[If] a bird olah was made below, in the manner of a chatas-offering, for the designation of chatas — R’ Eliezer says: One is subject to me’ilah on its account; [but] R’ Yehoshua says: One is not subject to me’ilah on its account. Said R’ Eliezer: If a chatas-offering, which is not subject to me’ilah [when it has been offered] for its own designation, is [nevertheless] subject to me’ilah [when] one changed its designation; [then] an olah-offering, which is subject to me’ilah [when it is offered] for its own designation, should surely be subject to me’ilah when he changed its designation! Said R’ Yehoshua to him: Not so. If this can be said of a chatas-offering whose designation one changed to an olah, [it is] because he has changed its designation to something which is subject to me’ilah. Can [the same] be said of an olah-offering whose designation one changed to a chatas — in which case he has changed its designation to something which is not subject to me’ilah? Said R’ Eliezer to him: Let most holy offerings which one slaughtered in the southern [part of the Courtyard], and which he slaughtered for the lesser holiness designation, serve as proof — in that he has changed their designation to something not subject to me’ilah, and [yet] they are subject to me’ilah! So too you should not wonder at an olah-offering, that even when one changed its designation to something not subject to me’ilah, it [nevertheless] remains subject to me’ilah. Said R’ Yehoshua to him: Not so. If this can be said of most holy offerings which one slaughtered in the southern [part of the Courtyard], and which he slaughtered for lesser holiness designation, [it is] because he changed their designation to something which has forbidden [parts] and permissible [parts]. Can you say [the same] for an olah-offering whose designation one changed to something which is entirely permissible?

[If] he performed melikah with the left hand, or at night, or he slaughtered a non-sacred [bird] inside [the Courtyard], or offerings outside [it] — [these] do not contaminate with tumah via the throat. [If] he performed melikah with a knife, [or] he performed melikah on a non-sacred [bird] inside, [or on] offerings outside, [or on] turtledoves whose time has not arrived, or young pigeons whose time has passed, [or on a bird] whose wing has atrophied, or whose eye was blinded, or whose foot was cut off — [they] contaminate with tumah via the throat. This is the rule: Anything whose disqualification is in the Holy does not contaminate with tumah via the throat; [but] if its disqualification is not in the Holy, it contaminates with tumah via the throat. All disqualified persons who perform melikah, their melikah is not valid, but [the birds] do not contaminate with tumah via the throat.

[If] he performed melikah and it was found to be a tereifah — R’ Meir says: It does not contaminate with tumah via the throat; R’ Yehudah says: It contaminates with tumah via the throat. Said R’ Meir: If the carcass of an animal, which transmits tumah through touching and carrying, [yet] its slaughter rids its tereifah of any tumah, [then] the carcass of a bird, which does not transmit tumah through touching and carrying, does it not follow that its shechitah should surely rid its tereifah of any tumah! [Thus,] just as we find regarding shechitah that it renders permissible for eating, and it [also] rids its tereifah of tumah, so too its melikah, which renders permissible for eating, should [also] rid its tereifah of tumah. R’ Yose says: It suffices that it be like an animal carcass, whose shechitah cleanses it [of tumah], but not its melikah.

[If] any sacrifices became mixed with chatas- offerings that must be left to die, or with an ox that must be stoned — even [if only] one in ten thousand — they must all be left to die.  [If] they became mixed with an ox with which a sin has been committed — either [an ox] that has killed a person according to [the evidence of] one witness, or [the evidence of] the owner, [or] with an animal that has committed an act of bestiality, or an animal on which an act of bestiality has been performed, or with an [animal] designated [for idolatrous sacrifice], or one which has been worshipped; or [it became mixed] with a [harlot’s] payment, or a [dog’s] exchange, or a mixed breed, or a tereifah, or [an animal] born by Caesarean section — they should be left to pasture until they become blemished, [after which] they should be sold, and with the money of the most expensive of them, he should bring the same kind [of offering]. [If] it mixed with unblemished, unconsecrated [animals], the unconsecrated [animals] should be sold to those in need of that kind [of offering].

Offerings [which became mixed] with [other] offerings [of] the same kind should each be offered for whomever [is the owner]. Offerings [which became mixed] with offerings [of] a different kind should be left to pasture until they become blemished, [after which] they should be sold; [then] for the money of the most expensive of them, he must bring one of each kind [of offering], and make up the difference from his own funds. [If] they became mixed with a bechor- or maaser-offering, they should be left to pasture until they become blemished and [then] be eaten as bechor- and maaser-offerings. Any [kind of offering] can become mixed up [with any other kind] except for the chatas offering [with] the asham-offering.

[If] an asham-offering became mixed with a shelamim-offering, they should be left to graze until they become blemished. R’ Shimon says: Both of them should be slaughtered in the north and be eaten according to [the laws of] the more stringent of them. They said to him: One may not expose offerings to an area of disqualification. [If] slices [of offering meat] became mixed with [other] slices — [whether it was] most holy offerings with offerings of lesser holiness, [or] those which are eaten for one day with those which are eaten for two days — they should be eaten according to [the laws of] the more stringent of them.

[If] the limbs of a chatas offering mixed with the limbs of an olah-offering — R’ Eliezer says: Let him place them atop [the Altar] and consider the chatas meat on top as if it were wood. But the Sages say: It must [be left] until its form becomes marred and [then] be taken out to the place of burning.

5. [If] the limbs [of valid olah offerings became mixed] with limbs of blemished [olah offerings] — R’ Eliezer says: If the head of one of them was offered, all the heads should be offered; [if] the leg of one [of them was offered], all the legs should be offered. But the Sages say: Even if all of them have been offered except for one, it should be taken out to the place of burning.

[If] blood mixed with water — if it has the color of blood it is valid. [If] it mixed with wine, we view it as if it were water. [If] it mixed with the blood of an animal or the blood of a beast, we view it as if it were water. R’ Yehudah says: Blood cannot nullify blood.

[If] it mixed with the blood of invalidated [offerings], it should be poured into the canal; [if it mixed] with draining blood, it should be poured into the canal. R’ Eliezer validates [it]. If he did not take counsel and applied [the blood to the Altar], it is valid.