Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

As mentioned in the previous chapter and notes, a zav, a zavah, and a woman who gave birth are required to bring two doves as offerings, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering. The designation of the doves for these offerings is made either by the owner at the time of purchase or—and this is the most common instance—by the priest when he offers them. If the person bringing the doves did not designate them, the doves are referred to as a chovah, which we have translated as “the unspecified group.”

A dove designated as a sin-offering may not be offered as a burnt-offering, nor may one designated as a burnt-offering be offered as a sin-offering, as explained in Chapter 7, Halachot 5-8. Since the identity of the dove is not known, some of the offerings will be unacceptable. Hence none are offered and instead, they are consigned to die002E

The rationale is that half of the doves in the unspecified group are sin-offerings. Hence even if another dove that was designated as a sin-offering becomes intermingled with a group of four unspecified doves, there are definitely two doves that can be selected to be offered as sin-offerings (either two are from the unspecified group or one is from the unspecified group and one is the sin-offering that became intermingled).
A third sin-offering may not be brought because it is possible that the third dove is from the unspecified group and it should be designated as a burnt-offering.

Either the dove designated as the sin-offering is among the three. Or the three are from the unspecified group and two are burnt-offerings and one is a sin-offering.

For example, if five sin-offerings become intermingled with an unspecified group of ten, there are five acceptable sin-offerings in the intermingled group of fifteen.

The expression “It appears to me” indicates a conclusion the Rambam reached through the process of deduction without any clearcut prior Rabbinic source. It appears that the Rambam is saying that all of the doves, even those which are disqualified, should be offered on the lower half of the altar. The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam, asking how is it possible for him to suggest that unacceptable doves should be offered as sacrifices. (If, he states, the Rambam’s intent was that all of the sin-offerings should be offered on the bottom half of the altar, that is obvious and does not need the introduction “It appears to me.”)
The Kessef Mishneh states that with the expression “It appears to me,” the Rambam is introducing a new idea. The previous halachah is speaking about an instance where the priest offered only half the doves in the unspecified group on the lower half of the altar. If, however, he offers more than half of the doves (half of the unspecified group and the number of doves designated as sin-offerings that became intermingled with them) on the lower half of the altar, not only is half the unspecified group acceptable, the sin-offerings that became mixed with the unspecified group are also acceptable. The priest is allowed to offer the majority of the unspecified group on the lower half of the altar because the other doves were never specified as burnt-offerings. Although they would have to be offered as burnt-offerings (and hence, are disqualified), since they were never specified as such, they may be offered on the lower half of the altar. Rav Yosef Corcus adds that according to the Rambam, the intent is the sacrifices are acceptable. It is just that the owners can fulfill their obligation only for half of them.

In addition to burnt-offerings from the pairs mentioned above, this could also refer to doves donated for freewill offerings which are all burnt offerings [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 1:3)].

I.e., the same principles applied in Halachot 2-3 with regard to a sin-offering are applied here with regard to a burnt-offering.

Here the problem is that perhaps unknowingly, the priest will be offering all the doves from one unspecified group as sin-offerings and all of the other, as burnt-offerings, instead of offering them, half and half, as required.

The other half are unacceptable, because they were sin-offerings and they were offered as burnt-offerings.

The other half are unacceptable, because they were burnt-offerings and they were offered as sin-offerings.

As explained in note 8.

In the previous halachah.

I.e., he consulted with the women and asked them what he should do [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 1:4)]. Others interpret this as meaning that he consulted the court.

For example, Leah brought six doves and Rachel, four. If the priest offered five on the upper portion of the altar and five on the lower portion, it is possible that three are from Leah's group and she intended for them to be sin-offerings not burnt-offerings. Hence only two of the doves offered on the upper portion are acceptable. The same applies with regard to those offered on the lower portion (see the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus).

For the reason explained in the next halachah.

Because the distinction of the sacrifices as burnt-offerings and sin-offerings was left to the priest to determine.

I.e., the person who brought the larger group.

They are all acceptable, because when offering them, he is determining which is a sin-offering and which, a burnt-offering.

Chapter 5, Halachah 11.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:2), the Rambam states that this is speaking about an instance where the groups were not intermingled. The identity of the groups was left for the priest to determine. After doing so, he forgot how he had determined the identity of the groups and offered them in the manner described. Afterwards, he remembered they were of different types and inquired what was the outcome of his deeds. If, however, the groups became intermingled at the outset, they should all be consigned to death, as stated in Halachah 1 (see Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., the groups contained an equal number of sin-offerings and burnt-offerings. Thus, if they are all offered as one type, half will be unacceptable.

