Commentary for Kinnim 3:8

במה דברים אמורים בכהן נמלך (under what circumstances do the rules apply? In the case of a Kohen who makes inquiry) – It is referring to the first chapter [of Tractate Kinnim, Mishnayot 2-3]. And this is what we stated: Under what circumstances do the rules apply? That a sin-offering that was combined/mixed with a burnt-offering that all of them should be left to die, and similarly, one to this one and two to that one and the third to that one, that the minority is Kosher/fit, these words regard a Kohen that comes to inquire and to ask what is their law. But a Kohen who does not inquire and acted according to this own knowledge, one complete couple of sacrificial birds above [the red line] for one woman, the burnt offering is kosher/fit but the sin-offering is invalid. But if he made [an offering of] one complete couple of sacrificial birds below [the red line], the sin-offering is valid and the burnt-offering is invalid. Therefore, one (i.e., sin-offering) for this one [woman] and one (i.e., burnt-offering) for that one [woman, two [complete couples of sacrificial birds] for this one [woman] (i.e., sin-offering) and two [complete couples of sacrificial birds] for that one [woman] (i.e., burnt-offering) and made all of them, above [the red line], half are kosher which are the burnt-offerings and half of them are invalid which are sin-offerings. But if he made [an offering of] all of them, below [the red line], the sin-offerings are kosher/fit but the burnt-offerings are invalid. And all of the first chapter [of Tractate Kinnim] speaks of ab initio, but this chapter speaks of post-facto/after-the-fact. And one [burnt-offering] to this woman and two [burnt-offerings] to that woman, that we stated above when he (i.e., the Kohen) makes inquiry, the minority are kosher, here without inquiry, the majority are kosher/fit, since he (i.e., the Kohen) made [the offering of] half of them above [the red line] and half of them below [the red line]. How so? Behold that from one [sin-offering] for this [woman], he (i.e., the Kohen) made that couple of bird-offerings of [this] woman above [the red line] and from two couples of bird-offerings of another woman, he (i.e., the Kohen) made one individual pigeon from them above [the red line] in order that half of them would be above, and there remained three individual pigeons below [the red line], behold two burnt-offerings above [the red line] ae kosher/fit, and two sin-offerings below [the red line], behold two couples of bird-offerings are kosher/fit, and the third is invalid, and this is the majority that is kosher. And similarly, two [couples of bird-offerings] for this woman and three [couples of bird-offerings] for that woman, from the two couples of bird-offerings, there are four individual pigeons [offered] above [the red line], and furthermore, he (i.e., the Kohen) took one individual pigeon from the three couples of bird offerings, there are five individual pigeons [offered] above [the red line] and five [individual pigeons offered] below [the red line]; from the five individual pigeons [offered] above [the red line], there are three burnt-offerings and from [that offered] below [the red line] there are three sin-offerings, behold three couples of bird-offerings are kosher, and this is the majority that are kosher/fit, but however, ten [couples of bird-offerings] for this [woman] and one-hundred [couples of bird-offerings] for that [woman], it is impossible to find in this matter because they are pairs, and one needs to state that the majority are kosher/fit, as is taught in our Mishnah, he does not return ought other than one to this [woman] and two to that [woman], etc., which are not pairs, but since it is taught in the Mishnah above that in this manner the minority are kosher/fit, it also teaches in this manner that the majority are kosher/fit without making inquiry. But however, even with ten [couples of sacrificial birds] to this [woman] and one-hundred [couples of sacrificial birds] to that [woman], the majority are kosher, for there is nothing invalid from them other than ten [couples of sacrificial birds], for perhaps all of the couples of sacrificial birds were of one woman [offered] above [the red line] and the sin-offerings were invalidated, or all of them [were offered] below [the red line] and the burnt-offerings were invalidated, by force, ten complete couples of bird-sacrifices are invalid.

Introduction The first mishnah of chapter three relates to the halakhot found in mishnayot 1:2-3 regarding pairs of sacrificial birds that become mixed up.

את שלמעלה מחצה כשר ומחצה פסול – [half of them are kosher/fit and half are invalid] since he (i.e., the Kohen) made [the offering up] of a complete couple of bird-offerings above [the red line]. For since these couples of bird-offerings were for two women, they should bring another couple of bird-offerings in partnership and give them between them, if from the first is a burnt-offering for Leah, the let the last be a sin-offering for Leah, or its opposite. And specifically, he (i.e., the Kohen) made [the offering of] a complete couple of bird-offerings above [the red line], but if he split up/divided the couples of bird-offerings, one individual pigeon above [the red line] and one individual pigeon below [the red line] everything is Kosher, for I state that the burnt-offering is above [the red line] and the sin-offering is below [the red line], for the couples of bird-offerings are specified through the action of the Kohen.

