Commentary for Kinnim 2:11

קן סתומה – that he did not specify that this one (i.e., bird) is for a sin-offering and that one is for a burnt-offering. And we don’t require that it had been decided upon, for it is obvious, that if one of them flew-off, he (i.e., the owner) would purchase another mate for the second [offering], for since they are separated one from the other (i.e., one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering), and each one has a designation/denomination upon it. But even a couple of sacrificial birds concerning which it has not yet been decided which is which and they stand together to be specified/defined, you might think I would say that if one flew off, the other would die, this comes to teach us that this is not the case.

Introduction You might call our mishnah "the pigeon that escaped." It deals with a case where a single bird from an "unassigned ken" one in which it has not been determined which bird is a hatat and which is an olah escapes. The question is: what is the status of the bird that remains and the bird that escapes.

לבין המתות – among couples of sacrificial birds that their judgment is that all of them would die, as for example, a sin-offering that got mixed in with a burnt-offering, as it is taught in the first chapter (Tractate Kinnin, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2).

If from an unassigned pair of birds a single pigeon flew into the open air, or flew among birds that had been left to die, or if one [of the pair] died, then he must take a mate for the second one. In all of these cases, one bird leaves the unassigned ken. Since both birds were unassigned, all he has to do is take a new bird for the remaining bird and offer one as a hatat and one as an olah. However, if it had been a "determined ken," one where we already knew which was which, he couldn't sacrifice the remaining one unless he knew whether it was the hatat or the olah. We should note that in all of these cases, nothing can be done with the bird that flew away, either because it is gone or dead, or because it became mixed up with other birds that must be left to die.

לבין הקריבות – whether a couple of birds concerning which it has not been decided which is to be burnt offering, and which of them is the sin-offering that stand to be offered up.

If it flew among birds that are to be offered up, it becomes invalid and it invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair]; for the pigeon that flew away is invalid and invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair]. In this case, the bird that flew away gets mixed up with other birds from other undetermined kinim. It itself is invalid, and we can't simply find a partner for it (a shidduch, if you will) because any bird we take might have been from one of the other birds that was to be offered up. It also invalidates one of the other birds that it joins. We shall explain this in the following mishnayot.

פסול ופוסל אחד כנגדו – because it is not undetermined, and has been decided if it is for a sin-offering or for a burnt-offering, therefore, it does not invalidate other than the one that is its match in the pair, as will be explained further on.

פרח – one pigeon from this [pair of unassigned birds] to the other woman’s [pair of unassigned birds].

Introduction This mishnah explains the end of yesterday's mishnah.

פוסל אחד בהליכתו – from the place that it separated itself. And it invalidates it itself or another from the place where it became mixed. For when one pigeon flew out from two couples of birds to two other couples of birds, there are three pigeons alone and five pigeons alone, but from three pigeons, one is not able to sacrifice only two, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering, for if he would make two of them burnt-offerings it is fund that the third that remains was fixed/established, and that one (i.e., pigeon) which flew away is for a sin-offering, and he is not able to offer any further from the five individual pigeons, other than the two sin-offerings, according to the law of sin-offerings that were mixed with an obligatory offering, as we stated in the first chapter (see Tractate Kinnim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2), that is not kosher/fit other than the number of sin-offerings that is part of the obligatory offering. Alternatively, one does not offer up [as a sacrifice] the third that remains, for we are concerned that perhaps that they will offer up the one that flew away with the five single pigeons and make it is a sin-offering, and his fellow that remains with three individual birds will also make it a sin-offering, and it is found that there will be two sin-offerings from one couple of sacrificial birds. And similarly, from the five individual pigeons he is not able to offer only two sin-offerings and two burnt-offerings, for if he made three sin-offerings or three burnt-offerings, perhaps he would make them from two couples of sacrificial birds of one woman, and there is no law of two couples of sacrificial birds other than with two sin-offerings and two burnt-offerings, and that is that is it invalid – it or another [bird] in the place where it was mixed, and it invalidates the other [bird] that is corresponding to it from the place that it flew off and was separated from there.

