פירוש על קינים 1:5

חטאת העוף נעשית למטה – from the red line [encircling the Temple altar at precisely half its height], as it is written (Leviticus 5:9): “He shall sprinkle some of the blood of the purification (i.e., sin-offering) on the side of the altar, and what remains of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar,” the wall that its remainder is poured out toward the bottom of the altar (see Talmud Zevakhim 64b), and this is the lower wall below the red line, for the upper wall, that is from the [red] line and above, sometimes, it is poured out to the surrounding ledge (which was five cubits above the altar’s base, six cubits from the ground; it was one cubit wide on all sides, surrounding the altar. The priests would walk on this ledge while performing certain sacrificial functions), such as that he performed it above the surrounding ledge, that the [red] line is a cubit below the surrounding ledge.

Introduction The first mishnah of our tractate deals with a few general rules regarding bird and other sacrifices.

וחטאת בהמה למעלה – as it is written (Leviticus 4:25, 30, 34): “[The priest shall take with his finger some of the blood of the purification offering and put it] on the horns of the altar [of burnt offering],” on the integral portion of the horn [of the altar].

A bird hatat is performed below [the red line], but a beast hatat is performed above [the red line]. A bird olah is performed above, but a beast olah below. If he changed this procedure with either, then the offering is disqualified. There was a red line that ran through the middle of the altar. The blood of the bird hatat was sprinkled below this line, whereas the beast hatat (cow, sheep or goat) is sprinkled above the altar, on the corners of the altar. The opposite is true of the olah the bird olah is done above and the beast olah is done below. These rules must be followed precisely and if they are not, the sacrifice is invalid.

עולת העוף למעלה – The burnt offering of the bird is above, as it is written (Leviticus 1:15): “[The priest shall bring it to the altar,] pinch off its head, and turn the whole into smoke on the altar; and its blood shall be drained [against the side of the altar],” just as the burning on the altar/letting rise in smoke is at the top of the altar, so the pinching and the wringing out [of the blood of the sacrifice] is at the top of the altar.

The seder [ordered ritual] in the case of kinnim is as follows: In the case of obligatory offerings, one [bird] is a hatat and one an olah. In the case of vows and freewill offerings, however, all are olot. As I explained in the introduction, when one brings a ken (a pair of birds) as a mandatory sacrifice, one bird is an olah and one is a hatat. However, if one voluntarily dedicates a ken, both birds are olot.

ושל בהמה למטה – as it is written concerning it (Leviticus 4:7): “[The priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of aromatic incense, which is in the Tent of Meeting, before the LORD,] and all the rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar/אל-יסוד המזבח of burnt offering.”

What constitutes a vow? When one says: "It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah." And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: "Behold, this shall be an olah." What is the [practical] difference between vows and freewill offerings? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement. The mishnah now explains the difference between a vow offering (a neder) and a freewill offering (a nedavah). A neder is when one promises to bring a certain type of offering, either an olah or a shelamim (wellbeing offering). For example if he promises to bring a bird olah, he must bring two birds as an olah. If he sets aside a bird and it is lost or stolen before it can be sacrificed, he must bring a replacement. The case of the nedavah is different. In this case, one points at an animal and promises to bring that animal as a sacrifice. For instance, he points at a sheep and promises to bring it. If the sheep is lost or dies, he is not responsible for its replacement because he was only responsible to bring that sheep as long as it was alive or available. Note that this last section is not connected specifically to our tractate which deals with bird sacrifices. Rather it is a general rule with regard to voluntary sacrifices.

ואם שינה בזה ובזה פסול – this that is invalid if he performed the act [of offering] the sin-offering of the bird above [the red line], specifically regarding the sprinkling. But the pinching of the bird’s head of a sin-offering, even above [the red line] is kosher/fit, for pinching of the bird’s head is kosher in every place of the altar. But the burnt-offering of birds does not have sprinkling of blood, but only the wringing/squeezing out the blood, and if he performed it below [the red line] it is invalid.

סדר קנים של חובה אחד חטאת ואחד עולה – as for example, in the case of a man suffering from gonorrhea/זב, a woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type blood on three consecutive days during a time of the month when she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding/זבה and a woman after childbirth vaginally/יולדת, and ritual impurity with regard to the Temple and its sacred articles/טומאת מקדש וקדשיו and hearing the sound of an imprecation/שמיעת קול אלה and an erroneous statement without legal consequences/ביטוי שפתים, for all of them bring a bird in poverty, but rather that the man suffering from gonorrhea and the woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type blood bring a bird, whether they are in poverty or in wealth, and even though there are bird-offerings of the convert which are obligations, and both of them are burnt-offerings, the Tanna/teacher was not troubled by them, because they are not all that frequent.

בנדרים ונדבות כולן עולות – because only burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are brought for vows and free-will offerings, but birds are not brought as peace-offerings, therefore, vows and free-will offerings are all burnt-offerings.

אפילו אחד ברבוא ימותו כולן – but it is not neutralized in a majority, for these are considered living creatures and are not neutralized.

