Bhashya
तम् इतर शिलक शालावत्य चैकितायन दाल्भ्यमुवाच-- अप्रतिष्ठितम् असस्थितम्, परोवरीयस्त्वेनासमानगतिसामेत्यर्थ , वै इत्यागम स्मारयति किलेति च, दाल्भ्य तेतव साम ।यस्तु असहिष्णु सामवित् एतर्हि एतस्मिन्कालब्रूयात् कश्चिद्विपरीतविज्ञानम् - अप्रतिष्ठित साम प्रतिष्ठितमिति- एववादापराधिनो मूर्धा शिर ते विपतिष्यति विस्पष्ट पतिष्यतीति ।एवमुक्तश्चापराधीन तथैव तद्विपतेत् नसशय , न त्वह ब्रवीमीत्यभिप्राय ।ननु मूर्धपाताहं चेद-पराध कृतवान्, अत परेणानुक्तस्यापि पतेन्मूर्धा, न चेदप-राधी उक्तस्यापि नैव पतति, अन्यथा अकृताभ्यागम कृत-नाशश्च स्याताम् ।नैष दोष , कृतस्य कर्मण शुभाशुभस्यफलप्राप्तेर्देशकालनिमित्तापेक्षत्वात् ।तत्रैव सति मूर्धपातनिमित्तस्याप्यज्ञानस्य पराभिव्याहारनिमित्तापेक्षत्वमिति ॥
In plain words
Śilaka Śālāvatya said to Caikitāyana Dalbhya regarding his understanding of the Sāman as greater than all else: "Your Sāman, Dalbhya, lacks a true foundation and stability." He added that if any intolerant expert in the Sāman were to declare today that the Sāman has no foundation when it actually does, that person's head would surely split and fall off. Śilaka implied that this rule would unfailingly apply to any such offender. An objection is raised: if someone commits an offense, should not the head fall regardless of whether another speaks of it, and should it not remain attached if no offense is committed, lest we fall into the logical absurdities of reaping unearned fruits or losing earned ones? There is no such flaw. Since the fruition of good and bad deeds depends upon specific conditions of time, place, and circumstance, the ignorance causing the head to fall likewise depends upon another person actually voicing the erroneous statement as its triggering cause.
Close to the Sanskrit
The other, Śilaka Śālāvatya, said to Caikitāyana Dalbhya: Unfounded, unstable, in the sense of being greater than the greatest, meaning the sāman, verily the tradition reminds us, O Dalbhya, is thy sāman. Whosoever being an intolerant knower of sāman might speak at this time, some person holding perverse knowledge—stating that sāman is unfounded when it is established—of such a one guilty of speech, the head will clearly fall, will fall. And addressed thus, the offender would fall just so, there is no doubt, but this is not I speaking, is the intent. But if I committed an offense of head-falling, then even of what is unsaid the head might fall, and if not guilty even of what is said it certainly does not fall, otherwise there would be the occurrence of unperformed action and the destruction of performed action. This is not a flaw, because the attainment of the fruit of performed action, good and bad, depends on place, time, and causes. That being so, even the cause of the head-falling, which is ignorance, is dependent on the cause of another's verbal expression.