When are these words said? When the priest asks advice. If birds get mixed up and the priest comes to ask advice as to what to do with them, he is taught the halakhot we learned in 1:2-3.

But in the case of a priest who does not seek advice, and one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and one to another, or two [pairs] to one and two to another, or three [pairs] to one and three to another, and he offered all of them above [the red line], then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if [he offered] all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. If [he offered] half of them above and half of them below, then of those [offered] above, half are valid and half are invalid, and also of those [offered] below, half are valid and half are invalid. The mishnah how goes on to explain what happens if he does not seek advice and just offers all of the mixed up sacrifices. In today's mishnah the scenario is simple for the numbers of pairs belonging to each woman is equal. Tomorrow's mishnah will introduce much more complicated scenarios. If the number of pairs are even, then half will be valid and half will not be valid. Thus if he sprinkles all of the blood above the red line on the altar, as is done with the olah, then all of the olot are valid, and all of the hataot are invalid. If he offers all of the blood below the red line, as is done with the hatat, then all of the hataot are valid, and all of the olot are invalid. If he offers half above the line and half below the line, then half of each group are valid. It turns out that in all of these cases, each woman gets credit for half of the birds that she brought. As an aside, I think it is interesting that the mishnah deals with a case where the priest did not ask advice from sages before sacrificing the mixed-up birds. I think that we might read into this a bit and see that priests probably did not follow rabbinic halakhot as closely as the rabbis might have liked, and therefore the rabbis have to figure out how to proceed in such a situation.

זה הכלל כל מקום שאתה יכול לחלוק כו' – meaning to say, that the couple of sacrificial-birds of one woman is not divided in half, but rather one couple of sacrificial birds [is offered] above [the red line] and another woman’s couple of sacrificial birds [is offered] below [the red line], half of it is kosher/fit and half of it is invalid.

Introduction Our mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday's mishnah. In yesterday's mishnah we discussed scenarios where the two women brought the same number of pairs of birds. Today's mishnah deals with cases where one woman has more pairs than the other.

If one [pair] belonged to one woman and two [pairs] to another, or [even] three [pairs] to another, or [ten] pairs to another or a hundred to another, and he offered all of them above, then half are valid and half are invalid. If for instance one woman had two pairs and the other woman had three pairs, and they were all mixed up and he offered them all above the red line on the altar, then half are valid as olot, because it is certain that of the ten birds, five were olot.

וכל מקום כו' – as for example, one [couple of sacrificial birds] to this [woman] and two [couples of sacrificial birds] to that [woman] where there is a division of one woman’s [couple of sacrificial birds to be offered] above [the red line] and below [the red line], the majority are kosher, as has been explained.

[Similarly], if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. Similarly, if he offers half of them below, then half are valid as hataot, because it is clear that five of the birds are hataot.

[If he offered] half of them above and half below, then the [number of birds as there is in the] larger part are valid. In this case, the number of birds that are valid is equivalent to the number of pairs brought by the woman with the larger number of pairs. Let's take a case where one woman brought two pairs and another woman brought three pairs. If the priest offered five birds below the line and five birds above the line, three birds are valid. This is because even if of the five birds he offered above, four of them belonged to the woman who brought two pairs, then two are for sure valid and two are for sure invalid because they should have been hataot. The fifth bird which had to have belonged to the other woman, is also valid as an olah. And if of the five birds, all belonged to the woman with three pairs, three are certainly valid as olot. However, two are certainly invalid because they should have been hataot. The same will work no matter what numbers we plug in. If one woman brought four pairs and the other woman brought six pairs, and the priest offered ten birds above and ten below, then six of the birds offered above are valid as olot. Even if all eight birds from the first woman were offered above, four are valid and then two of the other birds which belonged to the other woman will also be valid. And if all of the birds belonged to the second woman who brought ten pairs, then six are valid. But four have to be invalid because they should have been hataot. You mathematicians out there should try it out for yourself with other numbers you'll see, it always works out.

This is the general principle: whenever you can divide the pairs [of birds] so that those belonging to one woman need not have part of them [offered] above and part [offered] below, then half of them are valid and half are invalid; The mishnah now provides the general rule. If it is possible that he offered all of the birds of one of the women above and all of the birds of the other woman below, then half of the birds are valid. This is the case if the women bring the same numbers of pairs. If each brings, say, five pairs, and he offers five above and five below, it is possible that all of one woman's birds were offered above and all of the other's birds were offered below. Half will be valid.