Introduction Our mishnah begins to discuss different types of bird-offerings that get mixed up one with the other, and what can be done to best remedy the situation.

חטאת שנתערה בחובה – a dove or a pigeon of a sin-offering that was mixed up with two couples of sacrificial birds of an obligatory offering, that is couples of sacrificial birds for a woman giving birth or a woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type on three consecutive days during a time of the month when she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding/זבה for each couple of sacrificial birds - of them one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering, and it is now found that there are five pairs of pigeons that are mixed up together.

If a hatat becomes mixed up with an olah, or an olah with a hatat, were it even one in ten thousand, they all must be left to die. If a bird hatat and a bird olah become mixed up, they cannot be sacrificed because the blood of the hatat is sprinkled on the lower portion of the altar and the blood of the olah on the upper portion. And as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if he spills the blood in the wrong area, the sacrifice is disqualified. If these were animal sacrifices, they could be left until they become blemished and then redeemed. However, bird sacrifices cannot be redeemed (see Menahot 12:1). Therefore, there is nothing left to do but let the birds die.

אין כשר אלא מנין חטאת שבתוכה – and he is not able to bring from those five pairs of pigeons other than two sin-offerings alone, that is the kosher number in two couples of sacrificial birds of an obligation. For if he made three sins-offerings, perhaps from the two couples of sacrificial birds, he made it, and not from that which was mixed up/confused in them, and from the two couples of sacrificial birds, they are not able to make only two sin-offerings, and he cannot make even one burnt-offering and one sin-offering.

If a hatat becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of hatats among the obligatory offerings. The rest of the mishnah deals with a case where either a hatat bird (offered individually for a sin) or an olah bird (offered voluntarily) becomes mixed up with kinim, that is a pair or pairs of birds, one of which must be offered as a hatat and one as an olah. The cases here refer to undetermined kinim the owner did not determine which bird from each pair will be a hatat and which will be an olah. If one hatat bird is mixed up with one ken, he can offer one bird as a hatat, because of any two birds he takes, one can be a hatat, either the "other" hatat or the hatat of the ken. But he can't offer two as a hatat, lest both of the birds are from the ken, and one of those birds must be an olah. And he can't offer any of the birds as an olah, lest the bird he tries to offer is the hatat. The same is true if he has two kinim he can offer two hatats, for two birds have to be hataot.

וכן עולה – a pigeon or a dove that was separated for the sake of a burnt-offering.

Similarly, if an olah becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of olot among the obligatory offerings The same rule applies if the "other" bird is an olah. He can now offer as many olot as there are kinim.

שנתערבה בחובה – with two mere couples of sacrificial birds.

[This rule holds true] whether the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are in the majority and the freewill-offerings in the minority, or the freewill-offerings are in the majority and those that are obligatory in the minority, or whether they are both equal in number. The "voluntary" bird offerings referred to here are olot because most voluntary bird offerings were olot. The mishnah reiterates that the rule taught above holds true no matter whether there are many voluntary bird offerings and just a few mandatory ones, or vice versa or the same number. One can offer only as many olot the number of olot found in the mandatory offerings.

אין כשר אלא מנין עולות שבחובה – as is explained above concerning the sin-offering.

בן החובה מרובה ונדבה מועטת – as for example, one couple of sacrificial birds which is separated that were burnt-offerings, that was combined/confused with several unassigned couples of sacrificial birds that are burnt-offerings, that were mixed up/confused with several regular couples of sacrificial birds of women who gave birth or of a woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type on three consecutive days during a time of the month when she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding, that each couple of sacrificial birds, one of them is a sin-offering and one of them is a burnt-offering.

בין וכו' – as for example, one unassigned set of sacrificial birds that became mixed up with several sets of sacrificial birds for burnt-offerings, and we call these burnt-offerings that were set aside as a free-will offering, because with vows and free-will offerings, all of them are burnt-offerings as is taught in the Mishnah at the beginning of the chapter (Tractate Kinnim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1).

בחובה ובנדבה – that the couple of sacrificial birds of obligatory offering that some of them are sin-offerings and some of them were burnt-offerings were mixed up with the couple of sacrificial birds for free-will offering – all of which are burnt offerings.

When is this so? When obligatory offerings [get mixed up] with voluntary offerings. The rules taught in mishnah two refer to cases where obligatory offerings (kinim) become mixed up with olot or hataot whose status has been determined.

אבל בחובה שנתערבה זו בזו – from the couple of birds concerning which it not been decided if it for the woman who just experienced childbirth or for a woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type on three consecutive days during a time of the month in which she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding that became mixed up with a couple of sacrificial birds of a woman who experiences childbirth or that of another woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type on three consecutive days during a time of the month in which she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding.