This too is speaking about an instance where the groups are not intermingled, but rather three groups were brought to a priest to define their status and to offer them. Afterwards, he forgot and offered them without being conscious of their different status [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:3)].

This is a combination of the previous halachah and Halachot 2 and 4.

This refers to a situation similar to that described in note 23, except that here, he offered one group on the upper portion of the altar, one group one the lower portion, and one group, half and half.

For it was offered as required, half on the upper portion of the altar and half, on the lower portion.

Each of the people who brought sacrifices are credited with an equal share of the sacrifices offered. Thus each one is considered to have brought half their sacrifices and must bring the other half.

Because they have become intermingled with a dove designated as a sin-offering.

The redundancy in the Rambam’s ruling is a quote from Kinim 2:1.

I.e., it is obvious that one of the six offered as burnt-offerings is unacceptable, because there only five in the second group. The sixth is either one of the original group that should have been offered as a burnt-offering and is thus unacceptable. Or it is the one that flew into it, in which instance, it is unacceptable, because perhaps it was to be offered as a sin-offering. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:1).

And one of the sin-offerings in that group had been offered together with the burnt-offerings.

As described in the previous halachah.

If, however, it is obvious that the dove that flew from the first group flew back to it, none of the doves are disqualified (ibid.).

And it is disqualified itself.

They should be offered one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. Similarly, in the second group, only one pair of doves should be offered, for we surmise that it was one of the three that was acceptable that flew to the first group.

I.e., each group has two acceptable doves and two which are disqualified.

Chapter 8, Halachah 5.

And became intermingled there. The dove that flies into the group is unacceptable and it disqualifies another dove in the group. Thus of the group of four, only two acceptable doves remain. This principle applies every time one dove flies from one group to another, as evident from Halachah 3.

If it is discernable that the dove that flew from the first group to the second flew from the second to the third, etc., all of these rules do not apply [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:3)].

More acceptable doves remain in the last group because only two doves are disqualified in each circuit, while in all the other groups four are disqualified each time.

As mentioned above, all of the doves in the first and second group were disqualified in the first phase of movement.

One should be offered as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering. With regard to the doves from the group that had been specified. We are speaking about a situation where the identity of one of the doves—for argument’s sake, the burnt-offering—is still known and the one designated as the sin-offering has become intermingled with the dove that flew into that group. Hence one burnt-offering and two sin-offerings should be offered and only one of the sin-offerings is acceptable. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:4).

If, however, the identity of the dove which became intermingled is known, different laws apply, as explained in Chapter 8.

The rationale is that since the doves are intermingled and it is known that one was a burnt-offering, none may be offered on the lower portion of the altar.

I.e., since we do not know whether it was a burnt-offering or a sin-offering that was intermingled.

Determining their identities with that statement. The fact that the priest offering the doves does not know which doves were brought by which person is not significant. See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.

And even the possibility warrants that the doves be consigned to death.

The commentaries note that there is no explicit source which states that the doves pledged by a woman should be offered as burnt-offerings. They do, however, point to Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:14, which states that a fowl is never brought as a peace-offering. Hence, the only alternative is for them to be offered as burnt-offerings.

I.e., when she is poor, as stated in Leviticus, ch. 14; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3.

As would be appropriate in most instances, for pairs of doves are generally required to be offered, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering.

If he did not consult with her, it is his prerogative to determine which dove should be offered as a sin-offering and which as a burnt-offering, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 8.

To fulfill her vow to bring a pair of doves as burnt-offerings.

I.e., of one type.

Of the other type.

This is speaking about a situation where the priest offering the sacrifice forgot which type he offered on the upper portion of the altar and which type on the lower portion [Ra'avad; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:5)]. Were he to know which type he had offered on which portion, it would be sufficient to bring only one more dove.

I.e., to serve as the burnt-offering for the pair she was obligated to bring because of the birth, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.,

And the two young doves offered on the upper portion are considered as having been brought to fulfill her vow.

As the Kessef Mishneh states, it is not merely that it is unlikely for a person to do so, through Biblical exegesis, the Sifra derives that it is forbidden to do so.

I.e., this pair of doves.

