קן סתומה – that he did not specify that this one (i.e., bird) is for a sin-offering and that one is for a burnt-offering. And we don’t require that it had been decided upon, for it is obvious, that if one of them flew-off, he (i.e., the owner) would purchase another mate for the second [offering], for since they are separated one from the other (i.e., one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering), and each one has a designation/denomination upon it. But even a couple of sacrificial birds concerning which it has not yet been decided which is which and they stand together to be specified/defined, you might think I would say that if one flew off, the other would die, this comes to teach us that this is not the case.

לבין המתות – among couples of sacrificial birds that their judgment is that all of them would die, as for example, a sin-offering that got mixed in with a burnt-offering, as it is taught in the first chapter (Tractate Kinnin, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2).

לבין הקריבות – whether a couple of birds concerning which it has not been decided which is to be burnt offering, and which of them is the sin-offering that stand to be offered up.

פסול ופוסל אחד כנגדו – because it is not undetermined, and has been decided if it is for a sin-offering or for a burnt-offering, therefore, it does not invalidate other than the one that is its match in the pair, as will be explained further on.

פרח – one pigeon from this [pair of unassigned birds] to the other woman’s [pair of unassigned birds].

פוסל אחד בהליכתו – from the place that it separated itself. And it invalidates it itself or another from the place where it became mixed. For when one pigeon flew out from two couples of birds to two other couples of birds, there are three pigeons alone and five pigeons alone, but from three pigeons, one is not able to sacrifice only two, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering, for if he would make two of them burnt-offerings it is fund that the third that remains was fixed/established, and that one (i.e., pigeon) which flew away is for a sin-offering, and he is not able to offer any further from the five individual pigeons, other than the two sin-offerings, according to the law of sin-offerings that were mixed with an obligatory offering, as we stated in the first chapter (see Tractate Kinnim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2), that is not kosher/fit other than the number of sin-offerings that is part of the obligatory offering. Alternatively, one does not offer up [as a sacrifice] the third that remains, for we are concerned that perhaps that they will offer up the one that flew away with the five single pigeons and make it is a sin-offering, and his fellow that remains with three individual birds will also make it a sin-offering, and it is found that there will be two sin-offerings from one couple of sacrificial birds. And similarly, from the five individual pigeons he is not able to offer only two sin-offerings and two burnt-offerings, for if he made three sin-offerings or three burnt-offerings, perhaps he would make them from two couples of sacrificial birds of one woman, and there is no law of two couples of sacrificial birds other than with two sin-offerings and two burnt-offerings, and that is that is it invalid – it or another [bird] in the place where it was mixed, and it invalidates the other [bird] that is corresponding to it from the place that it flew off and was separated from there.

חזר פוסל אחד בחזרתו – it (i.e., the original bird who flew off) returned and one of the five individual pigeons flew off into [this group of three], that it was now found four individual pigeons from here and four individual pigeons from there. The one through its return invalidates from the place that it separated from and left from there, and it or another are invalid in the place where it mixed there, and the cannot offer up other than one sin-offering and one burnt offering from the four that are here, and one sin-offering and one burnt-offering from the other four. For perhaps, that individual pigeon that flew away second is from the same two couples of sacrificial birds and is not the one that became mixed in it initially, and there remained there three individual pigeons from the two couples of sacrificial birds and that one that flew away there first, and similarly in the second place. But if he made in one place two burnt-offerings and one sin-offering, that [bird] which flew away to the other side would be set for a a sin-offering offering and he would not be able to offer up there [anything] other than one sin-offering, for perhaps, all thee sin-offerings that were made from here and there will be from two couples of sacrificial birds of one woman, therefore, one makes in every place one burnt-offering and one sin-offering, or two burnt-offerings and one sin-offering on this side and one sin-offering on that side, or two sin-offerings and a burnt offering on this side, and on the second side one burnt-offering, but if they returned and mixed together, always, there won’t be for them less than two couples of sacrificial birds that are fit/kosher.

