(Mishnah - R. Akiva): One who consecrates his property and among it are items that were suitable as public sacrifices, it should be given to the craftsmen for their payment.

(Ben Azai to R. Akiva): Your way is not consistent with the excess of Ketores (in the previous Mishnah). Rather, they separate the value of the payment of the craftsmen from the Ketores spices that he consecrated and redeem (the incense) onto the money of the craftsmen and then pay them with it. They then buy it back from them with the Terumas haLishkah funds.

One who consecrates his property and among the items are animals that are suitable to bring on the Mizbeach, males and females...

(R. Eliezer): The male animals should be sold to people who need to bring Olah offerings. The female animals should be sold to people who need to bring Shelamim offerings. The money received should then fall, together with the rest of his property, for Bedek HaBayis (upkeep of the Temple).

(R. Yehoshua): The male animals should themselves be brought as Olah offerings. The female animals should be sold to people who need to bring Shelamim offerings. The money received should then fall, together with the rest of his property, to Bedek HaBayis.

(R. Akiva): I side with R. Eliezer over R. Yehoshua, as R. Eliezer created consistency whereas R. Yehoshua differentiated.

(R. Papayas): I heard a teaching that is like both opinions...

If one consecrates explicitly, we follow R. Eliezer. If one consecrates without specifying, we follow R. Yehoshua.

(R. Eliezer): If one consecrates his property and among it are items that are suitable for the Mizbeach - wines, oils and birds; they should be sold to people who need to bring that type of sacrifice and the proceeds should be used to buy Olah offerings. The other property should fall to the Bedek haBayis.

(Gemara): The beginning of the Mishnah taught that 'One who consecrates his property and among it are items that are suitable as public sacrifices...'. R. Yochanan said that this refers to Ketores.

(R. Hoshiya explains): This refers to a craftsman from the House of Avtinas, who would take his wages from the Ketores.

(Ben Azai's reason): Hekdesh is not redeemed onto labor, but rather onto money.

(Mishnah in Temurah): There are laws pertaining to items consecrated for the Bedek haBayis -

Unspecified consecrations go to the Bedek haBayis; items consecrated to the Bedek haBayis take effect on all items; one transgresses Meilah with what grows from them; and Kohanim may not get personal benefit from them. (The Mishnah implies that all unspecified consecrations, even animals, go to the Bedek haBayis.)

(R. Chananya): That Mishnah is the opinion of R. Eliezer, as our Mishnah taught - One who consecrates his property and among the items are animals that are suitable to bring on the Mizbeach, males and females - R. Eliezer says that the male animals should be sold to people who need to bring Olah offerings. The female animals should be sold to people who need to bring Shelamim offerings. The money received should then fall, together with the rest of his property, for Bedek HaBayis.

(R. Yochanan): R. Eliezer's source is the Pasuk (Vayikra 27:14), "And if a man will consecrate his house to be Holy to Hash-m". What is the case? If it is referring to a person's dwelling, it already states (Vayikra 27:15), "And if the consecrator shall redeem his house".

Rather, we are discussing one who consecrates his property. From here we learn that consecrations that are unspecified go to the Bedek haBayis.

Opinion #1 (R. Zeira citing R. Chuna citing Rav): They disagree over one who consecrates his property, but if one consecrates his herd, all agree that it is for the Mizbeach.

Opinion #2 (R. Ba citing Rav Chuna citing Rav): They disagree over one who consecrates his herd, but if one consecrates his property, all agree that it goes to the Bedek haBayis.

Question: According to R. Zeira it is fine, but according to R. Ba, are animals not for the Mizbeach?

Answer: They usually are for the Mizbeach, but why did this person consecrate without specifying? As it is as if he stated that it is for the Bedek haBayis.

Opinion # 3 (R. Yochanan): They disagree over both cases.

(Rav Chuna citing Rav and R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan): Animals consecrated to the Bedek haBayis that are redeemed unblemished, become Chulin.

Support (Mishnah in Chulin): (Referring to blemished animals that are consecrated) Their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption. (This is similar to R. Yochanan's law, as both are consecrated to the Bedek haBayis and become Chulin when redeemed.)

Rebuttal (R. Chizkiyah citing Rav Chisda): Interpret that case, that he redeemed them after becoming blemished.

Support (R. Yosa citing Rav Chisda - Mishnah in Temurah): (If animals were consecrated for the Mizbeach, if they became blemished and redeemed) their offspring and their milk is prohibited after redemption.

(R. Chizkiyah citing R. Yosa): Animals consecrated for the Bedek haBayis that were redeemed unblemished, become Chulin.