And thus he is unsure ifhe fulfilled the woman’s instructions.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that since it is possible that the two doves designated for her vow were offered on the lower portion of the altar (as sin-offerings instead of burnt-offerings), it is possible that her vow was not fulfilled and she must bring two other doves instead. Were that to have been the case, of the two offered on the upper portion of the altar, only one was acceptable and another dove must be brought as a sin-offering to fulfill her obligation.
The above explanations are based of Rav Kappach’s edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah. The initial version (preserved in the standard printed texts) reads differently, stating that this situation is considered like a burnt-offering that became intermingled with an unspecified group. See in Chapter 8, Halachah 4.

For they are burnt-offerings which must be offered on the upper portion of the altar.

Here the difficulty is that since the woman specified that the doves for her vow should come from a specific type and the priest did not remember whether he in fact offered that pair of doves as a burnt-offering. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:5), the Rambam explains this law. In the original sacrifice, perhaps the two turtle doves that were intended as burnt-offerings were sacrificed on the lower portion of the altar and were thus disqualified. Thus her vow was not fulfilled and she must bring two turtle doves. The two young doves were offered on the upper portion of the altar as burnt-offerings. Hence it is necessary for another young dove to be offered on the lower portion as a sin-offering to fulfill her obligation.
It is, however, also possible that the two young doves were offered on the lower portion of the altar. In that instance, she would have to bring another young dove to be offered on the upper portion as a burnt-offer to fulfill her obligation. Hence she must bring a total of two turtle doves and two young doves.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains the difference between this instance and the one mentioned in the previous halachah. In the previous halachah, we are speaking about an instance where the woman defined which doves were to be offered for which sacrifice at the time she gave them to the priest to offer and the priest forgot how he had offered them. In this instance, in addition to defining them when giving them to the priest, she pledged to bring them from a specific type and then she forgot which type of doves she pledged to bring for each particular sacrifice.

Of one type, as stated below.

The doves offered previously as a burnt-offering are of no consequence, because we are not certain that her vow was fulfilled. Because she is in doubt regarding which type she had specified in her vow, she must bring both types to fulfill it.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that this follows the same rationale as above. One of the burnt-offerings is acceptable. Hence it is necessary to bring a sin-offering to complete her obligation. He continues explaining that this decision is somewhat of a leniency, because it is possible that she will be offering the sin-offering from a different type of dove than the burnt-offering. Nevertheless, since we do not know of which type the original four doves were, this leniency is granted.
The above explanations are based on Rav Kappach’s edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah. The initial version (preserved in the standard printed texts) reads differently. Similarly, this explanation requires as suggested by the Kessef Mishneh amending the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah to read: It should be offered on the upper portion, for two were already offered on the lower portion as sin-offerings.

To be offered as burnt-offerings, for as above, it is possible that the ones designated as her vow were not offered as burnt-offerings and she does not remember which type she specified.

In contrast to the previous situations, she must bring two doves to fulfill her obligation. In this instance, one of those that were offered as a burnt-offering is not acceptable, because we know for certain that the offerings originally brought were of two types and we do not know which type of dove was brought as a burnt-offering so that a sin-offering could be brought from the same type of dove. Hence she must bring an entire pair to fulfill her obligation.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s rulings based on his interpretation of the Mishnah in Kinnim (which is also supported by Rashi). Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam understanding.

Four doves. This is speaking about a situation where the woman designated two doves as a burnt-offering for her vow and two for her obligation, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. She forgot which type of doves she vowed, which she brought to the priest, and how she designated them.

To be offered as burnt-offerings. It is necessary to bring these offerings, because it is possible that no burnt-offerings were offered or those designated as burnt-offerings were not offered for that purpose. It is necessary to bring both types, because the woman does not know which type she pledged as a burnt-offering.

I.e., whether she would bring a lamb, the burnt-offering brought by a woman of means brings after childbirth, or a dove the burnt-offering brought when one lacks adequate means.

Two turtle doves and two young doves. This is necessary, because she forgot what type of dove she specified that she would bring to fulfill her vow.

Of one type, either young doves or turtle doves, for perhaps she intended to bring the sacrifice of a poor woman.

In the event she intended to bring the sacrifice of a woman of means.
It must be noted that Kinnim 3:5, the source for the Rambam’s ruling, does not mention a lamb at all. The Rambam mentions it, both here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah, because otherwise, there is no clear reason why an extra dove should be brought as a sin-offering (Kessef Mishneh).

Instead, it should be burnt, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 10.