But whenever you cannot divide the pairs [of birds] without some of those belonging to one woman being [offered] above and some below, then [the number as there is in] the larger part are valid. However, if it is not possible that all of the birds that were offered above and below belonged to the same woman, then the number of birds valid is equal to the larger number of pairs. Thus if one woman brought six and one brought four, and he offered ten above, and ten below, it is not possible that all ten above belonged to one woman and all ten below belonged to the other woman. Therefore, six are valid, equivalent to the larger number.

חטאת לזו ועולה לזו – this also refers to that which is taught above in the first chapter [of Tractate Kinnim, Mishnah 3], a burnt-offering that became mixed/combined with a sin-offering or the opposite, all of them are left to die. And these words [apply] when [the priest] made inquiry on the mixture and made [the offering] of one couple of sacrificial birds above [the red line] and one couple of sacrificial birds below [the red line], half of them are kosher/fit and half of them are invalid. But even though that he did not come to make inquiry, we state to him that he (i.e., the Kohen) should not offer them up, as it is taught, they should all be left to die, now that he didn’t make any inquiry, we state that each one should be performed according to Halakha and they are kosher/fit.

Introduction Up until now, this chapter has discussed cases where two women bring pairs of sacrificial birds; in each case one of each pair is supposed to be offered as a hatat and one as an olah. In today's mishnah, one woman brings birds that will all be offered as olot, and the other woman brings birds that will all be offered as hataot. Again, the priest does not ask advice as to what to do with the birds. Rather, he just goes ahead and offers them.

If the hatats belonged to one and the olot to another, and the priest offered them all above, then half are valid and half disqualified. If he offered all of the birds above, obviously half are valid as olot. The other half should have been offered below, as is the rule for hataot, and therefore, they are invalid.

If he offered them all below, half are valid and half disqualified. The same is true if he offers half below the hataot are valid and the olot are invalid.

If he offered half of them above and half below, then all of them are disqualified, because I can argue that the hatats were offered above and the olot below. However, if he offered half above and half below, none of the sacrifices is valid, because it is possible that he completely mixed them up, offering the hataot above and the olot below.

חטאת ועולה וסתומה ומפורשת – two women who purchased three couples of sacrificial birds, this one (i.e., woman) needs a burnt offering and a complete couple of sacrificial birds, that is two burnt-offerings and one sin-offering, and the second [woman] needs one sin offering and one complete couple of sacrificial birds, which are two sin-offerings and one burnt-offering, and they designated/specified one individual pigeon from the couple of sacrificial birds for a burnt-offering for this one (i.e., woman) and one individual pigeon as a sin-offering for that one [woman], and one from the couple of sacrificial birds they left undesignated , for they didn’t specify which would be for a burnt-offering and which for a sin-offering. But the third [woman] they designated/specified which was for a burnt-offering and which was for a sin-offering, but the owners didn’t specify behold a sin-offering for this [woman] and a burnt-offering for that one [woman] and an undesignated couple of sacrificial birds and a designated couple of sacrificial birds, and he (i.e., the Kohen) needs to offer up as a sacrifice these two couples of sacrificial birds undesignated for both of them, the burnt-offerings above [the red line] and the sin-offerings below [the red line], and a burnt-offering for this one [woman] and a sin-offering for that [woman] he needs to offer in the name of the owners. But if the Kohen gave them, one-half below [the red line] and one-half above [the red line], none are kosher/fit other than the undesignated ones, which type did he made as a burnt-offering and which type did he make as a sin-offering, it is kosher/fit, since each couple of sacrificial birds was of its own.

If a hatat, an olah, an unassigned pair of birds and an assigned pair [became mixed up], and he offered them all above, then half are valid and half are invalid. One woman has a hatat, one woman has an olah. In addition, one of these women has an unassigned pair and the other has an assigned pair, and they all get mixed up (just like us all mixed up!). If the priest offers all of the birds above (a total of six birds) half of them are valid. This is because three are certainly olot (the olah bird and one from each pair).

מתחלקת בימיהם – since he purchased them in a mixture, the one fulfilled for the sin-offering and the other fulfilled for the burnt-offering.

[Similarly] if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. If he offers all below, three are valid as hataot.

