Zevachim 68a (סח.) — the Talmud in English

It is necessary for her to 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 shall offer all five birds

above,

as burnt-offerings.

The reason for this is that the woman's vow consisted of four elements:

a. To bring a nest for a burnt-offering in addition to the nest of a woman after childbirth.

b. That this offering should be a large offering consisting of three burnt-offerings together.

c. To bring the additional nest for a burnt-offering from the same species from which she would bring the offering of a woman after childbirth.

d. To bring both nests from a particular species.

Now, in the case of this woman, who specified from which species she would bring the offering of a woman after childbirth and the additional burnt-offering, but forgot what she had specified, and brought two nests to the priest, and the priest made two birds into burnt-offerings and two birds into sin-offerings, it is clear that she did not fully fulfill her vow. For:

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

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

In order to fulfill her vow now, she has two possibilities. a. If the two nests that she brought were indeed of the species specified in her vow, her vow can now be fulfilled in its entirety. For she can now bring three burnt-offerings from the same species as the burnt-offering of her obligatory offering, and it will emerge that she has fulfilled her vow to bring a large offering of three burnt-offerings from the same species from which she brought the offering of a woman after childbirth. And if this is indeed what happened, that the two nests she had already brought were of the species specified in her vow, she has thereby completed the entire fulfillment of her vow.

b. However, if the two nests she brought were not of the species specified in her vow, and it emerges that she fulfilled her obligation with a different species from that specified in her vow, she can no longer fulfill that part of her vow requiring her to bring a large offering of three burnt-offerings from the same species as the offering of a woman after childbirth. For she had designated in her vow the species from which she would bring both her obligatory offering and her vowed offering, and she did not do so, since she brought her obligatory offering from a species different from that specified in her vow.

Therefore, she shall now bring two birds of the second type [not of the species of the burnt-offerings she brought!] and thereby fulfill, at least, that part of her vow requiring her to bring an additional nest for a burnt-offering from the type she had vowed to bring.

And these are the five birds that she is obligated to bring: three birds of the same species as those she initially brought, in case she merits fully fulfilling her vow, and two birds of the other species, in case she violated her vow and fulfilled her obligation with a species different from that specified in her vow, so that at least she will fulfill her vowed obligation with the additional nest, from the species she had vowed to bring.

This applies when the two nests that she initially brought were

of one species,

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

However, if those two nests that she brought were

of two species,

then it is again unknown from which species she brought the burnt-offering of the woman after childbirth. Therefore,

she shall bring six

burnt-offerings: three turtledoves and three young pigeons. In this way, whatever the case, she will fulfill her obligation by bringing three burnt-offerings from the same species as that which she brought to fulfill her obligation as a woman after childbirth.

And if she

gave

the two nests that she initially brought

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

whether she gave two nests of turtledoves or two nests of young pigeons, or one nest of each type,

in addition to the uncertainty as to which species the nests were, there is an additional uncertainty, because

the priest proceeded and performed

the two nests,

and the priest does not know

what

he performed,

as it is possible that he offered all of them as burnt-offerings above, and it is possible that he offered all of them as sin-offerings below, and it is also possible that he offered some of them as burnt-offerings and some of them as sin-offerings; and it is even possible that he disqualified all of them. In light of this, the uncertainties that arose are:

a. It is possible that the woman did not fulfill her obligation as a woman after childbirth at all, since perhaps the priest disqualified all the offerings by performing them as a different offering.

b. It is possible that she fulfilled the obligation of the sin-offering but not that of the burnt-offering.

c. It is possible that she fulfilled the obligation of the burnt-offering but not that of the sin-offering.

d. It is possible that she did not fulfill her vow, because the burnt-offerings were disqualified, but she did fulfill her obligatory offerings.

The tannaim disagree in tractate Kinnim concerning the law in the case of a woman who brought her obligatory offering as two birds of two different species. For example, she brought a turtledove as a burnt-offering and a young pigeon as a sin-offering [and did not fulfill her obligation, because she is required to bring both birds from the same species]. Is she now obligated to bring a turtledove as a sin-offering, because “everything follows the first offering,” which determines the species of the second offering, so that it too must be like the first? Or is she obligated to bring a young pigeon as a burnt-offering, because “everything follows the sin-offering,” so that the sin-offering obligates her to bring the burnt-offering from its species?

Therefore, according to the Rabbis, who maintain that “everything follows the sin-offering,” and not the first offering, it is sufficient that she

needs

to bring

four birds

for her vow: two turtledoves and two young pigeons,

for her vow.

Since she does not know what she specified, perhaps she did not fulfill her vowed obligation at all.

And two for her obligatory offering,

as she must bring the obligatory burnt-offering from the species of the sin-offering; and perhaps only the sin-offering was offered and not the burnt-offering, and it is unknown whether the sin-offering offered was a turtledove or a young pigeon. It follows that, to resolve the uncertainty, she must bring one turtledove and one young pigeon, with which to fulfill as a matter of doubt the obligation of the burnt-offering that she owes as a woman after childbirth, and it must be from the species of the sin-offering that she brought [and thereby she fulfills her vow to bring a large offering of three burnt-offerings together!]

Likewise, she must also bring

one sin-offering,

because perhaps she did not fulfill the obligation to bring the sin-offering at all.

And this sin-offering will join one of them, whatever the case:

If she has not yet fulfilled the obligation of the burnt-offering, it will join one of the two burnt-offerings that she now brings.

And if she has fulfilled the obligation of the burnt-offering [because the priest had already offered a burnt-offering from the same species as the sin-offering], it will join the burnt-offering that had already been offered and with which she fulfilled her obligation.

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

Ben Azzai says:

she is obligated to bring

two sin-offerings.

This is because Ben Azzai maintains that “everything follows the first offering,” and perhaps the priest had already offered her obligatory burnt-offering, but she does not know which species it was, and she is therefore obligated to bring a sin-offering from the species of the burnt-offering that was offered first. Therefore, she shall bring one turtledove and one young pigeon as sin-offerings.

Those two sin-offerings may not be eaten, because one of them is a carcass, and we do not know which one it is.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: This is what they said—

When it is alive, it has one voice; and when it is dead, it has seven voices.

This is what they said concerning a ram: when it is alive, it has only one voice, which it produces with its mouth; when it is dead, it has seven voices. How does it have seven voices? Its two horns become two trumpets; its two thighs become two flutes; its hide becomes a drum; its intestines become harps; and its innermost intestines become lyres.

So too here: when she first made her vow and did not know what she had specified, she needed only four birds for her vow and two for her obligatory offering. Now that she has already brought four birds, she must bring eight more: four for her vow and four for her obligatory offering.

Thus far are 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 a nest that was unspecified and one that was designated, that only the unspecified nest is fit.

This is difficult according to Rabbi Yehoshua: If we say that a bird burnt-offering that one performed below in the manner of a sin-offering, for the sake of a sin-offering, is drawn along and becomes a bird sin-offering, the same should apply to the designated nest, which was not designated for particular owners, but rather one bird was designated as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering, and which they purchased jointly. Here too, when one performed it below, we should say that it is drawn along and becomes a bird sin-offering. Why, then, did they disqualify it?

And we answer:

Can you infer that Rabbi Yehoshua said this in order to remove it from the prohibition of misuse,

that perhaps everything Rabbi Yehoshua said—that the burnt-offering is drawn along and becomes a bird sin-offering—applies only with regard to the law mentioned in our Mishna: that a bird burnt-offering performed below in the manner of a sin-offering, for the sake of a sin-offering, is not subject to misuse. But

that it should count toward her obligation, did he say so!?

That an offering should become 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 would maintain this?!