The sacrifice brought by a woman who has given birth is made up of two separate offerings: An olah (a burnt-offering) and a hatat (a sin-offering) – “A lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering” (Vayikra 12:6). The Torah, however, does not offer just one option for sacrifice in this case, rather there are a number of possibilities based on the financial situation of the woman: “If, however, her means are not enough for a lamb, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering” (Vayikra 12:6). This is a progressive offering – it is decided based on her ability to pay, or, as the sages refer to it, “a sacrifice [whose price] rises and falls.” If she cannot afford to purchase a lamb for the sacrificial service in the Temple, she can bring a more affordable dove or pigeon instead. This is a sacrifice of atonement, in addition to the sacrifice of purity. By allowing people to receive atonement for a lower price, the Torah makes atonement accessible to all.
The sages established the financial cut-off point determining whether an individual must bring an offering from the highest “tax bracket” as just above having the ability to purchase a lamb. According to the midrash halakhah:
If she has enough for a lamb but not for its accompanying needs, whence is it derived that she brings a pauper's offering? From “enough for a lamb” (connoting all that is necessary for a lamb).
If a woman can afford to purchase a lamb, but keeping it and feeding it is beyond her means, she will not be obligated to bring a lamb – an offering of a dove or a pigeon will suffice. When I was little and trips to Europe were expensive and few people could afford to travel for pleasure, my aunt told me that the only people who fly are those who have enough money to also buy presents to bring back home. This is the same idea. The only woman who is obligated to sacrifice a lamb is one whose life will not be affected by such an expense. Economic ability is not the same as economic well-being.
The midrash also notes that the Torah could have made an alternative suggestion to solve the economic challenge; it could have required her to go into debt or to find some other means of raising the money. Yet they conclude that “we do not tell her to get a job” and “we do not tell her to take a loan.” The test of economic viability is based on her current situation and not on illusions of future promises or relying on savings funds.
The principle – whose essence is in the Written Torah and whose more powerful fulfillment appears in the two teachings of the midrash – is the idea that atonement must be readily available. Atonement must be accessible to all, and cannot be limited to those who can afford to purchase it. It is not something that belongs solely to society’s elite class.
A slightly different explanation can also be suggested – that the Torah offers two perspectives. On the one hand, atonement is presented as something of great value, while, on the other hand, it is presented as something that is accessible to even the simplest Jew. The combination of these two statements – the high-priced atonement and the atonement at a bargain price – should make every person be thankful for the mercy being shown in having the opportunity for atonement and for its accessibility.
The midrash aggadah makes use of the laws of the sacrifice whose price rises and falls in order to discuss the give-and-take relationship that we have with God. The midrash describes the overwhelming, endless generosity that God showers upon us, in contrast with the finite and narrow demands imposed on mankind:
When the Holy One blessed be He grants something to the Israelite nation, He gives it without limitation, and when He asks something from them, He asks but a very small amount. When they were in Egypt, He gave them limitless things – He gave them wealth and clothing and jewelry and large amounts of gold, flocks and herds.
But when He asked something of them, he only asked that they donate a half-shekel coin, and from the flocks he asked only for “one lamb in the morning, and …the other lamb at twilight” (Shemot 29:39).
He gave them fowl according to His ability, as it says: “A wind from the LORD started up, swept quail from the sea and strewed them over the camp, about a day’s journey on this side and about a day’s journey on that side, all around the camp, and some two cubits deep on the ground” (Bamidbar 11:31).
But when He asked something of them it was according to their abilities: “two turtledoves or two pigeons” (Vayikra 5:7).
When He lit the way for them, He did so according to His abilities, as it says: “The LORD went before them in a pillar of cloud by day, to guide them along the way, and in a pillar of fire by night, to give them light, that they might travel day and night” (Shemot 13:21).
But when He asked something of them it was according to their abilities, as it says: “…to bring you clear oil of beaten olives for lighting, for kindling lamps regularly” (Shemot 27:20).
When He gave them manna He did so according to His abilities,
But when He asked something of them it was according to their abilities, as it says: “Take a jar, put one omer of manna in it, and place it before the LORD, to be kept throughout the ages” (Shemot 16:33).
When He gave them wheat He did so according to His abilities, as it says: “You shall eat old grain long stored, and you shall have to clear out the old to make room for the new” (Vayikra 26:10).
But when He asked something of them it was according to their abilities, as it says: “When you enter the land that I am giving to you and you reap its harvest, you shall bring the first sheaf of your harvest to the priest” (Vayikra 23:10).
God is presented here as a generous patron who requires little for Himself. Since everything belongs to Him, He distributes it without concern, and even succeeds in giving Man the impression that He contributes, as it were, to God’s sustenance. But the point of the midrash is not to focus on the lack of symmetry, but how there exists a perfect balance between God and Mankind. Both of them give according to their abilities. God, whose power is infinite, gives without limit, while man, limited and helpless, gives within his limits and according to the limitations of defined, finite and narrow thought. The infinite giving is God’s; the limited giving is Man’s.
Were God to make unreasonable demands that are beyond man’s abilities and conceptions, those demands would lose all meaning. Were that the case, man would have to search for a relationship with God outside of his existential sphere. An encounter with God – for all of His infiniteness and beyond any human logic – is both possible and achievable.