If he offered half of them above and half below, none is valid except the unassigned pair, and that must be divided between them. However, if he offers half above and half below, then only the birds of the unassigned pair are valid, because their status as an olah or a hatat had not yet been determined. The two women will together get credit for one pair, and they can divide that pair among the two of them. They will then need to bring another pair, and offer one as an olah and one as a hatat. Each loses the hatat or olah that they had brought individually.

חטאת שנתערבה בחובה – that is to say, that which we taught above in the Chapter One [Tractate Kinnim, Mishnah two] a sin-offering that was combined/confused with an obligatory sacrifice is not kosher/fit other than only the number corresponding to the sin-offerings among [the offerings brought in fulfillment of] an obligation, that sometimes, that number goes up to half kosher/fit and half invalid, and sometimes it goes to less than half, and it will explain further on how so.

If hataot birds were mixed up with [unassigned birds that were] obligatory offerings, only the number of hataot among the obligatory offerings are valid.
If the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are twice as many as the hataot, then half are valid and half invalid;
But if the hataot are twice as many as the [unassigned] obligatory offerings, then the number [of hataot] among the obligatory offerings are valid.
So, too, if [birds assigned as] olot were mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory offerings, only the number of olot among the obligatory offerings are valid.
If the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are twice as many as the olot, then half are valid and half invalid.
But if the olot are twice as many as the [unassigned] obligatory offerings, then the number [of olot] among the obligatory offerings are valid.
Section one: This halakhah is basically a repeat of the halakhah taught in 1:2. Obligatory bird offerings contain two birds one of which will be an olah and one a hatat. So if some birds that have already been designated as hataot get mixed up with some pairs of obligatory offerings, the valid birds are equivalent to the number of hataot in the pairs. So if ten hataot get mixed up with six pairs, of the 22 birds, any six we take can definitely be a hatat. But the seventh bird might be the seventh bird from the six pairs, in which case it should have been an olah.
Section two: If two obligatory offerings, meaning two birds one of which needs to be a hatat and one an olah, are mixed up with one hatat, then we divide the birds into two. The first bird is valid as a hatat, the second bird is definitely disqualified and the third bird is potentially half-valid, but since it can't be divided, there is nothing that can be done with it. Similarly, if three obligatory offerings get mixed up with one hatat, three birds are valid as a hatat, three are invalid and the third cannot be divided.
Section three: But if there are two hataot that get mixed up with one pair of obligatory offerings, only one bird will be valid as a hatat.
Sections four-six: The second half of this mishnah just teaches the same rule with regard to olot.

חובה שנים בחטאת מחצה כשר ומחצה פסול – explanation, two couples of bird sacrifices for an obligation they have twice as many as that brought for a sin-offering, as for example, that he offered up as a sacrifice from them one burnt-offering and there remained two sin-offerings and one burnt-offering.

מחצה כשר ומחצה פסול – that one burnt-offering that remains cannot be offered lest this is the one that is set for a sin-offering, and a sin-offering that is confused/combined he (i.e., the Kohen) cannot offer up lest it is the remaining burnt-offering, therefore he does not offer up ought other than two sin-offerings, but the sin-offering that is confused/combined and the burnt-offering that remains are invalid, and this is half of them are kosher/fit and half of them are invalid.

חטאת שנים בחובה מנין שבחובה כשר – explanation, as for example, that she offered up one sin-offering from the two couples of bird sacrifices and there remained two burnt-offerings and one sin-offering. Behold they are four individual pigeons with the sin-offering that was confused/mixed up between them, and he is not able to offer up two burnt-offerings lest he take the confused/mixed-up sin-offering, and also he cannot offer up two sin-offerings lest he take that [bird] that is set for the burnt-offering, therefore, he doesn’t sacrifice anything other than one sin-offering, for the burnt-offering of that is the lesser number that is the less than that which is half-kosher/fit. And in a similar manner we explain also and similarly the burnt-offering that was confused/mixed-up with an obligatory sacrifice.

הרי עלי קן לכשאלד זכר – we are dealing with a poor woman who gave birth, whereas if she was rich, she brings a sheep for her obligatory offering.

Introduction As we know, when a woman gives birth she will have to bring a pair of birds, one of which is offered as a hatat and one as an olah. She does not need to voluntarily take on this obligation. It is automatic. Our mishnah deals with a woman who before she gives birth, vows to bring a pair of birds if she gives birth to a male. She will now be obligated to bring two pairs of birds. I should warn you this mishnah is complicated. But it’s the last mishnah of the tractate and the seder (game, set and match), so we should give it careful attention. You can fall on your knees and kiss the trophy afterwards.

