ספק אכל חלב ספק לא אכל – and how is this to be understood? As, for example, forbidden fat and permitted were before him and he ate one of them, as is taught in the ending clause. And it is specified as it explains: It is doubtful whether he at forbidden fat and it is doubtful that he did not eat it. How so? As, for example, that the forbidden fat and permitted fat were before him and there is a fixed prohibition. But if there was before him one piece, it is doubtful whether it is forbidden fat and doubtful that it is permitted fat and he ate it, he is exempt. For the prohibition was not fixed.

ואפילו אכל – that it was definitely forbidden fat, but doubtful that had an olive’s bulk, as for example at the time that he ate it, he thought that it was permitted fat, and afterwards it became known to him that it is forbidden fat, but it is doubtful that it has or does not have an olive’s bulk.

אכל א אאחד מהן – but he thought that it was permitted fat, and afterwards it became known that the one was forbidden fat, but this one doesn’t know which he ate, he brings an uncertain guilt-offering (i.e., a sacrifice brought by someone who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering). But, if at the time of eating he had a doubt, and he willfully acted and ate from doubt, this is willful behavior and he is exempt.

שגג באחת מהן – in thinking that this is wife, and afterwards he was in doubt which of them was, he brings the uncertain guilt-offering.

כך על לא הודע שלהן – as for example, he ae two pieces [of meat] thinking that both of them were permitted fat, and afterwards became informed/conscious that each one of them was doubtful [as to whether it was permitted fat or prohibited fat], he doesn’t bring anything other than one suspended guilt-offering, since he was not informed of it between each consuming that he ate doubtful forbidden fat.

ואם היתה ידיעה בינתים – the awareness of the doubt.

כשם שהוא מביא חטאת על כל אחת ואחת – if there was certain knowledge/awareness in-between, so too, with awareness/knowledge of doubtful consumption [of forbidden fat], he brings two suspended guilt-offerings.

חלב ונותר לפניו – and he thought that both of them were permitted fat that is acceptable.

אשתו נדה ואחותו עמו בבית – he had sexual intercourse with one of them, while thinking to have sex with his ritually pure wife, and it was found that his wife was a menstruating woman, and another doubt, as to which of them (i.e., his sister or his menstruating wife) he had sexual relations with.

ועשה מלאכה בהן בין השמשות – thinking that it was a weekday.

ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת – whichever way you turn , if he ate forbidden fat, he is liable, if he ate left-over, he is liable, and similarly for all of them.

ורבי יהושע פוטר – for regarding the sin-offering, it is written (Leviticus 4:13): “or the sin of which he is guilty [is brought to his knowledge – he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish],” until he would be made known to him in how he sinned. And Rabbi Eliezer [states] that this “of the sin of which he is guilty” is needed except for someone acting unawares (i.e., having n intention of doing so) the labors on the Sabbath, as for example, he had intended to cut off what was detached but cut what was attached, that he is exempt, for since he didn’t intend to make a forbidden cutting, and especially when acting unawares with work on Shabbat that he is exempt, because the Torah forbade planned, thoughtful, creative labor, but acting unawares regarding fats and illicit sexual relationships, as, for example, that he ate fat or he had sexual relations with someone forbidden to him on account of consanguinity that he didn’t intend, he is liable, according to everyone, for he benefitted [from it].

לא נחלקו – Rabbi Eliezer who stated that we don’t require that he knew in what he had sinned, he did not dispute on Rabbi Yehoshua, and he agrees with him that a person who does creative work at twilight whether on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, he is exempt.

שאני אומר – half the measure of creative work was done on Shabbat and half the measurement on Yom Kippur, and there isn’t here the liability of a sin-offering.

מעין איזה מלאכה עשה – if he ploughed or sowed.

פוטרו היה רבי יהושע אף מאשם תלוי – for regarding the suspended guilt offering, it is written (Leviticus 5:17): “And when a person, without knowing it, [sins in regard to any of the LORD’s commandments about things not to be done, and then realizes his guilt],” excluding this one who knows that he sinned, but rather, that the sin is not something specific, and the sin-offering he is also not liable for, for even though he knew that he sinned, whichever way you turn, anyway, it was not made clear to him in what he way he had sinned. But the Halakhic decision is that he is liable for a suspended guilt-offering, whether regarding fat and left-over before him, where it is possible to have the matter verified, whether with regarding to performing creative labor at twilight, whether on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, where it is impossible to have the matter verified, and similarly with his wife who is a menstruating woman and his sister in the house, and he acted inadvertently with one of them, in all of these, he brings a suspended guilt-offering.

משום שם אחד (subject to a single category) – as, for example, two menstruating women with him in the house, and he acted inadvertently with one of them.

שהוא חייב – for behold he knew in how he sinned.

על דבר שהוא משום שני שמות (concerning something subject to two distinct categories) – as, for example, it is doubtful if he had reaped or doubtful if he had milled/ground up.

אפילו נתכוין ללקט תאנים וליקט ענבים – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 19b-20a) it explains the matter of of Rabbi Yehudah who intended to harvest figs first and afterwards grapes, and his hand went to the latter [first], and he harvested the grapes first and afterwards the figs. And similarly, if he had the intention of harvesting the black ones first and afterwards the white ones, and the matter was changed and he harvested the white ones first and afterwards the black ones,

ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת – for since he had intended for both of them, and it doesn’t matter to us which was earlier and which came later.

ור' יהושע פוטר – since at the time of the harvesting, each and every one did not intend for that one, specifically, it was to him like he acted unawares and is exempt. This is the reading.

אמר ר' שמעון תמיהני אם פטר בזה ר' יהושע. אם כן למה נאמר אשר חטה בה – the anonymous teacher of our Mishnah is amazed/surprised on the surprise of Rabbi Shimon, if so, that Rabbi Yehoshua did not exempt him, what does it (i.e., the Torah (Leviticus 4:23) stated: “or the sin of which he is guilty [is brought to his knowledge – he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish].” And he answers, except for someone engaged in doing the thing which he had not intended to do, excluding the person who did not have the intention to harvest at all, or that he had the intention to harvest figs alone, and [ended up] harvesting grapes alone, that he didn’t act on his thoughts in any way at all. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua, and like the way Rabbi Yehuda explained his words.