How is this so?
Two women, this one has two pairs and this one has two pairs, and one bird flies from the [pair of] one to the other [woman's pair], then it disqualifies by its escape one [of the birds from which it flew]. Two women each have two pairs of birds. If one bird flies away from one woman's two pairs, and joins the second woman's two pairs, the woman who is left with three birds can only use two. Of the three birds remaining, she can offer one as a hatat and one as an olah, but the third cannot be offered as either an olah or a hatat, for if she were to offer the one that remains as a hatat, then the one that flew away would have to be an olah. And when it joins two kinim, only two of the five could be offered as olot (the minimum number of olot in the two pairs see 1:2). The same would be true if she were to offer the third as an olah the one that flew away would be a hatat, and the second woman can only offer two birds as hataot. But when the woman with three birds offers only two of them, the other woman can still offer two hataot and two olot. The woman with five birds also cannot take another bird and make three pair, offering one as an olah and one as a hatat from each pair, lest the fifth bird actually be one of her original birds and if she offers it as a hatat, it is possible that she will offer three hataot from her original four birds (one with the new pair, and two as the original pairs). For the same reason, she can't take another bird and offer the fifth bird as an olah, lest it turns out there are three olot from the original four birds. She has no choice but to offer only four birds. In the end, it turns out that of the original eight, the woman whose bird flew the coop offers one pair, and the woman to whom the bird flew offers two pairs. Two birds go to waste.

If it returned, it disqualifies yet another by its return. If one of the five birds flies back to the other three birds, it disqualifies one of the birds that it left. Of the four left with woman two, she can offer only two of them, one as an olah and one as a hatat. She can't offer more lest the bird that went back to woman one is not the same bird that joined her group, and she only has three birds left from her original two kinim.

חזר פוסל אחד בחזרתו – it (i.e., the original bird who flew off) returned and one of the five individual pigeons flew off into [this group of three], that it was now found four individual pigeons from here and four individual pigeons from there. The one through its return invalidates from the place that it separated from and left from there, and it or another are invalid in the place where it mixed there, and the cannot offer up other than one sin-offering and one burnt offering from the four that are here, and one sin-offering and one burnt-offering from the other four. For perhaps, that individual pigeon that flew away second is from the same two couples of sacrificial birds and is not the one that became mixed in it initially, and there remained there three individual pigeons from the two couples of sacrificial birds and that one that flew away there first, and similarly in the second place. But if he made in one place two burnt-offerings and one sin-offering, that [bird] which flew away to the other side would be set for a a sin-offering offering and he would not be able to offer up there [anything] other than one sin-offering, for perhaps, all thee sin-offerings that were made from here and there will be from two couples of sacrificial birds of one woman, therefore, one makes in every place one burnt-offering and one sin-offering, or two burnt-offerings and one sin-offering on this side and one sin-offering on that side, or two sin-offerings and a burnt offering on this side, and on the second side one burnt-offering, but if they returned and mixed together, always, there won’t be for them less than two couples of sacrificial birds that are fit/kosher.

If it flew away again and then returned, and again flew away and returned, no further loss is incurred, since even if they had all become mixed together, not less than two [pairs would still be valid]. This process of disqualification does not continue if birds keep flying back and forth between the kinim. For even if all four kinim get mixed up, he can always offer four birds, two as hataot and two as olot, as we learned in 1:3 that if four pairs of birds get mixed up, each woman can offer two birds, one as a hatat and one as an olah.

