces, and a Nochri ate one, and a Yisrael ate the other:

(According to Rav), Rava exempts, because there were not "Mitzvos" at the time that the Yisrael ate;

R. Zeira exempts, because we cannot resolve the doubt;

Rav Nachman obligates, because the Isur was Nikva.

Question (Rava, against Rav Nachman - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): One who eats Chelev of a Koy must bring an Asham Taluy. (Perhaps it is permitted. The Isur is not Nikva!)

Answer (Rav Nachman): R. Eliezer does not require Nikva Isura.

Question (Mishnah): If we are unsure whether it is a nine month baby... they bring an Asham Taluy.

Answer: That Mishnah is like R. Eliezer.

Question (Mishnah): If a woman found blood...

(Beraisa): They must bring an Asham Taluy.

Rav Nachman was silent.

Rav Nachman (after Rava left): I should have answered that it is like R. Meir, who does not require Nikva Isura!

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If one slaughtered Asham Taluy outside the Mikdash (perhaps he really had sinned, it was a valid Korban, he is now liable for Shechutei Chutz), he must bring an Asham Taluy for this;

Chachamim exempt.

Question: Why didn't Rav Nachman say that he should have answered that it is like R. Eliezer?

Answer: If he said 'it is like R. Meir', this would teach Rava that R. Meir obligates because he holds like R. Eliezer. (Rava already knew R. Eliezer's opinion.)

(Rabah bar Avuha citing Rav): If there was one piece and he ate it, R. Eliezer is Mechayev, and Chachamim exempt. (Tosfos emends the text of all previous teachings of R. Eliezer (who does not require two pieces) to R. Elazar. Here, the text indeed says R. Eliezer.)

Question:: R. Eliezer permits even one who did not eat to bring an Asham Taluy! (Tosfos - the following is our only source that R. Eliezer permits bringing an Asham Taluy without two pieces.)

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One may bring an Asham Taluy every day (i.e. even without a specific doubt that he sinned).

Answer (Rav Ashi): Rabah discusses R. Eliezer's understanding of Amru Lo (Chachamim or Kohanim who argued with Bava ben Buta, who used to bring an Asham Taluy every day. He wanted to bring even on the day after Yom Kipur, even though Yom Kipur exempts any obligation to bring an Asham Taluy);

Amru Lo: Wait (another day,) until you have a (more reasonable) doubt. (Rashash - they held that the chance that he sinned in less than 24 hours is too small to justify bringing Asham Taluy. Tiferes Yisrael - they held that surely, he would not forget that he sinned in less than 24 hours. He was concerned that he sinned the night after Yom Kipur, and forgot after only 12 hours.)

(Beraisa): If there were two pieces, and Reuven ate one, and later a Nochri or dog or raven ate the other, Reuven is Chayav (to bring an Asham Taluy);

If a Nochri ate one, and later Reuven ate the other, he is exempt;

Rebbi is Mechayev.

If Reuven ate one b'Shogeg, and then the other b'Mezid (i.e. knowing that it is Safek Chelev), he is Chayav (for the first);

If he ate one b'Mezid, and then the other b'Shogeg, he is exempt. (When he was Shogeg, there was only one piece);

Rebbi is Mechayev.

If he ate both b'Mezid, he is totally exempt.

If Reuven ate one b'Shogeg, and then Shimon ate the other b'Shogeg, both of them must bring (Asham Taluy);

Letter of the law, Shimon is exempt, but if we exempt him, Reuven might think that we determined that the first was definitely Asur, and he will bring a Chatas for it.

Question: Who is the Tana of this Seifa?

It cannot be Rebbi. He obligates according to letter of the law!

If it is Chachamim, it is unreasonable to obligate an unnecessary Asham Taluy, which is Chulin ba'Azarah, lest he think that the first was definitely Asur!

Answer (Rav Ashi): It is R. Eliezer, who permits bringing Asham Taluy every day;

We tell Shimon to stipulate 'if Reuven ate Shuman and I ate Chelev, the Asham Taluy atones for me;

If he ate Chelev and I ate Shuman, the Asham Taluy is a Nedavah.

(Beraisa): If Reuven ate Safek Chelev, and then found out (that it was Safek Chelev), ate Safek Chelev again, and found out...

Rebbi says, just like he would bring a Chatas for each if he found out (now) that all of them were Chelev, he brings an Asham Taluy for each.

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah and R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon say, he brings only one Asham Taluy. "Al Shigegaso Asher Shagag" teaches that one Asham exempts many Shegagos.

