The Eri B. Sit edition and audio series of the Talmud Bavli, with the help of Heaven, has been sponsored by our good friend and student, Haimi Dana Hashem, in honor of Jimmy Hannan, for his graciousness in supplying the sefarim for more than seven years to everyone in our group. This surely amounted to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars over the years. With the help of Heaven, he did it beautifully and loyally, without a doubt. May he always be in a position to give. We are grateful. May the merit of all the learning stand for the sponsor, our good friend, in good health.
We are beginning Masechet Kinim. It differs from all the other tractates we have learned because it consists only of mishnayot. Some of the concepts in the first chapter have already been discussed in previous tractates.
The first Mishnah begins: “The sin-offering of a bird is brought below, and the sin-offering of an animal is brought above.” Remember that there are two different types of offerings: a sin-offering and a burnt-offering. There are also different types of sin-offerings. A sin-offering can be brought from an animal or from a bird, and the same is true of a burnt-offering.
If you remember, the side of the altar had a red line called the red cord. Some bloods were sprinkled above the line, and some bloods were sprinkled below it. You will see in the Mishnah that this is vital to the offering. If the blood is sprinkled in the wrong place, the offering is invalid. Blood that is supposed to be sprinkled above may not be sprinkled below, and blood that is supposed to be sprinkled below may not be sprinkled above.
The Mishnah first discusses the sin-offering of a bird. The Torah says that it is brought below the red cord. In the procedure for a bird offering, there are three stages: the pinching, the sprinkling of the blood from the bird itself, and the pressing of the bird against the wall of the altar so that the remaining blood is extracted. In the case of the bird sin-offering, this is done below the red cord.
A way to remember this is through the letter tet in the words for sin-offering and below: sin-offering below. The law is derived from the verse that says the blood should drain into the base of the altar. Therefore, the blood must be sprinkled in a place from which it can drain into the base, which is in the lower half of the altar.
If the blood were sprinkled above the red cord, it would not reach the base. As you may recall, the altar had a ledge extending around its upper section called the surrounding ledge. Blood sprinkled above the red cord would be caught by that ledge and would not reach the base. Since the Torah says that the blood must reach the base, we know that the bird sin-offering is brought below the red cord.
The sin-offering of an animal, however, is brought above the red cord. When the Mishnah says “above,” it means on the four corners of the altar.
The burnt-offering of a bird is also brought above. A way to remember this is that the words for burnt-offering and above share the letter ayin. In that case, the pinching is performed on top of the altar, and the blood is sprinkled there as well. The Torah compares the sprinkling of the blood of a burnt-offering to its burning on the pyre. Just as the burning is performed above, so too the blood is sprinkled above.
There is one difference between a bird burnt-offering and an animal burnt-offering. In the case of a bird burnt-offering, there is no separate extraction of the remaining blood. There is only the pinching, followed by the sprinkling. When the Torah says that its blood is found, the extraction itself is the sprinkling; there is only one process, and it is performed above.
An animal burnt-offering, on the other hand, is brought below the red cord, as stated in Zevachim.
The law is that if someone switched the procedures—if something that should have been done below was done above, or something that should have been done above was done below—the offering is invalid. This is the introduction we need for Masechet Kinim.
What is a group of birds? A group of birds designated for a particular offering is called a pair. Who brings such a group? A man or woman who has to bring a bird offering, such as one who is in the category of a man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, a woman after childbirth, or someone who became impure through contact with the Temple. It also applies to a person who is poor. Some offerings have different levels: a wealthy person brings one offering, a poor person brings another, and someone in extreme poverty brings a different offering. At the level of poverty, he or she brings birds.
There are also people whose regular obligation is to bring birds from the outset, such as one who is in the category of a man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, or a woman after childbirth. Usually, one bird is brought as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering. The group is already called a pair.
The first Mishnah states that the order of the bird offerings is as follows. In the case of those who are obligated to bring them—such as a man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, or a woman after childbirth—one bird is a sin-offering and one is a burnt-offering.
This also applies to voluntary offerings, although there is an important distinction. A person may voluntarily accept upon himself a vow to bring a group of birds, or he may make a donation to bring them. These are not obligatory offerings. The law is that a vow or donation involving these birds can produce only burnt-offerings; one cannot make a vow to bring a sin-offering. A sin-offering comes only for a sin, so a voluntary vow or donation in this context produces only burnt-offerings.
We have learned many times the difference between a vow and a donation. When a person says, “This is upon me,” he accepts responsibility for the offering. The Talmud describes this as though the obligation is on his shoulders. Even if the animal is lost or stolen, he must replace it. He has full responsibility to ensure that the offering is brought.
