Answer (Abaye): Tachas connotes both Hatpasah and Chilul (redemption);

It connotes Hatpasah - "v'Im Tachteha Ta'amod ha'Baheres" (it is in place of it);

It connotes Chilul - "Tachas ha'Nechoshes Avi Zahav."

Regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which make Temurah, surely he means Hatpasah;

Regarding Bedek ha'Bayis, which do not make Temurah, surely he means Chilul.

(Rava): Sometimes "Tachas" connotes Chilul even regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach, i.e. if it is a Ba'al Mum (which must be redeemed. R. Gershom - Rava holds that the Seifa of the Mishnah "if it was a Ba'al Mum... " also applies to the Reisha, when he said "Tachas Zu".)

(Rav Ashi): "Tachas" can connote Chilul or Hatpasah even regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach;

If he put his hand on the Kodesh animal, it means Chilul (he intends for the sake of that animal, to make it Chulin);

If he put his hand on the Chulin animal, it means Hatpasah (he intends for the sake of that animal, to make it Kodesh).

Question #1 (Abaye): If there were two Kodesh Ba'alei Mumim and two Tamim Chulin animals, and he said "Elu Tachas Elu" (and did not put his hands on any animal), what is the law?

Does he mean Hatpasah, and he is lashed?

Or, perhaps one does not sin unless he must (in order to get his desired result. Here, he has a permitted way to transfer Kedushah. Surely, he means Chilul!)

Question #2: If you will say that one does not sin unless he must, if there were two Kodesh animals and two Chulin animals, and one of each (Kodesh and Chulin) was a Ba'al Mum and one was a Tam, and he said "Elu Tachas Elu," what is the law? (Surely, he is Matfis whichever animal is Tachas the Kodesh Tam, for Chilul applies only to a Ba'al Mum.)

Does he Matfis the Tam in the Tam, and Mechalel the Ba'al Mum onto the Ba'al Mum? (Rashi - the latter cannot be Hatpasah, for Temurah applies only when at least one of the animals is Tam; Tosfos - Temurah applies even when both animals are Ba'alei Mumim, but surely he does not intend to be Matfis a Ba'al Mum, since it cannot be offered.)

Or, is the Chulin Tam Tachas the Hekdesh Ba'al Mum, and the Chulin Ba'al Mum Tachas the Hekdesh Tam, and he is lashed twice? (In any case, the latter must be Hatpasah, so he transgresses at least once. Presumably, also the former is Hatpasah, since he did both of them in one word ("Tachas").)

Question #3: If you will say that (even then,) one does not sin unless he must, if there were three Kodesh animals, i.e. two Tamim and a Ba'al Mum, and three Chulin Tamim, and he said "Elu Tachas Elu," what is the law?

Since for the majority of these three transactions, "Tachas" (perforce) refers to Hatpasah, also for the third;

Or, even here, one does not sin (regarding the Hekdesh Ba'al Mum) unless he must!

Question #4 (Rav Ashi): If you will say that (even then, we assume that) one does not sin unless he must, perhaps this is because he is not Muchzak to sin (three times). If there were four Kodesh animals, i.e. three Tamim and a Ba'al Mum, and four Chulin animals, and he said "Elu Tachas Elu," what is the law?

Since he sins (at least) three times, he is Muchzak, so he is Matfis also the Ba'al Mum, so he is lashed four times;

Or, even though he is Muchzak, he does not sin when he need not. He is Mechalel the Ba'al Mum!

These questions are not resolved.

(Mishnah): If the Hekdesh animal was a Ba'al Mum, it becomes Chulin...

(R. Yochanan): It becomes Chulin mid'Oraisa. Mid'Rabanan, he must compensate (if the Chulin is worth less.)

(Reish Lakish): Mid'Oraisa he must compensate.

Question: What is the case?

If there is (a Shi'ur of) Ona'ah (the Hekdesh is worth a sixth more than the Chulin), Reish Lakish would not say that mid'Oraisa he must compensate!

(Mishnah): Ona'ah does not apply to the following: slaves, documents, land, and Hekdesh.

