QUESTION: The Mishnah (3:4) discusses a case in which two women gave their bird offerings to the Kohen, and the birds became mixed up. One woman, Rachel, had an obligation to bring a Korban Yoledes -- a Ken comprised of one Chatas and one Olah, as well as an obligation to bring an additional Chatas, while the second woman, Leah, had an obligation to bring a Korban Yoledes, as well as an obligation to bring an additional Olah. Before they became mixed up, the six birds were divided into three pairs (as RASHI in Zevachim 67b, DH Chatas, explains):

In the first pair, one of the birds was designated (Mefureshes) as the Chatas that Rachel was obligated to bring, and one of the birds was designated as the Olah that Leah was obligated to bring.

In the second pair, neither bird was specified (Ken Setumah).

In the third pair, one bird was designated as the Chatas and one bird as the Olah, but it was not specified which Korban belonged to which woman.

The Mishnah states that if the Kohen offered all of the birds above the Chut ha'Sikra, half of them are valid and have are invalid (because an Olah must be offered above the Chut ha'Sikra, and a Chatas must be offered below it, and in this case, half of the Korbanos in the mixture were Olos). If they were all offered below the Chut ha'Sikra, half are valid (the Chata'os) and half are invalid (the Olos). If the Kohen offered half of the birds above the Chut ha'Sikra and half of them below it, then only two birds are valid offerings -- the pair of the Ken Setumah, because neither of these birds was designated as a Chatas or Olah before being offered, and thus the bird which the Kohen offered above the Chut ha'Sikra is considered the Olah, and the bird which he offered below the Chut ha'Sikra is considered the Chatas.

The Gemara in Zevachim (67b) cites this Mishnah as a challenge to the ruling of Rebbi Yehoshua there (67a) who says that if the Kohen offers an Olah below the Chut ha'Sikra in the manner of a Chatas, with intent that it is a Chatas ("l'Shem Chatas"), it is valid, because as soon as one Siman was cut (either the trachea or esophagus) with Melikah, the Korban is transformed from an Olah into a Chatas. The Gemara questions this ruling from the Mishnah here that states that when half of the birds are offered above the Chut ha'Sikra and half below, only the two birds of the Ken Setumah are valid. The Mefureshes, though, is invalid, because the Kohen might have offered the Olah below the Chut ha'Sikra, in the manner of a Chatas. According to Rebbi Yehoshua, why is the Mefureshes invalid? Even though the bird was originally designated as an Olah, at the moment the Kohen does Melikah to it he transforms it into a Chatas, and it should be valid!

RASHI there (DH v'Amai) explains that the Gemara's question is not from the first pair of birds (the Ken Mefureshes in which one of the birds was designated as the Chatas that Rachel was obligated to bring, and one of the birds was designated as the Olah that Leah was obligated to bring), but rather the question is from the third pair (the Ken Mefureshes in which one bird was designated as the Chatas and one bird as the Olah, but it was not specified to which woman it belonged). Rashi explains that in the first Ken Mefureshes pair, Leah's Olah cannot be transformed into Rachel's Chatas.

Rashi's explanation there is difficult to understand. Why does the Gemara there not challenge Rebbi Yehoshua from the first type of Ken Mefureshes? Even though the Olah was designated as Leah's Korban, and it cannot become Rachel's Chatas, since it was offered below the Chut ha'Sikra it should become the Chatas that Leah is obligated to bring (for her Korban Yoledes)! Consequently, the Chatas from the second pair (the Ken Setumah) becomes Rachel's Chatas, and the Olah from that pair becomes Leah's Olah. In this way, both women will fulfill all of their obligations! Why does the Gemara not ask this question on Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling?

ANSWER: The RASHASH in Zevachim (67b) answers based on the Mishnah in Kerisus (27b) which states that one who designated an animal to be a Chatas for a certain transgression may not offer it for a different transgression. The Mishnah there states that even if one designated an animal as a Korban for a sin of eating Chelev that he committed yesterday, he may not bring this animal as a Chatas for a sin of eating Chelev that he committed today.

Accordingly, it is clear to the Gemara in Zevachim that the Olah in the first pair cannot become a Chatas. Since it was already designated to be an Olah, Leah cannot receive atonement with such a Chatas. Therefore, the Gemara's question is only from the third pair; since it was not designated for whom the Korban was intended, it now can become Leah's Chatas.

The Rashash earlier in Kinim (2:1) writes that the principle that one may not bring a Korban Chatas for a different transgression than the one for which it was designated applies not only to transgressions, but also to people who are Mechusar Kaparah (they have become Tahor but they still need to bring a Korban in order to be permitted to eat Kodshim; see the Mishnah in Kerisus 8b which lists the four types of Mechusrei Kaparah -- Zav, Zavah, Yoledes, and Metzora). Therefore, the woman who is a Yoledes who must bring her Korbanos in order to be permitted to eat Kodshim may not offer as her Chatas a bird that was previously designated to be an Olah. (D. BLOOM)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah (3:6) discusses the case of a woman who, before giving birth, said that she would bring two birds as a Korban if she would give birth to a boy. When she gave birth to a boy, she became obligated to bring two Olos ha'Of for her vow, in addition to the standard Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of that every woman must bring after birth. However, when she brought the birds to the Kohen to offer as Korbanos, the Kohen mistakenly thought that each pair of birds was comprised of a Chatas and Olah (and not one pair comprising a Chatas and Olah, and the other pair comprising two Olos), and he offered them accordingly. The Mishnah says that if all of the birds were Torim, or all were Bnei Yonah, then the woman must bring only one replacement Korban for an Olas ha'Of, from that species. The problem arises when the birds were mixed; some were Torim and some were Bnei Yonah. The Mishnah earlier (2:5) states that a bird brought as a replacement must be of the same species as the bird that it is replacing. Since we are unsure about which kind of bird was the one which became Pasul (i.e. which was brought as a Chatas instead of as an Olah), the woman must bring both a Tor and a Ben Yonah as replacement Olos.