That is not the case with a donation. When he says, “This animal,” he identifies a particular animal. If that animal is lost or stolen, he does not have to replace it. Thus there is a difference between an expression that places the obligation upon him and an expression that designates a particular animal.
That is the first Mishnah. We now begin the cases involving birds. The first Mishnah provides the rule necessary to understand the law in the second Mishnah.
Suppose a bird sin-offering became mixed up with a bird burnt-offering. There are only two birds, but it is no longer known which is which. The same law applies in the reverse case, when a burnt-offering became mixed up with a sin-offering. Even if one sin-offering became mixed up with ten thousand burnt-offerings, or one burnt-offering became mixed up with ten thousand sin-offerings, all of them must die.
None of the birds can be brought, because we have already learned that a bird sin-offering is sprinkled below the red cord, while a bird burnt-offering is sprinkled above it. If the birds are mixed together, we do not know which blood must be sprinkled above and which must be sprinkled below.
Nor do we say that the minority is nullified by the majority. Living creatures are considered significant, and an item that is significant is not nullified by the majority. We also cannot redeem the birds and sell them in order to purchase new ones, because there is no redemption for birds. Therefore, redemption is not an option, nullification is not an option, and bringing the birds as they are is not an option, since one might perform the sprinkling in the wrong place. Consequently, all of them must die.
Now consider a bird sin-offering that became mixed up with obligatory pairs whose birds had not yet been designated. A pair is a group of birds. For example, a woman may designate two birds for her offering without specifying which one is the sin-offering and which one is the burnt-offering. They are simply undesignated birds. Those birds became mixed up with a bird that had already been designated as a sin-offering.
There are now three birds: the two undesignated birds and the designated sin-offering. What is the law? We have already learned that ordinarily, when a priest receives two undesignated birds from a woman, he may designate whichever one he wishes as the sin-offering. Once he designates one as the sin-offering, the other automatically becomes a burnt-offering.
For example, if a woman brings three pairs, consisting of six birds, and tells the priest to offer them, the priest may bring three as sin-offerings and three as burnt-offerings. He does not have to match each sin-offering with a particular burnt-offering. Since she brought three pairs, there are only three sin-offerings. If he were to bring four sin-offerings, he would be bringing an offering that was not appropriate.
In the case before us, a designated sin-offering became mixed with an undesignated pair. The law is that the number of sin-offerings that may be brought is equal to the number of sin-offerings contained in the obligatory, undesignated pairs.
In our case, there is one undesignated pair, so there is only one sin-offering that may be brought. If there were two undesignated pairs, two sin-offerings could be brought. If there were three, three could be brought. But one may not bring more than that.
Let us review the case with two undesignated pairs. There are five birds: four birds belonging to the two undesignated pairs, plus one bird known to be a sin-offering. How many sin-offerings may be brought? Two. We know that one of the birds is definitely a sin-offering, and bringing two sin-offerings cannot create a problem. Either the two sin-offerings are the two that came from the pairs, or one came from the pairs and one is the designated sin-offering.
One may not bring three sin-offerings. It is possible that the three birds selected all came from the two undesignated pairs, but two pairs contain only two sin-offerings. In that case, the third would be an offering that was not designated as a sin-offering. Although bringing three might work in one possible arrangement, it creates a problem in another possible arrangement. Therefore, we bring only two sin-offerings.
At this stage, no burnt-offerings may be brought. One might say that once a sin-offering is designated, the remaining bird becomes a burnt-offering, but that does not solve the problem. If we bring one of the mixed birds as a burnt-offering, it may actually be the designated sin-offering. Since its blood would then be sprinkled above instead of below, the offering would be invalid. Therefore, no burnt-offering may be brought from the mixture.
The same reasoning applies if a designated sin-offering became mixed with three obligatory pairs. There are seven birds in total. Three sin-offerings may be brought, because one can never go wrong by bringing three: either all three came from the six birds of the pairs, or two came from those pairs and one is the designated sin-offering.
Four sin-offerings may not be brought. The four could all have come from the six birds of the three pairs, which contain only three sin-offerings. The fourth might therefore be the bird that was designated as a burnt-offering. Nor may any burnt-offering be brought, because the designated sin-offering might be among the birds selected for that purpose. The remaining birds must die.
The same rule applies in the reverse case, when a designated bird burnt-offering becomes mixed with an undesignated obligatory pair. In that case, only the number of burnt-offerings contained in the undesignated pair may be brought. With one pair, that means one burnt-offering. Bringing one cannot create a problem, because it is either the designated burnt-offering or one of the birds from the undesignated pair.
