המביא אשם תלוי. יצא ויראה בעדר – with the rest of his [flock of] sheep like completely unconsecrated [animals], For Rabbi Meir holds that since he doesn’t need it, he doesn’t sanctify it.

ירעה עד שיסתאב (sent out to pasture until it is made unclean) – but since he may have scruples (i.e., he has no clear conscience) at the time of the separation and he fears from doubtful sin, he resolved and sanctified it, and even though it might not be necessary. Therefore, it is sent out to pasture until a defect befalls it (i.e., the animal) and its monetary value falls to a free-will contribution to bring with them a donation of a burnt-offering. But the Halakha is according to the Sages.

הדם ישפך – to the arm-pit (i.e., the name of an opening in the Temple door) that is in the Temple [one needs to say: that is in the Temple courtyard].

לבית השריפה (the place of burning) – and even though that unconsecrated meat that is ritually slaughtered I the Temple courtyard require burial, this is like an disqualified sacrifice that requires burning.

נזרק הדם – before he became aware [that he had not sinned].

יאכל – the flesh/meat is eaten, as the All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 5:18): “[The priest shall make expiation on his behalf for he error that he committed] unwittingly, and he shall be forgiven,” at the time of pardon/ forgiveness, he doesn’t have awareness/knowledge. But here also, at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, that is at the time of pardon/forgiveness, he did not have knowledge, and hence, he completed all the atonement of his doubt, and he should have a kosher suspensive guilt-offering.

אפילו הדם בכוס יזרק – for Rabbi Yossi holds that the service vessels [of the Temple] sanctify the disqualification to be offered, and everything that stands to be sprinkled is considered as if it was sprinkled, and it is as if the blood had already been sprinkled before he had awareness. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

אשם ודאי אינו כן (an unconditional guilt-offering is not subject to the foregoing rule) – in this, the Rabbis do not dispute, for if he became aware before it (i.e., the animal) was slaughtered that he did not sin, it should go out to pasture among the flock, for the reason of the Rabbis regarding a suspending guilt-offering, since he may have scruples, he completed and dedicated it from doubt, but an unconditional guilt-offering, as, for example, if they said to him: “Did you eat Holy Things,” and it became known that he had not sinned when the witnesses were found to be plotting/lying, alternatively, when he thinks that everything is holy, but it is found to be unconsecrated, the matter is revealed that it was an erroneous consecration of property (and is not considered consecrated).

הרי זה יקבר – since it was not sanctified, it is like unconsecrated meat that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard that requires burial.

נזרק הדם הבשר יצא לבית השריפה – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 24b) that what was taught above (by the anonymous Mishnah) , “that this is to be buried,” was not taught here, that the meat should go forth to the place of burning, for since that he holds that an unconditional guilt-offering is unconsecrated [meat], and not holy forever, is not burned, but is buried.

שור הנסקל אינו כן – like the suspending guilt-offering. For here, he Rabbis do not dispute that if he became aware/knowledgeable that it did not kill, it goes forth and pastures in the flock.

עגלה ערופה אינו כן – like a suspending guilt-offering, for if before its neck was broken that the killer was found, it should sent forth and pastures in the flock. But Maimonides explained, that the bull/ox which is stoned is not subject to the foregoing rule like the unconditional guilt-offering, for an unconditional guilt-offering, once it is slaughtered, it should be buried, and the bull which is stoned, wen he became aware after it had been stoned, [it] is permissible for benefit. The heifer whose neck is broken, is not subject to the foregoing rule like the bull/ox that is stoned, for a bull/ox that is stoned, if [the owner] was made aware after it was stoned, [it] is permitted for benefit, and the heifer whose neck is broken, if he [the owner] is made aware of the killer [without whom, the neck of the heifer would not have been broken], it should be buried in its place.

כיפר ספיקה (it made atonement for its matter of doubt) – at the time of the breaking of the neck, for there was yet a doubt, and it went on its way. Therefore, it is prohibited to benefit [from it], and all of the heifers with broken necks should be buried according to law.

מתנדב אדם אשם תלוי – the essence of a suspensive guilt-offering is a free-will donation, for it you should think that it is obligatory, when he became conscious that he had sinned, why does he bring a sin-offering, but rather, we learn from it, that it is a free-will donation.

