Zevachim 153
והא איכא שיריים דבעי מילינהו ואיכא הך פורתא דלא קמיץ עילויה דפריק ליה
But there is the residue which is to be eaten, whereas we have this little more on whose account no fistful was taken? - He redeems it. Where does he redeem it? If within [the Temple court], then he brings hullin into the Temple court? If without, it becomes unfit through having gone out? - In truth, [he redeems it] within, but it is hullin automatically. <br>
והא אמר רבי שמעון אין מתנדבין שמן תקוני גברא שאני
R. Rehumi sat before Rabina, and stated in the name of R. Huna b. Tahlifa: Yet let him declare: Let this guilt-offering be a suspensive guilt-offering? You may infer from this that the Tanna who disagrees with R. Eliezer and maintains that you cannot bring a suspensive guilt-offering votively is R. Simeon. Said he [Rabina] to him [R. Rehumi] Torah! Torah! You have confused lambs with rams! <br>
יתיב רב רחומי קמיה דרבינא ויתיב וקאמר משמיה דרב הונא בר תחליפא ונימא אשם זה יהא אשם תלוי
MISHNAH. IF THE LIMBS OF A SIN-OFFERING WERE MIXED UP WITH THOSE OF A BURNT-OFFERING, R. ELIEZER SAID: HE MUST PLACE [THEM ALL] ON THE TOP [OF THE ALTAR], AND REGARD THE FLESH OF THE SIN-OFFERING ON TOP AS THOUGH IT WERE WOOD. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: THEY MUST BECOME DISFIGURED, AND THEN GO OUT TO THE PLACE OF BURNING. <br>
ש"מ מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר' אליעזר רבי שמעון הוא דאמר אין מתנדבין אשם תלוי אמר ליה תורה תורה אימרי בדיכרי מיחלפי לך:
GEMARA. What is R. Eliezer's reason? - Scripture saith, But they shall not come up for a sweet sovour on the altar: 'for a sweet savour' you may not take it up [on the altar], but you may take it up as wood. And the Rabbis? - The Divine Law expressed a limitation [in the word] 'them': 'them' you may not bring up [for a sweet savour] but only as wood; but not anything else. And R. Eliezer? - Only [in respect of] 'them' have I included the ascent, making it like the altar, but not [in respect of] anything else. And the Rabbis? - You may infer both things from it. <br>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> איברי חטאת שנתערבו באיברי עולה ר' אליעזר אומר יתן למעלה ורואה אני את בשר החטאת מלמעלה כאילו הן עצים וחכמים אומרים תעובר צורתן ויצאו לבית השריפה:
Our Mishnah does not agree with the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Judah said: R. Eliezer and the Sages had no controversy about the limbs of a sin-offering which were mixed up with the limbs of a burnt-offering, [both agreeing] that they must be offered up; [if mixed up] with the limbs of a roba' or a nirba', [both agree] that they must not be offered. Wherein do they differ? About the limbs of an unblemished burnt-offering which were mixed up with the limbs of a blemished [one]: there R. Eliezer maintains [that] they must be offered up [on the altar], and I regard the flesh of the blemished animal on top as mere wood; while the Sages say: They must not be offered up.
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט דרבי אליעזר אמר קרא (ויקרא ב, יב) ואל המזבח לא יעלו לריח ניחוח לריח ניחוח אי אתה מעלה אבל אתה מעלה לשם עצים
Now [according to] R. Eliezer, why are roba' and nirba' different: [presumably] because they are not eligible? A blemished animal too is not eligible?<br>