Two burnt-offerings may not be brought. They might both be the birds from the undesignated pair, in which case one of them would be a sin-offering. Nor may any sin-offering be brought, because the designated burnt-offering might be selected as a sin-offering. This is the exact reverse of the previous case.
For example, if one designated burnt-offering became mixed with two undesignated pairs, there are five birds. Two burnt-offerings may be brought. They might both come from the two undesignated pairs, or one might come from the pairs and one might be the designated burnt-offering. But three burnt-offerings may not be brought, because all three might come from the undesignated pairs, which contain only two burnt-offerings.
The order in which the offerings are brought does not create a problem. The offerings may be brought in either order. In this case, we were discussing bringing the burnt-offering first, but the same principle applies if the sin-offering is brought first.
The Mishnah next discusses a case in which the obligatory offerings are numerous and the voluntary offerings are few, or the reverse, or in which the two numbers are equal. The Mishnah calls the bird burnt-offering a voluntary offering, because a bird burnt-offering is generally brought as a vow or donation. As we explained, a voluntary offering can be a burnt-offering, but not a sin-offering.
Suppose there are ten undesignated pairs, meaning twenty birds, and one designated burnt-offering. The rule remains the same: we follow the number of burnt-offerings contained in the undesignated pairs. Ten burnt-offerings may be brought. The fact that the voluntary offering is only one does not change the rule.
Conversely, suppose one undesignated pair became mixed with four designated burnt-offerings. How many burnt-offerings may be brought? Only one—the number of burnt-offerings in the undesignated pair. The rule always follows the obligatory, undesignated pairs when the mixture involves an obligatory pair and a voluntary offering.
If there are two undesignated pairs and four designated burnt-offerings, the numbers are equal. Even then, only two burnt-offerings may be brought. The ratio does not change the rule. Whenever designated birds become mixed with undesignated pairs, we bring the number of sin-offerings or burnt-offerings that are contained in the undesignated pairs. We do not bring more, even if the designated offerings are more numerous.
The next Mishnah clarifies when this rule applies. It applies when an obligatory pair became mixed with a voluntary offering. The voluntary offering is the bird that had already been designated, either as a sin-offering or as a burnt-offering, while the obligatory pair was still undesignated.
Until now, we discussed an undesignated obligatory pair that became mixed with a designated voluntary offering. Now the Mishnah discusses two undesignated obligatory pairs that became mixed with each other. For example, one pair belongs to Rachel and one pair belongs to Leah, or two pairs belong to Rachel and two pairs belong to Leah. The same applies if three pairs belonging to one woman became mixed with three pairs belonging to another woman.
In such a mixture, half of the birds are suitable as burnt-offerings and half are suitable as sin-offerings, because each pair is divided into one sin-offering and one burnt-offering. The law is that half of the birds may be brought and half are disqualified.
Let us begin with the simple case of two pairs: one pair belonging to Rachel and one belonging to Leah. There are four birds in total. The priest may bring one sin-offering and one burnt-offering. He cannot go wrong by bringing one of each. Either both birds belong to Rachel, in which case he has brought the correct offerings for her, or both belong to Leah, in which case he has brought the correct offerings for her, or one belongs to Rachel and one belongs to Leah, in which case he has also brought one appropriate offering for each.
He may not bring two sin-offerings or two burnt-offerings. The two birds selected might both belong to Rachel, and she is obligated to bring only one sin-offering and one burnt-offering. The same would be true if they both belonged to Leah.
Now consider three pairs belonging to Rachel mixed with three pairs belonging to Leah. There are twelve birds altogether. The priest may bring three sin-offerings and three burnt-offerings. This cannot create a problem. The six birds might all belong to Rachel, in which case three sin-offerings and three burnt-offerings are correct. They might all belong to Leah, with the same result. Or the three burnt-offerings might belong to Rachel and the three sin-offerings might belong to Leah, which is also acceptable.
Four sin-offerings may not be brought, because the four might all come from the six birds belonging to one woman, who is obligated to bring only three sin-offerings. The same reasoning applies to the burnt-offerings. Although it might be possible that four burnt-offerings would be correct, there is also a possible arrangement in which only three would be appropriate. Therefore, only three of each may be brought.
The Mishnah then gives the case of one pair belonging to Rachel becoming mixed with two pairs belonging to Leah, or with three pairs, ten pairs, or even one hundred pairs. The same principle applies if Rachel has one pair, Leah has two, Bilhah has three, and Zilpah has four, and so on.
