Midrasz do Kapłańska 1:14

1) (Vayikra 1:14): "And if from the fowl, an olah is his offering": "the fowl, an olah," but not peace-offerings. (Without the exclusion we might reason:) Now is this not a kal vachomer? If an olah, which may not be brought from females as (they may be brought) from males, may be brought from fowl — peace-offerings, which may be brought from females as from males, how much more so should it be permitted to bring them from fowl! It is, therefore, written "the fowl, an olah" — and not peace-offerings. These are the words of R. Shimon.

1) I might think that just as a bird cannot be brought as a communal gift-offering, so it cannot be brought as a gift of two (i.e., in partnership); it is, therefore, written (superfluously) "and he shall offer" (Ibid.) to teach us that it can be brought as a gift of two.

1) (Vayikra 1:15): "And the Cohein shall bring it near to the altar"): Why "And he shall bring it"? (In context the "it" is superfluous). Because it is written (Vayikra 1:14): "And he shall offer his offering from the turtle-doves or from the young," I might think that he could offer no fewer than two; it is, therefore, written "And he shall bring it near" — even one suffices.

2) If so, why "a man, a man"? To include gentiles, who vow votive (offerings) and gift-offerings as a Jew does "which" they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering": This tells me only of a burnt-offering. Whence do I include peace-offerings? From "their vows." Whence do I include the thank-offering? From "their free-will offerings. Whence do I include bird-offerings, meal-offerings, wine, frankincense, and wood? From "of all their vows," "of all their free-will offerings." If so, why is it written "which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering"? To exclude the burnt-offering of a Nazirite. (Naziriteship not "taking" with a gentile). These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yossi Haglili said to him: Even if you "include" a whole day, only a burnt-offering obtains (i.e., Whatever he brings becomes a burnt-offering). (Vayikra 22:19) According to your wills, a male without blemish, of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats.") (According to your wills": No coercion is exercised for the presentation of communal offerings. "a male without blemish, of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats": The absence of blemishes and maleness are criteria for beasts but not for birds. I might think (even) if its wing withered, if its eye were gouged out or its leg cut off; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:14) "of the bird," and not all of the bird.

2) R. Yehudah said: Now if female beasts, which may not be brought as oloth, may be brought as peace-offerings — female birds, (and, it goes without saying, male birds,) which may be brought as oloth, how much more so should it be permitted to bring them as peace-offerings! It is, therefore, written "the fowl, an olah" — and not peace-offerings.

2) Rebbi says: It is written (Vayikra 22:18): "… who will bring his offering, of all of their vows and of all of their gift-offerings which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering" — All consecrated offerings may be brought in partnership, Scripture excluding only meal-offerings, in respect to which it is written (Vayikra 2:1): "If a soul offer a meal-offering to the L–rd."

3) "from the fowl" — and not all the fowl. Because it is written (Ibid. 22:19): "a male without blemish, in the cattle, in the sheep, and in the goats," implying that "unblemished male" is a requirement only in the above, but not in fowl, I might think that it is kasher even if its wing were dried up, its eye dug out, or its leg cut off; it is, therefore, written: "from the fowl" — and not all the fowl.

3) I might think that any bird is kasher; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 2:14): "… then he shall offer his offering from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons" — only these are permitted. "turtle-doves" — large, and not small. For is it not a kal vachomer (if not for a limiting clause, that small ones should be permitted), viz.: If young pigeons, which may not be offered large, may be offered small — turtle-doves, which may be offered large, how much more so should it be permitted to offer them small.

4) R. Shimon said: I might think that an ethnan ("the hire of a prostitute") or a mechir ("the exchange of a dog") were kasher with fowl, and that this would even be supported by a kal vachomer, viz.: Now if consecrated animals are made pasul by a blemish, but not by ethnan and mechir — fowl, which are not made pasul by a blemish, how much more so should they not be made pasul by ethnan and mechir! It is, therefore, written (in relation to ethnan and mechir [Devarim 23:19]): "for every vow" — to include (as interdicted, even) fowl.

4) "young pigeons" — small, and not large. For is it not a kal vachomer (if not for a limiting clause, that large ones should be permitted), viz.: If turtle-doves, which may not be offered small, may be offered large — young pigeons, which may be offered small, how much more so should it be permitted to offer them large! It is, therefore, written "young pigeons" — small (the usual), and not large.

5) R. Eliezer says: Wherever "male" and "female" are mentioned, tumtum (an animal of doubtful sex) or androgynus (a hermaphroditic animal) are pasul. "male" and "female," not being mentioned in respect to birds, tumtum and androgynus do not render them pasul.

