Zevachim 92B

וקרן, ואצבע, וחודה, ואישים.

and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priest’s finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.

אדרבה, חטאת העוף הוה ליה לרבויי ⁠– שכן חוץ כמותה, ואכילה כמותה! הנך נפישין.

The Talmud raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included and likened to the eaten animal sin offerings, as the blood of bird sin offerings is presented on the outer altar like an animal sin offering that is eaten, and the bird sin offering has portions set aside for eating, like it. The Talmud rejects the reasoning for including bird offerings: Those features that are common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to bird sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings.

רב יוסף אמר, אמר קרא: ״יאכלנה״⁠ – לזו ולא לאחרת; בנאכלות מיעט הכתוב.

Rav Yosef said: There is another way to prove that the blood of a bird sin offering is not required to be laundered out if it is sprayed on a garment. With regard to laundering, the verse states: “The priest that offers it for sin should eat it” (Leviticus 6:19); the obligation described applies to it, i.e., the eaten animal sin offering, and not to another similar sin offering. Consequently, the verse is excluding a case within the broad category of eaten sin offerings, and one is not required to launder out the blood of a bird sin offering.

ואלא ״זאת״ למה לי? אי לאו ״זאת״, הוי אמינא: ״יאכלנה״⁠ – אורחיה דקרא; קא משמע לן.

The Talmud asks: But if the exclusion of bird offerings is derived from this verse, then why do I need the derivation from the verse: “This is the law of the sin offering”? The Talmud answers: If not for the derivation from “this,” I would say that the term “should eat it” is simply the manner of speech of the verse, so that it does not indicate any exclusion. Therefore, the word “this” teaches us that a sin offering is excluded, and the term “should eat it,” demonstrates that the excluded sin offering is one that is eaten.