חטאת העוף שעשאה למטה – from the red line according to the Halakha that it is performed below, as we have stated in [Mishnah 4] in our chapter above (i.e., Chapter 6).

כמעשה חטאת – with sprinkling/tossing [of the blood] and draining [of the blood].

ולשם חטאת – even though that he changed in the order/arrangement of the pinching of the head of the bird in such a manner that he pinched the bird’s neck with a finger nail and severed it, but with a sin-offering, it is stated (Leviticus 5:8): "לא יבדיל" / “[pinching its head at the nape] without severing it.”

כשרה – because it was done below [the red line] and in the rest of the acts of Divine service it was performed in accordance with the Halakha (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 6, Mishnah 2).

כמעשה חטאת לשם עולה וכו' פסולה – for a sin-offering not performed for its own sake is invalidated.

כמעשה כולם – that is to say, like the rites/actions of one of all of them that are mentioned here, and even according to the rite of the sin-offering for the sake of/for the name of the sin-offering, because it was performed above [the red line], it is invalid.

עולת העוף שעשאה למעלה – in accordance with the Halakha that it was performed above [the red line].

כמעשה עולה לשם עולה – even though he changed in the arrangement of the pinching of its head, that it would not be severed (see Leviticus 1:12: “The priest shall tear it open by its wings, לא יבדיל/without severing it, and turn it into smoke on the altar, upon the wood that is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, a gift, of pleasing odor to the LORD,” versus Leviticus 5:9 for the sin-offering: “He shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer first the one for the purification/sin-offering, pinching its head at the nape without severing it/ולא יבדיל), for according to the law, he should have severed it, even so, it is valid.

כמעשה עולה לשם חטאת כשרה – for all of the animal offerings that were offered up not for their own sake but rather that they did not go to the credit of its owns, except for the Passover offering and the sin-offering.

עשאה למטה כמעשה כולן – according to the rites of one of all of them, and even like the rite of the burnt-offering for the sake of/in the name of a burnt-offering.

פסולה – [it is invalid] because he prepared it below [the red line].

וכולן אינן מטמאות בבית הבליעה (and all of them – which are invalid – do not impart uncleanness to the esophagus/gullet) – even though they were invalidated, their pinching of the bird’s head purifies them from having ritual impurity imparted by an un-slaughtered carcass, and they don’t become ritually impure in the gullet/esophagus according to the law of the un-slaughtered carcass of a pure bird for a person who consumes it, even though he did not touch it, as for example, that his fellow inserted it in his esophagus, it becomes ritually defiled in a more serious manner to defile the clothing that is upon him, but these, even though that their pinching of the bird’s head does not permit them for eating because of the defilement that occurred to them, nevertheless, it purifies them and removes them from being an un-slaughtered carcass.

ומועלין בהן – he who derives a penny’s worth of benefit from them brings a sacrifice of sacrilege according to the law of all who derive benefit from that which is dedicated to the Temple. And even a sin-offering, because it was defiled and there was no time period of permissibility to the Kohanim, he did not depart from religious sacrilege.

חוץ מחטאת העוף שעשאה למטה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת – which is fit/valid and there is a period of permissibility for the Kohanim, and furthermore, there is no religious sacrilege involved even for a non-Kohen (literally: “a foreigner”).

ר' אליעזר אומר מועלים בה – for it is a burnt-offering, and who removed it from its religious sacrilege? For there wasn’t any permitted time for it.

רבי יהושע אומר אין מועלים בה – for since he changed its name and its action and its place for the sake/name of the sin-offering, it became a sin-offering.

ומה חטאת העוף שאין מועלים בה – when he slaughtered it for its sake/name, for it is consumed by the Kohanim.

שינה את שמה – it was disqualified and it does not come to be included in that which is permissible.

מועלים בה – for Rabbi Yehoshua himself did not dispute this.

לדבר שיש בו מעילה – for the sake/name of a burnt-offering.

ששחטן בדרום – for the name/sake of a peace-offering will prove it (see also Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1 - as this sacrifice is supposed to be offered in the north).

ששינה שמן ומעשיהן לדבר שאין בו מעילה – for the Lesser Holy Things do not have religious sacrilege other than with their portions of the offerings that are consumed on the altar.

ומועלים בהן – because they were disqualified with the change of their place and their sprinkling/tossing of the blood did not remove them from religious sacrilege.

איסור והיתר – the Lesser Holy Things there is religious sacrilege with the portions of their offerings that are consumed on the altar, but not with their flesh because of religious sacrilege.

בדבר שכולו היתר – with the sin-offering of birds which has no side of religious sacrilege. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

מלק בשמאל – that his pinching of the bird’s head is invalid. For every place where it states, “finger”/אצבע and “priesthood”/כהונה it is none other than the right [hand].

או בלילה – for there is pinching of the bird’s head at night, for the All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 7:38): “[with which the LORD charged Moses on Mount Sinai,] when He commanded [by day] (not included in the new Jewish Publication Society translation but found explicitly in the Hebrew ) /ביום צותו [that the Israelites present their offerings to the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai].”

