then this is the reason that it was necessary for the tanna to teach two clauses: In order to emphasize that this halakha applies in both cases, as it might enter your mind to say: Inherent sanctity does not lapse on its own, but sanctity inherent in its value departs with nothing being done. Because of this, the tanna taught two clauses, to demonstrate that there is no difference between them: Both depart with nothing being done.
אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי קדושת דמים, למה לי למיתנא תרתי? השתא יש לומר: מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה פקעה, מקדושה קלה לקדושה חמורה צריכא למימר?!
But if you say that this clause and that clause refer to sanctity inherent in its value, why do I need to teach two clauses? Now, it can be said that if from the stringent sanctity of the burnt-offering to the less stringent sanctity of a peace-offering, the stringent sanctity departs and the animal becomes like a peace-offering, then from the less stringent sanctity of the peace-offering to the more stringent sanctity of the burnt-offering, need this be said?
לימא תיהוי תיובתא דבר פדא, דאמר: לא פקעה קדושה בכדי?
The Talmud proposes: Let us say that this baraita should be a conclusive refutation of bar Padda, who said: Sanctity does not depart with nothing being done and the trees require redemption, while the baraita demonstrates that even inherent sanctity lapses on its own?
אמר רב פפא: אמר לך בר פדא, הכי קאמר: אם לא אמר ״מעכשיו שלמים״ — לאחר שלשים יום עולה הוי.
Rav Pappa said: Bar Padda could have said to you: This is what the baraita is saying: If one says: This ox, after 30 days, is a burnt-offering, then if he does not say: From now it is a peace-offering, then after 30 days it is a burnt-offering. But when he adds: From now it is a peace-offering, the sanctity of a peace-offering takes effect upon it and does not depart with nothing being done.