We have been discussing the case of asham taluy – a provisional guilt offering – that is brought when it is unclear to a person whether or not he performed a forbidden act. The Mishna on today’s daf presents a different kind of question. In the Mishna’s cases it is clear that a forbidden act had been performed, but it is unclear what that forbidden act may have been. Three examples appear in the Mishna:
1. Someone ate one of two forbidden foods that were before him – ḥelev (forbidden fats) and notar (sacrificial meat after the time that it was supposed to have been eaten) – and does not know which he ate
2. A man unwittingly engaged in sexual relations with a woman in his house and he knows that it was either his wife who was a nidda (menstruating) or it was his sister
3. Yom Kippur either preceded or followed Shabbat and a forbidden act of work was performed during the intervening twilight period, but it is unclear on which day the work was done.
In cases like these Rabbi Eliezer requires that an ordinary sin offering (a korban ḥatat) be brought, since it is clear that a sin was performed. Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees, since a korban ḥatat requires that the person know what he did (see 4:23).
While it is clear to Rabbi Yehoshua that no korban ḥatat is required, might he be obligated to bring an asham taluy? An asham taluy is usually brought in situations where a sin offering cannot be brought for reasons of doubt, and these cases seem to match that requirement.
The answer to this question depends on how to understand the passage in Sefer Vayikra (5:17) that describes the requirements for an asham taluy. The Torah commands “And if anyone sin, and do any of the commandments of the Lord that are not to be done, though he does not know it; yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.”
Rabbi Yehuda teaches that based on this passage Rabbi Yehoshua frees the sinner even from an asham taluy, since he only brings one “though he know it not,” and in these cases he knows for certain that he sinned. Rabbi Shimon argues that in these cases we also consider him someone who falls into the category of “though he know it not,” since he does not know what he did.