[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?