Zevachim 68a — the Talmud in English

She must bring five more birds,

three birds of the same species that she had already brought, and two birds of the other species, and the priest must offer all five birds

above,

as an olah.

The reason for the matter is that the woman’s vow was composed of four elements.

a. To bring a nest for an olah in addition to the woman after childbirth’s nest.

b. That this offering should be a large offering of three olot together.

c. To bring the additional nest for an olah from the same species from which she would bring the offering of the woman after childbirth.

d. To bring both nests from a particular species.

This woman had specified from which species she would bring the offering required of a woman who had given birth and the additional burnt offering, but she forgot what she had specified. She brought two nests to the priest, and the priest made two birds into burnt offerings and two birds into sin offerings. It is therefore clear that she did not fully fulfill her vow. For:

a. It is possible that her vow was to bring from the other species.

b. She brought only an offering consisting of two burnt offerings together, since the third bird was disqualified because the priest made it a sin offering below on the altar.

And in order to fulfill her vow now, she has two possibilities. a. In the event that the two nests she brought are indeed the species that she vowed [to bring], her vow can now be fulfilled in its entirety, for she can now bring three olot from the same species from which she brought her obligatory olah. It follows that she will fulfill her vow to bring a large offering of three olot from the same species from which she brought the offering of the woman after childbirth. And if this is indeed what happened—that the two nests she already brought were from the species that she vowed [to bring]—she has thereby completed the entire fulfillment of her vow.

b. But in the event that the two nests she brought were not of the species that she vowed [to bring], and it turns out that she fulfilled her obligation with a species different from the one about which she vowed, she can no longer fulfill that part of her vow—to bring a large offering of three olot from the same species as the offering of the woman after childbirth—for she established in her vow from which species she would bring both her obligation and her vow, and she did not abide by this, since she brought her obligatory offering from a species different from the one about which she vowed.

Therefore, she shall now bring two birds of the second type [not of the species of the olot that she brought!] and thereby fulfill, at least, that part of her vow—to bring an additional nest for an olah from the same type that she vowed to bring.

And these are the five birds that she is required to bring: three birds of the same species that she brought initially, in case she is fortunate and fulfills her vow in its entirety, and two birds of the other species, in case she violated her vow and fulfilled her obligation with a species different from the one about which she vowed, and at least fulfills her vow with the additional nest, from the species that she vowed to bring.

This applies when the two nests that she brought initially were

of one species,

in which case she brings from that species three more olot, and from the other species two olot.

But if those two nests that she brought were

of two species,

then it is again unknown from which species she brought the obligatory olah of the woman after childbirth. Therefore,

she shall bring six

olot: three turtledoves and three young pigeons, and thereby, whichever way one considers it, she will fulfill [her obligation] by bringing three olot from the same species that she brought to fulfill the obligation of the woman after childbirth.

And if

she gave them

the two nests that she brought initially

to the priest, and she does not know what she gave him,

whether she gave two nests of turtledoves or two nests of young pigeons, or one nest of this and one nest of that.

In addition to the lack of knowledge of which species the nests were, there is an additional lack of knowledge because

the priest went and performed

the two nests,

and he does not know

—the priest—

what he did,

for it is possible that he offered all of them as olot above, and it is possible that he offered all of them as hatat offerings below, and it is possible that he offered some of them as olot and some of them as hatat offerings, and it is even possible that he invalidated all of them. In light of this, the doubts that arose are:

a. It is possible that the woman did not fulfill her obligation at all as a woman who had given birth, since perhaps the priest disqualified all the offerings by performing the procedure for them as offerings of a different type.

b. It is possible that she fulfilled the obligation of the hatat offering but not the obligation of the olah.

c. It is possible that she fulfilled the obligation of the olah but not the obligation of the hatat offering.

d. It is possible that she did not fulfill her vow, because the olah offerings were invalidated, but she fulfilled her obligatory offerings.

And the tannaim disagreed in tractate Kinnim concerning the law of a woman who brought her obligation as two birds of two different types. For example, she brought a turtledove for an olah and a young pigeon for a hatat offering [and did not fulfill her obligation, because she is required to bring both birds from the same species]: is she now required to bring a turtledove for a hatat offering, because “everything follows the offering that she brought first,” which determines the type of the second offering, so that it too will be like it; or is she required to bring a young pigeon for an olah, because “everything follows the hatat offering,” as the hatat offering is what requires bringing the olah from its species?

Therefore, according to the Rabbis, who hold that “everything follows the hatat offering,” and not the first one, it is sufficient that she

needs

to bring

four birds,

two turtledoves and two young pigeons,

for her vow.

For she does not know what she specified, and perhaps she did not fulfill her vow at all.

and two for her obligation,

for she needs to bring the obligatory olah from the species of the hatat offering, and perhaps only the hatat offering was offered and not the olah, and it is unknown whether the hatat offering was offered from the turtledoves or from the young pigeons. It follows that, in order to remove the doubt, she must bring one turtledove and one young pigeon, with which to complete, due to the doubt, the obligation of the olah offering, which she is obligated in as a woman after childbirth, and that it should be from the species of the hatat offering that she brought [and thereby she fulfills her vow to bring a large offering of three olot together]!]

And likewise, she must also bring

one hatat offering,

because perhaps she did not fulfill the obligation of bringing the hatat offering at all.