והכהן צריך לעשות שלש למעלה -that the couple of sacrificial birds for a free-will offering – both of them are burnt-offerings and the couple of sacrificial birds of the obligatory sacrifice is a burnt-offering above [the red line] and a sin-offering below [the red line], but he did not do so, but rather two [burnt-offerings] above [the red line] and two [sin-offerings] below, and he did not make inquiry with her to know on what she brought, and one individual pigeon was invalidated, therefore, she needs to bring another individual pigeon and she will offer it above [the red line].

If a woman says: "I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child," and she does give birth to a male child, then she must offer up two pairs one for her vow and one for her obligation. This woman must offer up two pairs of birds one pair for her obligatory offerings and one for her voluntary offerings. The birds brought as voluntary offerings will be olot and of the birds brought as obligatory offerings one will be a hatat and one an olah.

ממין אחד – that is to say, in what case is this statement said, when they (i.e., the birds) were of one kind. But if there were two couples of sacrificial birds that she brought from two different species, that is, one couple of sacrificial birds that are turtle-doves and another that are pigeons, she must bring one individual turtle-dove and one individual pigeon, in order to replace the individual bird that was invalidated, and we don’t know if it was from the turtle-doves or from the pigeons, and it is taught in the Mishnah above (see Tractate Kinnin, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5): “They do not bring turtle-doves to make up pairs for young pigeons, or young pigeons to make up pairs for turtle-doves.”

If [before she assigned them] she gave them to the priest, and the priest who ought to offer three birds above and one below does not do so, but offers two above and two below, and does not seek guidance, she must she bring another bird and offer that above. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring two others. The priest should offer three as olot, meaning he should spill their blood above the red line, and one as a hatat, whose blood is spilled below the red line. Rather, the priest seems to have treated both as if they were obligatory offerings (his mistake seems quite understandable), and spilled the blood of two above the red line and the blood of the two others below the red line. He did not come to ask advice beforehand. The woman must now bring one more bird to be an olah, for one of the birds he offered below was invalid. The above halakhah is true if all of the birds that she brought were of one type either pigeons or turtle-doves. However, if she brought one pair as one type and the other pair as another type, and the priest did one pigeon above and one pigeon below and the same with the turtle-doves, she now must bring two new birds, one a turtle-dove and one a pigeon. The reason is that we don't know which of the two birds that he did below was disqualified the pigeon or turtle-dove and the replacement that she brings must be of the same type. Therefore, she brings one of each and both are offered as olot.

פירשה נדרה - when she brought two couples of bird sacrifices to the Kohen, she specified and stated: "these are for my vow, and those are for my obligation [sacrifice]."

If she had expressly defined her vow, then must she bring three other birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring four others. If when the woman made the vow she set the type of bird she would bring, a pigeon or turtle-dove, and then by the time she brought them, she forgot what type of bird she had vowed, and again the priest offered two above and two below, she will now have to bring three new birds, all of which will be olot. Since she didn't know what her vow was, she should have brought a pair of birds from each type, one pair of pigeons and one pair of turtle-doves. In addition, she of course had to bring a pair for her obligatory offerings. Now that one bird was disqualified by being offered below, she must bring a replacement for that bird, and then another pair of the other type of bird that she did not bring. Again, the above is true if all of the birds that the woman brought were of the same type. If she brought two different types, then she must bring four new birds as olot. We'll go through this slowly. One of the birds done below is valid as a hatat, and the other is an invalid olah. But we don't know whether the invalid olah was supposed to a turtle-dove or a pigeon, because don't know whether she vowed to bring pigeons or turtle-doves. So both of the birds done above are also invalid. Therefore, she has to bring two new pairs; a pair of pigeons in case this is what she vowed, and a pair of turtle-doves, in case this is what she vowed.

ממין אחד – meaning to say, if these two couples of bird sacrifices were from one species, that is, both of them were turtle-doves or both of them pigeons, and the Kohen offered from them two above [the red line] and two below [the red line], only one individual pigeon is kosher from all of the four that he sacrificed, and it is the burnt-offering that is the obligatory sacrifice, and she needs to bring three more individual pigeons and he (i.e., the Kohen) offers them one below [the red line] which is the sin-offering that is in the obligatory [sacrifice] and two above [the red line] and this is the vow.

