meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Kinnim/English/merged.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Kinnim
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה קינים
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Kinnim
  
  Introduction
  
  Kinim is the plural of the word "ken" and it refers here to a pair of birds brought as a sacrifice (in Biblical and modern Hebrew, ken is a nest). There are several cases in the Torah where a person has to bring a pair of birds, either turtledoves or pigeons, one as an olah and one as a hatat. For instance, concerning the zav (man with abnormal genital discharge), Leviticus 15:14-15 states, "On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons….The priest shall offer them, the one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering." The zavah brings the same offerings (ibid 29-30). A woman also brings these offerings after childbirth (Leviticus 12:6-8), if she is not wealthy enough to bring a ram. A nazirite who was made impure brings them on the eighth day of his purity ritual (Numbers 6:10-11). There are other such cases as well (see Leviticus 5:1-10). A person can also voluntarily bring bird sacrifices (see Leviticus 1:14-17). In this case the bird is a sacrificed as an olah (burnt offering) and not a hatat.
  When a person brings a pair of birds as a sacrifice (a ken) the hatat must be sacrificed before the olah. Our mishnah deals with cases where birds get mixed up and it is not clear which was meant to be an olah and which was meant to be a hatat. There are several rules and definitions that will help with learning this mathematical masekhet.
  1) When a person brings a pair of birds as a ken, he can pre-determine which is an olah and which is a hatat. This is called a "determined ken" (sounds like a doll who wants his Barbie!) 2) If he doesn't determine which is which, the priest offering them can decide. This is called an "open ken." 3) If a person brings several open kinim together, the priest can mix them up and offer half as olot and half as hataot. 4) If she brings them each as an individual pair the priest cannot mix them all up, and in each pair he must offer one as a hatat and one as an olah.
  It seems that there is both a practical and a theoretical interest in our tractate. On the one hand, it is likely that in the Temple, with the many, many bird sacrifices that people must have brought, these sacrifices would have become mixed up one with the other. The mishnah uses the feminine throughout because women would have had to bring these kinim upon childbirth, which seems to be the most frequent occurrence. The tractate also has great theoretical interest because rabbis seem to enjoy trying to figure out the status of mixtures, be they mixtures of milk and meat, terumah and hullin or hatat and olah birds. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The first mishnah of our tractate deals with a few general rules regarding bird and other sacrifices.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  [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.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  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.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah explains the end of yesterday's mishnah.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  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.
  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.
  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).
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  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.
  [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.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  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).
  [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.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.