כי איצטריך קרא למעוטי נרבע ונעבד
The Gemara rejects that proof: When the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” was necessary, it was to exclude a bird that was the object of bestiality or a bird that was worshipped as a deity.
סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתיב (ויקרא כב, כה) כי משחתם בהם מום בם ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל מקום שנאמר השחתה אינו אלא דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים דבר ערוה דכתיב (בראשית ו, יב) כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו על הארץ
As it could enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to the halakhot of disqualified offerings: “Because their corruption [moshḥatam] is in them, there is a blemish in them” (Leviticus 22:25), referring to two types of disqualifications: Corruption and blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption [hashḥata] is stated, it is referring to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship. The Gemara cites proofs for this claim: Corruption is referring to matters of licentiousness, as it is written: “For all flesh had corrupted [hishḥit] their way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12); the word “way” alludes to sexual intercourse.
עבודת כוכבים דכתיב (דברים ד, טז) פן תשחיתון ועשיתם לכם פסל כל שהמום פוסל בו דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים פוסלין בו וכל שאין המום פוסל בו אין דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים פוסלין בו והני עופות הואיל ולא פסיל בהו מומא דאמר מר תמות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות אימא דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים נמי לא לפסול בהו קא משמע לן
Corruption is also referring to idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly [tashḥitun], and make you a graven image” (Deuteronomy 4:16); one might have thought: Any type of offering that a blemish disqualifies, matters of licentiousness and idol worship disqualify it, and any type of offering that a blemish does not disqualify, matters of licentiousness and idol worship do not disqualify it. And with regard to these birds, since blemishes do not disqualify them, as the Master says: There is a requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in a sacrificial animal and there is no requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in sacrificial birds, say that matters of licentiousness and idol worship should also not disqualify the birds. Therefore, the tanna teaches us from the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” that a bird that was the object of bestiality and a bird that was worshipped as a deity are disqualified.
בעי רבי זירא האומר הרי עלי עולת בהמה מן האיל או מן הכבש והביא פלגס מהו
§ Apropos the discussion of the beginning of the yellowing of the neck plumage, the Gemara cites another matter where there is uncertainty as to whether an animal of a particular age is of uncertain status or an entity in and of itself. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal burnt offering of a ram, which is a sheep that is at least thirteen months old, or of a lamb, which is up to one year old, and he brought a palges, which is between one year and thirteen months old, what is the halakha?
אליבא דרבי יוחנן לא תבעי לך דאמר בריה הוי דתנן הקריבו מביא עליו נסכי איל ואין עולה לו מזבחו
The Gemara elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, do not raise a dilemma, as he says that a palges is an entity in and of itself, as we learned in a mishna (Para 1:3): If one was obligated to bring a ram or lamb as an offering, and he sacrificed a palges, he brings with it the meal offering and the libations of a ram offering, namely, a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mingled with four log of oil, and a libation of four log of wine, but it does not fulfill his obligation to bring his offering.
וא"ר יוחנן (במדבר טו, ו) או לאיל לרבות את הפלגס
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the requirement to bring the meal offering and libations of a ram offering is derived from the verse in the portion of the libations: “Or for a ram, you shall prepare for a meal offering two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-third of a hin of oil” (Numbers 15:6); that serves to include the palges, whose meal offering and libations are like that of a ram. Based on that derivation, there is no uncertainty with regard to the status of the palges.
כי תבעי לך אליבא דבר פדא
When you raise a dilemma, it is according to the opinion of bar Padda, who holds that it is a case of uncertainty,