אינן מטמאין – for since they are disqualified in Holy Things and even their pinching of the bird’s head that if they went up, but did not descend (see also, Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 9, Mishnah 2, that the pinching of the bird’s head purifies them).

שחט חולין בפנים וקדשים בחוץ אין מטמאין בבית הבליעה – and even though they are forbidden to be consumed.

מלק בסכין – it is not the [proper] pinching of the bird’s head (i.e., neck), and it is not [proper] ritual slaughter, for the pinching of the bird’s neck is with the fingernail by the Kohen himself.

מלק חולין בפנים – for the pinching of the bird’s head (i.e., neck) does not belong with unconsecrated [birds] but rather with [birds] that are sanctified inside [at the altar], and the person who pinches the bird’s neck with the fingernail for a profane purpose in any place, or Holy Things outside [the altar], it is as if he perforates (i.e., kills by stabbing) or mutilates it, and this pinching of the bird’s head does not remove it from being a carrion (i.e., an animal that has died a natural death, not slaughtered according to the ritual rules).

תורין שלא הגיעו זמנן – large turtle doves, which are kosher/fit, small ones are invalid. Pigeons – small ones are kosher/fit, large ones are invalid.

ושיבש גפה – that it is missing a limb, it is invalid, even with birds. For we hold that there is no unblemished condition or male sex with regard to birds, these words, as for example regarding a withered spot in the eye/cataract that their blemishes are not recognized, but that which is missing a limb, (Malachi 1:8): “Just offer it to your governor.”

מטמא בבית הבליעה – that their pinching of the head has no effect at all, for even if they went up, they descended.

כל שאין פסולן בקודש – that it became invalid before they came to the Temple courtyard. And everything where its becoming invalid did not happen in the Holy area, we state further on in the Chapter [Nine], “The altar sanctifies that which is appropriate to it”/"המזבח מקדש" (see Mishnah 5), “And what are those things which, if they have gone up, should go down.” But those things that were invalidated in the Holy Areas, as for example, the Holy Things that were appropriate but they were invalidated in their Divine Service, they don’t defile, for the pinching of the bird’s head was beneficial to them for if they went up, they would not come down (see Mishnah 2 of that chapter).

כל הפסולים – as for example, a “foreigner,” (i.e., non-Kohen), and someone prior to the burial of a kinsman, a person who immersed himself on that day and someone lacking atonement (i.e., a woman after childbirth, a person suffering a flux, a healed leper, etc.) – all of those that are taught at the beginning of chapter 2 [of Tractate Zevakhim].

ואינן מטמאות בבית הבליעה – for even though their pinching of the bird’s neck does not permit Holy Things to be eaten, nevertheless, it removes them from being considered an un-slaughtered animal carcass.

אינה מטמאה בבית הבליעה – that the pinching of the bird’s head purifies it from being considered an un-slaughtered animal carcass.

ר' יהודה אומר מטמאה בבית הבליעה – for Rabbi Yehuda holds that the ritual slaughtering of an unconsecrated bird does not have any effect nor the pinching of the bird’s neck which is a Holy Thing that is deemed torn in a bird to remove it from being considered an un-slaughtered animal carcass.

אינו דין שתהא שחיטה כו' – and since you derived that ritual slaughter purifies the bird with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months (i.e., an animal torn apart by a beast of prey or afflicted with a severe organic disease or congenital defect) with regard to an unconsecrated bird from an a fortiori inference, we derive the pinching of a bird’s head of Holy Things from it through an analogy based upon an induction (i.e., what do we find with regard to – with regard to similar cases…? Analogy based upon one verse or analogy based upon two verses), just as we found through proper slaughter, etc., even the pinching of a bird’s neck that makes it appropriate for eating, it will purify its being viewed as having a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months from its defilement.

רבי יוסי אומר דיה כו' – since we don’t find explicitly that ritual slaughter removes it from being a bird with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months, other than through an a fortiori inference from the condition that will cause an animal to die within twelve months (i.e., an animal torn apart by a beast of prey or afflicted with a severe organic disease or congenital defect), it comes to learn, it is sufficient that it will be like an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months whose ritual slaughter will purify it from being considered as torn apart or afflicted with a congenital defect or a severe organic disease and not through the pinching of its neck, that it is sufficient that the law which is derived by conclusion ad majus to be as strict as the law from which it is derived (i.e., you cannot go beyond the latter). And there are three arguments in the manner: Rabbi Meir holds that both ritual slaughter and pinching the neck of the bird remove it from being considered having a condition that will cause the animal to die within twelve months. But Rabbi Yehuda holds that whether one performs ritual slaughter or the pinching of the neck of the bird, it will not affect the fact of the animal having a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months to remove it from being considered an un-slaughtered carcass. But Rabbi Yossi holds that ritual slaughtering is effective; pinching of the bird’s neck is not effective. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.