Pesachim 61A

וישנו לאחר מיתה, וישנו בצבור כביחיד. תאמר בשינוי בעלים ⁠— דאין פסולו בגופו, ואינו בארבע עבודות, ואינו לאחר מיתה, ואינו בצבור כביחיד.

And furthermore, the disqualification following from a change in sanctity applies after death. If one consecrates an offering and dies, his son must bring the offering in his place, and it can be invalidated through a change in sanctity. Moreover, it applies to communal offerings as it does to the offerings of an individual. However, can you necessarily say the same thing with regard to a change in owner that does not have these characteristics? Its disqualification is not in the offering itself; and it does not apply to all 4 rites but only to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar; and it does not apply after death, for after the owner has died there is no true owner of the offering, and therefore, if the priest intends to offer it for someone else the offering remains valid; and it does not apply to communal offerings as it does to the offerings of an individual, since it is not possible to have in mind a different owner, as it is owned by the whole community.

ואף על גב דתרתי לאו דוקא, תרתי מיהא דוקא. דמאי שנא שינוי בעלים דלא הוי פסולו בגופו ⁠— דפסולו מחשבה בעלמא היא. שינוי קודש נמי ⁠— פסולו מחשבה בעלמא היא.

And even though two of these differences are not fully accurate and can be disputed, as will be explained, two, at least, are accurate. The Talmud explains the lack of accuracy: For what is different about a change in owner that defines its disqualification as not being in the offering itself? Is it that its disqualification is merely due to thought? If so, it is possible to say that a change of sanctity is also merely a disqualification due to thought and not in the offering itself, and therefore there is no real difference.