Midrash su Levitico 12:6

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: Beit Shammai said the heavens were created first and after that the earth was created. And Beit Hillel said the earth was created first and afterwards the heavens. From one point of view the former had reason for their words, and from another point of view the latter had reason for their words. According to the view of Beit Shammai in that they said the heavens were created first and the earth later, was the parable of a king who made a throne for himself, and then he made his footstool, as the Holy One, blessed be He said "The heavens are my throne and the earth is the footstool of my feet" (Isaiah 46:1). According to the view of Beit Hillel in that they said the earth was created first and the heavens created afterwards, was the parable of a king who built a palace; after he built the lower portions then he built the upper portions, thus "In the day that the Hashem God made earth and heaven" (Genesis 2:4). Rabbi Judah bar Ilai said "this verse supports Beit Hillel "before you founded the earth" (Psalms 120:26) and [the verse supporting] afterwards "and the heavens are the work of your hands" (Psalms 120:26)". Rabbi Chanin said "from the text that was cited supporting Beit Shammai, from there Beit Hillel refute them: "and the earth was" (Genesis 1:2), the earth was already extant". Rabbi Yochanan in the name of the sages said "regarding the creation the heavens were first, and regarding completion the earth was first". Rabbi Tanchuma said "I will tell the reasons for this; regarding creation the heavens were first, as it is said "In the beginning God created" (Genesis 1:1), and regarding completion the earth was first, as it is said "In the day that the Hashem God made earth and heaven" (Genesis 2:4)". Rabbi Shimon son of Yochai said "I am amazed at how the fathers of the world, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, were divided on the creation of the heavens and the earth, I would say to both of them that they were not created, but were like a stew pot and like its lid, as it is said "I call unto them, they stood up together" (Isaiah 48: 13)"". Said Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Shimon "if it is according to the opinion of my father, why in one place does the earth precede the heavens and in the other place the heavens precede the earth? This teaches that they both have weight on either side (are equal). In every place Abraham precedes Isaac and Jacob, and in one place it says "and I will remember my covenant with Jacob" (Leviticus 26:42); this teaches that they both have weight on either side (are equal). In every place Moses precedes Aaron, and it one place it says "That is Aaron and Moses" (Exodus 6:26); this teaches that they both have weight on either side (are equal). In every place Joshua precedes Caleb, and in one place it says "except for Caleb the son of Jephuneh the Kenizzite, and Joshua the son of Nun" (Numbers 14:30); this teaches that they both have weight on either side (are equal). In every place the turtle-dove precedes the young pigeons and in one place, it says "and a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove for a sin offering" (Leviticus 12:6); this teaches that they both have weight on either side (are equal). And in every place the respect for a father precedes that of a mother, and in one place it says "You shall fear every man his mother, and his father" (Leviticus 19:3); this teaches that they both have weight on either side (are equal)." But the sages said: "the father precedes the mother because he and his mother are obliged to honor his father." In every place the creation of the heaven precedes the earth, and in one place it says "In the day that the Hashem God made earth and heaven" (Genesis 2:4); this tells us that they both have weight on either side (are equal).

1) (Vayikra 12:6) ("And when the days of her purification are fulfilled (melos), for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering, to the door of the tent of meeting, to the Cohein.") "when they are fulfilled": She does not bring it in the midst of melos; if she does, she has not fulfilled her obligation. I might think that she may not bring it in the midst of melos (for this birth, even) for (the unfulfilled obligations for) previous births; it is, therefore, written "she shall bring." "for a son": she is liable for each son. "for a daughter": she is liable for each daughter. "or for a daughter": to include a woman who miscarried on the eve of the eighty-first day (of melos for a girl) as being liable for an offering, in accordance with the view of Beth Hillel. For Beth Shammai exempt her from an offering (for the miscarriage, even though it took place after melos [the end of the eightieth day]. For since an offering cannot be offered at night, it is considered as if it took place in the midst of melos). Beth Hillel queried Beth Shammai: How is the night preceding the eighty-first day different from the eighty-first day itself? (Furthermore,) if the former is equivalent to the latter for purposes of tumah (i.e., niddah), why should it not be so for purposes of an offering? Beth Shammai responded: No, if this is true of the eighty-first day, it is because she arrived at a time that she could bring an offering (for her first birth). Would you say the same for the night preceding the eighty-first day, when she has not arrived at a time that she can bring an offering? Beth Hillel: But this is refuted by the instance of a woman's miscarrying on the eighty-first day that falls on a Sabbath, in which instance she is liable for an offering even though that day (Sabbath) is not fit for an offering! Beth Shammai: No, for in that instance, even though it is not fit for an individual offering, it is fit for a communal offering, as opposed to the instance of a woman's miscarrying on the night preceding the eighty-first day, the night being fit neither for an individual offering nor for a communal offering.

