Zevachim 108A

ראש בן יונה שאין בו כזית, ומלח משלימו לכזית; מהו?

the head of a pigeon burnt offering that does not have on it an olive-bulk of flesh, but the salt that adheres to it, after it was salted in accordance with the requirement to salt it (see Leviticus 2:13), completes the measure to make an olive-bulk, what is the halakha? Is one liable for offering it up outside?

אמר ליה רבא מפרזקיא לרב אשי: לאו היינו פלוגתייהו דרבי יוחנן וריש לקיש? תיבעי לרבי יוחנן, ותיבעי לריש לקיש;

Rava from Parzakya said to Rav Ashi: Is this not identical to the dispute between R' Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish with regard to a bone attached to sacrificial flesh? Rav Ashi responded: No. The dilemma can be raised according to R' Yoḥanan and the dilemma can be raised according to Reish Lakish.

תיבעי לרבי יוחנן ⁠– עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוחנן התם, אלא עצם ⁠– דמינא דבשר הוא; אבל מלח, דלאו מינא דבר יונה הוא ⁠– לא. תיבעי לריש לקיש ⁠– עד כאן לא קאמר ריש לקיש התם, אלא דאי פריש מינה לאו מצוה לאסוקי; אבל הכא, דאי פריש מצוה לאסוקי ⁠– לא. או דלמא לא שנא?

The Talmud elaborates: The dilemma can be raised according to R' Yoḥanan: Perhaps R' Yoḥanan states his opinion only there, with regard to a bone, claiming that it contributes to the measure of an olive-bulk as it is of the same kind that flesh is, i.e., they are both animal parts. But in the case of salt, which is not of the same kind as a pigeon, perhaps it would not contribute to the measure. And the dilemma can also be raised according to Reish Lakish: Perhaps Reish Lakish states his opinion only there, with regard to a bone, claiming that it does not contribute to the measure of an olive-bulk, as if the bone separates from the flesh, there is no mitzva to offer the bone up on the altar. But here, with regard to salt, concerning which if it separates from the pigeon there is a mitzva to offer it up, he would not rule as he does concerning a bone attached to flesh. Or perhaps there is no difference between the cases.