1)

(a)With reference to what we learned in the first Perek (that if the Kan Chovah of one woman became mixed up with two or three Kinei Chovah of another woman, the Kohen brings one Kan [the number of Kinim corresponding to the least of the two women]), the Tana now discusses a case where, without asking, the Kohen brings all the birds either above the Chut ha'Sikra or below it. If he brings one of the Kinim on behalf of one of the women ...

1. ... above the Chut ha'Sikra - then the Olah is Kasher.

2. ... below it - then the Chatas is Kasher.

(b)If the Kohen brings the Kinim S'tumos of two women, who have the same number of Kinim (two for each, or three for each) ...

1. ... all above the Chut ha'Sikra - half of them are Kasher Olos, whereas below it - half of them are Kasher Chata'os.

2. ... half above the Chut ha'Sikra and half below it - then half of those above are Kasher Olos, and half of those below, Kasher Chata'os.

(c)In a case where the Kohen brings two Kinim belonging to two women, one above the Chut and one, below it - they are now obligated to bring another Kan between them, and to stipulate that if the first Olah was that of Le'ah, then the current Chatas will be for her, and the Olah, for Rachel, whereas if it belonged to Rachel, then the current Chatas will be for her, and the Olah, for Leah.

2)

(a)In a case where one Kan (or two) belongs to one woman, and the other, two (or three) and the Kohen brought half the birds above the Chut ha'Sikra and the other half below - after adding one bird from the second woman's two (or three) Kinim, to the one (or two) Kinim of the first one (to balance the numbers), our Mishnah rules that two (or three) Olos above, and two or (three) Chata'os below (incorporating one (or two [comprising the majority]) of the Kinim of the second woman.

(b)The principle that Chazal give for this that is exactly the opposite of the principle that we learned in the first Perek ('ha'Me'mu'at Kasher' [where the owners first asked what to do]) is - 'ha'Merubah Kasher'.

(c)The same S'vara will not apply to a case where one woman has ten Kinim, and the other woman, a hundred - because there are an even number of Kinim, and it is possible to divide the complete Kinim of both woman (fifty- five above the Chut, and fifty-five below, without splitting them).

(d)The Din in such a case will nevertheless be - 'ha'Merubeh Kasher', in that the ten Kinim of the first woman are Pasul, seeing as we do not know whether all her Kinim were brought above the Chut, and all her five Chata'os are Pasul, or they were brought below, in which case all her five Olos are Pasul.

3)

(a)The Tana describes a case where there are an even number of Kinim (and it is possible to bring all the Kinim of one woman above the Chut and those of the other woman, below) as - 'Mechtzah Kasher, u'Mechtzah Pasul'.

(b)The difference between that and 'Merubeh Kasher' is - that whereas with regard to the former, it is possible to divide the complete Kinim either above the Chut or below it, without splitting a Kan, with regard to the latter, it is not (as we have already explained).

(c)There are no Halachic ramifications resulting from this distinction (See Tos. Yom-Tov). The distinction is merely a Siman.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that, in a case where one woman has a Chatas and the other woman, an Olah and the Kohen brings them ...

1. ... both above the Chut ha'Sikra - that the Olah is Kasher.

2. ... below the Chut ha'Sikra - that the Chatas is Kasher.

(b)Whereas if he brings one above the Chut and one below - both are Pasul.

(c)Here too - the Tana refers to the first Perek, where the two birds became mixed up, which explains why ...

(d)... he ought to have - burned them.

5)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses a case where Rachel and Leah acquired three Kinim between them. Rachel requires an Olah plus a Kan, and Le'ah, a Chatas plus a Kan.

(b)'Chatas, ve'Olah, u'S'tumah, u'Mefureshes' means - that they purchased three Kinim, one which they halved, designating an Olah for Rachel and a Chatas for Le'ah, one Kan S'tumah and one Kan Mefureshes.

(c)The Kohen really ought - to bring the two Kinim S'tam, in the name of both of them, the Olos above the red thread, the Chata'os, below it; and the Olah and the Chatas from the divided Kan in the name of its respective owner.

6)

(a)In the current case, the Tana rules, assuming that the Kohen brought them all ...

1. ... above the Chut - that all the Olos are Kasher.

2. ... below the Chut - that all the Chata'os are Kasher.

(b)Whereas if he brought half of them above the Chut and half of them below the Chut - then only the Kan S'tumah is Kasher ...

(c)... because apart from the S'tumah, which is only now being designated, we do not know which Korban was brought above and which below the Chut.

(d)And when the Tana concludes 've'Hi Mischalekes Beineihen', he means - that Rachel and Le'ah divide the Kan between them, without knowing even which bird each one of them has already brought.

(e)Consequently, they will have to bring another pair of birds and stipulate, as we explained in the previous Mishnah), not to speak of the two other Kinim that each one remains obligated to bring.

7)

(a)With reference to what we learned in the first Perek 'Chatas she'Nis'arvah be'Chovah, Ein Kasher Ela Minyan Chata'os she'be'Chovah', when our Mishnah merely repeats the statement, it serves as an introduction to the continuation of the Mishnah, which in turn, comes to teach us - that sometimes half the Chata'os are Kasher, and sometimes, less.

(b)The Tana proceeds to elaborate. When he speaks about 'Chovah Sh'nayim be'Chatas' he is referring to a case where, besides the external Chatas, there are two Kinim S'tumin comprising twice as many Chata'os as Olos (which is possible where the owner already brought one of the Olos.