2) And blood (i.e., your argument from tumah) is no refutation, for if a woman miscarries in the midst of melos, her blood is tamei and yet she is exempt from an offering (so that there is no necessary correction between the two). Beth Hillel said to them: "or for a daughter": to include a woman who miscarried on the eve of the eighty-first day (of melos for a girl) as being liable for an offering.

3) "she shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt-offering": its first year, and not a calendar year. "and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering": either one, (but not a beast at all). "for a sin-offering": and not a beast for a sin-offering. For does it not follow (that he should be able to bring a beast as a sin-offering), viz.: If in a place (e.g., a rich leper, a clean Nazirite or a high-priest on Yom Kippur) where a bird sin-offering with a beast burnt-offering are not kasher, a beast sin-offering with a beast burnt-offering are kasher, here, where a bird sin-offering with a beast burnt-offering are kasher, how much more so should a beast sin-offering with a beast burnt-offering be kasher; it is, therefore, written "and a pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering" — either one, (but not a beast at all). "to the door of the tent of meeting to the Cohein": We are hereby taught she tends to them and brings them to the door of the tent of meeting to the Cohein.

(Lev. 12:6:) “And when the days of her purification are fulfilled [for either a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering….]” Why does she bring an offering? Our masters have said, “She screams a hundred times when she sits on the birthing chair, as stated (Is. 41:24), ‘Behold you are like nothing, and your actions are less than zero.’ What is [the meaning of] ‘less than zero (me’effa)?’ There are one hundred screams (meah puot), ninety-nine for death and one for life.¹⁴Exod. R. 46:2; Lev. R. 27:7; Tanh., Lev. 8:11; PRK 9:6.h And when the pangs arrive for her, she vows that she will never favor her husband [with sexual intercourse] again. She therefore brings an offering,¹⁵Because of the impetuous oath. So Nid. 31:b. as stated (ibid.), ‘she shall bring a lamb in its first year.’”

(Lev. 12:6): AND WHEN THE DAYS OF HER PURIFICATION ARE FULFILLED, FOR EITHER A SON OR FOR A DAUGHTER, SHE SHALL BRING A LAMB IN ITS FIRST YEAR FOR A BURNT OFFERING…. Why does she bring an offering?²¹Tanh., Lev. 4:4. Our masters have said: She screams a hundred times when she sits on the birthing chair, < since there are > ninety-nine < chances > for death and one for life.²²Exod. R. 46:2; Lev. R. 27:7; Tanh., Lev. 8:11; PRK 9:6. And when the pangs arrive for her, she vows that she will never favor her husband < with sexual intercourse > again. She therefore brings an offering,²³Because of the impetuous oath. So Nid. 31:b. as stated (ibid.): SHE SHALL BRING A LAMB IN ITS FIRST YEAR….

8) R. Shimon says: Lambs precede goats in most places (in Scripture). I might think that this is because they are preferred; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 4:32) "And if a lamb he brings as his offering for a sin-offering" (after 4:28 "a kid of the goats"), to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves precede pigeons in most places. I might think that this is because they are preferred; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:6) "and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering," to teach that both are equal.

10) "Turtle-doves" precede "young pigeons" in all other places. I might think this is so because they are preferred to them. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:6): "and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove as a sin-offering," to teach that they are equivalent. "father" precedes "mother" in all places. I might think this is so because the honor of one's father is above that of his mother; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:3): "A man, his mother and his father, you shall fear," to teach that they are equivalent (in this regard). But the sages have said: The father takes precedence to the mother in all instances, for both he and his mother are obliged to honor his father.