Kinnim 2:5 - 3:1

חטאת מכאן – an individual pigeon that was designated/specified for a sin-offering to one side, and an individual pigeon that was designated/specified for a burnt-offering to the second side, and two individual pigeons of an undesignated/unspecified nature (i.e., either for a sin-offering or for a burnt-offering) in the center.

פרח מן האמצע – one individual pigeon to the right and one individual pigeon to the left.

לא הפסיד כלום – that the one that is combined with the sin-offerings will be made for a sin-offering, and the one that is with the burnt-offerings will be made a burnt-offering, but not for a sin-offering, for perhaps he (i.e., the Kohen) will make it from the designated/specified [ones] for a burnt-offering.

חזר לאמצע – they (i.e., the pigeons) returned from the sides, one from here and the other from there and combined together, they are left to die, for they are a [designated] sin-offering and a [designated] burnt-offering that were combined/mixed together. But those which remained, each one alone, each are offered according to their respective law.

חזר מן האמצעיים לצדדין – those [designated] for sin-offerings and/or burnt-offerings are combined/mixed, and all are left to die.

אין מביאים תורים כנגד בני יונה – but rather either both of them are turtle-doves or both of them are pigeons.

תכפול ותביא עולתה בן יונה – as according to the law for the sin-offering. For the sin-offering is the essence/main object, whether he (i.e., the Kohen) set it aside first or whether he set it aside at the end.

הולכין אחר הראשון – but she does not bring the second, but rather from the species that she set aside/designated first, whether it was a sin-offering first or whether it was a bunt-offering. And the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher (i.e., that both the sin-offering and burnt-offering shojld come from the same species).

לא יביאו היורשים חטאתה – for it is a sin-offering where its owners had died. But if it is not for this reason, we bring a sin-offering even though she offered a burnt-offering first. But even thought that in every case/place the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering, this is especially for the Mitzvah, but not to be indispensable/to invalidate an act by omission.

במה דברים אמורים בכהן נמלך (under what circumstances do the rules apply? In the case of a Kohen who makes inquiry) – It is referring to the first chapter [of Tractate Kinnim, Mishnayot 2-3]. And this is what we stated: Under what circumstances do the rules apply? That a sin-offering that was combined/mixed with a burnt-offering that all of them should be left to die, and similarly, one to this one and two to that one and the third to that one, that the minority is Kosher/fit, these words regard a Kohen that comes to inquire and to ask what is their law. But a Kohen who does not inquire and acted according to this own knowledge, one complete couple of sacrificial birds above [the red line] for one woman, the burnt offering is kosher/fit but the sin-offering is invalid. But if he made [an offering of] one complete couple of sacrificial birds below [the red line], the sin-offering is valid and the burnt-offering is invalid. Therefore, one (i.e., sin-offering) for this one [woman] and one (i.e., burnt-offering) for that one [woman, two [complete couples of sacrificial birds] for this one [woman] (i.e., sin-offering) and two [complete couples of sacrificial birds] for that one [woman] (i.e., burnt-offering) and made all of them, above [the red line], half are kosher which are the burnt-offerings and half of them are invalid which are sin-offerings. But if he made [an offering of] all of them, below [the red line], the sin-offerings are kosher/fit but the burnt-offerings are invalid. And all of the first chapter [of Tractate Kinnim] speaks of ab initio, but this chapter speaks of post-facto/after-the-fact. And one [burnt-offering] to this woman and two [burnt-offerings] to that woman, that we stated above when he (i.e., the Kohen) makes inquiry, the minority are kosher, here without inquiry, the majority are kosher/fit, since he (i.e., the Kohen) made [the offering of] half of them above [the red line] and half of them below [the red line]. How so? Behold that from one [sin-offering] for this [woman], he (i.e., the Kohen) made that couple of bird-offerings of [this] woman above [the red line] and from two couples of bird-offerings of another woman, he (i.e., the Kohen) made one individual pigeon from them above [the red line] in order that half of them would be above, and there remained three individual pigeons below [the red line], behold two burnt-offerings above [the red line] ae kosher/fit, and two sin-offerings below [the red line], behold two couples of bird-offerings are kosher/fit, and the third is invalid, and this is the majority that is kosher. And similarly, two [couples of bird-offerings] for this woman and three [couples of bird-offerings] for that woman, from the two couples of bird-offerings, there are four individual pigeons [offered] above [the red line], and furthermore, he (i.e., the Kohen) took one individual pigeon from the three couples of bird offerings, there are five individual pigeons [offered] above [the red line] and five [individual pigeons offered] below [the red line]; from the five individual pigeons [offered] above [the red line], there are three burnt-offerings and from [that offered] below [the red line] there are three sin-offerings, behold three couples of bird-offerings are kosher, and this is the majority that are kosher/fit, but however, ten [couples of bird-offerings] for this [woman] and one-hundred [couples of bird-offerings] for that [woman], it is impossible to find in this matter because they are pairs, and one needs to state that the majority are kosher/fit, as is taught in our Mishnah, he does not return ought other than one to this [woman] and two to that [woman], etc., which are not pairs, but since it is taught in the Mishnah above that in this manner the minority are kosher/fit, it also teaches in this manner that the majority are kosher/fit without making inquiry. But however, even with ten [couples of sacrificial birds] to this [woman] and one-hundred [couples of sacrificial birds] to that [woman], the majority are kosher, for there is nothing invalid from them other than ten [couples of sacrificial birds], for perhaps all of the couples of sacrificial birds were of one woman [offered] above [the red line] and the sin-offerings were invalidated, or all of them [were offered] below [the red line] and the burnt-offerings were invalidated, by force, ten complete couples of bird-sacrifices are invalid.

את שלמעלה מחצה כשר ומחצה פסול – [half of them are kosher/fit and half are invalid] since he (i.e., the Kohen) made [the offering up] of a complete couple of bird-offerings above [the red line]. For since these couples of bird-offerings were for two women, they should bring another couple of bird-offerings in partnership and give them between them, if from the first is a burnt-offering for Leah, the let the last be a sin-offering for Leah, or its opposite. And specifically, he (i.e., the Kohen) made [the offering of] a complete couple of bird-offerings above [the red line], but if he split up/divided the couples of bird-offerings, one individual pigeon above [the red line] and one individual pigeon below [the red line] everything is Kosher, for I state that the burnt-offering is above [the red line] and the sin-offering is below [the red line], for the couples of bird-offerings are specified through the action of the Kohen.