Keritot 16A

ואילו על ספיקו, מביא אשם תלוי לא קתני. מני הא? אילימא רבי עקיבא, ליתני נמי סיפא: ״ועל ספיקן מביא אשם תלוי״, דהתנן: רבי עקיבא מחייב על ספק מעילה אשם תלוי!

The Talmud notes: And yet in the final case in the baraita, it does not teach that in a situation where he is uncertain whether he ate from it he brings a provisional guilt offering. Whose opinion is this? If we say it is the opinion of R' Akiva, let him also teach in the last clause: For a case where he is uncertain whether he ate from them he brings a provisional guilt offering, as we learned in the Mishnah (22b) that R' Akiva deems one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertainty about misuse of consecrated property.

אלא לאו רבי יהושע היא, וקתני: ״בחמשה העלמות ⁠– מביא חמש חטאות״, ושמע מינה: קיבלה מיניה!

Rather, isn’t the baraita in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehoshua, who disagrees with the opinion of R' Akiva and holds that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertainty about misuse of consecrated property? And it teaches that one who eats notar from one offering cooked in 5 pots during 5 separate lapses of awareness brings 5 sin offerings, which indicates that if he did so during a single lapse of awareness he would be liable to bring only one sin offering, in accordance with the opinion stated by R' Akiva in the Mishnah. And one can conclude from here that R' Yehoshua accepted the refutation from R' Akiva.

אלא אדרבה, מסיפא, דקתני: מחמשה זבחים אפילו בהעלם (אחת) [אחד] ⁠– חייב על כל אחת ואחת, שמע מינה: לא קיבלה מיניה!

The Talmud responds: But on the contrary, one can infer otherwise from the latter clause of the baraita, which teaches: If he ate from 5 separate offerings, even during one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one. One can conclude from this statement that R' Yehoshua did not accept the refutation from R' Akiva.