When, however, obligatory offerings get mixed up one with another, with one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other pair to another [woman], or two [pairs] belonging to one and two [pairs] to another, or three [pairs] to one and three [pairs] to another, then half of these are valid and the other half disqualified. However, if obligatory offerings get mixed up and half of the total offerings belong to one person and half to another, then the priest can take half of the birds and offer half of them as hataot and the other half as olot. Let's take the simplest example, that of two kinim getting mixed up. If he offers one as a hatat and one as an olah, he is guaranteed to be correct. Because if one is from one ken and the other from one ken, then he has offered half of each ken. And if they are both from the same ken, then he has offered them properly. However, he can't offer two hataot or two olot, lest both birds belonged to the same woman and are part of the same ken. The same will hold true no matter how many kinim get mixed up, as long as the number brought by each person is the same.

מחצה כשר ומחצה פסול – and he (i.e., the priest) offers up only two from the four that are mixed up, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin-offering, and nothing additional. For if he (i.e., the priest) had made two burnt offerings, perhaps he would do them from one nest, and every couple of birds concerning which it has not yet been decided which is to be the burnt offering, and which is to be the sin-offering.

If one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and two pairs to another, or three pairs to another, or ten pairs to another or one hundred to another, only the lesser number remains valid. If the numbers are uneven, then the priest can only offer according to the lower number. For instance, if one woman brought one ken and another woman brought two, he can only offer one hatat and one olah. For if he were to offer more than one olah or hatat, he might have offered both birds brought by the first woman as an olah (or hatat) and only one can be of each type. This same rule will hold true no matter how large the inequity. Even if one woman brings 100 pairs and one brings one, only two birds, one a hatat and one an olah, can be offered.

המועט כשר – if one couple of birds concerning which it has not yet been decided which is to be the burnt offering, and which is to be the sin-offering that was mixed up with two or three other couples of birds, he (i.e., the priest) is not able to offer up other than one set of birds, a single pigeon for a sin-offering and a single pigeon for a burnt-offering. But he (i.e., the priest) cannot make two burnt-offerings, lest he take the couple of birds that has been first selected for a woman who gave birth, who cannot make from it other than one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. And similarly, if ten couples of birds were mixed with one-hundred, he (i.e., the priest) does not offer up from all of them other than ten sets of birds, some of them for sin-offerings and some of them for burnt-offerings and he rest of them are invalid, and that which is the smaller thing is kosher/fit.

Whether they are of the same denomination or of two denominations, or whether they belong to one woman or to two. Denomination refers to the reason why the woman had to bring a sacrifice. This shall be clarified in tomorrow's mishnah.

בין משם אחד – one birth and another birth, a woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type on three consecutive days during a time of the month in which she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding with another woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type on three consecutive days during a time of the month in which she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding.

בין משני שמות – a woman who has given birth with a woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type on three consecutive days during a time of the month in which she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding, whether from two women whether from one woman, as will be explained further on.

רבי יוסי אומר כו' – not because Rabbi Yossi holds that there is a retroactive designation, and we should say that when the Kohen offered up one set of birds for one single denomination/class of them, the matter became clarified retroactively that from the beginning at the time of the taking of the set of birds, this set of birds was hers, but rather, the Gemara (Tractate Eruvin 37a) in the chapter: “With any [food] do they prepare an Eruv” that Rabbi Yossi is speaking that they made a condition at the time of purchase that the Kohen is able to make a set of birds that he desires for the sake of whichever woman that he wants. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

Introduction Our mishnah is an explanation of the last line of yesterday's mishnah, which referred to different "names."

What is meant by one "name"? For a birth and a birth, or for zivah and zivah, that is one name. And "two names"? For a birth, [and the other] for a zivah. There are two main reasons why a woman would bring a ken either for a childbirth or after having an abnormal genital discharge, called "zivah." If she brings two kinnim, one for this birth and one for this birth, or one for this zivah and one for this zivah, then the priest can only offer one bird as an olah and one as a hatat, as we explained yesterday. The same is true even if the two kinnim she set aside were for different "names" one for a birth and one for zivah.

What is meant by "two women"? [When] one [woman] brings [her offering] for a birth and the other for a birth, or [when one brings] for a zivah and the other for a zivah this is "of one name". And a case "of two names"? When one brings for a birth and the other for a zivah. If multiple women set aside kinnim for either one "name" of for many "names," they can only sacrifice as many hataot and olot as the fewest number of kinim brought by one of the women, as we explained in yesterday's mishnah.

Rabbi Yose says: when two women purchased their kinnim in partnership, or gave the price of their kinnim to the priest [for him to purchase them], then the priest can offer whichever one he wants as a hatat or as an olah, whether they are of one name or of two names. The above section, as well as mishnayot 2-3 dealt with cases where women gave their kinnim to the priest and the birds got mixed up. Rabbi Yose notes that they can avoid this problem by either buying their birds together or by giving the money to buy the birds to the priest. In both of these cases, the priest buys or receives all of the necessary birds. He can then determine which will be a hatat and an olah for this woman and which will be a hatat and an olah for the other woman. He can even do this if they are brought for different reasons. If done this way, even if the birds get mixed up, there will not be a problem.