דם שחוטה – whether cattle or wild beast or fowl, whether the blood of a stabbed animal, whether the blood of tearing loose the windpipe and gullet before cutting, whether the organs, the cutting of which is an indication that the animal has been slaughtered according to the ritual (i.e., the windpipe and gullet), and similarly, the blood of the arteries with which the life goes out (i.e., the splashing blood), whenever it flows in an uninterrupted jet (i.e., splashing), meaning the middle, when the first goes out which is the beginning of the uninterrupted jet, and the last is after the flood diminishes and is reduce, which flows gently/comes down slowly nearby and does not splash from afar, for this is not the blood of the soul.

חייבים עליו – if he consumed form it an olive’s bulk, he is liable for extirpation.

דם הלב – blood that is absorbed in the skin of the heart, and it is like the rest of the blood of the limbs which is a negative [commandment] and we are not liable for extirpation for it, but the blood that is found in the chamber/cavity of the heart, it comes from the throat, as the cattle pants at the time of the ritual slaughter and blood enters from the throat in the chamber of the heart, and we are liable for extirpation for if there is within it an olive’s bulk.

דם ביצים – there are those who interpret that the blood of the male testicles of a bull, a ram and a he-goat. But to me it appears that it is the blood that is found in the testicles of the chicken.

ודם התמצית (the last blood oozing through the cut of a vein/that which is squeezed out) – that is wrung out/drained and is pressed out and flows gently when it leaves [the body]. The language is (Leviticus 1:15): “and its blood shall be drained out [against the side of the altar].”

אין חייבים עליו כרת – there is no extirpation other than with the blood of the soul (from the arteries, that is splashing). As it is written (Leviticus 17: 14): “You shall not partake of the blood of any flesh], for the life of all flesh is its blood. Anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off.” But the Halakhic decision is that the blood of the spleen and the heart and the kidneys and the blood which oozes out of the arteries after the lifeblood flows out, they are [included] in the warning (Leviticus 7:26): “And you must not consume anu blood [either of bird or of animal, in any of your settlements].” But they are flogged [for their violation] and they lack any [punishment of] extirpation. But the blood that is found in the testicles [of animals], is forbidden, from the words of the Scribes. But the blood of reptiles, if they consumed from it an olive’s bulk receives flogging because of the eating of reptiles, not because of consuming blood. And the blood of fish and locusts are pure, permitted ab initio, but there must be scales in the blood of fish, which will prove for it that it is the blood of fish, because of the appearance of transgressions. But the blood of humans is prohibited from the words of the Scribes that depart from the human, but we don’t flog upon it.

ספק מעילות – it is doubtful if he benefited from that which is dedicated to a sacred purpose or didn’t benefit from it.

וחכמים פוטרים – that regarding a sin-offering, it is written (Leviticus 4:27): “[If any person from among the populace unwittingly incurs guilt by doing any of the things which by the LORD’s] ממצות/commandments [ought not be done, and he realizes his guilt]” and regarding a suspensive guilt-offering , it is written (Leviticus 5:14): “[And when a person, without knowing it, sins in regard to any of the LORD’s] מצות/commandments [about things not to be done, and then realizes his guilt, he shall be subject to punishment],” all who are liable for an inadvertent act a sin-offering, are liable on not his not being aware [of having sinned], a suspensive guilt-offering, but one who benefits from that which is dedicated to a sacred purpose where he is not liable for a sin-offering on his inadvertent act but rather, an unconditional guilt-offering, he is not liable for a suspensive guilty when he was not aware/was not informed about a sin.

שאינו מביא את מעילתו – he does not need to bring the money [as his penalty].

שתי אשמות – that if he had been aware that he had sinned after he brought the suspensive guilt-offering, he then needs to bring a definitive guilt-offering.

יביא מעילה וחומשה – the principal of the money when it was doubtful to him if he had benefited from it and his added fifth.

בשתי סלעים – a ram that is purchased for two Selaim (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 10, Mishnah 5), as it is written (Leviticus 5:15): “[When a person commits a trespass , being unwittingly remiss about anu of the LORD’s sacred things, he shall bring as his penalty to the LORD a ram without blemish from the flock,] convertible into payment in silver [by the sanctuary weight, as a reparation (i.e., guilt) offering].”

ואם ספק – this is what he said, but if in his doubt he always stands, it will be a suspensive guilt-offering.

שממין שמביא על הודע מביא על לא הודע – therefore, he is able to bring and to benefit. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

חטאת העוף ספק – a woman who doubtfully gave birth to a species doubtfully exempt (i.e., as to the character or viability of the fetus that was aborted) or that is doubtfully liable [for a sin-offering] , she brings a lamb for a burnt-offering and a gift , if it is species that is liable, it will be for the obligatory offering, and if it is for a species that is exempt, it iwill be for a donation. But the sin-offering that she brings in a doubtful case but it is not consumed, lest it is really unconsecrated and the pinching of the bird’s neck (with one’s fingernail) if something that is unconsecrated is a carrion

תעשנה ודאין – that it should be fed to the Kohanim like other sin-offerings (if the fetus is alive).