אחת לזו ושתים לזו כו' – one pigeon flew off from the [woman with the] first [pair] to the [woman who had] two pairs, immediately that individual [bird] that remained in the first [pair] was disqualified/made unfit, for if one would make of it a sin-offering, it would established that it (i.e., the bird) that flew off was for a burnt-offering, and one is not able to offer up [from] the second bird, and with other couples of birds that were mixed up with them, burnt-offerings are [offered up] from only half-of the, like the burnt-offering that was mixed up with an obligatory [sacrifice]. And similarly if it flew off from the second [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] to the third [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], perhaps it flew off from the body of the second, but that which flew off from the first [woman] remained there with the second, and one cannot make from the second only two individual pigeons, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering, for if he made two burnt offerings, perhaps he would make them from the pigeons of the body of the second [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], and if so, that [bird] which flew off from the third [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] would be fixed for a sin-offering and he would not be able to make with the third [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] only half of them as sin-offerings, but not more. And similarly, if it flew off from the third [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] to the fourth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], perhaps the one (i.e., bird) that flew off was from the body of [couples of sacrificial birds] of the third [woman] , and there did not remain with her other than five individual pigeons and one pigeon from the second [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] that was mixed up with the, and he (i.e., the Kohen) is not able to make with the third [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] anything other than two burnt offerings and two sin-offerings because it was mixed up with the fourth [woman’s complement of sacrificial birds]. And similarly, when it (i.e., the bird) flew off from the fourth [woman’s complement of sacrificial birds] to the fifth [woman’s complement of sacrificial birds], the fourth [woman’s complement of sacrificial birds] is not kosher, other than for three sin-offerings and three sin-offerings. And similarly, from the fifth [woman’s couples to the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], he (i.e., the Kohen) four sin-offerings and four burnt-offering. And similarly, from the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] to the seventh [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], it is not kosher/fit with the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] other than five sin-offerings and five burnt-offerings, for it if he (i.e., the Kohen) had made six burnt-offerings, it that [bird] which flew off would be established for sin-offerings in the seventh [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] but he would not be able to make with the seventh [couples of sacrificial birds] anything other than seven sin-offerings without any burnt-offerings. But when he (i.e., the Kohen) returns from the seventh [woman’s couples of sacrificial offerings] and one pigeon flew off from the sixth, perhaps it was not the same [bird] that flew off at the beginning from the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], but rather from the body of the seventh that it flew off, and it invalidated in the seventh [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] two pigeons , and it is not kosher other than six sin-offerings and six sin-offerings, for he (i.e., the Kohen) had made seven sin-offerings, that [pigeon] that flew off would be fixed [and with others] for a burnt-offering, and he would not be able to offer only burnt-offerings form half of the pigeons, for the other half would be invalid according to the law of a burnt-offering that was mixed up with an obligatory sacrifice. And similarly, when it (i.e., the pigeon) flew off from the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] to the fifth, it was disqualified in its return another couple of sacrificial birds and it is not kosher/fit with the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] other than four sin-offerings and four burnt-offerings, for perhaps from the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] flew off one from the seventh [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] and one from the fifth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] in [its] return, and there does not remain for her other than ten individual pigeons from her couples, but if he (i.e., the Kohen) made five sin-offerings and five burnt-offerings, perhaps the two individual pigeons that flew off from her would be offered both as burnt-offerings, and if so, they would make seven burnt-offerings with complements of bird offerings, or if both of them would be made as sin-offerings, it would not be able to make with six couples of bird-offerings six burnt-offerings and six sin-offerings. And similarly, from the fifth [woman’s couples of bird offerings] to the fourth [woman’s couples of bird offerings], and from the fourth [woman’s couples of bird offerings] to the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings]. And from the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings] to the second [woman’s couples of bird offerings], for there isn’t in the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings] other than two individual pigeons, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt offering. But if you say, but why did the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings lose two [pigeons], for from those [birds] which flew away in the second [woman’s couples of bird offerings] with [their] return, they are not offered up [as sacrifices], for it is taught that the second [woman’s couples of bird offerings] has none, for we should have said that the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings] had two couples of bird offerings but in the second, there aren’t any, or in the second there is one couple of bird-offerings but in the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings] there is one set? But it is possible to say that since in the other [women’s couples] of bird offerings, from the fourth [woman’s couples] onward, two sets of bird-offerings were disqualified, one while going and one returning, we make this decree similarly with the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings]. But with the seventh [woman’s couples of bird offerings], only one couple of bird offerings is invalidated, for only one pigeon went from it in the return, whereas while going, nothing was invalidated and there is nothing missing from it.