As if you say that they do not, how could consecration to the Mizbeach take effect on animals consecrated for the Bedek haBayis?

Animals with blemishes - consecration for the Mizbeach can take effect on them.

Question: Regarding what?

Answer: Shearing and working (remain prohibited even after redemption).

If a person (wrongly) separated a female animal for his Olah, his Pesach or his Asham offering (for which only a male may be brought); it can still create a Temurah.

(R. Shimon): For his Olah, it can create a Temurah. For his Pesach or Asham, it cannot create a Temurah.

(R. Shimon ben Yehuda citing R. Shimon): For his Olah, his Pesach or his Asham, it cannot create a Temurah.

(R. Yochanan): R. Shimon's reason is that we find that a female bird is valid as an Olah bird offering.

(R. Yochanan): R. Shimon ben Yehuda's reason is that if, in the same gender, R. Shimon disagrees (as we will now see); all the more so if they are not the same gender.

Question: What is the case of the same gender where R. Shimon disagrees?

Answer (Beraisa): If a person (a Nazir or Metzorah) should have brought a first-year lamb and he brought a second-year one; or he (transgressed Meilah, Gezeilos or Shifcha Charufah and) should have brought a second-year one and he brought a first-year one, it is valid, although the owner has not fulfilled his obligation. (Note: The text here follows that of the Pnei Moshe and the Vilna Gaon.)

(R. Yochanan): R. Shimon and R. Yehoshua both said the same thing...

Just as R. Yehoshua said that if one consecrates a female animal as an Olah, only its value receives Kedushah; so R. Shimon says the same.

As if you say that they received Kedushas haGuf (which means consecrated to the Mizbeach), they must graze (until they receive a blemish, rather than be redeemed).

(Rebbi): I do not agree with R. Shimon concerning a Pesach offering, because a leftover Pesach offering is brought as a Shelamim.

Question: Why did Rebbi not say, 'I do not agree with R. Shimon concerning an Asham offering, because a leftover Asham is brought as an Olah'?

Answer (R. Avin): If he consecrated a Pesach offering, the animal itself is brought as a Shelamim. But if he consecrated an Asham, the animal itself is not brought (but rather, its value has Kedushah).

Question: About what do Rebbi and R. Shimon actually disagree?

Answer: (R. Shimon) holds that he consecrated its value. (Rebbi) holds that he consecrated the animal itself.

(R. Zeira citing R. Shimon ben Lakish): R. Yehoshua's source is the Pasuk (Vayikra 22:18), "Speak to Aharon and his sons and to all of Bnei Yisrael and say to them, 'Each person from the House of Yisrael...'.

'...who will offer to Hash-m an Olah' - everything is brought as an Olah offering. (Even donations of female animals are converted to Olah offerings.)

'...to find favor for you, an unblemished male'. From where do we know even females? As the Pasuk says (ibid). 'Among the cattle' - this even includes females.

Question (R. Yitzchok bei R. Eliezer): The Pasuk states 'male', so how could you say that it includes females?

Similarly, the Pasuk says 'unblemished'; would you say that 'among the cattle' includes blemished? What is the difference?

Answer (Rav): The rod of the shuttle (of the loom) divides them. (There is a significant difference between them. Female animals may be used for some offerings, but blemished animals may never be used.)

R. Eliezer taught in the Mishnah (Shekalim Daf 12 1) (e)) that they should be sold to people who need to bring that type of sacrifice.

(R. Abahu citing R. Shimon ben Lakish): R. Eliezer's source is the Pasuk (ibid), "Speak to Aharon and his sons...that they offer to Hash-m as an Olah' - everything is brought as an Olah.

'To find favor for you' - a male.

I might have thought that even birds may be brought, but the Pasuk says 'among my cattle' - cattle but not birds.

Question: R. Yirmiyah and R. Bun were sitting and saying - there, R. Yochanan said that R. Shimon's reason is that a female bird may be used for an Olah (so it has Kedushas haMizbeach); and here you said this (that consecrated birds must be sold and the money used to buy sacrifices. If they have Kedushas haMizbeach, how can they be sold)?

Answer (R. Yosi): I follow the words of R. Shmuel citing R. Zeira, who said that if neither an item nor its value can be sacrificed, it was only consecrated with Kedushas Damim (i.e. only its value is consecrated).

And you are correct - you cannot sacrifice it, as the Pasuk states, 'among the cattle', but not the birds. You cannot redeem it as one cannot redeem a bird.

Therefore, one must say that it only received Kedushas Damim.