אחת לזו ושתים לזו כו' – one pigeon flew off from the [woman with the] first [pair] to the [woman who had] two pairs, immediately that individual [bird] that remained in the first [pair] was disqualified/made unfit, for if one would make of it a sin-offering, it would established that it (i.e., the bird) that flew off was for a burnt-offering, and one is not able to offer up [from] the second bird, and with other couples of birds that were mixed up with them, burnt-offerings are [offered up] from only half-of the, like the burnt-offering that was mixed up with an obligatory [sacrifice]. And similarly if it flew off from the second [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] to the third [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], perhaps it flew off from the body of the second, but that which flew off from the first [woman] remained there with the second, and one cannot make from the second only two individual pigeons, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering, for if he made two burnt offerings, perhaps he would make them from the pigeons of the body of the second [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], and if so, that [bird] which flew off from the third [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] would be fixed for a sin-offering and he would not be able to make with the third [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] only half of them as sin-offerings, but not more. And similarly, if it flew off from the third [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] to the fourth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], perhaps the one (i.e., bird) that flew off was from the body of [couples of sacrificial birds] of the third [woman] , and there did not remain with her other than five individual pigeons and one pigeon from the second [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] that was mixed up with the, and he (i.e., the Kohen) is not able to make with the third [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] anything other than two burnt offerings and two sin-offerings because it was mixed up with the fourth [woman’s complement of sacrificial birds]. And similarly, when it (i.e., the bird) flew off from the fourth [woman’s complement of sacrificial birds] to the fifth [woman’s complement of sacrificial birds], the fourth [woman’s complement of sacrificial birds] is not kosher, other than for three sin-offerings and three sin-offerings. And similarly, from the fifth [woman’s couples to the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], he (i.e., the Kohen) four sin-offerings and four burnt-offering. And similarly, from the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] to the seventh [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], it is not kosher/fit with the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] other than five sin-offerings and five burnt-offerings, for it if he (i.e., the Kohen) had made six burnt-offerings, it that [bird] which flew off would be established for sin-offerings in the seventh [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] but he would not be able to make with the seventh [couples of sacrificial birds] anything other than seven sin-offerings without any burnt-offerings. But when he (i.e., the Kohen) returns from the seventh [woman’s couples of sacrificial offerings] and one pigeon flew off from the sixth, perhaps it was not the same [bird] that flew off at the beginning from the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds], but rather from the body of the seventh that it flew off, and it invalidated in the seventh [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] two pigeons , and it is not kosher other than six sin-offerings and six sin-offerings, for he (i.e., the Kohen) had made seven sin-offerings, that [pigeon] that flew off would be fixed [and with others] for a burnt-offering, and he would not be able to offer only burnt-offerings form half of the pigeons, for the other half would be invalid according to the law of a burnt-offering that was mixed up with an obligatory sacrifice. And similarly, when it (i.e., the pigeon) flew off from the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] to the fifth, it was disqualified in its return another couple of sacrificial birds and it is not kosher/fit with the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] other than four sin-offerings and four burnt-offerings, for perhaps from the sixth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] flew off one from the seventh [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] and one from the fifth [woman’s couples of sacrificial birds] in [its] return, and there does not remain for her other than ten individual pigeons from her couples, but if he (i.e., the Kohen) made five sin-offerings and five burnt-offerings, perhaps the two individual pigeons that flew off from her would be offered both as burnt-offerings, and if so, they would make seven burnt-offerings with complements of bird offerings, or if both of them would be made as sin-offerings, it would not be able to make with six couples of bird-offerings six burnt-offerings and six sin-offerings. And similarly, from the fifth [woman’s couples of bird offerings] to the fourth [woman’s couples of bird offerings], and from the fourth [woman’s couples of bird offerings] to the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings]. And from the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings] to the second [woman’s couples of bird offerings], for there isn’t in the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings] other than two individual pigeons, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt offering. But if you say, but why did the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings lose two [pigeons], for from those [birds] which flew away in the second [woman’s couples of bird offerings] with [their] return, they are not offered up [as sacrifices], for it is taught that the second [woman’s couples of bird offerings] has none, for we should have said that the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings] had two couples of bird offerings but in the second, there aren’t any, or in the second there is one couple of bird-offerings but in the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings] there is one set? But it is possible to say that since in the other [women’s couples] of bird offerings, from the fourth [woman’s couples] onward, two sets of bird-offerings were disqualified, one while going and one returning, we make this decree similarly with the third [woman’s couples of bird offerings]. But with the seventh [woman’s couples of bird offerings], only one couple of bird offerings is invalidated, for only one pigeon went from it in the return, whereas while going, nothing was invalidated and there is nothing missing from it.

פרח וחזר – this does not refer to the first or second [woman’s couples of bird-offerings, for since they don’t have anything but those [birds] left to die, if one of them flew off from the rest of the couples of bird-offerings, all of them would be left to die, as it is taught shortly in the Mishnah, and if one of those left to die flew off to all of them (i.e., the couples of bird-offerings), all of them would be left to die. But rather, it refers to the [bird] from the third [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] who flew off from it to the fourth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings], or from the fourth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] to the fifth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings], or from the fifth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] to the sixth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] or from the sixth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] to the seventh [woman’s couples of bird-offerings,” and returned from the seventh [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] to the sixth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings until the third [woman’s couples of bird-offerings], for from the seventh [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] is missing two individual pigeons, one through the first return and the other with the second return, and there isn’t fit/kosher in the seventh [woman’s couples of bird-sacrifices other than five individual pigeons for burnt-offerings and five individual pigeons for sin-offerings, for if he (i.e., the Kohen) would make six burnt-offerings, perhaps the two [birds] that left from it would be offered up as burnt-offerings, which are eight burnt-offerings, but in the seven couples of bird-offerings, there aren’t only burnt-offerings. And from the sixth [woman’s couple of bird-offerings] there is missing four individual pigeons, two through flying away and the first [one] returning, and two [pigeons] from the second [woman’s couples of bird-offerings], but there remained two kosher couples of bird-offerings, for if he (i.e., the Kohen) made three burnt-offerings, perhaps the four [birds] that left it will be burnt-offerings, hence seven burnt-offerings, but there aren’t in six couples of bird-offerings anything other than six burnt-offerings. And similarly, in the fifth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings], there is nothing kosher/fit there other than one [bird] for a burnt-offering and one [bird] for a sin-offering. And similarly, it is difficult here, since with the fourth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] she has nothing, he (i.e., the Kohen) would be able to offer from the fifth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] three burnt-offerings and three sin-offerings, for those that left from fourth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] are not offered up, and according to this, that the fifth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] has none other than one that he would be able to offer up, he would be able to offer up with the fourth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] two burnt-offerings and two sin-offerings. But rather, we decreed that with each flying off [of a bird] and each return [of a bird], two couples of bird-offerings [a decree for this one – couple of bird-offerings – is for the sake of/on account of that one – couple of bird-offerings] are affected. And similarly, when it (i.e., the bird) flew off and returned a third time, they have nothing except for the seventh [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] that she has four [pairs of birds], similarly we decree with each flying off and return [of a bird] two couples of bird-offerings [are affected].

