Why Only the Individual Brings a Bird Offering

Rav Sheshet said: If a slave's eye was blind and his master gouged it out, the slave goes free on its account; what is the reason? He is now lacking a limb. And the Tanna of the school taught likewise: wholeness and maleness apply to cattle but not to a bird; one might think this holds even if its wing dried up, and so on. "His offering" -- the individual brings a bird, but the community does not bring a bird. Is this not a logical argument? An animal burnt-offering comes by vow and by freewill gift, and a bird burnt-offering comes by vow and by freewill gift; just as the animal burnt-offering that comes by vow and freewill gift may come as a communal freewill gift, so the bird burnt-offering should come as a communal freewill gift. The meal-offering proves otherwise, for it comes by vow and freewill gift yet does not come as a communal freewill gift. But one could distinguish: the meal-offering does not come as the joint gift of two, whereas the bird burnt-offering does come as the gift of two. Peace-offerings prove the point, for they come as the gift of two yet do not come as a communal gift. One could still distinguish, and Scripture therefore teaches, "his offering": the individual brings a bird, but the community does not bring a bird. By another argument: if the animal burnt-offering, whose bringing Scripture limited so that it does not come from females as from males nor from blemished as from unblemished, nonetheless comes as a communal gift, then the bird burnt-offering, whose bringing Scripture expanded, should all the more come as a communal gift. Scripture therefore teaches, "his offering": the individual brings a bird, the community does not. One might think that just as it does not come as a communal gift, so it does not come as the gift of two; Scripture teaches "and he shall bring it," showing it comes as the gift of two. Rabbi says: Scripture states, "which he brings as his offering for all their vows and all their freewill gifts which they bring to the LORD" (Leviticus 22:18), teaching about consecrated things that they come in partnership, except that Scripture removed the meal-offering. One might think every bird is fit; Scripture teaches, "and he shall bring it from the turtledoves or from the young pigeons." You have among birds only turtledoves and young pigeons. "Turtledoves" -- the grown and not the young. Is this not logical? If young pigeons, which are not fit when grown, are fit when young, then turtledoves, which are fit when grown, should be fit when young; Scripture teaches "turtledoves" -- the grown and not the young. "Young pigeons" -- the young and not the grown. Is this not logical? If turtledoves, which are not fit when young, are fit when grown, then young pigeons, which are fit when young, should be fit when grown; Scripture teaches "young pigeons" -- the young and not the grown. One might think all turtledoves and all young pigeons are fit; Scripture teaches "from the turtledoves" -- not all turtledoves, "from the young pigeons" -- not all young pigeons, excluding the start of the yellow plumage in each. So from when are turtledoves fit? Once they shine golden. And from when are young pigeons unfit? Once they turn golden. "Young pigeons" -- the young and not the grown; what is the textual proof? Rava said: let Scripture not omit the wording and write "of the young of the turtledoves or of the pigeons"; since the Merciful One wrote "young pigeons," the young yes, the grown no. And say of turtledoves: if he wishes the grown let him bring, if he wishes the young let him bring -- no, they are likened to young pigeons: as young pigeons are the young yes, the grown no, so turtledoves are the grown yes, the young no. Rabbi Yaakov Korchah taught: from when are young pigeons fit? Once their feathers show blood. He both taught it and explained it from "and its young ones lap up blood." Abbaye said: from when one plucks a feather and blood comes.