חַטַאת הָעוֹף שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּעוֹלַת הָעוֹף. אוֹ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף. אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת בְּרִבּוֹא כֻּלָּן יָמוּתוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיוּ מְפֹרָשׁוֹת בִּשְׁעַת לְקִיחַת הַבְּעָלִים זוֹ חַטָּאת וְזוֹ עוֹלָה. אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא עוֹפוֹת לְחוֹבָתוֹ מֵהֶן חַטָּאת וּמֵהֶן עוֹלָה וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ אֶלָּא כֻּלָּן סְתוּמוֹת וְנִתְעָרְבָה חַטָּאת אוֹ עוֹלָה בְּחוֹבָה זוֹ הַסְּתוּמָה יֵשׁ לָהֶן דִּינִים אֲחֵרִים:
When a sin-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with a burnt-offerings of doves or a burnt-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with sin-offerings of doves, even one in a myriad, they should all be consigned to death. When does the above apply? When their identity had been explicitly determined when they were purchased by the owner, [saying]: "This is a sin-offering. This is a burnt-offering." Different rules apply, however, if one brought doves to fulfill his obligation, some [for] a sin-offering and some for a burnt-offering, without stating explicitly [what each was, instead, they were brought] without specification and then a [dove designated as] a sin-offering or as a burnt-offering became mixed with these undesignated [doves] brought to fulfill his obligation.