Introduction This mishnah continues to illustrate the principle that a bird that leaves a pair disqualifies by flying away and a bird that returns also disqualifies another pair, lest it is not the same bird that flew away. This mishnah uses large numbers, but I think that the principle should be straightforward.

פרח וחזר – this does not refer to the first or second [woman’s couples of bird-offerings, for since they don’t have anything but those [birds] left to die, if one of them flew off from the rest of the couples of bird-offerings, all of them would be left to die, as it is taught shortly in the Mishnah, and if one of those left to die flew off to all of them (i.e., the couples of bird-offerings), all of them would be left to die. But rather, it refers to the [bird] from the third [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] who flew off from it to the fourth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings], or from the fourth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] to the fifth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings], or from the fifth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] to the sixth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] or from the sixth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] to the seventh [woman’s couples of bird-offerings,” and returned from the seventh [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] to the sixth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings until the third [woman’s couples of bird-offerings], for from the seventh [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] is missing two individual pigeons, one through the first return and the other with the second return, and there isn’t fit/kosher in the seventh [woman’s couples of bird-sacrifices other than five individual pigeons for burnt-offerings and five individual pigeons for sin-offerings, for if he (i.e., the Kohen) would make six burnt-offerings, perhaps the two [birds] that left from it would be offered up as burnt-offerings, which are eight burnt-offerings, but in the seven couples of bird-offerings, there aren’t only burnt-offerings. And from the sixth [woman’s couple of bird-offerings] there is missing four individual pigeons, two through flying away and the first [one] returning, and two [pigeons] from the second [woman’s couples of bird-offerings], but there remained two kosher couples of bird-offerings, for if he (i.e., the Kohen) made three burnt-offerings, perhaps the four [birds] that left it will be burnt-offerings, hence seven burnt-offerings, but there aren’t in six couples of bird-offerings anything other than six burnt-offerings. And similarly, in the fifth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings], there is nothing kosher/fit there other than one [bird] for a burnt-offering and one [bird] for a sin-offering. And similarly, it is difficult here, since with the fourth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] she has nothing, he (i.e., the Kohen) would be able to offer from the fifth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] three burnt-offerings and three sin-offerings, for those that left from fourth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] are not offered up, and according to this, that the fifth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] has none other than one that he would be able to offer up, he would be able to offer up with the fourth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] two burnt-offerings and two sin-offerings. But rather, we decreed that with each flying off [of a bird] and each return [of a bird], two couples of bird-offerings [a decree for this one – couple of bird-offerings – is for the sake of/on account of that one – couple of bird-offerings] are affected. And similarly, when it (i.e., the bird) flew off and returned a third time, they have nothing except for the seventh [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] that she has four [pairs of birds], similarly we decree with each flying off and return [of a bird] two couples of bird-offerings [are affected].

If one [woman] had one pair, another two, another three, another four, another five, another six and another seven pairs, and one bird flew from the first to the second pair, [and then a bird flew from there] to the third, [and then a bird flew from there] to the fourth, [and from there a bird flew] to the fifth [and from there a bird flew] to the sixth, [and from there a bird flew] to the seventh, and then a bird returns [in the same order as they flew away] it disqualifies at each flight and at each return. The first and second [women] have none left, the third has one pair, the fourth two, the fifth three, the sixth four, and the seventh six pairs. This section sets out the scenario, sort of a musical chairs of sacrificial birds. Basically one bird has left each group and then one bird has returned to each group. The first woman lost her only pair when one left. The second woman lost one pair when one left and one pair when one returned from her pairs to the first woman, so she is left with nothing. The third woman has one left, the fourth woman two and the fifth woman is left with three. The seventh woman loses only one pair because for her the "flying away" and "returning" are the same. She had one bird fly away and return to a set of pairs from which it had come. So she is left with six pairs.

