The Talmud continues its discussion of the desacralizing of consecrated property. We learned in a Mishnah there (Shekalim 20a): If there was an animal fit for the altar that was found straying, from Jerusalem and as far as Migdal Eder, and similarly if it was found within that distance from Jerusalem in any other direction, it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. Males are presumed to be burnt-offerings, as only males can be brought as burnt-offerings. Females are presumed to be peace-offerings, as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering.
אלא זכרים, עולות הוא דהוו, זבחי שלמים לא הוו? אמר רבי אושעיא: הכא בבא לחוב בדמיהן עסקינן, והכי קאמר: חיישינן שמא עולות, ורבי מאיר היא, דאמר: הקדש במזיד מתחלל.
The Talmud questions this: But are males only burnt-offerings and not also peace-offerings? As peace-offerings can be male or female, a male animal that was found might have been designated as a peace-offering. R' Oshaya said: We are not speaking here of bringing the animals themselves as offerings. Rather, we are dealing with one who comes to obligate himself to consecrate their value. The finder wants to consecrate the value of the animal in case it had been designated as an offering, thereby redeeming the animal and desacralizing it, and this is what the Mishnah is saying: In the case of males we are concerned that perhaps they are burnt-offerings, so the money must be consecrated for the purpose of burnt-offerings as well as peace-offerings. And this is in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, who says: Consecrated property is desacralized if it is misused intentionally. Therefore, he may redeem the animal and must use the money to purchase both a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, thereby avoiding all uncertainty.