Temurah 10A

או דילמא: כל אותה קדושה אינו מוסיף חומש?

Or perhaps we say that if one redeems any animal that possesses the same sanctity as the original he does not add an additional 1/5th.

ואם תימצא לומר הדין גוף (אחד) [אחר], כיון דבאותה קדושה קאים [אינו] מוסיף חומש, אלא נתכפר באחר, וניתק זה לעולה ⁠— מהו? כי [אינו] מוסיף חומש באותו הגוף באותה קדושה, אבל בקדושה אחרת ⁠— לא? או דילמא, כיון דאותו הגוף הוא ⁠— [אינו] מוסיף חומש? תיקו.

And if you say that with regard to this other body, since it maintains the same type of sanctity as the initial animal, one does not add 1/5th when redeeming it, but what of a case where the first animal was lost and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another, and this first animal was found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering? What is the halakha? Do we say that when one does not add an additional 1/5th, that is only with regard to the same body with the same type of sanctity, but in the case of another type of sanctity the exemption does not apply? Or perhaps we say that since it is the same body, one does not add 1/5th. The Talmud concludes: The dilemma should stand unresolved.

בעי רמי בר חמא: מקדיש מוסיף חומש, או (מכפר) [מתכפר] מוסיף חומש? אמר רבא: אמר קרא ״ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו״⁠ — מקדיש, ולא מתכפר.

Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: If one person consecrates his animal to be used as an offering by another, does the one who consecrates it add 1/5th when he redeems it, or does the one atoning by means of the offering add 1/5th? Who is considered the owner of the offering? Rava said that the verse states: “And if he that consecrated it will redeem his house, then he should add the fifth part of the money” (Leviticus 27:15). It may be inferred from here that only the one who consecrates the item adds 1/5th, but not the one for whom the offering atones.