5) I might think that all turtle-doves and all young pigeons are kasher. It is, therefore, written: "from the turtle-doves," and not all of them — to exclude, in both, those at the stage when the neck feathers begin to shine (the intermediate stage). When are turtle-doves kasher? When they are gold-like (i.e., qualifying as "large"). When are young pigeons unfit? When they begin to shine (i.e., no longer qualifying as "small").

5) (Vayikra 5:8) "and he shall bring them": A bird (that became defective) cannot be redeemed (and replaced with another bird with its monies). ("And he shall bring them) to the Cohein": The burden of getting them (to the Cohein) is his. "And he shall sacrifice the one for the sin-offering first": What are we taught hereby? If that the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering in all of its operations, is this not explicitly stated (Vayikra 5:10): "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed (Vayikra 1:14)"? Why, then, need this be repeated? To serve as a prototype (binyan av, see Hermeneutical Principles [Vayikra 1:3]) for all sin-offerings accompanied by burnt-offerings:

6) (Vayikra 1:14): "his offering" — an individual may offer a bird, but a bird may not be brought as a communal offering. Now does it not follow (that a bird may be brought as a communal offering), viz.: A beast-burnt-offering may be brought as vow or gift, and a bird burnt-offering may be brought as vow or gift. Just as the first may be brought as a communal gift offering, so, the second!

6) (Vayikra 1:14): ("… from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons shall be his offering"): His offering shall be turtle-doves and young pigeons, but not his authorization (i.e., they may not serve [as birds (tzipporin) do] as authorization for a leper to re-enter the encampment). For (without the exclusion clause) is it not a kal vachomer (that they should serve as authorization), viz.: If tzipporin, which are not fit to atone (i.e., to be offerings) within (the Temple), are fit to atone (i.e., to serve as authorization) outside — turtle-doves and young pigeons, which are fit to atone within, how much more so should they be fit to atone outside! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "turtle-doves and young pigeons shall be his offering" — but not his authorization.

7) No, this is refuted by a meal-offering, which is brought (by an individual) as gift or vow, but which is not brought as a communal gift-offering. No, that may be so with a meal-offering, which may not be offered (in partnership) by two (persons), as opposed to a bird burnt-offering, which may be brought by two. This is refuted by peace-offerings, which may be brought by two, but which may not be brought as a communal gift-offering.

7) kal vachomer that tzipporin should be kasher to atone within: If turtle-doves and young pigeons, which are not fit to atone outside (see above), are fit to atone within — tzipporin, which are fit to atone outside, how much more so should they be fit to atone within! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "and he shall offer from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons, his offering." Only these are kasher for offerings from the fowl.

8) No, it may be that peace-offerings may not be brought as communal gift-offerings because they are excluded (from sacrifice) by (absence of) wholeness or of maleness, as opposed to birds, which are not thus excluded. And since they are not thus excluded, (we would say, without an exclusion clause,) that they may be brought as communal gift offerings. It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — an individual may offer a bird, but a bird may not be brought as a communal offering.

8) R. Yehudah said: Now if in a case (that of a rich leper), where the authorization (to eat consecrated food) within is similar to the atonement within, (i.e., in both instances it is a beast [that is sacrificed]), the authorization (tzipporin) outside is different (i.e., it is a bird), then in a case (that of a poor leper), where the authorization within (i.e., a beast) is not similar to the atonement within (turtle-doves or young pigeons), how much more so should it follow that the authorization outside should be different! (so that we would know even without the exclusion clause that he could not bring turtle-doves or young pigeons for that authorization!) — That kal vachomer would serve for a poor leper; but whence would we derive the same for a rich leper (where even turtle-doves or young pigeons would satisfy the "difference" requirement for outside authorization, [inside authorization being effected by a beast])? It is, therefore, written: "from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons, his offering" — and not his (outside) authorization.

9) Another derivation process (for including fowl in communal gift-offerings, so that an exclusion clause is required for ruling otherwise): Now if a beast burnt-offering, which is limited by Scripture as an offering, not being brought from females as from males, and (not being brought) from blemished animals as from unblemished, still is brought as a communal gift-offering — a bird burnt-offering, which is "broadened" by Scripture as an offering, being brought from females and from males, and from blemished birds as from unblemished — how much more so should it be permitted as a communal gift-offering! It is, therefore, written "his offering" — an individual may offer a bird, but a bird may not be brought as a communal offering.