I. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, “`According to the ordinance' [implies] according to the ordinance of the sin-offering of a fowl.” What [is the rule] there? [22a] He must hold the head and the body and sprinkle the blood. Even here [for the whole-offering of a fowl] he holds the head and the body and sprinkles the blood.
J. What should you say that this means? Here is what you should say: What is the case there [for the sin-offering of a fowl]? When the head is still attached to the body he sprinkles the blood. Even here [for the burnt-offering] the rule is that when the head is still attached to the body he should sprinkle the blood.
K. If so [you should also deduce as follows]: What is the case there [for the sin-offering]? [It suffices to sever] one organ. Even here [for the burnt-offering it suffices to sever] one organ. It comes to teach, “And the priest shall bring it” (Lev. 1:15) [i.e., “it” has its own rules, for a burnt-offering both must be severed].
L. And [how does] the first Tanna [respond]? After all we derive [from Scripture the rules that he must] “wring off its head, and burn it on the altar” (ibid.), what do I need [to derive the specification that it has its own rules from], “And the priest shall bring it”?
M. If it were not [for the fact that Scripture specified,] “And the priest shall bring it,” I would have reasoned, what does it mean by, “According to the ordinance”? According to the ordinance of the sin-offering of a fowl. [I would need to sever only one organ.] And if I were to derive [the rule from,] “Wring off its head, and burn it on the altar,” I would have reasoned that just as burning must take place at the top of the altar, so even the wringing must take place at the top of the altar.
N. And now that the Torah wrote, “And the priest shall bring it,” he should interpret this as well [to imply that the rules are the same for the sin- and burnt-offerings with regard to rules for the blood and for the severing of the organs].
A. Behold, [the rule that] the sin-offering of a fowl comes only from unconsecrated birds [V.2 F] — based on what do we derive this? Said R. Hisda, “For Scripture says, `And Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin-offering for himself, [and shall make atonement for himself and for his house]' (Lev. 16:6). `For himself' [implies] from his own property, and not from public property, and not from [property set aside for second] tithes.”
B. [The rule that the sin-offering of a fowl may be brought only] during the day [V.2 F] is derived [from the verse], “On the day that he commanded [the people of Israel to bring their offerings to the Lord, in the wilderness of Sinai]” (Lev. 7:38). It is stated for no purpose (so Cashdan).
C. [The rule that the ritual may be performed only with] his [the priest's] right hand is derived from [the teaching of] Rabbah bar bar Hannah. For said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “Any place it says `finger' or `priest' it implies that he must use his right hand.” And the other [view that disputes this one holds that if it states] `priest' it must [also state] `finger' [so as to require use of the right hand]. If it states `finger' it need not state `priest' [in order to require use of the right hand].
D. And the first Tanna and R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon from what source do they derive that it must be opposite the neck bone [that they wring the neck of the burnt-offering]? They derive the teaching [from one circumstance applied to the other because they both use the language of] `wringing the neck.'
A. That which is valid in the case of turtledoves is invalid in the case of pigeons.
B. What is valid in the case of pigeons is invalid in the case of turtledoves.
C. The beginning of the brightening [of the neck feathers like gold] in both this one and that one is invalid.
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: Large [i.e., mature] turtledoves are valid. Small ones [i.e., young] are invalid. Small pigeons are valid. Large ones are invalid. It turns out that what is valid for turtledoves is invalid for pigeons. And what is valid for pigeons is invalid for turtledoves.
B. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: “Turtledoves” [in Scripture implies they must be] large ones and not small ones. For I might have thought that it was logical to reason: [22b] what do we find regarding pigeons? They did not deem large ones valid, but they did deem small ones valid. For turtledoves, in that they did deem large ones valid, is it not logical to conclude that they deemed small ones valid? It comes to teach, “Turtledoves” (Lev. 1:14) [to imply that they must be] large ones and not small ones.
C. “Young pigeons” [in Scripture implies that they must be] small ones and not large ones. For I might have thought that it was logical to reason: what do we find regarding turtledoves? They did not deem small ones valid, but they did deem large ones valid. For pigeons, in that they did deem small ones valid, is it not logical to conclude that they deemed large ones valid? It comes to teach, “Young pigeons” (Lev. 1:14) [to imply that they must be] small ones and not large ones.
D. What is the basis of this teaching? Said Raba, “Scripture never once wrote, `From the young turtledoves or from the mature pigeons.' It makes sense to say then that the young pigeons that the Torah wrote about [must be young]. [The rule is] small ones, yes; large ones, no.”
E. [I might then argue regarding] turtledoves [where there is no indication that they must be young or old] — if he wishes large ones, let him bring them. If he wishes small ones, let him bring them. [We reject this argument.] The [rule for them] must parallel that of the pigeons. Just as for pigeons [we say] small ones, yes; large ones, no, so too for turtledoves [we say] large ones, yes; small ones, no.
F. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: You might argue that all the turtledoves and all the pigeons are valid. It comes to teach [to the contrary in Lev. 1:14], “[If his offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering] of turtledoves,” but not all turtledoves; “or of young pigeons,” but not all young pigeons. This excludes [birds at that stage of development when their neck feathers] start to take on a sheen in both categories [i.e, turtledoves and pigeons], for these are invalid.
G. At what stage [of development] are turtledoves deemed valid? When [their plumage] turns yellow. At what stage are young pigeons deemed invalid? When [their plumage] takes on a sheen.
H. Taught Jacob Qorha, “At what stage [of development] are young pigeons deemed valid?” When their blood circulates fully. He taught this [rule] and he said this [is its basis], “His young ones suck [i.e., using the same Hebrew as the word for circulate] up blood; [and where the slain are, there is he]” (Job 39:30).
I. When is this? Said Abayye, “From when if he pulls a feather out [of a fledgling and] blood comes out.”
A. R. Zira posed the question, “If a person says, `I take upon myself a vow to bring a burnt-offering from turtledoves or young pigeons,' and he brought [a pair of each kind of bird, both at the stage of development when their neck feathers] start to take on a sheen. What is the law?”
B. Do we say that [birds at this stage have] doubtful status, and [since he brought two pairs] he fulfilled his obligation? Or do we say that [at this stage we have a case of a separate category of bird, neither turtledove nor young pigeon, but] another creature, and [accordingly, the pairs he brought] do not fulfill his obligation?
C. Said Raba, “Come and take note [of what we said at I.1 F above], `This excludes [birds at that stage of development when their neck feathers] start to take on a sheen in both categories [i.e, turtledoves and pigeons], for these are invalid.' It is consistent to say this if you hold the view that [birds at this stage are like] another creature — it is perfectly acceptable [to say they are invalid]. But if you say that [birds at this stage have] doubtful status — do you need Scripture [as at I.1 F] to exclude a case of doubtful status?”