If she made a definite fixture at the time of her vow, then must she bring another five birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring six others. In this case, again when the woman made the vow she set the type of bird she would bring and then forgot which type she set. Then she brings two pairs, all of one type, and in this case she determined which type would be for her voluntary offering and which type would be for her obligatory offering. Again, the priest offered one pair above and one pair below. In this case she must bring five more birds, all of which will be offered as olot. She must bring two birds of the type that she did not bring, because she should have brought two pairs in the beginning, one of pigeons and one of turtle-doves. She then must bring three of the same type that she did bring. Two of these will be for the olah, lest the priest offered one of the pair that should have been an olah as a hatat below, and both were thereby invalidated. She must bring another bird as a hatat, lest both birds that the priest offered as a hatat were meant to be olot. Again, all of this was true if she brought all of her birds from one type. If she brought two different types, then she will have to bring SIX new birds. In this case we don't know which pair she brought as a voluntary offering because we don't know which type she set as a voluntary offering. Indeed, she may have brought both as voluntary offerings, as she was supposed to do, and not brought her mandatory offering at all. Or she might have brought one as a voluntary offering and one as a mandatory offering. In this case, it is possible that all of the birds were meant to be olot, and the two done below were both disqualified. It is also possible that the obligatory offerings were done correctly, but the voluntary offerings were done incorrectly, and we don't know which was done incorrectly, the turtle-dove or pigeon. We also don't know which type of birds she vowed to bring in the first place. In short, due to all of the things we don't know, she must bring four new birds as olot, one pair of turtle-doves and one pair of pigeons. She also has to bring two birds to be her mandatory offerings.

משני מינים תביא ארבע – if she brought two couples of two bird sacrifices from two species and specified in her vow but the Kohen did not know which two them he performed (i.e., sprinkled the blood of) above [the red line] and which two of them he performed (i.e., sprinkled the blood of) below [the red line], she needs to bring four individual birds, for perhaps the two turtle-doves that she brought for her vow and they are burnt-offerings were performed below [the red line] and there remains for her the entire vow [to be fulfilled]. But the two pigeons which are obligatory were performed above [the red line] and the remains for her one pigeon for the sin-offering of her obligation, or perhaps the two pigeons of her obligation were performed below [the red line] and there remains upon her the pigeon of the burnt-offering from her obligatory [sacrifice].

If she gave them to the priest and it is not known what she gave, and the priest performed the sacrifice, but it is not known how he performed it, then she must bring four other birds for her vow, and two for her obligation and one for her hatat. Ben Azzai says: [she must bring] two hatats. Finally, it is possible to add on to the previous scenario the possibility that she doesn't even know what type of birds she brought. Furthermore, the priest offered them up but doesn't remember whether he offered them up below or above. Basically no one knows anything whatsoever. She has to bring now a total of SEVEN birds. Two pairs she brings as voluntary offerings, one pair of turtle-doves and one pair of pigeons. She also brings a hatat, lest the hatat that she previously brought was invalidated, for it is possible that both birds from the mandatory offering were done above. However, it is also possible that the priest performed the mandatory offering below, which would mean the hatat was valid. But in this case she would need to bring a replacement olah to go with that hatat, and since we don't know what type it needs to be, she must bring two more birds to go with the hatat that might have been valid. Ben Azzai says she must bring two hataot, one a turtle-dove and one a pigeon. The reason is that the olah of the mandatory offerings might have been done properly, and she needs to bring a hatat of the same type. This matches Ben Azzai's opinion in 2:5, that the second bird offered must be of the same type as the first bird. Since we don't know what type was offered, she must bring one of each.

קבעה נדרה – as for example, that she said at the time of vow: “I pledge upon myself a couple of sacrificial birds from a certain species, and she specified her vow as [mentioned] above, she did not specify anything at the time of the vow, but rather after she made an unspecified vow: “I pledge upon myself a couple of sacrificial birds,” she brought from whichever species that she wanted and stated: “these are for my vow.”

Rabbi Joshua said: This is what it meant when they said: "When [the beast] is alive it possesses one sound, but when it is dead its sound is sevenfold." In what way is its sound sevenfold? Its two horns [are made into] two trumpets, its two leg-bones into two flutes, its hide into a drum, its entrails for lyres and its large intestines for harp strings; and there are some who add that its wool is used for the blue [pomegranates.] Rabbi Joshua provides a colorful analogy to the above strange situation, in which a woman vowed to bring one pair of birds, and ends up bringing seven birds (or eight according to Ben Azzai). While a ram is alive it has only one voice, but its body parts can be used in making seven different instruments. Like Ben Azzai, who adds an eighth instrument, some note that from the wool of the ram, one can make the clothes of the high priests, upon which pomegranate bells are hung (see Exodus 28:33). Thus, the woman used her singular voice and became obligated to bring seven or eight birds.

