R’          Akiva holds [one] liable to an asham talui for a doubtful case of me’ilah, but the Sages exempt [him]. R’ Akiva agrees, however, that he does not bring his restitution until it becomes known to him, and he [then] accompanies it with the unconditional asham. Said R’ Tarfon: Why should this [person] bring two ashamos? Rather, let him bring restitution and its fifth, and let him bring an asham for two selaim and say, ‘‘If I am surely guilty of me’ilah, let this be my restitution and this my asham’’; and if it is doubtful, the money is a donation and the asham is an asham talui, for, from the [same] species from which he brings for an obligation of doubt, he brings for an obligation of certainty.

Replied R’ Akiva to him: Your words are acceptable in the case of a small me’ilah. [But] what if he is guilty of a doubtful case of me’ilah of one hundred maneh, is it not better for him that he bring an asham for two selaim and not bring a doubtful restitution of one hundred maneh? R’ Akiva [then] agrees with R’ Tarfon in the case of a small me’ilah. [If] a woman brought a bird chatas of doubt: If it became known to her before its neck was nipped that she had definitely given birth, she must make it an unconditional [chatas], for, from the [same] species from which she brings for an obligation of doubt, she brings for an obligation of certainty.