ויש אומרים השביעית לא הפסידה כלום – an explanation, with flying off and retuning a third time, but rather, always, one will offer up from it five couples of bird-offerings. For three individual pigeons flew off from it at the most, and there remained with it only eleven individual pigeons, he (i.e., the Kohen) will make from them five sin-offerings and five burnt-offerings, since even the sixth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] has nothing. But here we don’t make the decree through this flying off like with the other couples of bird-offerings, sine it does not lose with flying off at any time, they didn’t make a decree regarding the return [of the birds to the nest]. But the Halakha is not according to the opinion of there are those who say.

If again [one from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The third and fourth woman have none left, the fifth has one pair, the sixth two pairs, and the seventh woman five pairs. Remarkably, the same thing repeats itself. One bird leaves the first, flies to the second, and so on up and then down the line. Again, two pairs are disqualified from the valid pairs that each woman has left, except for the last woman, who only loses one pair. Now the women who originally had three or four pairs are left with nothing, the woman with five is left with one, the woman with six is left with two, and the woman who had seven is left with five.

If again one [from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The fifth and sixth women have none left, and the seventh has four pairs. But some say that the seventh woman has lost nothing. Incredibly, the same thing happens again (these birds really know what to do!). The only woman left with any valid birds is the last woman. According to one opinion, she again loses one pair. According to the other opinion, since all of the other pairs are already disqualified, the last bird to fly away from her does not disqualify any of her pairs. Therefore, she is left with five, as she was in the beginning.

If [a bird] from those that are left to die escaped to any of all the groups, then all must be left to die. If any birds that have to be left to die fly into any of the pairs, all of the pairs into which they may have flown are disqualified, because any of the birds may be this disqualified bird. In other words, here we do not have the problem of determining which bird is a hatat and which is an olah. Rather the problem is that any of the birds may be a bird that had been left to die and such a bird can never be sacrificed.

קן סתומה – he did not explain which was [designated/specified] for a sin-offering and which was [designated/specified] for a burnt-offering.

An unassigned pair and an assigned pair: if one bird from the unassigned [pair] flew to the assigned [pair], then a pair must be taken for the second [bird]. There are two pairs in the situations described in this mishnah. In one pair the two birds have been assigned which one will be a hatat and which one will be an olah. The birds of the other pair have not been assigned. One bird from the unassigned pair flies over to the assigned pair. The three birds are now mixed up such that we can't tell which one of the assigned pair was a hatat and which was an olah. These three birds cannot be sacrificed and must be left to die. The owner can then take a second bird for the one bird left in the unassigned pair. This is the case of one bird from an unassigned pair that flies into a group of birds that must be left to die (see mishnah one). As we learned, in such a case he may take another bird for the bird left in the original pair.

וקן מפורשת – that it is known that this one was [designated/specified] for a sin-offering and that one was [designated] for a burnt-offering. But here, we are speaking when the two pigeons were combined together after they were designated/specified, and now it is not known which is for a sin-offering and which is for a burnt offering, and this is shown in the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] that teaches: “or [if] at first one which had been designated flew off to the first undesignated pair, all of them are left to die, but if the individual pigeons that had been designated/specified did not became mixed with each other, why should they be [all] left to die, but if the burnt-offering flew off, the remaining [bird] for the sin-offering should be offered up, and similarly, the unspecified/undesignated couple of sacrificial birds , should be offered up as one burnt-offering because of the burnt-offering that became mixed up with it. But we are speaking of when individual pigeons that were designated became mixed up one with another, but if one individual pigeon from the pair of sacrificial birds had not been designated/specified had been combined with that which was designated, he (i.e., the Kohen) should take one pair for second [bird] and designate one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering, and the third that had been combined/mixed up together, all of them should be left to die. If one from the three that had been mixed up/combined returned and became combined with the individual [bird] remaining from the undesignated/specified group, or at the outset of flying off, combined one from the designated [pair] to that which was not designated/specified, which is the first as we stat, meaning to say, that at the outset of flying off, one went and combined with an undesignated pair, all of them should be left to die, for since the individual pigeons which had been designated had combined together, they are no longer offered up, and when one of them flee off in another place, that is, one from the ones left to die that flew off among those that were to be offered up, all of them should be left to die.

