Pesachim 90A

אמר אביי: אי לאו דאוקמיה רבי אושעיא לההיא בממנה זונה על פסחו ורבי היא, הוה מוקמינא לה לההיא בקדשים קלים ואליבא דרבי יוסי הגלילי, דאמר: קדשים קלים ממון בעלים הוא,

A Mishnah and baraita that the Talmud cites later on in the discussion teach that, logically, were it not for a verse teaching otherwise, the prohibition against using as an offering an animal given as payment for a prostitute’s services should apply even in a case where the animal had already been consecrated as an offering before being given as payment. Abaye said: If not that R' Oshaya established that that Mishnah is referring to a case of one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb as her payment, and this position is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda HaNasi, whom R' Oshaya apparently understood and who holds that a person retains monetary rights to his Paschal lamb even after consecration, which is why one is able to register the prostitute for it, I would have established that Mishnah as referring only to offerings of lesser sanctity and claimed it is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yosei HaGelili, who said: Offerings of lesser sanctity are the monetary property of their owners, and therefore it is possible for the owner to use them as payment for a prostitute.

אבל בפסח לא משייר איניש, במעות ודאי משייר איניש, דמעיקרא כי מפריש להו ⁠— אדעתא דהכי מפריש להו.

But I would have presumed that R' Yehuda HaNasi holds that a Paschal lamb is unlike regular offerings of lesser sanctity, in that a person does not restrict its consecration in order to retain monetary rights to it, and it is therefore not considered to be his property at all. However, with regard to money consecrated for a Paschal lamb, a person certainly restricts its consecration. When one initially designates it, he designated it with this intent: If he should wish to purchase a portion in someone else’s Paschal lamb that was already consecrated, then the money should remain non-sacred in order to allow for that purchase to take hold.