Reference for Pesachim 143:4
אשכחיה רב יצחק בר יוסף לר' אבהו דהוה קאי באוכלוסא דאינשי א"ל מתניתין מאי א"ל רישא בעוקר וסיפא בטועה תנא מיניה ארבעין זימנין ודמי ליה כמאן דמנחא בכיסיה
If so, [when] 'R. MEIR SAID: HE TOO WHO SLAUGHTERS [OTHER SACRIFICES] IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC SACRIFICES IS NOT LIABLE' - [he meant] even if he had first slaughtered the public sacrifices at the beginning? Surely it was taught. R. Hiyya of Ebel 'Arab said in R. Meir's name: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning him who had two infants, one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and one for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he erred and circumcised the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath [both agreeing] that he is culpable. About what do they disagree? About a man who had two infants, one for circumcision after the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he erred and circumcised the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer ruling him liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua exempts [him]. Now is that logical? If there [in the second clause], where he did not perform a religious duty. R. Joshua exempts him; then where he did perform a religious duty, he rules him liable! Said the School of R. Jannai: The first clause means e.g., that he previously circumcised [the infant] belonging to the Sabbath on the eve of the Sabbath,<br>