If there was a piece of (permitted) Chulin and a piece of Chelev, and one is unsure which he ate, he brings Asham Taluy;

If he later ate the other piece, he brings a Chatas.

If two different people ate the two pieces, each of them brings an Asham Taluy;

R. Shimon says, (together) they bring one Chatas (and stipulate);

R. Yosi says, two people cannot bring one Chatas.

If there was a piece of Chelev and a piece of Kodesh, and one is unsure which he ate, he brings Asham Taluy;

If he later ate the other piece, he brings a Chatas and an Asham Vadai;

If two different people ate the two pieces, each of them brings an Asham Taluy;

R. Shimon says they bring one Chatas and one Asham (Vadai, and stipulate);

R. Yosi says, two people cannot bring one Chatas and one Asham.

If there was a piece of (Chulin) Chelev and a piece of Kodesh Chelev, and one is unsure which he ate, he brings a Chatas;

R. Akiva says, he brings also Asham Taluy;

If he later ate the other piece, he brings two Chata'os and an Asham Vadai;

If two different people ate the two pieces, each of them brings a Chatas;

R. Akiva says, each brings also Asham Taluy;

R. Shimon says, each brings a Chatas, together they bring an Asham (Vadai and stipulate);

R. Yosi says, two people cannot bring one Asham.

If there was a piece of Chelev and a piece of Chelev Nosar, and one is unsure which he ate, he brings a Chatas and an Asham Taluy;

If he later ate the other piece, he brings three Chata'os. (Shitah; Rashi's text says two Chata'os. We must say that he ate both in one Helam.)

If two different people ate the two pieces, each of them brings a Chatas and an Asham Taluy;

R. Shimon says, each brings a Chatas, and together they bring a (third) Chatas (and stipulate);

R. Yosi says, two people cannot bring one Chatas that comes due to sin.

(Gemara - Rava) Inference: R. Yosi says that two people cannot bring one Chatas. Rather, each brings Asham Taluy.

Question: This is just like the first Tana!

Suggestion: The first Tana obligates Asham Taluy even when there was only one piece. R. Yosi obligates only when there were two pieces (he exempts the second eater).

Rejection (Beraisa - R. Yosi): Each of them brings Asham Taluy.

Answer (Rav Nachman): This teaches that R. Yosi is the first Tana.

(Mishnah): If there was a piece of Chelev and a piece of Kodesh... a piece of Chelev and a piece of Chelev Kodesh... a piece of Chelev and a piece of Chelev Nosar...

Question (Rava): He should also bring an Asham Vadai (for Me'ilah), for Nosar is Kodesh! (Shitah - he refers to the Seifa, in which he ate Chelev and Chelev Nosar.)

Answer (Rav Nachman): It is not worth a Perutah.

Question (Rava): Surely, the Seifa is like the previous case (Chelev and Chelev Kodesh). There, it is worth a Perutah, for he brings an Asham Vadai!

Answer (Rav Nachman): It was worth a Perutah, but after it becomes Nosar, it is not worth a Perutah. (After one or two days and a night, it is almost spoiled. R. Gershom explains that it is Asur even to the Mizbe'ach. The next question refutes this. We must say that the subsequent answers attribute the decreased value to spoilage.)

Question (Rava - Mishnah #1): One can be liable for four Chata'os and one Asham for one eating. (A Tamei ate Chelev Nosar on Yom Kipur.)

Note: The Asham is for Me'ilah. The Nosar is worth a Perutah!

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): There, he ate a lot. (It was at least k'Koseves, to be liable for Yom Kipur), so it was worth a Perutah. Here, he ate a little.

Version #2 (R. Gershom) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): There, it was Chelev of a large animal (it is worth more; Rashash - it is slow to spoil). Here, it was Chelev of a small animal (it is worth less or spoils quicker). (end of Version #2)

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): There, it was winter (when fat takes longer to spoil). Here it was summer. (Most opinions (including R. Meir, who agrees with Mishnah #1) say that Yom Kipur is in Chom (heat, the end of summer - Bava Metzi'a 106b), the hottest season (Yoma 29a)! Rav Nachman must mean that it happened to be a cold day. A Kohen Gadol may not be a judge for Ibur Shanah, for he does not want a leap year to delay Yom Kipur, lest it be cold (Sanhedrin 18b). Additionally, perhaps the Chelev (after Shechitah) did not see daytime heat (e.g. Kodshei Kodashim offered late Erev Yom Kipur and eaten early the next morning), or it was preserved through salting or smoking. The Tana sought to maximize the number of Korbanos, but normally, Nosar is not worth a Perutah.)

(Mishnah): If two different people ate (Chelev and Chelev Nosar... R. Shimon says, each brings a Chatas, and together they bring a (third) Chatas).

