Horayot 4A

ולא מבעיא למאן דאמר צבור מייתי, דמפרסמא מלתא. אלא אפילו למאן דאמר בית דין מביאין, דלא מפרסמא מלתא ⁠– אי הוה שאיל, הוו אמרין ליה.

And it is not necessary to state this according to the one who said that the congregation brings the offering, as in that case the matter, that the court reversed its ruling, is publicized among the congregation. But even according to the one who said that the court brings the offering, where the matter is not publicized that the court reversed its ruling, if he had asked, they would have told him that the court reversed its ruling. Therefore, it could be said that he associated his action with himself and did not associate it with the court, and he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering.

אמר רבי יוסי בר אבין, ואיתימא רבי יוסי בר זבידא: משל דסומכוס למה הדבר דומה? לאדם שהביא כפרתו בין השמשות, ספק מבעוד יום נתכפר לו, ספק משחשכה נתכפר לו, שאין מביא אשם תלוי.

R' Yosei bar Avin, and some say R' Yosei bar Zevida, says: There is an analogy to illustrate the opinion of Sumakhos. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a person who brings his atonement offering during twilight, which is a time when there is uncertainty whether it is day or night, and there is uncertainty whether the offering atoned for him while it is still day, and the atonement was effective, and there is uncertainty whether it atoned for him after nightfall, and the atonement was not effective. The halakha is that he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering. Although typically one is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering in a case where there is uncertainty whether he performed a transgression for which he is liable to bring a sin-offering, in this case, since the uncertainty relates to twilight, which is an uncertainty that can never be resolved, it is not a typical uncertainty and one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering.