אמר לו רבי אליעזר והרי קדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום ושחטן לשם קדשים קלים יוכיחו שכן שינה את שמם לדבר שאין בו מעילה ומועלין בהן אף אתה אל תתמה על העולה אף על פי ששינה שמה לדבר שאין בו מעילה שימעלו בה

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The case of offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard and slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, will prove that the fact that one changed the offering’s designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse is not a relevant factor. As in this case, one changed their designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse and, nevertheless, one is liable for misusing them. You too should not be puzzled about the burnt offering, concerning which even though one changed its designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse, the halakha is that one would be liable for misusing it.

אמר לו רבי יהושע לא אם אמרת בקדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום ושחטן לשם קדשים קלים שכן שינה את שמם לדבר שיש בו איסור והיתר תאמר בעולה ששינה את שמה לדבר שכולו היתר

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, that is no proof, as if you said with regard to offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard, and slaughtered them for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, that one is liable for misusing them, that is reasonable. The reason is that one who slaughtered them changed their designation to an item for which there are both prohibited and permitted elements as offerings of lesser sanctity. Although one is not liable for misuse of their flesh, after the blood is sprinkled one is liable for misuse of the portions consumed on the altar. Would you say the halakha is the same in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation to an item that is permitted in its entirety, i. e., a bird sin offering, which is eaten by the priests and none of it is burned on the altar?

גמ׳ תניא אמר לו רבי אליעזר לרבי יהושע אשם ששחטו בצפון לשם שלמים יוכיח ששינה את שמו ומועלין בו ואף אתה אל תתמה על העולה שאף על פי ששינה את שמה שימעלו בה

GEMARA: The discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua is taught in a baraita, where it is recounted in greater detail: Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The case of a guilt offering that one slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard for the sake of a peace offering will prove my point, as here the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for misuse, and yet one is liable for misusing it. And you too should not be puzzled about the bird burnt offering that was sacrificed as a sin offering, concerning which even though the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for misuse, the halakha is that one is liable for misusing it.

אמר לו רבי יהושע לא אם אמרת באשם שאם שינה את שמו לא שינה את מקומו תאמר בעולה ששינה את שמה ושינה את מקומה

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say that this this is the halakha with regard to a guilt offering sacrificed as a peace offering, as although the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation, he still did not change its location but sacrificed it in the north of the Temple courtyard, which is the appropriate location for both guilt offerings and peace offerings, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to a bird burnt offering sacrificed below the red line as a sin offering, where the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and also changed its location?

אמר לו רבי אליעזר אשם ששחטו בדרום לשם שלמים יוכיח ששינה את שמו ושינה את מקומו ומועלין בו אף אתה אל תתמה על העולה שאף על פי ששינה את שמה ושינה את מקומה מועלין בה

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: A guilt offering that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard for the sake of a peace offering will prove my point, as here the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and also changed its location, and yet one is liable for misusing it. You too should not be puzzled about the bird burnt offering that was sacrificed below the red line as a sin offering, concerning which even though the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and also changed its location, the halakha is that one is liable for misusing it.

אמר לו רבי יהושע לא אם אמרת באשם ששינה את שמו ושינה את מקומו ולא שינה את מעשיו תאמר בעולה ששינה את שמה ואת מעשיה ושינה את מקומה

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say that this this is the halakha with regard to a guilt offering sacrificed as a peace offering, in which case the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and changed its location, but he did not change its procedure, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to a bird burnt offering sacrificed entirely according to the procedure of a sin offering, in which case the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and procedure and also changed its location?

אמר רבא ונימא ליה אשם ששחטו בדרום לשם שלמים בשינוי בעלים ששינה את שמו ושינה את מקומו ושינה את מעשיו

The baraita ends here, and it would appear that Rabbi Eliezer had no response to this claim. Rava said: Why? Let him say to Rabbi Yehoshua that a guilt offering that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard for the sake of a peace offering with a deviation with regard to the offering’s owner, i. e., he slaughtered it for the sake of someone other than the offering’s owner, will prove my opinion; as this is tantamount to a case where the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and changed its location and also changed its procedure, yet one is liable for its misuse.

מדלא קאמר ליה הכי שמע מינה נחית רבי אליעזר לטעמיה דרבי יהושע דאמר רב אדא בר אהבה אומר היה רבי יהושע עולת העוף שעשאה למטה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת כיון שמלק בה סימן אחד נמשכת ונעשית חטאת העוף

Rava concluded: Since he did not say this to him, learn from it that at this stage Rabbi Eliezer grasped Rabbi Yehoshua’s line of reasoning; as Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rabbi Yehoshua would say the following reasoning: In the case of a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering, once he pinched one of the organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [siman], i. e., either the gullet or the windpipe, the offering is removed from its status as a burnt offering and becomes a bird sin offering.

אי הכי חטאת העוף נמי שעשאה למעלה כמעשה העולה מכי מליק בה סימן אחד תימשך ותהוי עולת העוף וכי תימא הכי נמי והא אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי בנאה כך היא הצעה של משנה מאי לאו כך היא הצעה ותו לא

The Gemara challenges: If so, then in the case of a bird sin offering that one sacrificed above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering, too, as soon as he pinches one siman it should be removed from its status as a sin offering and become a bird burnt offering. And if you would say that indeed that is so, this is difficult: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Bena’a that this is the accurate presentation of the mishna? What, does he not mean that this is the accurate presentation in the sense that Rabbi Yehoshua’s principle applies specifically to the case stated in the mishna, namely, that of a burnt offering sacrificed as a sin offering, and to nothing more?

לא כך הצעה של כולה משנה

The Gemara answers: No, what Rabbi Bena’a means is that this is the accurate presentation of the entire mishna. Just as Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a bird burnt offering sacrificed entirely as a sin offering, he holds similarly that a bird sin offering sacrificed entirely as a burnt offering assumes the status of a burnt offering.

רב אשי אמר בשלמא עולת העוף שעשאה למטה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת כיון דהא הכשירה בסימן אחד והא הכשירה בשני סימנין ועולת העוף למטה ליתא כיון דמלק בה סימן אחד נמשכת ונעשית חטאת העוף

Rav Ashi said: The two cases are different. Granted, Rabbi Yehoshua’s principle applies to a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. Since the method of preparing this bird sin offering is by pinching one siman, and the method of preparing that bird burnt offering is by pinching two simanim, and since there can be no bird burnt offering below the red line, therefore once he pinched one siman below the red line, the offering is removed from its status as a burnt offering and becomes a bird sin offering.

אלא חטאת העוף כיון דאמר מר מליקה בכל מקום כשירה מכי מלק בה סימן אחד איפסלא כי הדר מליק באידך סימן היכי ממשכה והויא עולת העוף

But one cannot say this with regard to a bird sin offering that was sacrificed as a burnt offering. Since the Master said with regard to the bird sin offering: Pinching is valid everywhere on the altar, it follows that as soon as one pinched one siman for the sake of a burnt offering it was disqualified, like any other sin offering pinched for the sake of a different type of offering. Consequently, when he then pinched the other siman according to the procedure of a burnt offering, how could it then be removed from its status as a sin offering and become a bird burnt offering?

גופא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אומר היה רבי יהושע עולת העוף שעשאה למטה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת כיון שמלק בה סימן אחד נמשכת ונעשית חטאת העוף

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself, that Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rabbi Yehoshua would say: In the case of a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering, once he pinched one siman, the offering is removed from its status as a burnt offering and becomes a bird sin offering.