Question (Rava): Why does R. Shimon Mechayev for Nosar? He holds that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur! (It should not take effect on Chelev.)

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): If one ate a Nevelah on Yom Kipur, he is exempt (from punishment for eating on Yom Kipur, since the Nevelah was forbidden before Yom Kipur. Even if the animal died on Yom Kipur, it was forbidden beforehand because it was not slaughtered.)

Answer #1 (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): The case is, he ate a kidney with the Chelev on it. (Nosar takes effect on the kidney, since it was initially permitted.)

Question: Even the kidney was forbidden, for it is Olim! (It is part of the Eimurim offered to Hash-m.)

Suggestion: Perhaps R. Shimon holds that a more severe Isur (Nosar, which has Kares) is Chal on a light Isur (Olim).

Rejection: Yom Kipur (entails Kares, which) is more severe than Nevelah (a Lav), and it is not Chal on it!

Answer #2: Rather, (even R. Shimon agrees that) regarding Kodshim, the Torah teaches that Isur Chal Al Isur:

(Beraisa): "Asher la'Shem" includes (all) Eimurim. (One is liable for eating them b'Tum'ah.)

Even though Eimurim are forbidden (they are Olim), and the Chelev (punishable by Kares) is included, the Isur Tum'ah is Chal on them!

Support: Rebbi holds that a severe Isur is Chal on a light Isur, but not vice-versa. In Kodshim, he holds that even a light Isur is Chal on a severe Isur!

Me'ilah is a light Isur. It is Misah b'Yedei Shamayim (according to Rebbi; Chachamim say that it is only a Lav), yet Rebbi says that it is Chal on Kodshim with a more severe Isur (Kares)!

(Beraisa - Rebbi): "Kol Chelev la'Shem" includes (all) Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim (Me'ilah applies to them), even though Chelev is forbidden by Kares!

Conclusion: All agree that in Kodshim, Isur Chal Al Isur.

Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon): Pigul and Nosar do not apply to Olim (because Ein Isur Chal Al Isur).

Answer #3: Tana'im argue about whether R. Shimon agrees that Isur Chal Al Isur in Kodshim. (The Tana of this Beraisa says that he does. The Tana of our Mishnah says that he does not.)

Question: According to this Tana (that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, even in Kodshim), what do we learn from "Kol Chelev la'Shem"?

Answer: It applies to Vlados Kodshim. He holds that they do not become Kodesh until they are born. The Isurim of Me'ilah and Chelev come at the same time.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If one was Makdish an Asham Taluy and found out before Shechitah that he did not sin, he returns it to his flock. (It is Chulin);

Chachamim say, it grazes (this always means until it gets a Mum; it is redeemed, and its money goes to Nedavah);

R. Eliezer says, he offers it. If he does not need it for this Safek, it can be for another sin (even if he has no doubts about any other sin).

If he found out after Shechitah, (it is Pasul;) the blood is spilled into the Amah, the meat is burned in Beis ha'Sereifah;

If the blood was thrown (before he found out), the meat is eaten;

R. Yosi says, even if the blood is in a bucket, (the Asham is Kosher, for it was already Mechaper as if the blood was already thrown;) we do Zerikah and the meat is eaten.

Asham Vadai is different. If one found out before Shechitah that he did not sin, (Chachamim agree that it is Chulin;) he returns it to his flock;

If he found out after Shechitah, it is buried;

If the blood was thrown, the meat is burned in Beis ha'Sereifah.

Shor ha'Niskal (an ox sentenced to be stoned) is different (than Asham Taluy). If we find out before stoning it (that it did not kill, it is permitted). He returns it to his flock;

If we find out after stoning, it is permitted to benefit from it;

Eglah Arufah (a calf beheaded when a murdered corpse is found) is different (than Asham Taluy). If we find the murderer before Arifah, (it is permitted,) and it returns to the flock;

If we find him after Arifah, it is buried in its place;

This is because from the beginning, it was brought due to Safek. It atoned for the Safek.

(Gemara) Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Meir holds that one is not Makdish something if he will not need it. Chachamim say, he is worried lest he sinned and is anxious to bring the Asham, therefore he is Makdish absolutely (unconditionally).

(Beraisa): R. Meir and Chachamim argue both when he found out that he sinned, and when he found out that he did not sin:

They argue when he found out that he sinned to teach the extremity of R. Meir. Even though he really needs Kaparah, and the Asham would have protected him (while he was in doubt), since he need not bring it now (only a Chatas), he did not intend to be Makdish it in such a case (Aruch l'Ner);

They argue when he found out that he did not sin to teach the extremity of Chachamim. Even though he needs no Kaparah, since he did not know this at the time, he was Makdish absolutely.