(Gemara - R. Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yosef): All agree that if he stipulated that one Temurah should take effect after the other, only the first takes effect;

All agree that if he stipulated that one should not take effect unless the other takes effect, both take effect;

They argue only in the case of our Mishnah, in which he said "Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim";

R. Meir holds that (had he intended for both at the same time) he should have said "Temuras Olah v'Shelamim". Rather, he said "Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim", because he wanted them to take effect one after the other;

R. Yosi holds that (he intended for both at the same time;) he did not say "Temuras Olah v'Shelamim," for he thought that then it could not be offered. Therefore, he said "Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim."

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If one said "half of this animal is Temuras Olah, half is Temuras Shelamim," it is offered for an Olah;

Chachamim say, it is Ro'eh. Half the Damim is used to buy Olah, and half is used for Shelamim.

R. Yosi says, if he intended for this from the beginning, since one cannot say two things simultaneously, his words take effect.

Question: R. Yosi does not disagree with Chachamim!

Answer: Indeed, the entire Seifa is R. Yosi. He says his law, and then explains it.

Version #1 (our text, Rashi) (Beraisa - R. Meir): If one (who was not obligated to bring a Chatas) said "half of this animal is Olah, half is Chatas," it is offered for an Olah;

Version #2 (Tosfos, according to Tosefta) (Beraisa - R. Meir): If one said "half of this animal is Temuras Olah, half is Temuras Chatas," it is offered for an Olah. (Throughout this discussion, according to Tosfos he was always Memir, and not Makdish.) (end of Version #2)

R. Yosi says, it must die.

They agree that if one said "half of this animal is Chatas, half is Olah," it must die.

Objection: Surely, this teaches that R. Meir agrees. This is obvious! (We follow his first words, so it is a Chatas, but has no obligation to bring one.)

Answer: One might have thought that R. Meir's reason is not because we follow his first words, rather, because an animal with two Kedushos (one of which may be offered), even if he said "half-Chatas" first. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa): If one said "half of this animal is Olah, half is Shelamim," it is Kadosh, but it cannot be offered. It makes Temurah, its Temurah is like it.

Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?

Answer: It is R. Yosi. (We are concerned also for his last words.)

Objection: Obviously, it is Kadosh but cannot be offered!

Answer: The Chidush is its Temurah. One might have thought that it cannot be offered, but its Temurah can be. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so;

It cannot be offered because its Kedushah is Nidcheh. The same applies to its Temurah.

(R. Yochanan): If one of two partners in an animal was Makdish his half, bought his partner's half, and was Makdish that also:

The animal is Kodesh, but it cannot be offered. If one makes Temurah on it, the Temurah has the same law as it.

We learn three laws from this;

Dichuy applies to money (R. Chananel, cited in Tosfos to Zevachim 12a - when redeemed, the money cannot be used for the purpose for which it was Hukdash. Rashi - Dichuy applies to monetary Kedushah; the animal can never be offered, even if the Pesul goes away);

A living animal can be Nidcheh;

Dichuy from the start is considered Dichuy (and it can never be offered).

(Abaye): All agree that if one said "half of this animal is Olah, half is Ma'aser," it is offered for an Olah. (His latter words have no effect. Tosfos - the case is, he was Makdish when the minority of the tenth left the pen. Kedushas Ma'aser takes effect when the majority leaves. Rashi - he was not counting animals. All agree that Hekdesh of half an animal spreads to the whole animal.)

Question (Abaye): If one said "half of this animal is Temurah, half is Ma'aser," what is the law? (Rashi - he did not have a Korban nearby that could make Temurah; R. Gershom - he did not specify the Kodesh animal.)

Perhaps it is offered like a Temurah, for Temurah (is more encompassing, since it) applies to all Kodshim;

Or, perhaps it is offered like a Ma'aser, for Ma'aser is Mekadesh what comes in front of and in back of it (the ninth and 11th), if they were called "tenth")!

This question is not resolved.

(Mishnah): If one said "this (animal) is Tachas Zu (in place of this)," or "Temuras Zu," or "Chalifas Zu," it becomes Temurah;

If he said "it is Mechuleles Al (redeemed onto) Zu," it is not Temurah;

If the Hekdesh animal was a Ba'al Mum, it becomes Chulin. He must compensate (if the new animal is worth less than the old Hekdesh; Rashi - Hekdesh must be redeemed on an animal of the same value).

(Gemara) Inference: Tachas connotes Hatpasah (making something Kodesh through Temurah);

Contradiction (Beraisa): Regarding Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, if one said "Chalifas Zu," or "Temuras Zu," it does not take effect;

If he said "(It is) Tachas Zu" or "Mechuleles Al Zu," it takes effect (to redeem the Chulin).

If Tachas connotes Hatpasah, what is the difference between the Reisha (when it does not take effect) and the Seifa?