חוץ מאחר יוה"כ – for the rest of the days of the year, where it is possible that suspect a doubt of some sin, lest he committed it or did not do so, but now, there isn’t any suspicion, because Yom Kippur atoned [for him].

וחכמים אומרים אין מביאין אשם תלוי – for that is the reason that he brings a suspensive guilt-offering before he becomes aware of it (i.e., whether he sinned or not), to protect him from the suffering until he becomes aware, for the Torah has compassion on the body of Israel, but the suspensive guilt-offering does not come as a free-will donation. But the Halakha is according to the Sages.

חייבין להביא לאחר יוה"כ – that Scripture states (Leviticus 16:30): “from all of your sins, you shall be pure before the LORD,” a sin that he doesn’t know about it other than God, meaning that he didn’t become aware that he had sinned, Yom Kippur atones, but a sin where there is an awareness of it except from God, Yom Kippur does not atone.

חטאת העוף ספק – as for example, when she gave birth, and we don’t know if it is from a liable species [or] from an exempt species.

מפני שמכשירתה לאכול בזבחים – since lacking atonement is from a doubt, and she cannot eat Holy Things until she brings her atonement.

משנמלקה נודע לה – that she did not give birth.

הרי זו תקבר – by law that she is permitted to benefit, for it is completely unconsecrated, for because it was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, one cannot prohibit it, for the Torah only prohibited ritual slaughter, but not the pinching of the neck [of the bird] with one’s fingernail. But the Rabbis decreed that she is prohibited to derive benefit, lest they say that we benefit from the sin offering of a fowl from doubt. But the sin-offering of a fowl that is brought on the doubt is not consumed, lest it is Holy and Holy Things that are not consumed are prohibited to derive benefit.

המפריש שתי סלעים – for such is the law regarding the reparation/guilt-offering (i.e., setting aside two Selaim), as it is written concerning the guilt-offering for religious sacrilege (Leviticus 5:15): “[When a person commits a trespass, being unwittingly remiss about any 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 to silver by the sanctuary weight, as a reparation offering/בערכך שקלים בשקל הקדש לאדם. And the Aramaic translation of Shekalim is Selaim. But the guilt-offering for theft and the suspensive guilt-offering are learned from the reparation/guilt-offering for religious sacrilege through a verbal analogy/Gezarah Shavah. It is stated here (Leviticus 5:15): "בערכך שקלים" /”convertible into payment,” and it is stated further on (Leviticus 5:18): “[He shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock] בערכך לאשם/or the equivalent, as a reparation offering. [The priest shall make expiation on his behalf for the error that he committed unwittingly, and he shall be forgiven],” and (Leviticus 5:25): “[Thus he shall bring to the priest, as his penalty to the LORD, a ram without blemish from the flock], or the equivalent, as a reparation offering/בערכך לאשם .” And the reparation offering for a designated maidservant also, for since it is a ram, it also with כסף סלעים /(at least) two silver Selaim – like these three guilt-offerings which are a ram, but the guilt-offering of a leper and the guilt-offering of a Nazir, in both of them, it is written כבש לאשם /a lamb as a guilt-offering (see Leviticus 14:21 and Numbers 6:12), they don’t come with כסף שקלים/silver Shekalim (plural, meaning a multiple of at least two).

אם היה אחד מהם יפה שתי סלעים – even though that at the time of separation, it was not worth other than only a (i.e., one) Selah, if at the time of atonement if is worth “two” [Selaim or Shekalim], it is appropriate, for we follow according to what it is worth at the time of the atonement, therefore, that which is it worth now at the name of the atonement of two Selaim, he should offer for his guilt offering, but even though he had not acquired it at the outset other than for a Sela, and the second one should be put to pasture, because it was acquired with the monies for the guilt-offering and for the sake of the guilt offering, it’s monies should fall for a free-will donation, and this is what we hold, that the guilt-offering is permitted for a donation.

לקח בהם שמי אלים לחולין – for eating, he has committed sacrilege with the monies and they have gone for unconsecrated animals.

יפה עשרה זוזים – in order that two Selaim that he committed religious sacrilege with them and their added fifth, for the Selah is four Zuzim.

היפה שתי סלעים יקרב לאשמו – for the sake of that same reparation/guilt-offeirng that he separated the monies for.

