אשה ריח ניחוח לשם, a fire-offering whose fragrance is pleasing to Hashem. Our sages in Menachot 110 comment that the fact that the Torah used this expression when describing the korban consisting of a four-legged animal, as well as when a bird-offering, as proof that Hashem does not judge a person's offering by its monetary value. The problem the Sages wanted to overcome was that if the Torah had written the term אשה ריח ניחוח לשם only in connection with the bird-offering which is worth a small amount it is obvious that a korban consisting of a four-legged animal should qualify for that description no less. Hence why did the Torah have to write the expression in connection with the offering of a four-legged animal? The answer to this is that the Torah wanted to emphasize that they are completely equal and that we should not think that the fact that the Torah mentioned ריח ניחוח in connection with the bird-offering was just an act of graciousness on the part of Hashem towards the poor, whereas the four-legged animal offered by the wealthy is dearer to Him. The Torah made the point that the bird-offering is not considered inferior for any reason at all by writing the otherwise unnecessary words ריח ניחוח לשם also in connection with the korban consisting of four-legged animals. Similarly the the Sages in the Talmud did not simply write הממעיט כמרבה, as this would not have conveyed his true meaning. It is a rule that when one says: "this is as good as that," that the "this" is inferior to the "that" seeing it is a derivative of it. The "this" to "that" relationship is akin to the student-teacher relationship. Even if the student has absorbed all of the teacher's knowledge, the teacher remains superior by dint of having taught the student what he knows. This is why our sages were careful to write: אחדהמרבה ו אחד הממעיט, that there is no difference between the person who offers a valuable animal as a sacrifice and the one who offers something less valuable.