שממין שהיא מביאה – for one of the pairs from the turtle-doves or from one of the pigeons is what she brings as a sin-offering, whether she was a definitive mother of a child or a doubtful mother of a child.

ור' עקיבא מחייב – Rabbi Akiva, according to his reasoning, that requires a suspending reparation/guilt sacrifice on doubtful benefit from religious sacrilege.

שניהם מביאין אשם אחד – in partnership, and each one says to the other, “If you ae the piece of meat of Holy Things, may my portion be forgiven to you, and may the guilt offering be completely upon you.

אין שנים מביאים אשם אחד – for he (i.e., Rabbi Yosi) does not hold he condition for sacrifices, but if it is according to the words of the Sages, both of them are exempt; if it is according to Rabbi Akiva, each one brings a suspensive guilt offering. But the Halakha is according to the Sages, for one does not bring a suspensive guilt offering on doubtful religious sacrilege.

חטאה אחת – and they make a condition one with the other, as it is explained above (Mishnah 4).

ואין שנים מביאין חטאת אחת – but each one of them brings a suspensive guilt offering, because of the piece of [meat containing] forbidden fat, and that is equivalent to the first Tanna/teacher. But this comes to tell us, that the first Tanna is Rabbi Yossi, and the Halakha is according to him.

חתיכה של חלב חתיכה של קודש כו' מביא אשם תלוי – even according to the Rabbis who stat that they don’t bring a suspensive guilt-offering on doubtful religious sacrileges, here they admit that he is liable, because of the piece of [meat containing] forbidden fat.

מביא חטאת ואשם ודאי – on the piece of forbidden fat, he brings a sin offering, and on the meat of Holy Things, he brings an unconditional guilt-offering.

חטאת ואשם – in partnership, and makes a condition: “if I ate forbidden fat, and you – Holy Things, may my part with a guilt-offering be forgiven to you, and your part with a sin-offering be forgiven to me, but if I consumed Holy Things and you – forbidden fat, may my part with a sin-offering be forgiven to you, and your part with a guilt offering be forgiven to me.

אין שנים מביאים חטאת ואשם – in partnership, but rather, this one brings a suspensive guilt-offering and that one brings a suspensive guilt offering. But this is [the opinion of] the first Tanna/teacher. But this comes to teach us that the first Tanna/teacher is Rabbi Yossi, and the Halakha is according to him.

חתיכה של חלב וחתיכה של חלב קודש כו' מביא חטאת – for no matter whichever way your turn, he ate forbidden fat.

ר' עקיבא אומר – even a suspensive guilt-offering is like a sin-offering, because of doubtful religious sacrileges. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva.

מביא שתי חטאות – and he, who ate them in two acts of forgetfulness, for it there had not been there a knowledge/awareness in-between, would only be liable for one [sin-offering].

זה מביא אשם שתוי וכו' – in addition to the sin-offering that he must bring because of eating forbidden fat, he brings a suspensive guilt-offering because of doubtful religious sacrileges.

ושניהם מביאין אשם אחד – in partnership and they make conditions.

רבי יוסי אומר כו' – the first Tanna/teacher is Rabbi Yossi and the Halakha is according to him.

חתיכה של חלב וחתיכה של חלב נותר כו' – He brings a sin-offering because of forbidden fat, and a suspending guilt-offering because of doubt of left-overs, for left-overs [are punishable] by extirpation like that of forbidden fat. But the prohibition of left-overs takes effect on the prohibition of forbidden fat because it is prohibition that adds.

מביא שלש חטאות – two [sin-offerings] because of [eating] forbidden fat, and one because of [consuming] left-overs, and this is when there for him of knowledge/awareness [of his sinning] in the meanwhile, for if not, this one only brings two sin-offerings, one because of [partaking of] forbidden fat and the other because of [eating] left-overs. But one who does not teach here “three sin-offering and an unconditional guilt offering, as is taught above (see Mishnah 6 of this chapter), because most of the left-overs do not contain the equivalent of a penny, and are not worthy of anything, but the guilt-offerings of religious sacrilege do not come on less than the equivalent of a penny.

כל חטאת שהיא באה על חטא – to exclude the sin-offering of a mother who gave birth which does not for a sin, for Rabbi Yossi holds that two bring it in partnership and with a condition, as we stated in the first chapter. But the Halakhic decision is that a sin-offering is not brought in partnership, and even for sin offerings of lacking atonement.