If one bird flew back, or if in the first place a bird from the assigned pair flew [to the other pair], then all must be left to die. If one of the three birds left to die flew back to the other pair, then all of the birds must be left to die, for in neither of them do we know which is the hatat and which is the olah. The same is true if originally one of the assigned pair flew to the unassigned pair. Since we don't know which bird flew (the hatat or the olah) and which bird remained, none of the three birds in the first pair, or the remaining one bird, can be offered. All must be left to die.

חטאת מכאן – an individual pigeon that was designated/specified for a sin-offering to one side, and an individual pigeon that was designated/specified for a burnt-offering to the second side, and two individual pigeons of an undesignated/unspecified nature (i.e., either for a sin-offering or for a burnt-offering) in the center.

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a burnt-offering. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. This section discusses a case where a person has three groups of birds. On one side are a group of birds designated to be hataot. On the other side are a group of birds designated to be olot. In between the two groups is an unassigned pair of birds, one in which it has not yet been determined which will be a hatat and which will be an olah. The mishnah describes three scenarios. A) If one of the unassigned birds flies to each of the other groups, there is no problem, because these birds can be either a hatat or an olah. B) If one of the birds from the hataot and one of the birds from the olot flies back to the middle, then they must be left to die because we don't know which one is a hatat and which is an olah. The birds left on the side remain hataot and olot. C) If the middle birds now fly back one to each side and become mixed up with the birds there, then the ones on the side must die as well because we don't know which are hataot and which are olot.

פרח מן האמצע – one individual pigeon to the right and one individual pigeon to the left.

One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her burnt-offering; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. When a woman brings a pair of birds for sacrifices she must either bring two turtle-doves (and a partridge in a pear tree) or two pigeons. She cannot bring one of each type of bird. According to the first opinion, the hatat is the bird that determines what the other bird must be. So if the hatat is a turtle-dove, she must bring a turtle-dove as an olah, and if the hatat is a pigeon, she must bring a pigeon as an olah. The order in which the birds are brought does not matter. Ben Azzai says that the first bird that she brings determines what the second bird is. Therefore if she first brings a turtle-dove as an olah, and then tries to bring a pigeon as a hatat, she must bring a turtle-dove as an olah.

לא הפסיד כלום – that the one that is combined with the sin-offerings will be made for a sin-offering, and the one that is with the burnt-offerings will be made a burnt-offering, but not for a sin-offering, for perhaps he (i.e., the Kohen) will make it from the designated/specified [ones] for a burnt-offering.

If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat. If a woman sets aside birds as sacrifices and then dies, her heirs can offer the olah but they cannot offer the hatat, because a hatat whose owners have died must be left to die. This is the standard rule with regard to the hatat (see Temurah 2:2).

חזר לאמצע – they (i.e., the pigeons) returned from the sides, one from here and the other from there and combined together, they are left to die, for they are a [designated] sin-offering and a [designated] burnt-offering that were combined/mixed together. But those which remained, each one alone, each are offered according to their respective law.

חזר מן האמצעיים לצדדין – those [designated] for sin-offerings and/or burnt-offerings are combined/mixed, and all are left to die.

אין מביאים תורים כנגד בני יונה – but rather either both of them are turtle-doves or both of them are pigeons.

תכפול ותביא עולתה בן יונה – as according to the law for the sin-offering. For the sin-offering is the essence/main object, whether he (i.e., the Kohen) set it aside first or whether he set it aside at the end.

הולכין אחר הראשון – but she does not bring the second, but rather from the species that she set aside/designated first, whether it was a sin-offering first or whether it was a bunt-offering. And the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher (i.e., that both the sin-offering and burnt-offering shojld come from the same species).

לא יביאו היורשים חטאתה – for it is a sin-offering where its owners had died. But if it is not for this reason, we bring a sin-offering even though she offered a burnt-offering first. But even thought that in every case/place the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering, this is especially for the Mitzvah, but not to be indispensable/to invalidate an act by omission.