If a hatat of a bird is offered below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] for the sake of a hatat, it is fit. [If it is offered] with the rites of a hatat, [but] in the name of a olah; [Or] with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of a hatat; Or with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of an olah, it is unfit. If he offers it above [the red line] [even] with the rites of any of these, it is unfit.

If an olah of a bird is offered above [the red line], with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of a olah, it is fit. With the rites of an olah [but] in the name of a hatat, it is fit, but does not count for its owner’s obligation. [If he offers it] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a olah; [Or] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat, it is unfit. If he offers it below, [even] with the rites of any of these, it is unfit.

And all of these do not defile in the gullet And they involve trespass, except the hatat of a bird which was offered below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat.

If one offered an olah of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it involves trespass. But Rabbi Joshua says: it does not involve trespass. Rabbi Eliezer said: if a hatat which does not involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, nevertheless when he changes the name [for which it is offered] it does involve trespass, is it not logical that an olah which does involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, would involve trespass when he changes its name? Rabbi Joshua said to him: No, when you speak of a hatat whose name he changed to that of an olah, [it involves trespass] because he changed its name to something that involves trespass; will you say [the same] of an olah whose name he changed to that of a hatat, seeing that he changed its name to something which does not involve trespass? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, most holy sacrifices which he slaughtered in the south and which he slaughtered in the name of lesser sacrifices will prove the matter, for he changed their name to something which does not involve trespass, and yet they involve trespass, so too, do not be surprised that in the case of the olah, although he changed its name to something that does not involve trespass, it still involves trespass. Rabbi Joshua said: No, when you speak of most holy 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; will you say the same of an olah, where he changed its name to something that is altogether permitted?

If one performed melikah, and he found it [the bird] to be a terefah: Rabbi Meir said: it does not defile in the gullet; Rabbi Judah said: it does defile in the gullet. Rabbi Meir said: if with regard to a beast, when it is carrion (a nevelah) it defiles through contact or carrying, yet slaughtering it purifies its terefah from defiling, when it comes to carrion (nevelah) of a bird which does not defile through contact or carriage, is it not logical that slaughtering would cleanse its terefah? Now, just as we have found that slaughtering, which makes it [a bird of hullin] fit for eating, cleanses its terefah from its uncleanness; so melikah (nipping), which makes it [a bird sacrifice] fit for eating, cleanses its terefah. Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient for it to be like the nevelah of a beast, which is cleansed by slaughtering, but not by melikah (nipping).