The Gemara disarms this proof. Rav Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The comparison to the mishna should be explained as referring to a case where the animals that were consecrated for Temple maintenance were redeemed while still unblemished, but they then developed a blemish. Once an animal has developed a blemish, its sanctity ceases to be inherent and inheres only in its monetary value. As long as the animal remains unblemished, it retains some inherent sanctity that is not removed upon redemption. Rabbi Yosei said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The mishna (Temura 31b) said that as well: If animals consecrated for the altar subsequently develop a blemish, it is prohibited to use their offspring or their milk for any mundane purpose, even after their redemption. The mishna continues: However, if an animal consecrated for Temple maintenance subsequently develops a blemish, and is redeemed, it is permitted to use its offspring or milk for mundane purposes. The sanctity is fully removed only if the animal has a blemish. This implies that even animals that are consecrated for Temple maintenance retain some sanctity after redemption so long as they are unblemished. The Gemara cites support for the opposing view of Rabbi Yoḥanan that even if the animal did not develop a blemish, it loses all its sanctity upon its redemption: Rabbi Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that were redeemed while still unblemished are entirely transferred to non-sacred status; they retain no sanctity at all. This must be correct, for if you say they are not entirely transferred to non-sacred status but retain some of the sanctity of their original consecration for Temple maintenance, how can the sanctity of items consecrated to the altar take effect upon items consecrated for Temple maintenance? In the mishna, it is clear that when an unblemished animal consecrated for Temple maintenance is redeemed by being sold, the buyers may consecrate the animals to the altar. But if the animals still retain the sanctity of Temple maintenance, this would not be possible, due to the principle that one may not change the status of an item from one type of consecrated status to another (see Temura 32b). Perforce, all their sanctity is removed upon redemption, despite the fact that they are still unblemished.

The Gemara accepts the preceding argument as compelling. Perforce, Rav Ḥisda should accept it. Why, then, does he claim that it is prohibited to use for any mundane purpose animals that are redeemed before developing a blemish? The Gemara explains: Rav Ḥisda holds that only animals that are blemished will become entirely non-sacred upon redemption. He holds that, by rabbinic decree, the sanctity of the altar takes effect upon them. With regard to what matters does it take effect? With regard to the prohibition against shearing them and using them for labor. However, he agrees that according to Torah law, they have no sanctity of the altar, since they were not consecrated for that purpose. Therefore, their sanctity is removed entirely upon redemption. § It was taught in a baraita: One who set aside a female animal and consecrates it for his burnt-offering, or his Paschal lamb, or his guilt-offering, although these offerings may be brought only from a male animal, the consecration is still effective in endowing the female animal with inherent sanctity, such that it makes a substitute; if he tries to substitute another animal in place of the first, both animals are consecrated. Rabbi Shimon says: If one consecrated a female animal for his burnt-offering, it makes a substitute; however, if he consecrated it for his Paschal lamb or his guilt-offering, it does not make a substitute. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In all cases, whether one consecrated it for his burnt-offering, or for his Paschal lamb, or for his guilt-offering, it does not make a substitute. The Gemara explains the basis for the different opinions in the baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as cited by the first tanna, is that we find a case in which a female bird is valid to be brought as a burnt-offering. It is therefore clear that sanctity of a burnt-offering can be applied to a female animal, and consequently, a substitute can be made from it. However, this is not true with regard to a Paschal lamb or a guilt-offering, which are never brought from a female animal. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon is based on the following a fortiori argument: If two animals are of the same kind, i.e., the same gender, and one is distinct from the other in a small, invalidating detail, that distinction is sufficient to prevent the animal from attaining any sanctity. This is all the more so in the case of two animals of different kinds, i.e., of different genders, which is a distinction of greater import. If being of one gender invalidates the animal, it will certainly prevent the invalid animal from attaining any sanctity. What is the case of two animals of the same kind, where one is distinct from the other in a small, invalidating detail? Like that which was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who is obligated to sacrifice a guilt-offering from an animal less than one year old and brings an animal that was two years old, or one who is obligated to sacrifice a guilt-offering from an animal that was two years old and brings an animal that was three years old, he does not fulfill his obligation. In the first case, the animal is endowed with sanctity. However, in the second case, the animal remains non-sacred, despite the fact that the two animals are of the same kind and are distinct only in regard to one detail, their age. § Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Shimon, as cited by Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, and Rabbi Yehoshua, in the mishna, both said the same idea. Just as Rabbi Yehoshua said that a female animal that was consecrated without a specific purpose is not consecrated with inherent sanctity as a burnt-offering, but rather it is consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in the animal's monetary value, so too, Rabbi Shimon said that a female animal that was consecrated to be brought as a burnt-offering is not consecrated with inherent sanctity as a burnt-offering, but rather it is consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in the animal's monetary value, which is why one cannot make a substitute from it. It is clear that Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the animal does not have inherent sanctity. If you say he holds that one consecrated the female animal with inherent sanctity, then it would not be permitted to sell it for the needs of peace-offerings, as Rabbi Yehoshua indeed rules in the mishna. Rather, it should have to graze until it develops a blemish, since animals with inherent sanctity may not be sold until they develop a blemish. The Gemara cites the remainder of the baraita already cited above: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: I do not see the statement of Rabbi Shimon as correct with regard to a female animal consecrated for a Paschal lamb. Rabbi Shimon said that the animal does not attain any sanctity, since a Paschal lamb is brought only from male animals. I disagree, because a leftover Paschal lamb, a Paschal lamb that was not slaughtered on Passover, is brought as a peace-offering, which can be brought from female animals. It is therefore appropriate for the consecration for a Paschal lamb to take effect upon a female animal and endow it with inherent sanctity, in a manner similar to Rabbi Shimon's own argument concerning a burnt-offering. But, according to this line of logic, let Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also say: I do not see the statement of Rabbi Shimon with regard to a female animal consecrated for a guilt-offering as correct. Rabbi Shimon said that the animal does not attain any sanctity, since a guilt-offering is brought only from male animals. However, based on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's reasoning in the case of a Paschal lamb, he should also disagree here, since a leftover guilt-offering, a guilt-offering that was not sacrificed as such because its owner achieved atonement with a different guilt-offering, is brought as a burnt-offering, and as Rabbi Shimon himself explained that the consecration of a female animal for a burnt-offering takes effect. Rabbi Avin said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's argument for a Paschal lamb does not extend to a guilt-offering, because there is a crucial distinction between the cases: If one consecrates an animal as a Paschal lamb, and it is not used as such, and it is therefore brought as a peace-offering, the animal itself is sacrificed as a peace-offering. However, if one consecrates an animal as a guilt-offering, and it is not used as such, and it is therefore brought as a burnt-offering, the animal itself is not sacrificed as a burnt-offering. Rather, it is left until it develops a blemish, then it is sold, and the proceeds are used for the purchase of a burnt offering. What is behind this disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Shimon concerning a female animal consecrated as a Paschal lamb? This one, Rabbi Shimon, says: Surely he consecrated the animal only with sanctity that inheres in the animal's monetary value, since he knows that it cannot actually be brought as a Paschal lamb. And this one, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, says: We do not make that assumption. Rather, he consecrated the animal to have inherent sanctity, and it takes effect because a leftover Paschal lamb can be brought as a peace-offering.