The law is that the smallest number governs. In this example, Rachel brought only one pair, so the priest brings one sin-offering and one burnt-offering. By bringing one of each, he can never go wrong. Once he brings more than that, he may be bringing more offerings than Rachel was obligated to bring. For example, an additional sin-offering might be one of Rachel’s two birds, even though Rachel is obligated to bring only one sin-offering.
Thus, one always follows the person who brought the smallest number of pairs. The priest brings one sin-offering and one burnt-offering, corresponding to the smallest group. The same rule applies whether the larger group contains two pairs, three pairs, ten pairs, or one hundred pairs. It does not matter how much larger it is, because bringing more than the minimum could result in bringing too many offerings from the smallest group.
The next Mishnah discusses whether the pairs were brought for the same purpose or for different purposes. For example, both women may have brought their pairs because of childbirth, or both may have brought them because of a discharge. That is considered one category. Alternatively, one pair may have been brought for childbirth and another for a discharge. Those are two different categories.
The law also applies whether the pairs came from one woman or from two women. The final Mishnah develops these cases.
In the ordinary case, the priest has discretion with undesignated birds. One bird may be designated as a burnt-offering and the other automatically becomes a sin-offering. The priest can determine the designations in accordance with the rules of the case.
Let us first discuss one woman who brings four birds—two pairs—for two childbirth offerings. She has not separated one pair for each childbirth offering. The law is that the priest may bring only one sin-offering and one burnt-offering. He may not bring two sin-offerings or two burnt-offerings, because both of the offerings he selected might have come from the same pair, and one pair contains only one sin-offering and one burnt-offering.
He is safe when he brings one of each. Either he has selected the correct pair, or one bird comes from one pair and one comes from the other. In either case, one sin-offering and one burnt-offering can be brought.
Once one bird in a pair is designated, the other bird in that pair automatically assumes the opposite designation. Therefore, one must also be careful not to select a bird that was designated as a burnt-offering and bring it as a sin-offering, or vice versa.
There is a side point mentioned by the authorities. If the woman came to the priest with four birds and said, “Do whatever you want,” without designating one pair for each childbirth offering, then the priest could bring two sin-offerings or two burnt-offerings. In that case, he is establishing the designation himself. The pairs had not yet been defined as separate pairs for two specific offerings.
Now consider two different categories, such as childbirth and a discharge. A woman may designate one pair for childbirth and another pair for a discharge. She may have two pairs for childbirth and three pairs for discharges; the numbers do not matter. The pairs become mixed together.
Again, we follow the smaller number. If there are two pairs for childbirth and a larger number of pairs for discharges, the priest brings two sin-offerings and two burnt-offerings. He cannot go wrong by doing so. It is possible that he selected the correct four birds for the childbirth offerings, and it is also possible that some came from the childbirth offerings and some from the offerings for a discharge.
He may not bring a third sin-offering. It might come from the four birds designated for childbirth, and those four birds contain only two sin-offerings. The same applies to the burnt-offerings. Therefore, he follows the smaller group.
The same rule applies when two women are involved. One woman may bring pairs for childbirth and another may bring pairs for childbirth; alternatively, one woman may bring pairs for childbirth and the other may bring pairs for a discharge. Whether the offerings are from one category or from two categories, and whether they come from one woman or two, the priest follows the minimum number of pairs.
Even if one group contains one pair and the other contains ten thousand pairs, only one sin-offering and one burnt-offering may be brought. The fact that the second group is much larger does not matter. Bringing more than the minimum could create a mistake, because the additional offerings might all belong to the smaller group, which does not contain enough offerings of that type.
The Biyus add one final case. Two women combined their money and used it to purchase the birds together. They gave the money directly to the priest. They did not tell him which birds belonged to which woman, nor did they specify which offerings were to be brought for which obligation. They simply gave him the money and said, in effect, “We both need pairs; take care of it for us.”
In that case, the priest may designate the birds as he wishes. He may bring a sin-offering for one woman and a burnt-offering for the other, or designate them in the reverse manner. He may arrange the offerings according to whatever designation he chooses.
The reason is not that we retroactively determine that these were the birds each woman had originally selected. This does not depend on the principle of retroactive clarification. Rather, the women made the priest their agent. They gave him the money and left the entire matter to him. He purchased the birds and established the designations himself. Since they had not made any prior designation or stipulation, he may decide which birds to bring as sin-offerings and which as burnt-offerings for each woman.
That is the conclusion of the chapter.