(c)And he rules 'Mechtzah Kasher u'Mechtzah Pasul' - meaning that out of the four remaining birds, the Kohen brings only the two Chata'os (not the outstanding Olah and not the external Chatas.

(d)After bringing the two Chata'os (from the mixed birds) he cannot bring ...

1. ... one of the remaining birds as the outstanding Olah - in case it is the external Chatas (that flew in).

2. ... the external Chatas - in case it is the outstanding Olah (from the original Kinim).

8)

(a)The case where the Kohen brings less than half the number of Chata'os in the Chovah is - equivalent to the previous case, only where the owner had already brought one of the Chata'os (instead of one of the Olos).

(b)Out of the four remaining birds he then brings - one out of the two remaining Chata'os.

(c)He cannot bring ...

1. ... the two Olos - in case one of them turns out to be the external Chatas.

2. ... the remaining Chatas - in case it turns out to be one of the Olos.

(d)And if the bird that flew in was an Olah, and not a Chatas - then the Kohen will be permitted to bring the remaining number of Olos in the Chovah (in exactly the same way as he did with the Chata'os, when the Chatas flew in).

9)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses a woman who makes a Neder to bring a Kan should she give birth to a son. The Tana must be speaking about a poor woman - because a rich one brings a lamb for an Olah, and not a bird.

(b)Assuming that the baby is indeed a boy - the Yoledes must bring four birds - two for her Chovah and two for her Neder.

(c)The Kohen then brings (i.e. perform the Avodas ha'Dam) three birds above the Chut, and only one below - because (seeing as a Chatas cannot be brought as a Nedavah), the Yoledes is Chayav to bring both birds as Olos to fulfil her Neder.

(d)If the Kohen inadvertently brought two birds above the Chut, and two birds below it, assuming that ...

1. ... the Kinim that the Yoledes brought were of the same kind (either Torim or B'nei Yonah) - then she simply has to bring one bird above the Chut, to complement the missing Olas ha'Of.

2. ... one Kan consisted of Torim, and the other, of B'nei Yonah - then she is obligated to bring one Tor and one ben Yonah (seeing as we do not know which one the Kohen brought as her Neder).

10)

(a)Until now, the Tana has spoken about a case where the Yoledes did not specify which Kan was for her Chovah and which, for her Neder. If she did, and the Kohen brought one Kan below the Chut, and one, above it, assuming that both Kinim were ...

1. ... of the same kind of birds - only the Olas Chovah will be Kasher (like we learned in the previous Mishnah 'Ein Kasher Ela ke'Minyan Olos she'be'Chovah').

2. ... of two different kinds - then the Yoledes remains obligated to bring even that, since we do not know whether her Olas Chovah was brought above, or below, the Chut ha'Sikra.

(b)When the Yoledes does bring her second set of Kinim, the Kohen brings - three of them above the Chut ha'Sikra, and one below (like he ought to have ought to have done in the first place).

(c)Until now, the Tana has spoken about a case where the Yoledes did not specify which Kan was for her Chovah and which, for her Neder. If she did, only she forgot what she specified, she remains obligated to bring five birds - two Torin and two B'nei Yonah, to fulfil her Neder, and one of either, to be Yotzei the Chatas ha'Of.

11)

(a)This is assuming that both Kinim were of the same kind. If however, she knows that they were of two kinds, but cannot remember which was which - then she remains obligated to bring six birds - four for her Neder (as we explained) and two Torim or two B'nei Yonah, to be Yotzei her Chovah.

(b)It will not suffice to bring just the Chatas for her Chovah, like in the previous case - since we do not know whether the Olas Chovah that the Kohen brought above the Chut was a Tor or a ben Yonah. Consequently, if he were now to bring, shall we say, a Tor as the Chatas, perhaps the Olah was a ben Yonah (and the two must be of the same species). Consequently, she has no choice but to bring a fresh Kan as her Chovah.

(c)In the previous case (where she brought only one kind), seeing as her two Kinim comprised three Olos and one Chatas, one Olah must have been brought above the Chut, in which case 'Mah Nafshach', she will not have to bring her Olas Chovah a second time. And the reason that we are not afraid that perhaps the Chatas was brought below the Chut is - because one brings a Chatas ha'Of on a Safek (and it is not a question of Chulin la'Azarah) ...

(d)... only the Kohanim are not permitted to eat it.

12)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses a case where the Yoledes handed the Kohen a specific Kan for her Chovah and one for her Neder, but neither she nor the Kohen can remember whether they were all of the same kind or of two different kinds. In addition, the Kohen forgot - whether he brought both Kinim above the Chut, below it, or half above and half below.

(b)The Tana Kama requires her to bring another four birds for her Neder (two Torin and two B'nei Yonah), and for her Chovah ...

1. ... two Olos - in case the first Chatas was brought below the Chut ha'Sikra (and she doesn't know which Chatas she brought) ...

2. ... and one Chatas (of whichever kind she chooses), which will pair off with whichever of the Olos serves as her Olas Chovah.

(c)According to ben Azai - she still has to bring two Chata'os ...

(d)... because, in his opinion, it is the first Korban that fixes the second - in which case, the Chatas must fit whichever Olah with which she was Yotzei. Whereas according to the Chachamim, it is the Chatas that determines the kind of bird the Olah has to be.