§ Rabbi Yehoshua taught in the mishna that if one consecrates animals without specifying for what purpose, the animals are endowed with the sanctity of burnt-offerings. Rabbi Ze'eira said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The source for Rabbi Yehoshua's opinion is: "Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say unto them: Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their free-will offerings, which are brought to the Lord as a burnt-offering" (Leviticus 22:18). The verse is taken to mean that all vows or free-will offerings that can be brought to the Lord, i.e., animals, are consecrated to be sacrificed as burnt-offerings unless otherwise specified. The next verse states: "That you may be accepted, you shall sacrifice a male without blemish" (Leviticus 22:19). This verse would seem to limit to male animals the principle learned in the preceding verse. From where is it derived that even females that are consecrated without a specific purpose are also endowed with the sanctity of a burnt-offering? The continuation of the verse states: "Of the cattle" (Leviticus 22:19), which is a general term that comes to include females. Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Elazar, asked: Although it is explicitly written "male." You said that the phrase "of the cattle" comes to include females. If this is true, then in a similar manner, one could make the following claim: Although it is explicitly written "without blemish," you could say that the phrase "of the cattle" comes to include blemished animals.

For what is the difference between them? Why should one assume that the phrase "of the cattle" includes only female animals but not blemished animals? Rav said: The difference between them is so clear it is as if the weaver's rod [shivta dekhadkada] is between them: Female animals are suitable to be brought on the altar in some form, whereas blemished animals are never suitable to be brought on the altar.

§ The mishna teaches: In the case of one who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose, and among them are wines, oils, and birds, which are suitable to be sacrificed on the altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: They are sold for the needs of that kind of item, i.e., to individuals who will use them as such, and the proceeds are used to purchase burnt-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer holds that items suitable for use on the altar that are consecrated without specifying their purpose are consecrated with sanctity that inheres in the item's value, yet they are designated as burnt-offerings. Therefore, everything, including the birds, must be sold to achieve that end. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The source of Rabbi Eliezer's opinion is: "Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say unto them: Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their free-will offerings, which are brought to the Lord as a burnt-offering" (Leviticus 22:18). The verse is taken to mean that all vows or free-will offerings that can be brought to the Lord, i.e., animals, are consecrated to be sacrificed as burnt-offerings, unless otherwise specified. The next verse states: "That you may be accepted, you shall sacrifice a male without blemish" (Leviticus 22:19). I might have thought this verse teaches that an unspecified consecration can be fulfilled with the sacrifice of any unblemished male, even birds. To reject this possibility, the continuation of the verse states: "Of the cattle" (Leviticus 22:19), which includes only domesticated animals and not birds. Rabbi Yirmeya and Rabbi Bun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying: There, in explanation of the baraita cited above concerning one who consecrated a female animal for a burnt-offering, Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the reason for Rabbi Shimon's opinion, as cited by the first tanna, that the female is consecrated with the inherent sanctity of a burnt-offering is that there is that there is a case of a female bird that is valid to be brought as a burnt-offering. Yet here, in this case concerning the consecration of a female bird itself, Rabbi Eliezer said this. Presumably, Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan's explanation of Rabbi Shimon's opinion. If the argument for a female animal gaining inherent sanctity when consecrated for a burnt-offering is based on a case of a female bird, how can it be that when a bird itself is consecrated it does not attain inherent sanctity and can therefore be sold?