צריכה להביא עוד חמש פרידות – here we are speaking as for example, that after she established her vow and brought her vow with her obligatory [sacrifice] to the Kohen, the Kohen executed two [sprinklings of the blood of the sacrificial birds] above [the red line] and two [sprinklings of the blood of the sacrificial birds] below [the red line] and he did not know if he executed her vow above [the red line] and her obligatory sacrifice below [the red line] if [not] the opposite, and she also forgot which species [of birds] she established for her vow, whether turtle-doves or pigeons, she needs to bring another five single pigeons, for perhaps the vow was executed/performed below [the red line] and the obligatory [sacrifice] was executed above [the red line] and none of it was kosher/fit except the burnt-offering that is part of the obligatory offering alone and there remains upon her the sin-offering of the obligatory sacrifice and two burnt-offerings of the vow, but because she forgot which species [of birds] she established for her vow, she needs to bring two turtle doves and two pigeons and to execute/perform [the sprinkling of the blood] for all of them above [the red line] in order to fulfill her [sacrificial] obligation regarding her vow, and she also needs to bring a pigeon or a turtle dove for the sin-offering to complete her obligatory [sacrifice], hence five individual pigeons. And these words, when she brought from the outset her vow and her obligatory sacrifice, all of them were from one species [of birds]. But if she knew that at the outset that she brought her vow and her obligatory sacrifices from two kinds and she forgot from which species she established her vows, she needs to bring six individual pigeons, four [of them] to complete her vow, that is two turtle doves and two pigeons as we stated above, since she doesn’t know from which species she established her vow and she needs to fulfill her obligation of both of them, and the two turtle doves or the two pigeons to execute [the sprinkling of the blood] of one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering to complete her obligatory sacrifice. But here we don’t say that it is enough for her with one pigeon or turtle dove for a sin-offering alone and that the burnt-offering that she offered initially will fulfill for her for the sake of her obligatory sacrifice as was stated above, for it is all well when she brought it from one species, she doesn’t need to bring [more] for the burnt-offering of her obligatory sacrifice, whichever way you turn, if those turtle doves that she established for her vow will both be executed below [the red line], if so, [the blood] of her obligatory sacrifice [was sprinkled] above [the red line] completely and she fulfilled her obligation from the burnt-offering, but if [the sprinkling of the blood of] the her obligatory sacrifice was executed as a burnt-offering below [the red line] and the sin offering above [the red line], if so, her vow also was executed [through sprinkling of blood] one above [the red line] and one below [the red line] and she fulfilled her obligation of her vow through one [of the sprinklings] , and the two turtle doves that she brought now with one [of them] she fulfilled her obligation regarding her vow and with one [of them] she fulfilled her obligation regarding the burnt-offering of her obligatory sacrifice. But if her obligatory sacrifice was performed completely [through sprinkling of the blood of the birds] below [the red line] then her sin-offering is kosher/fit, and her bunt-offering is invalid, the two turtle doves that she brought now – with one of them she completed her obligatory sacrifice and with of them it was a freewill offering, but the sin-offering that she brings now, is brought in doubtful [fulfillment] and she cannot consume it. But if the first ones were doves, she should bring now for her sin-offering a pigeon, but the burnt-offering is not necessary, whichever way you turn as we stated regarding the turtle doves. But when she brought two kinds of couples of bird sacrifices and she forgot which species she established for her vow and which species she established for her obligatory [sacrifice], and she also forgot what she stated explicitly and the Kohen executed each and every species [of bird] one [whose blood was sprinkled] above [the red line] and the other below [the red line] for he would hold that both of them are unspecified obligatory [sacrifices], she will bring four for her vow – two turtle doves and two doves, because she does not know which species she established for her vow, and also two species [that she needs for the sin-offering for her pair for the burnt-offering of her obligatory sacrifice], because she doesn’t know from which species it was, and we require a turtle dove corresponding to a turtle dove and a dove corresponding to a dove.

