Yoma 41B

מאי איכא למימר? לא תימא: ואחר כך אמר, אלא אימא: ואחר כך לקח ואמר.

what can be said? According to this opinion, there is no inherent difficulty in the baraita that requires interpreting it as Rav Sheshet explained; read simply, it appears to contradict Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. The Talmud answers: The baraita should be emended: Do not say that the baraita says: If afterward he said. Rather, say that the baraita says: If afterward he took, i.e., purchased and consecrated the bird pair, and said.

לקח, מוסיף ומביא חובתו מאי ניהו?!

The Talmud asks: How can the baraita be referring to a case where he had taken the birds for his offering? If so, the next statement in the baraita: He adds more money and brings his obligation of an animal sin-offering from the money set aside for his sin-offering, what does it mean? If he had taken them, then clearly he is not holding onto money with which to purchase them.

דפריק ליה. והא אין פדיון לעוף!

The Talmud suggests a solution: That statement in the baraita is referring to a case in which he redeemed the bird by transferring its sanctity to money that can then be used toward the purchase of an animal. The Talmud rejects this possibility: But there is no redemption for a bird, so this could not possibly be the case of the baraita.

אמר רב פפא: כגון שלקח פרידה אחת, אי עולה זבן ⁠— מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו, והאי עולה אזלא לנדבה. אי חטאת זבן ⁠— אין מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי עולתו, והאי חטאת אזלא למיתה.

Rav Pappa said: That statement in the baraita is referring to a case where he took only one bird. As such, the baraita means: If he purchased the bird for his burnt-offering, then he should add more money and bring his obligation of an animal sin-offering from the money he had intended to use to purchase the second bird for his sin-offering. And this bird, which was purchased for his burnt-offering, goes toward a free-will offering. However, if he purchased the bird for his sin-offering, then he cannot add more money and bring his obligation of an animal sin-offering from the money he had intended to use to purchase the second bird for his burnt-offering. And this bird, which was purchased for his sin-offering, goes to its death, i.e., it is left to die, as is the halakha of a sin-offering whose owner has achieved atonement with another offering.