Come and hear. In the case of a sin-offering for one and a burnt-offering for the other, (1) if he [the priest] offered both above [the red line]. (2) half is fit and half is unfit; (3) [if he offered] both below, half is fit and half is unfit; (3) [if he offered] one above and one below, both are unfit, for I assume that he offered the sin-offering above and the burntoffering below. (4) Yet even granted that he did offer the burnt-offering below, let it be transmuted into a bird sin-offering? (5) Granted that R. Joshua ruled thus in the case of one man, did he rule so in the case of two men? (6) Come and hear: In the case of a sin-offering and a burnt-offering and an unspecified [sacrifice] and a specified [sacrifice]. (7) if he [the priest] offered all of them above, (8) half are fit and half are unfit; (9) [if he offered] all of them below, half are fit and half are unfit. (9) [If he offered] half of them above and half of them below, only the undefined [pair] are fit, (10) and they share them. (11) Thus, the defined ones are not [fit]. Yet why so? even granted that he offered the burnt-offering below, let it be transmuted into a sin-offering? (12) And should you answer, This does not agree with R. Joshua — can you say so? Surely we learnt: (13) If a woman declared, I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child, (14) and she bore a male child, she must bring two pairs, one for her vow, and one for her statutory obligation. When she gives them to the priest, the priest must offer three above and one below. (15) If he did not do thus, but offered two above and two below, not having consulted her, (16) she must bring another bird and offer it above, [if both were] of the same species. (17) But if they were of two species, (18) she must bring two [birds]. (19) If she defined her vow, she must bring another three birds [and offer them] above [the line], [if both were] of the same species; [if they were] of two species, she must bring four. (20) If she fixed [the time of] her vow,

---

(1). ↑ After birth confinement a woman, if poor, brings two birds for a burnt-offering and a sinoffering (Lev. XII, 8). Now, two women had each brought one bird for a burnt-offering and a sinoffering respectively. Then they bought a brace together, appointed one bird for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering, as each required, and gave them to the priest.
(2). ↑ I.e., as burnt-offerings.
(3). ↑ What is offered in the right place is fit; the other is unfit.
(4). ↑ I.e., he may have done so.
(5). ↑ So that there should be no further liability to a sin-offering.
(6). ↑ Obviously not. For one woman's burnt-offering cannot acquit the other woman of her liability to a sin-offering.
(7). ↑ Rashi: Two women, A an B, each owed a bird burnt-offering and a bird sin-offering (e.g., on account of confinement). In addition A owed another bird burnt-offering and B another bird sin-offering (either on account of another confinement or on account of sin. Lev. V, 7-, each having brought so far one sacrifice only). Now, A and B accordingly bought three pairs of birds in conjunction. They took one of the pairs and appointed one bird a burnt-offering for A and one a sin-offering for B. The second pair they left unspecified, not stating which was a burnt-offering and which a sin-offering. The third they did specify, i.e., they appointed one for a burntoffering and the other for a sin-offering, but did not state the owner of each. V. Kin. III, 3.
(8). ↑ As burnt-offerings.
(9). ↑ Cf. p. 331. n. 5. The women still owe the sacrifices which are now unfit.
(10). ↑ Since the owners did not define them, it depends on the priest.
(11). ↑ One sacrifice counting to each. V. ibid. 4.
(12). ↑ For since the owners were not specified, the answer given above obviously no longer applies.
(13). ↑ Emended text (Sh. M.); cur. edd. ‘Come and hear’.
(14). ↑ In addition to her statutory obligation.
(15). ↑ A sin-offering cannot be vowed. Hence the additional pair are both burnt-offerings, which makes three in all. These naturally must be offered above the red line.
(16). ↑ Why she brought two pairs. Thus he thought that both pairs were statutory obligations.
(17). ↑ If both pairs were turtle-doves or young pigeons.
(18). ↑ One pair were turtle-doves, and the other pair were young pigeons.
(19). ↑ One bird of one pair has become unfit, and the pair must be completed with a bird of the same species. Since we do not know which bird actually became unfit, she must bring another two, viz., a turtle-dove and a pigeon.
(20). ↑ When she vowed, she declared which birds she would bring, but subsequently forgot which she had vowed. Hence when she came to fulfill her vow, she needed two pairs for the vow alone, viz., a pair of turtle-doves and a pair of pigeons, to cover both contingencies, and in addition one pair of either on account of her statutory obligation, i.e., three pairs in all. She, however, had brought only two pairs of which the first was offered for her statutory obligation, while the second was left for her vow, and of that one bird became unfit. Therefore she now owes one bird of the same species to replace the unfit one, and a pair of the other species, in case it was the other species that she had vowed. But if the two pairs which she had brought were of different species, she must now bring four birds, all for burnt-offerings, because we do not know which species was offered second for the vow, and it is that species which must be completed. She cannot simply bring a pair of one species, for she does not know whether she owes one turtle-dove and two pigeons, or vice versa. Therefore she must bring two turtle-doves and two pigeons and declare: ‘Let one of these, of the species which I vowed, replace the one that became unfit, and let the second of that pair be another votive offering. And let the second pair cover the doubt of my definite declaration.’