SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM: LET SACRED SACRIFICES WHICH ARE SLAUGHTERED IN THE SOUTH AND IN THE NAME OF LESSER SACRIFICES (1) PROVE IT: FOR HE CHANGED THEIR NAME TO SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS, AND YET THEY INVOLVE TRESPASS. (2) SO ALSO, DO NOT WONDER THAT IN THE CASE OF THE BURNT-OFFERING, ALTHOUGH HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS, IT INVOLVES TRESPASS. NOT SO, REPLIED R. JOSHUA: IF YOU SAY THUS OF MOST SACRED SACRIFICES WHICH ARE SLAUGHTERED IN THE SOUTH AND IN THE NAME OF LESSER SACRIFICES, [THEY INVOLVE TRESPASS] BECAUSE HE CHANGED THEIR NAME TO SOMETHING WHICH IS PARTLY FORBIDDEN AND PARTLY PERMITTED; (3) WILL YOU SAY THE SAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING, WHERE HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING THAT IS ALTOGETHER PERMITTED? (4) GEMARA. It was taught: R. Eliezer said to R. Joshua: Let a guilt-offering slaughtered in the north as a peace-offering prove it; though he changed its name, it involves trespass. (5) So need you not wonder that a burnt-offering involves trespass even though he changed its name. Said R. Joshua to him: No. If you say thus of a guilt-offering, where he changed its name but not its place, (6) will you say [the same] of a burnt-offering, where he changed its name and its place? Said R. Eliezer to him: Let a guilt-offering slaughtered in the south as a peace-offering prove it, where he changed its name and its place, yet it involves trespass. So need you not wonder that a burnt-offering involves trespass even though he changed its name and changed its place. No, replied R. Joshua. If you say [thus] of a guilt-offering, where [though] he changed its name and its place, he did not deviate in its rites; will you say [the same] of a burnt-offering, where he changed its name and its place and its rites? Thereupon he was silent. Said Raba: Why was he silent? (7) He could answer him: Let a guilt-offering which one slaughtered in the south, in the name of a peace-offering and with change of owner, (8) prove it, where he changed its name and its place and its rites, (9) and yet it involves trespass. Now, since he did not answer him thus, you may infer that R. Eliezer discerned R. Joshua's reason. (10) For R. Adda b. Ahabah said: R. Joshua maintained: If a bird burnt-offering was offered below with the rites of a sin-offering and in the name of a sin-offering, immediately he nipped one organ thereof it is transmuted into a bird sin-offering. (11) If so, a bird sin-offering which was offered above [the red line] with the rites of a burnt-offering [and] in the name of a burnt-offering, as soon as he nips one organ of it, let it be transmuted through the other organ into a bird burnt-offering? And should you say, That indeed is so, (12) surely R. Johanan said in R. Banna'ah's name: That is the tenor of the Mishnah. (13) Does that not mean, That is the tenor of the Mishnah, but no more? (14) — No: [it means,] that is the tenor of the whole Mishnah. (15) R. Ashi said: As for a bird burnt-offering offered below with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sin-offering, it is well: (16) since the fitness of the latter requires one organ, whereas that of the former requires both organs, while a bird burnt-offering cannot be offered below, immediately he nips one organ, it is transmuted into a bird sinoffering. But when one offers a bird sinoffering above with the rites of a burntoffering [and] in the name of a burnt-offering, since a master said, Melikah is valid wherever it is done, immediately he nips one organ, it becomes unfit; (17) when therefore he nips the second organ, how can it be transmuted into a bird burnt-offering? (18) The [above] text [stated]: ‘R. Adda b. Ahabah said: R. Joshua maintained: If a bird burntoffering was offered below with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sinoffering, immediately he nipped one organ thereof, it is transmuted into a bird sinoffering.’

---

(1). ↑ Thus they were treated altogether like lesser sacrifices, both in name and in the place of slaughtering.
(2). ↑ For since they became unfit through being slaughtered in the south, the subsequent sprinkling does not permit them that they should no longer involve trespass.
(3). ↑ The flesh is permitted, but the emurim are forbidden and involve trespass.
(4). ↑ No part of a bird sin-offering is forbidden.
(5). ↑ Rashi: before the sprinkling of the blood, but not after, for then it is eaten by priests. Tosaf.: even after the sprinkling, as R. Eliezer holds that a guilt-offering slaughtered under a different designation is unfit and may not be eaten (supra 2a).
(6). ↑ He slaughtered it in the right place.
(7). ↑ Emended text (Sh. M.).
(8). ↑ I.e., in the name of a different person.
(9). ↑ Change of owner is equivalent to change of rites.
(10). ↑ Which applies only to a bird burnt-offering.
(11). ↑ For the latter requires one organ only. Hence immediately one organ is nipped, there is absolutely nothing to distinguish it from a sinoffering, and so it does turn into one before it can become unfit through having its rites incorrectly performed. This reason can only apply to a bird burnt-offering, for animal sacrifices require the cutting of both organs.
(12). ↑ And it is fit. On this hypothesis the Mishnah which states that it is unfit will not agree with R. Joshua.
(13). ↑ The Mishnah is to be understood as it is read.
(14). ↑ I.e., exactly as it reads, viz., that R. Joshua disagrees only where stated.
(15). ↑ That he disagrees in respect of both a burntoffering and a sin-offering.
(16). ↑ That R. Joshua disagrees and holds that it is fit.
(17). ↑ For it was properly nipped (the wrong place not affecting it) as a sin-offering, but under a different designation, which renders it unfit (supra 2a).
(18). ↑ Hence here R. Joshua agrees with the Mishnah.