Temurah 26B

כיוצא בה. שמע מינה תלת: שמע מינה קדושת דמים (נדחה) [מדחה].

is treated like it, as it too is consecrated but not sacrificed. Conclude 3 halakhot from this statement of R' Yoḥanan: Conclude from it that an animal that was consecrated with a sanctity that inheres in its value is deferred. One who consecrates only half an animal has consecrated that animal with a sanctity that inheres in its value but not with an inherent sanctity, as the animal cannot be sacrificed.

ושמע מינה, בעלי (מומין) [חיים] נדחין, ושמע מינה דיחוי מעיקרו הוי דיחוי.

And second, conclude from it that not only can an offering that has already been slaughtered become permanently deferred from the altar, but also living animals that cannot be sacrificed for whatever reason are permanently deferred. And finally, conclude from it that deferral at the outset, when the animal is first consecrated, is considered a permanent disqualification. Not only is an animal that was fit to be sacrificed when initially consecrated and only later disqualified permanently deferred, but the same applies to an animal that was disqualified from the outset, when it was initially consecrated, e.g., if only half of it was initially consecrated.

אמר אביי: הכל מודים היכא דאמר ״חציה עולה וחציה מעשר״⁠ — דברי הכל עולה קריבה.

§ With regard to the consecration of an animal with two sanctities, Abaye said: Everyone concedes that in a case where one said: Half the animal is designated as a burnt offering and half of it is designated as an animal tithe, everyone agrees that this animal is consecrated and sacrificed entirely as a burnt offering, not as a tithed animal. The animal tithe is consecrated when it is the tenth of a group of animals that are passed underneath a rod, which is not the case here.