Midrash su Levitico 5:7

1) (Vayikra 5:7): ("And if his hand cannot attain enough for a lamb, then he shall bring (the offering) of his guilt wherein he has sinned, two turtle-doves, etc.") "his hand": (The implication is that if he does not have the money, he is not told to borrow (for a rich man's offering, even if he has from whom to borrow) and not to ply his trade. If he has a lamb, and he does not have (enough for the food) that it needs (until he reaches Jerusalem), whence is it derived that he should bring a poor man's offering? From "enough for a lamb." "then he shall bring (the offering of his guilt wherein he has sinned, two turtle-doves or two young pigeons,": He must bring two; one does not suffice.

2) (For otherwise I would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori — This one brings what he can afford and a metzora (a leper) brings what he can afford. Just as a metzora brings one (bird sin-offering) for one (lamb sin-offering, and one bird burnt-offering for one bird burnt-offering), this one, too, (in our case), since the rich man brings one (lamb), the poor man should bring one! Therefore, (to negate this) it is written "two turtle-doves or two young pigeons" — he brings two and not one.

3) (Vayikra 5:7) "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering": (The dedication of) the sin-offering must precede (the dedication of) the burnt-offering. Alternately: that the burnt-offering be of the same species as the sin-offering (turtle-dove or young pigeon, respectively) (and that) if he separated his sin-offering and died, his heirs bring his burnt-offering. Alternately: What is the intent of "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering?" I might think that since two (birds) are brought in place of a (lamb) sin-offering, they should both be sin-offerings, it is, therefore, written "one for a sin-offering" — and not two; "one for a burnt-offering" — and not two.

3) "one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering": Wherever a sin-offering is being replaced (by a bird, as in the case of tamei mikdash), "sin-offering" precedes "burnt-offering" (viz. Vayikra 5:7), and here, where a burnt-offering is being replaced, "burnt-offering" precedes "sin-offering." Wherever it (the bird-offering) comes for a sin, (as in tamei mikdash), "sin-offering" precedes "burnt-offering." Here, where it does not come for a sin, "burnt-offering" precedes "sin-offering." Wherever two (birds) come in place of a sin-offering, (as in tamei mikdash), "sin-offering" precedes "burnt-offering." Here, where two do not come in place of a sin-offering, "burnt-offering" precedes "sin-offering." Variantly: What is the intent of "one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering" (when in the other instances "sin-offering" precedes "burnt-offering")? Because in the instances where "sin-offering" precedes "burnt-offering," if he brings the sin-offering first, he must bring the burnt-offering of the same kind (pigeon or turtle-dove) as the sin-offering — whence is it derived that if (in our instance) she brought the burnt-offering first, she must bring the sin-offering of the same kind as the burnt-offering? From "one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering." Variantly: If she brought a turtle-dove for her sin-offering and a pigeon for her burnt-offering, she "doubles" and brings a turtle-dove for her burnt-offering. If she brought a turtle-dove for her burnt-offering and a pigeon for her sin-offering, she "doubles" and brings a pigeon for her burnt-offering, (the sin-offering serving as the criterion, for it is it which effects atonement). Ben Azzai says: We follow the first (as per the first variant). "one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering and the Cohein shall make atonement for her": We are hereby taught (by the proximity of "sin-offering" to the next word "vechiper" [atonement]) that it is the sin-offering which effects atonement. "and she shall be clean": to eat of the sacrifices.

4) "his guilt-offering for his sin": Just as with his guilt-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering, so, with his sin-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering.

4) "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering": the owner must dedicate them thus. And whence is it derived that if the Cohein dedicated them, his dedication stands? From: "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering (Vayikra 5:6): "and he shall bring them to the Cohein."

5) (Vayikra 5:5): "a female" — not a tumtum (of unknown sex) or hermaphrodite. "flock" — anything that can be subsumed in "flock," even one that is mute, imbecilic, or dwarfish. "of the flock" — not a pilgess (a thirteen month sheep, see Chapter 10:2). "a lamb or a goat-kid, for a sin-offering": What does this come to teach us? If that if he did not find a lamb, he may bring a goat-kid, does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If for a sin-offering (a lamb) that is brought for all of the mitzvoth, a bird may not be substituted but a goat-kid may be substituted (viz. Vayikra 4:32) — this offering, for which a bird may be substituted (viz. Vayikra 5:7), a goat-kid may not be substituted? (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?)

10) (Vayikra 5:10) "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed": As prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast or as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (that does not require sundering in its "pinching," viz. Vayikra 5:7) above)? (Vayikra 1:15) "And the Cohein shall bring it" (a bird burnt-offering — as distinct from the "pinching" of a bird sin-offering (Vayikra 5:8) —) distinguishes a burnt-offering from a sin-offering. For you could say "as prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast" — Just as the sin-offering of a beast comes from chullin (mundane monies, and not from monies of the second tithe), and (is sacrificed only in) the daytime, and (only with) the right hand, so (do these apply to) a bird burnt-offering. R. Yishmael says: "As prescribed" (means) as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (which precedes [Vayikra 5:8]). Just as with the sin-offering of a bird — "opposite its nape," so with the burnt-offering of a bird, opposite its nape. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: As prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird. Just as with the sin-offering of a bird, he holds its head and its body and sprinkles (viz. Vayikra 5:9), so (does he do) with the burnt-offering of a bird. I might think that just as there (with the sin-offering of a bird), (only) one sign (is severed), here, too, (with the burnt-offering of a bird), (only) one sign should be severed. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the donative burnt-offering of a bird [Vayikra 1:15]): "And he shall bring it," (and not the prescribed burnt-offering of a bird — our case — with the severing of the two signs).

15) (Vayikra 15:15) ("And the Cohein shall offer them up, one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering; and the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd from his discharge.") "And the Cohein shall offer them up, one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering": The Cohein must designate them, one for a sin-offering; the other, for a burnt-offering. Whence is it derived that if he (the owner) himself designates them it is valid? From (Vayikra 5:7 and Vayikra 5:8):" one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. And he shall bring them to the Cohein."