Answer #1: Rather, there is (a Shi'ur of) Bitul Mekach. (The Hekdesh is worth more than a sixth more than the Chulin).

Objection: If so, R. Yochanan would not say that (mid'Oraisa it is Chulin, just) mid'Rabanan he must compensate!

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Yochanan): Ona'ah does not apply to land, but Bitul Mekach applies.

(R. Yonah citing R. Yochanan): Ona'ah does not apply to Hekdesh, but Bitul Mekach applies.

Answer: Really, there is a Shi'ur of Bitul Mekach. The opinions of R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish must be switched.

Objection: We cannot switch the opinions!

We could switched according to R. Yonah, who says that there is Bitul Mekach regarding Hekdesh, and all the more so regarding land;

However, according to R. Yirmeyah, who says that there is Bitul Mekach regarding land, but not regarding Hekdesh, we cannot switch the opinions!

Suggestion: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about Shmuel's law: (We adopt Hagahos ha'Gra's text. It is like Rashi and the Gemara in Bava Metzia.)

(Shmuel): If Hekdesh of any value was redeemed onto something worth a Perutah, it takes effect.

R. Yochanan holds like Shmuel (therefore, mid'Oraisa no compensation is necessary), and Reish Lakish argues with Shmuel.

Rejection: No, all agree with Shmuel;

Version #1 (our text, Tosfos): R. Yonah holds (that R. Yochanan says) that Shmuel's law applies only b'Di'eved (if he did something forbidden, i.e. he knew that the Chulin is worth less. If he did not know, we assume that he did not want to shortchange Hekdesh, so he must compensate);

R. Yirmeyah holds that Shmuel's law is l'Chatchilah. (He thought that the Chulin is worth as much as the Hekdesh.)

Version #2 (Rashi): Reish Lakish holds that Shmuel's law applies only if he intended (to be Mechalel the Hekdesh on Chulin that is worth less. If not, he must compensate);

R. Yochanan holds that Shmuel's law always applies (even if the Chulin is worth less).

Answer #2 (to Question (d)): We do not switch the opinions. Really, there is Ona'ah;

Before, we asked that Reish Lakish must agree with the Mishnah that Ona'ah does not apply to Hekdesh. He can answer like Rav Chisda;

(Rav Chisda): The Mishnah means that the Shi'ur of Ona'ah does not apply to Hekdesh. (Hekdesh does not "pardon" any shortchanging. Even if it is less than a sixth, one must compensate.)

(Ula): This is only if the redemption was according to (at most) two people (who estimated its value). If it was according to three, even if 100 later give a different estimation, the redemption stands.

Objection #1: Rav Safra taught that two are like 100 only regarding testimony, but we follow the majority of opinions regarding appraisal!

Objection #2: Even if three appraised it the first time, if three others later gave a higher estimation, we follow the latter, for Hekdesh has the upper hand!

Answer: Ula holds that the obligation to compensate Hekdesh is only mid'Rabanan, therefore Chachamim were lenient about it.

(Mishnah): If one said "this is Tachas Olah" or "Tachas Chatas" (and no Olah or Chatas was present), nothing takes effect;

If one said "this is Tachas this Olah" or "Tachas this Chatas" or "Tachas the Olah or Chatas in my house," it takes effect.

If one said about a Tamei Behemah or Ba'al Mum "it is an Olah," nothing takes effect;

If he said 'it is l'Olah (for an Olah)', it is sold, and we bring an Olah with the money.

(Gemara - Rav Yehudah): Our Mishnah is unlike R. Meir, who says that one does not say vain words. (Tosfos - R. Meir would say that surely he meant "Tachas the Olah or Chatas in my house.")

(Mishnah): If he said 'it is l'Olah', it is sold, and we bring Olah with the money.

Inference: The Mishnah discusses a Tamei animal or Ba'al Mum, which may never be offered, therefore it may be sold immediately. However, if one was Makdish a female for an Asham or Olah, since females are valid for other Korbanos, it may not be sold without a Mum.

(Rav Yehudah): Our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon:

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): If one was Makdish a female for an Asham or Olah, it may be sold without a Mum.