MISHNA: While the previous mishna enumerated differences between consecration for the altar and consecration for Temple maintenance, this mishna enumerates halakhot that apply to both. With regard to both animals consecrated for the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance, one may not alter their designation from one form of sanctity to another form of sanctity. But one may consecrate animals already consecrated for the altar by a consecration of their value, and that value is donated to the Temple treasury for maintenance. And one may dedicate them for the purpose of giving their value to the priests. And if animals consecrated either for the altar or for Temple maintenance died, they must be buried. Rabbi Shimon says: Although that is the halakha with regard to animals consecrated for the altar, if animals consecrated for Temple maintenance died, they can be redeemed.

GEMARA: Rav Huna says: With regard to animals consecrated for the altar, if one associated such objects of his vow with dedications for the priests, i.e., he vowed to give their value as a dedication to the priests, he has done nothing. What is the reason? The verse states: “Notwithstanding, no devoted item that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field, shall be sold or redeemed; every dedicated item is most holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). The verse is interpreted to mean that any dedicated item that is most holy, i.e., that was consecrated for the altar and then dedicated to the priests, that item should be for the Lord, and the priests are not entitled to it.

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav Huna from a baraita: With regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance that one associated with another sanctity, whether with a consecration for the altar, whose sanctity is more stringent than consecration for Temple maintenance, or with a dedication to the priests, he has done nothing. The reason is that one cannot remove the sanctity of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, and he has no ownership of value in it. As for the benefit of discretion, i.e., the right to choose the priest that will receive the offering, this is not relevant to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and therefore it cannot be suggested that his act of consecration was with regard to the benefit of discretion.

Similarly, in the case of a dedication to priests that one associated with another sanctity, whether with a consecration for the altar or with a consecration for Temple maintenance, he has done nothing. One does not have any rights to an item dedicated to the priests, not even the benefit of discretion, as the dedicated item must be given to the members of the priestly watch serving in the Temple at the time of its dedication.

The Gemara explains the objection: Since the baraita teaches only that one may not associate with another sanctity items consecrated for Temple maintenance or dedications to priests, it may be inferred with regard to animals consecrated for the altar that one associated with dedications to priests, that what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect. If so, this baraita is apparently a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Huna.

The Gemara responds: Rav Huna could have said to you that one cannot draw such an inference from the baraita, as it is possible that the tanna chose to discuss only those two instances while omitting the case of an animal consecrated for the altar. And as for the fact that the tanna omitted this latter case, he omitted it due to this reason, that the halakha differs depending on the case: With regard to animals consecrated for the altar that one associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance, what he did is done, and he must pay the Temple treasury a consecration of value, but if he associated it with a dedication to priests, he has done nothing.

The Gemara objects: But if so, let the tanna teach explicitly that one who associates an animal consecrated for the altar with a dedication to the priests has done nothing, alongside these other cases of items consecrated for Temple maintenance and dedications to priests. The Gemara explains: The tanna teaches instances where there are two types of consecration with which the item cannot be associated, e.g., an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which cannot be associated with either a consecration for the altar or a dedication to the priests. By contrast, the tanna does not teach a case where there are not two instances with which the item cannot be associated, i.e., an animal consecrated for the altar. Although an animal consecrated for the altar cannot be associated with a dedication to the priests, it can be associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance.

The Gemara raises another objection to the statement of Rav Huna from that which we learned in the mishna: One may consecrate animals already consecrated for the altar by a consecration of their value, and one can dedicate them. The Gemara asks: What, is it not correct to say that when the mishna is referring to a consecration of their value, this is a consecration for Temple maintenance, and when it states that one dedicates them, this is referring to dedications to a priest? Evidently, one can associate an animal consecrated for the altar with a dedication to priests.

The Gemara responds: No, this is not the meaning of the mishna. Rather, both this and that are referring to consecrations for Temple maintenance. And the mishna is teaching that there is no difference whether he expresses a term of consecration, i.e., if he states: This animal is consecrated for Temple maintenance, in which case the animal is consecrated for Temple maintenance, and there is no difference if he expresses a term of dedication, i.e., he states: This animal is dedicated for Temple maintenance, as in this case too, the animal is consecrated for Temple maintenance.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this is not how it is taught in a baraita. As it is taught in a baraita: One can consecrate animals consecrated for the altar by a consecration of its value, that is, a consecration for Temple maintenance, and one can dedicate them by a dedication to priests. And furthermore, isn’t it taught in another baraita with regard to animals consecrated for the altar that one subsequently consecrated their value as dedications to the priests, that what he did is done? The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna is a conclusive refutation.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav Huna says a verse as the source for his opinion. Since his opinion is refuted, how should the verse be interpreted? Ulla said: That verse is not interpreted in the manner of Rav Huna. The verse states: “Notwithstanding, no dedicated item that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field, shall be sold or redeemed; every dedicated item is most holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). The emphasis that “every dedicated item” is most holy indicates that a dedication to the priests takes effect on every item, even with regard to animals consecrated for the altar.

Since Ulla holds that animals consecrated for the altar may be associated with a dedication to priests, evidently he also holds that they may be associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance, as even Rav Huna agrees they may be associated with such a consecration. The Gemara therefore asks: And did Ulla actually say this? But didn’t Ulla say that one who associates a burnt offering with a consecration for Temple maintenance has only the delay of