And this hatat offering will join, whichever way one considers it:

In the event that she has not yet fulfilled the obligation of the olah, it will join one of the two olot that she now brought.

And if she has fulfilled her obligation to bring a burnt offering—because the priest had already offered a burnt offering from the same species as the sin offering—it will be joined to that previously offered burnt offering, through which she fulfilled her obligation.

And as stated, according to the Rabbis everything follows the hatat offering. Therefore, she may now bring the hatat offering from whichever species she wishes.

Ben Azzai says:

she is required to bring

two hatat offerings.

Ben Azzai holds that “everything follows the first offering.” Perhaps the priest had already offered her obligatory burnt offering, but she does not know which species it was, and she is therefore required to bring a sin offering from the species of the burnt offering that was offered first. Therefore, she must bring one turtledove and one pigeon as sin offerings.

And those two hatat offerings are not eaten, because one of them is an animal carcass, and we do not know which one it is.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: This is what they said—

When it is alive, its voice is one, and when it is dead, its voice is seven.

This is what they said concerning a ram: when it is alive, it has only one voice, which it produces with its mouth, and when it is dead, its voice is seven. How is its voice seven? Its two horns are two trumpets; its two shanks are two flutes; its hide is for a drum; its intestines are for lyres; its innards are for harps.

And so too here: when she initially vowed and does not know what she specified, she needed only four birds for her vow and two for her obligation. And now that she has already brought four birds, she needs to bring eight more: four for her vow and four for her obligation.

This concludes the words of the Mishna.

And since Rabbi Yehoshua concludes, “This is what they said,” it follows that Rabbi Yehoshua is the tanna of the Mishna in Kinnim. And it was taught above [in the preceding Mishna] concerning an unspecified nest and a specified nest that only the unspecified nest is valid.

And it is difficult according to Rabbi Yehoshua: if we say that a bird olah that he made below in the manner of a hatat offering, for the sake of a hatat offering, is drawn along and becomes a bird hatat offering, the same law should apply to the specified nest, which was not specified for the sake of its owners, but rather this bird for a hatat offering and that one for an olah, which they purchased jointly. Let us say here too that when he made it below, it is drawn along and becomes a bird hatat offering. Why, then, did they invalidate it?

And we answer:

You may say that Rabbi Yehoshua said [this] to remove it from the status of misuse,

it is possible that everything Rabbi Yehoshua said—that the olah is drawn along and becomes a bird hatat offering—applies only with regard to the law mentioned in our Mishna: a bird olah that he made below in the manner of a hatat offering, for the sake of a hatat offering, is not subject to misuse. But

As for raising it up to fulfill an obligation, did he say [that]!?

Did he say that a burnt offering becomes a sin offering to the extent that the woman fulfills her obligation through the change that the priest mistakenly made in it? Who says that Rabbi Yehoshua holds this way?!

Mishna:

Our Mishna is a continuation of the previous Mishna, where we learned that bird offerings, even though they were disqualified as offerings, do not impart impurity in the throat, since their melika immediately purifies them from the impurity of a carcass. Our Mishna adds and teaches that there are different types of disqualification in melika. Some of them remove [the bird] from the status of a carcass with regard to impurity, and likewise, if they went up onto the altar, they do not come down. And there are some with which the act of their melika is not considered melika, and they impart the impurity of a bird carcass in the throat, and likewise, if they went up onto the altar, they do not come down:

All those disqualified persons

who performed melika,

such as a non-/koen, an onen, one who immersed that day, and one lacking atonement [and likewise the other disqualified persons enumerated at the beginning of chapter 2]

their melika is disqualified,

for melika is only [valid] when performed by a fit koen.

And it does not impart impurity in the throat.

And since they became disqualified after they had been consecrated, their melika is effective in that, if they went up onto the altar, they do not come down, and their melika is likewise effective in removing them from the impurity of a carcass.

Our Mishna is divided into three types of disqualification.

A. Acts of melika that are not fit:

He performed melika with the left hand

The koen performed melika with the nail of his left hand; his melika is disqualified, for it is written concerning it, “the koen,” and everywhere that “finger” and priesthood are written, it is only the right [hand],

or at night

he performed melika at night, for the service is fit only during the day, as it is written, “on the day that He commanded,” or

he slaughtered non-sacred [birds] inside and consecrated [birds] outside,

he slaughtered a non-sacred bird in the Temple courtyard, where it is forbidden for consumption, or he slaughtered a consecrated bird outside the Temple courtyard, whereby it became disqualified.

All these birds

do not impart impurity in the throat,

even though the melika is disqualified; since they became disqualified in the Temple courtyard and, if they went up onto the altar, they do not come down, the melika is effective in purifying them from the status of a carcass.

B. Acts of melika that are not considered melika at all:

He performed melika with a knife

for this is not melika at all, since melika is only with the nail; and this is also not slaughter, for he cuts with the point of the knife and cuts the spine and the neck until he reaches the windpipe, and it is found that he “burrows in,” which is disqualified in slaughter, or

he performed melika on a non-sacred [bird] inside,

and melika is not applicable to non-sacred [birds] at all, but only to consecrated [birds],

and consecrated [birds] outside,

or he performed melika on consecrated [birds] outside, and melika is only for consecrated [birds] inside.