Rabbi Shimon ben Akashiah says: ignorant old people, the older they become, the more their intellect gets befuddled, as it is said: "He removes the speech of men of trust and takes away the sense of the elders." But when it comes to aged scholars, it is not so. On the contrary, the older they get, the more their mind becomes composed, as it is said: "With aged men comes wisdom, and understanding in length of days." As is typical, the tractate ends with an aggadic statement a statement whose intent is moral or spiritual and less legal. It is possible that this aggadah was chosen because this mishnah concludes Seder Kodashim, and Seder Kodashim is called in the Talmud "wisdom." It is interesting to note that the idea that scholars retain their mental faculties longer than those who do not engage their minds has been borne out by modern medical science (at least from what I read). Elderly people who engage in intellectual pursuits whatever they may be, or play brainy types of games, can, to a certain extent, delay the decline in their mental faculties. In other words: use it or lose it. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Kinim and Seder Kodashim! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. As I said in the intro game, set and match to all of you who stuck with Mishnah Yomit as we made our long way through Seder Kodashim. I may be wrong, but I'm certainly not far off, when I say that rare has been the occasion when this type of material has been studied for such an extended period of time by an audience such as that which participates in Mishnah Yomit. To me United Synagogue and the Conservative movement made an important statement by studying this material: the entire Torah is worthy of learning, and not just those sections that seem immediately relevant to our personal lives. We began our odyssey into Mishnah Yomit with Seder Nezikin because I thought that would be the most concrete, most down to earth of the Sedarim (pl. of seders). We moved onto Nashim and Moed, both of which were frequently relevant to modern day issues. Zeraim already began to be a little more esoteric, and Kodashim, in my opinion, is far more removed from any of our experience. Nevertheless, there were fascinating mishnayot throughout, rules, descriptions, etc. And most importantly, we all continued to learn. If you've been with us since the beginning, you've now finished 5/6 of the Mishnah. Completion (at least the first round, because Torah study is never really completed) is closer than ever! The road that lies ahead of us is not easy. Seder Toharot is next, beginning with thirty (!) chapters of Tractate Kelim. But if you've made it this far, there is no doubt in my mind that you will continue to study with us. One step-one mishnah at a time. Again, Yasher Koah on finishing Tractate Kinim and Seder Kodashim. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Kelim and Seder Toharot.

נתנתם לכהן ואין ידוע כו' – as for example – that she established her vow and established her obligatory [sacrifice] and brought to the Kohen a couple of sacrificial birds for her vow and a couple of sacrificial birds for her obligatory [sacrifice] and she does not know from which species she established for her vow and from which species she established for her obligatory [sacrifice], or if she gave to the Kohen two species or one species and the Kohen [himself] does not know if he executed every [sprinkling of blood] above [the red line] or every [sprinkling of blood] below [the red line] or half [of them] above [the red line] and half [of them] below [the red line], behold this one brings four individual birds for her vow – two turtle doves and two pigeons, and she also brings two for her obligatory [sacrifice] – one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering from whichever of the two species that she wants, and she brings a sin-offering.

אמר רבי יהושע זהו שאמרו כו' – just as when the sheep is alive, only one voice comes forth from it, but when it is dead that it would be appropriate that its voice would stop, there comes out from it seven voices as it explains further on, here also, when she initially made her vow prior to bringing anything, she did not need anything other than one couple of sacrificial birds for her vow and one couple of sacrificial birds for her obligatory [sacrifice], but after she had established her vow and brought her vow and her obligatory [sacrifice], because she doesn’t know what she established and the Kohen does not know what he offered up as a sacrifice , she needs to bring four individual birds for her vow and four for her obligatory [sacrifice] as we stated.

קרניו לחצוצרות – for Shofarot, that we call the Shofar (before the destruction of the Temple) is now called a trumpet (see Talmud Sukkah 34a).

אף צמרו – to make from it Tekhelet (i.e., the purple-blue thread used for the show-fringes on the prayer shawl). They make from its wool a coat that is entirely Tekhelet and on the skirts of the garment are bells that produces a sound/voice. The first Tanna/teacher does not consider it because the Tekhelet does not produce a sound but rather the bells that are on the skirts of the garment around it.

רבי שמעון בן עקשיא אומר – even all of this is similar to this matter, for just as when it (i.e., the animal) is dead, its voice is seven, so also the Sages of Torah, when they age and come to feebleness/weakness in [physical] strength, they add wisdom [through their teaching].

שנאמר מסיר שפה לנאמנים – but Scripture is speaking about the common, uneducated person, for further on from this it is written (Job 12:24): “He deranges the leaders of the [uneducated/common] people, [And makes them wander in a trackless waste].”

בישישים חכמה – that is the Sages, but for the uneducated/common people, what is wisdom for them?