ויש אומרים השביעית לא הפסידה כלום – an explanation, with flying off and retuning a third time, but rather, always, one will offer up from it five couples of bird-offerings. For three individual pigeons flew off from it at the most, and there remained with it only eleven individual pigeons, he (i.e., the Kohen) will make from them five sin-offerings and five burnt-offerings, since even the sixth [woman’s couples of bird-offerings] has nothing. But here we don’t make the decree through this flying off like with the other couples of bird-offerings, sine it does not lose with flying off at any time, they didn’t make a decree regarding the return [of the birds to the nest]. But the Halakha is not according to the opinion of there are those who say.

קן סתומה – he did not explain which was [designated/specified] for a sin-offering and which was [designated/specified] for a burnt-offering.

וקן מפורשת – that it is known that this one was [designated/specified] for a sin-offering and that one was [designated] for a burnt-offering. But here, we are speaking when the two pigeons were combined together after they were designated/specified, and now it is not known which is for a sin-offering and which is for a burnt offering, and this is shown in the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] that teaches: “or [if] at first one which had been designated flew off to the first undesignated pair, all of them are left to die, but if the individual pigeons that had been designated/specified did not became mixed with each other, why should they be [all] left to die, but if the burnt-offering flew off, the remaining [bird] for the sin-offering should be offered up, and similarly, the unspecified/undesignated couple of sacrificial birds , should be offered up as one burnt-offering because of the burnt-offering that became mixed up with it. But we are speaking of when individual pigeons that were designated became mixed up one with another, but if one individual pigeon from the pair of sacrificial birds had not been designated/specified had been combined with that which was designated, he (i.e., the Kohen) should take one pair for second [bird] and designate one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering, and the third that had been combined/mixed up together, all of them should be left to die. If one from the three that had been mixed up/combined returned and became combined with the individual [bird] remaining from the undesignated/specified group, or at the outset of flying off, combined one from the designated [pair] to that which was not designated/specified, which is the first as we stat, meaning to say, that at the outset of flying off, one went and combined with an undesignated pair, all of them should be left to die, for since the individual pigeons which had been designated had combined together, they are no longer offered up, and when one of them flee off in another place, that is, one from the ones left to die that flew off among those that were to be offered up, all of them should be left to die.

חטאת מכאן – an individual pigeon that was designated/specified for a sin-offering to one side, and an individual pigeon that was designated/specified for a burnt-offering to the second side, and two individual pigeons of an undesignated/unspecified nature (i.e., either for a sin-offering or for a burnt-offering) in the center.

פרח מן האמצע – one individual pigeon to the right and one individual pigeon to the left.

לא הפסיד כלום – that the one that is combined with the sin-offerings will be made for a sin-offering, and the one that is with the burnt-offerings will be made a burnt-offering, but not for a sin-offering, for perhaps he (i.e., the Kohen) will make it from the designated/specified [ones] for a burnt-offering.

חזר לאמצע – they (i.e., the pigeons) returned from the sides, one from here and the other from there and combined together, they are left to die, for they are a [designated] sin-offering and a [designated] burnt-offering that were combined/mixed together. But those which remained, each one alone, each are offered according to their respective law.

חזר מן האמצעיים לצדדין – those [designated] for sin-offerings and/or burnt-offerings are combined/mixed, and all are left to die.

אין מביאים תורים כנגד בני יונה – but rather either both of them are turtle-doves or both of them are pigeons.

תכפול ותביא עולתה בן יונה – as according to the law for the sin-offering. For the sin-offering is the essence/main object, whether he (i.e., the Kohen) set it aside first or whether he set it aside at the end.

הולכין אחר הראשון – but she does not bring the second, but rather from the species that she set aside/designated first, whether it was a sin-offering first or whether it was a bunt-offering. And the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher (i.e., that both the sin-offering and burnt-offering shojld come from the same species).

לא יביאו היורשים חטאתה – for it is a sin-offering where its owners had died. But if it is not for this reason, we bring a sin-offering even though she offered a burnt-offering first. But even thought that in every case/place the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering, this is especially for the Mitzvah, but not to be indispensable/to invalidate an act by omission.