והשני למעילתו – It explains in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 26b) that he should not offer it for a guilt-offering, but rather, that he should give it to the treasurer for the two Selaim that he removed for unconsecrated animals , that he was liable for them and their added firth, which are between the principal and the [added] fifth ten Zuzim, and he should bring a guilt-offering of two Selaim from his house for the sacrifice of religious sacrilege.

אחד לאשם ואחד לחולין – he purchased with the two Selaim that he separated that were Holy two rams – one for a guilt offering and the other for consuming unconsecrated food, for he had committed sacrilege with one Sela.

אם היה של אשם יפה שתי סלעים יקרב לאשמו – the first one (i.e., the guilt offering that he is liable for), is purchased from the monies separated for this.

והשני – which is unconsecrated, will be offered for his sacrilege, for the reparation offering of his religious sacrilege in that he spent one Selah [that had been dedicated] of the Holy [Things] for unconsecrated things, and, as for example, that I was also worth two Selahs, for the guilt-offering for sacrileges is not less than two silver Selahs.

עמה סלע וחומשה – the principal for which he committed sacrilege and its [added] fifth, for he spent a Selah of [money devoted to] the Holy for unconsecrated things.

לא יביאנה בנו אחריו – if the son sinned unwittingly with the unwitting sin-offering, he should not bring a sin-offering that his father had separated in order through it, he will achieve atonement on his inadvertent act.

מביאים המקדש כשבה שעירה – if he separated money to purchase a female lamb for his sin-offering, he is able to procure with them a female goat if he wishes.

הפריש לכשבה או לשעירה – he separated money to purchase with them a female lamb or a female goat.’

העני – [if he became poor] he should bring with them a bird, and the rest is unconsecrated, as it is written for a sacrifice on a sliding scale (i.e., depending upon financial ability), concerning a female lamb or female goat ((Leviticus 5:10): “[And the second he shall prepare as a burnt offering, according to regulation. Thus shall the priest make expiation on his behalf] for the sin of which he is guilty,” which implies that from part of the thing that he separated for his sin-offering, for should he become poor, he would bring fowl from a part of these moneys. And concerning a bird, also, it is written "מחטאתו" /for the sin (see Leviticus 5:6 – “and the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for his sin.”), implying that if he became more destitute, he brings from part of the monies of the bird a tenth of an ephah; and concerning the tenth of an ephah, it is written, "על חטאתו"/for whichever of these sins” (Leviticus 5:13), which implies that if he becomes more wealthy, he should add to these monies and bring a bird, or if he became more wealth, he should bring a female lamb or a female goat.

ונסתאבה – it became defective.

אם רצה יביא בדמיהן עוף – as for example, if he became poor.

שאין לעוף פדיון – it is written regarding consecrated animals that are disqualified (Leviticus 27:11): “[if (the vow concerns) any impure animal that may not be brought as an offering to the LORD] the animal shall be presented before the priest,” and it was possible that it (i.e., the Torah) should have said, "והעמיד אותה"/and he would present it – what does the inference teach us when it says, "הבהמה" /the animal (in this verse)? To teach you that an animal is redeemed but not birds nor wood, nor frankincense and neither the service vessels [of the Temple] are redeemed.

כבשים קודמים לעזים – in every place, Scripture advanced lambs t goats, as it is written (Exodus 12:5): “[Your lamb shall be without blemish, a yearling male;] you may take it from the sheep or from the goats,” and similarly, (Numbers 15:11): “[Thus shall be done with each ox, with each ram,] and with any sheep or goat.” It is possible that the person who says, “This burnt-offering is upon me,” and he has and he has a male lamb or a goat, he should bring the lamb, specifically.

תלמוד לומר ואם כבש יביא קרבנו – but above this it is written (Leviticus 4:23): “[or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge] –he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish;” here, it (i.e., the Torah) advanced the goat to the lamb, to teach that both are equivalent and that he may bring either of them that he wishes.

תורים קודמין לבני יונה – for in most places, turtle-doves are written first and afterwards pigeons.

אם זכה הבן לפני הבן – that most of his wisdom he learned from him (see Tractate Bava Metzia, Chapter 2, Mishnah 11 for a parallel statement).

קודם את האב בכל מקום – as for example, to restore a lost object and to redeem from captivity, and to preserve life and to unload [an animal] with him. But if his father is a scholar, even though he is not equivalent corresponding to his teacher, his father comes before his teacher/Rabbi , and even his distinguished teacher [who is a scholar].