The Mishnah discusses two more cases. One is a case of "Pirshah Nidrah," which literally means that the woman "verbally expressed her Neder." The second case is "Kav'ah Nidrah," which means that the woman "established her Neder." Both of these cases result in the requirement to bring many more replacement Korbanos. What are these cases, and why do they result in the need to bring many more Korbanos?

(a) The MEFARESH (and RASHI in Zevachim 67b, DH Pirshah Nidrah) explains that "Pirshah Nidrah" means that the woman donating the Korbanos ha'Of specified in her Neder the species that she would bring to fulfill her Neder. She subsequently forgot which species she had intended to bring, and then brought all of her Korbanos to the Kohen (who was also negligent and offered two Chata'os and two Olos from the four birds, instead of one Chatas and three Olos). The Mishnah states that she now must bring three Olos ha'Of, because of the following reasoning: If all four birds that she brought were of one species (such as Torim,) then she must replace the one Tor, of the second pair, which was offered as a Chatas and not as an Olah. In addition, since it is possible that she specified that her Neder offering would be Bnei Yonah, she must bring two Bnei Yonah as Olos to fulfill her vow. Thus, she must bring a total of three additional birds.

If the birds that she brought were mixed (two Torim and two Bnei Yonah), and the Kohen does not know which set he offered first, then she must bring four replacement birds -- two Torim and two Bnei Yonah. If the two Bnei Yonah were offered last, then she must bring one replacement Ben Yonah to be offered as an Olah (to replace the Ben Yonah that was offered as a Chatas). She must also bring two Torim, since perhaps her Neder was to bring two Torim as Olos, and not two Bnei Yonah. She must also bring an additional Ben Yonah, since perhaps the two Torim were offered last, and while she is replacing the Tor that was offered as a Chatas with one of the two additional Torim that she is bringing, perhaps her Neder was to bring two Bnei Yonah as Olos, and thus she must bring an additional Ben Yonah (so that she is bringing a total of two Bnei Yonah and two Torim, to cover all of the doubts).

The Mefaresh (and Rashi in Zevachim 67b, DH Kav'ah Nidrah) explains that "Kav'ah Nidrah" means that she established in her Neder that her voluntary offering would be brought together, at the same time, with the offering that she was obligated to bring as a result of giving birth. In this case as well, she specified -- but forgot -- which type of bird she would bring as her Neder. In this case, merely bringing replacement birds is not enough. Since she said that her Neder would be brought with her obligatory Korban Olah, replacing just one at a later date is not a valid replacement. Therefore, she must bring five birds to be offered as Olos: four birds which cover the possible voluntary offerings of two Torim and two Bnei Yonah, and one which represents her obligatory Olas ha'Of. Even though she already fulfilled her obligation of her Olas ha'Of, she established for herself an obligation to bring her voluntary offerings together with her obligatory Olah (or with a representative obligatory Olah). This is why she must bring an additional, fifth Olas ha'Of.

If the birds that she brought were of different species, then she must bring two birds in place of her obligatory Olas ha'Of. Since this is a replacement for her obligatory bird, if she is unsure about which type of bird was brought originally, then she must bring one of each type to replace it, totaling six birds.

(b) The RA'AVAD, RAZAH, and BARTENURA explain the cases differently (with slight variations). They say that "Pirshah Nidrah" does not mean that the woman said, at the time of her Neder, what types of bird she would bring to fulfill her Neder. Her Neder was only that she would bring two Olos ha'Of if she would give birth to a boy (but she did not specify what type of bird). Upon bringing her birds to the Kohen, she explained ("Pirshah") that "these two birds are for my obligatory Korban, and these two are my voluntary offering." The Kohen mistakenly offered both sets of birds as if they were obligatory offerings for births, offering one as a Chatas and one as an Olah from each pair.

According to the Bartenura, the three birds brought in the case of "Pirshah Nidrah" are not three Olos, but rather two Olos and one Chatas. Only the obligatory Olas ha'Of is valid when the Kohen offers two (from the two pairs) as an Olas ha'Of and two as a Chatas ha'Of. Therefore, the woman must bring replacements for the two birds of her Neder, which are Olos ha'Of, and one bird to replace her obligatory Chatas ha'Of.

If the birds that she brought were from different species (two Torim and two Bnei Yonah), then she must bring four replacement birds. This is because it is possible that the Torim that she intended to be offered as Olos (for her Neder) were offered as her obligatory offering (with one as an Olah and one as a Chatas), while the Ben Yonah that she brought as a Chatas was offered as an Olah. Only her obligatory Olah is valid. However, it is also possible that her obligatory Olah was done like a Chatas. Since she specified that only the Torim are her Neder and the Bnei Yonah are her obligatory Korbanos, and all of them might have been Pasul, she must bring all of her Korbanos again.

"Kav'ah Nidrah" means that she specified what type of birds she would bring for her Neder when she made the Neder. She then forgot which type she had pledged to bring. This adds to her replacement requirements two more Bnei Yonah (to fulfill her Neder), besides her requirement to replace the two Torim which might be Pasul and the Chatas which might be Pasul (as described in the case of "Pirshah Nidrah"). If she brought two different types of birds, then she must bring four Olos and two Chata'os to account for the various possibilities. (See TOSFOS YOM TOV.) (Y. MONTROSE)