Or perhaps we say that if one redeems any animal that possesses the same sanctity as the original he does not add an additional one-fifth.

And if you say that with regard to this other body, since it maintains the same type of sanctity as the initial animal, one does not add one-fifth when redeeming it, but what of a case where the first animal was lost and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another, and this first animal was found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering? What is the halakha? Do we say that when one does not add an additional one-fifth, that is only with regard to the same body with the same type of sanctity, but in the case of another type of sanctity the exemption does not apply? Or perhaps we say that since it is the same body, one does not add one-fifth. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: If one person consecrates his animal to be used as an offering by another, does the one who consecrates it add one-fifth when he redeems it, or does the one atoning by means of the offering add one-fifth? Who is considered the owner of the offering? Rava said that the verse states: “And if he that consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money” (Leviticus 27:15). It may be inferred from here that only the one who consecrates the item adds one-fifth, but not the one for whom the offering atones.

Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: If one person consecrates an animal to be used as an offering by another, can the one who consecrates it render another animal a substitute for it, or can the one achieving atonement through it render a substitute for it? Rava said: If it were so, that the one who consecrates it can render a substitute for it, we would find a case where the community or partners can render a substitute for their consecrated animal, for example where they appointed an agent to consecrate an animal for them. The mishna (13a) states that one cannot substitute for consecrated animals belonging to the community or to partners. By contrast, in this case, since only one person consecrated it, he would be able to substitute for it, contrary to the mishna.

And furthermore, Rav Naḥman says that Rav Huna says: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite who vows, and of his offering unto the Lord for his naziriteship, besides that for which his means suffice; according to his vow which he vows” (Numbers 6:21). But is the offering of a nazirite judged according to his means? The offerings of a nazirite are fixed by the Torah. How is it possible to understand this clause: “Besides that for which his means suffice”? Rather, the clause “his offering unto the Lord for his naziriteship” is referring to a case where he separated an offering from his own animals, whereas the clause “besides that for which his means suffice” is referring to a case where others separated the offering for him. This teaches that designation by others is effective.

With regard to what halakha is this baraita stated? If we say that it is with regard to the matter of atonement, and it is teaching that a nazirite can atone even by means of an offering designated for him by others, isn’t it obvious that such an offering can atone for him? Once it is his offering, he can certainly use it. Rather, the ruling of this baraita must be stated with regard to substitution, and this is what it is saying: Even in a case where others separated the offering for him, he alone can render a substitute for it. Conclude from this verse that we follow the one for whom the offering atones, and only he can effect substitution for the offering.

The Gemara responds: The baraita is not referring to substitution, but to the matter of atonement. And that which is difficult for you, that it is obvious that the nazirite can atone by bringing an offering consecrated by another, as they have given it to him as a gift, this is in fact not obvious. Had the Merciful One not included an offering received from another by writing the clause “besides that for which his means suffice,” I would say that it is a Torah edict expressed in the term “his offering,” that a nazirite can atone only with an offering consecrated from his own animals, but not through one received from the animals of others. Therefore, the verse teaches us that he can atone even with an offering received from others.

Having failed to resolve Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma, the Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof from that which Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one consecrates his animal as an offering for someone else’s atonement, and he subsequently redeems the animal, he adds one-fifth to its value as the owner. But only the one for whom the offering atones can render a substitute for it. This resolves the dilemma of Rami bar Ḥama.

Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement continues: And if one separates teruma from his produce to exempt the produce of others, so that the other’s produce will be permitted in consumption, the benefit of discretion is his. He is entitled to determine which priest receives the teruma. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? The verse states: “When you have made an end of tithing all the tithe of your produce in the third year, which is the year of tithing, and have given it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow” (Deuteronomy 26:12). This indicates that the one actually giving the produce chooses to whom to give it.

MISHNA: One does not substitute non-sacred limbs for consecrated fetuses, i.e., if one says that a certain limb of a non-sacred animal is substituted for a fetus in the womb of a consecrated animal, it is not consecrated. And likewise, one does not substitute non-sacred fetuses for consecrated limbs. And one substitutes neither non-sacred limbs nor fetuses for whole consecrated animals nor non-sacred whole animals for consecrated limbs or fetuses.

Rabbi Yosei says: One substitutes non-sacred limbs for whole consecrated animals, but not whole animals for consecrated limbs. Rabbi Yosei said: But isn’t it so with regard to sacrificial animals, that if one says: The hind leg of this animal is a burnt offering, the entire animal is a burnt offering? So too, when he says: The non-sacred hind leg of this animal is in exchange for that animal, the entire animal is a substitute in exchange for it.

GEMARA: It was stated that Bar Padda says: Fetuses are not imbued with sanctity if one attempts to consecrate them for sacrifice, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Fetuses are imbued with sanctity. The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his line of reasoning in this regard, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In the case of one who consecrated a pregnant animal as a sin offering, and it later gave birth, if he wishes he may achieve atonement by sacrificing the mother, and the offspring will be left to graze until it develops a blemish that renders it unfit, whereupon it will be sold and the money is used to purchase a gift burnt offering; and if he wishes he may achieve atonement through the animal’s offspring, and the mother will be left to graze until it develops a blemish.

The Gemara adds: And both statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan are necessary, despite the fact that both affirm that fetuses may be consecrated. As, if Rabbi Yoḥanan had taught us only this first case, of one who consecrates a fetus by itself, I might say that only there is the fetus imbued with sanctity, as he consecrated