(R. Zeira): Rebbi holds that Safek Yedi'os are Mechalek for Chata'os.

(Rava): No. Safek Yedi'os are not Mechalek for Chata'os. (Only Vadai Yedi'os are Mechalek);

Rebbi means, just like he would bring a Chatas for each had he found out that he ate (Vadai) Chelev (before eating the next piece), if he found out that he ate Safek Chelev (before eating the next piece), he brings an Asham Taluy for each.

Objection (Abaye): Surely, you must agree that Safek Yedi'os are Mechalek for Chata'os. If they were not, they would not be Mechalek for Ashamos!

(Beraisa): The Klal (general rule) is, whenever one brings a Chatas for each Vadai transgression, he brings an Asham Taluy for each Safek transgression.

Question (against Abaye - Rava bar Chanan): You learn from the Klal that Safek Yedi'os are Mechalek for Chata'os (even though this is illogical, for only definite Yedi'ah obligates a Chatas);

Version #1: If so, if one (Vadai) ate a k'Zayis of Chelev before Yom Kipur, and a k'Zayis after Yom Kipur, both in one He'elem, he should bring two Chata'os, for (in the corresponding case of Safek, it is as if he brings two Ashamos, for) Yom Kipur exempts (Sefekos) like an Asham Taluy. However, surely he brings only one Chatas for one He'elem!

Answer (Abaye): You assume that Yom Kipur exempts from Asham Taluy if the Safek was not known. Perhaps it atones only for known Sefekos!

Objection (Rava): A Mishnah (Shevu'os 12b) explicitly teaches that it exempts whether or not the Safek was already known!

Version #2: If one ate a k'Zayis of Chelev on Yom Kipur in the morning, and a k'Zayis in the afternoon (both in one He'elem), he should bring two Chata'os, for every moment of Yom Kipur exempts like Asham Taluy. However, surely, he brings only one! (Tosfos - the same applies if each time he at k'Koseves of any food, to be liable for eating on Yom Kipur.)

Answer (Abaye): You assume that every moment of Yom Kipur atones. Perhaps the atonement comes at the end of the day!

Objection (Rava bar Chanan - Beraisa): If someone doubtfully transgressed (Kares) on Yom Kipur, even just before nightfall, he is exempt, for the entire day is Mechaper.

Question (against Abaye - Rav Idi bar Avin - Mishnah): If one ate and drank on Yom Kipur in one He'elem, he brings only one Chatas.

Surely, there was a moment in between the eating and drinking in which he could have found out. It should be considered like a Safek Yedi'ah, for which Yom Kipur exempts like Asham Taluy;

If Safek Yedi'ah is Mechalek also for Chata'os, he should bring two!

Answer (Abaye): I explained Rebbi, according to R. Zeira. This Mishnah is like Chachamim.

Question: Since the Seifa is Rebbi, also the Reisha is Rebbi!

(Seifa): If one drank brine (on Yom Kipur) he is exempt.

Inference: If he drank vinegar, he is liable.

This is like Rebbi!

(Beraisa): Vinegar does not revitalize a person. (Therefore, one is exempt for it on Yom Kipur);

Rebbi says, it revitalizes a person.

Answer: No. The Seifa is like Rebbi (regarding vinegar), but the Reisha is like Chachamim (regarding Safek Yedi'ah).

Question (Rava - Beraisa) Question: If one ate or got (any other) benefit (from a half-Perutah's worth of Hekdesh) today, and also tomorrow, or even (if the second time was) three years later, what is the source that they join (to obligate for Me'ilah)?

Answer: "Tim'ol Ma'al" includes this.

(If the second benefit was years later,) Yom Kipur came in between. It was not Mechaper for the first half-Perutah!

Answer #1: Yom Kipur is Mechaper for Isurim, but not for monetary debts (to Hekdesh or people).

Answer #2: Yom Kipur is Mechaper for a full Shi'ur, but not for a half-Shi'ur.

Reish Lakish holds like R. Zeira, that according to Rebbi, a Safek Yedi'ah is Mechalek for Chatas;

R. Yochanan holds like Rava, that it is not. Rebbi means that just like a Vadai Yedi'ah (between eatings) obligates a Chatas for each, a Safek Yedi'ah (between eatings) obligates an Asham Taluy for each.

Question: Granted, according to R. Yochanan, we understand why Rebbi attributes Asham to Chatas. ('Just like he brings a Chatas for each, he brings an Asham Taluy for each');

However, according to Reish Lakish, he should attribute Chatas to Asham! (He learns from Asham that a Safek Yedi'ah is Mechalek.)

This is left difficult.