Menachos Daf 108 מנחוס דַף 108

Several Amoraim disagree about the law of מותר עשירית האיפה של כה"ג – the excess funds of the Kohen Gadol’s מנחת חביתין of one-tenth of an איפה of fine flour (i.e., money was designated for the חביתין, but the flour decreased in price, leaving excess funds). Because the חביתין are called a חטאת elsewhere, some hold that its מותרות are used for נדבת ציבור – communal [olah] offerings, like excess funds of a חטאת. Others hold ירקב – [the excess money of the חביתין is left to rot; since it is not actually brought to atone for a חטא, its money cannot be used for נדבת ציבור. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak brings support for this second opinion: a passuk says that a מנחת חוטא does not require לבונה, "כי חטאת היא" – for it is a chatas offering, and Rebbe Yehudah darshens: היא קרויה חטאת ואין אחרת קרויה חטאת – it is called a chatas, but no other [minchah] is called a chatas; this teaches that the עשירית האיפה של כהן גדול  is not called a חטאת, and does require לבונה. Similarly, its excess funds are not brought for נדבת ציבור, and are instead left to rot.

The next Mishnah states that if one said "שור זה עולה" – this cow is an olah, and it developed a מום, then אם רצה יביא בדמיו שנים – if he wants, he may bring two with its redemption money. If two animals were designated עולות and became blemished, he may bring one עולה with their money. Rebbe prohibits doing so (but agrees that if he did, he is יוצא), and the Gemara explains that he considers it similar to bringing a small animal when he donated a large one. It adds that Rebbe argues in the first case as well. The Gemara asks that the previous Mishnah taught that if one pledged to bring a שור worth a מנה and instead brought two animals, together worth a מנה, he is not יוצא!? It answers that where he said “שור זה is a korban,” and it became a בעל מום, he is exempt from his נדר as soon as the עולה became a בעל מום. In the earlier Mishnah, where he said "הרי עלי שור" – it is incumbent on me to bring a שור, he remains responsible to fulfill his נדר until he actually brings the korban he pledged.

The next Mishnah states that if one says, אחד מכבשי הקדש – “one of my lambs shall be hekdesh” (as a korban), then if he had two animals, the larger one is hekdesh. As the Gemara explains, מקדיש בעין יפה מקדיש – one who is makdish does so generously, and we assume he intended to be makdish the better korban. If he had three animals, בינוני שבהם הקדש – the middle one of them is hekdesh. The Gemara asks that this implies that one is makdish בעין רעה!? Shmuel explains that the Mishnah means we also consider the possibility that he may have meant the middle animal, because it is יפה relative to the smallest (but the largest animal also certainly may be hekdesh). Because of this doubt, Rebbe Chiya bar Rav says he must wait until the middle one develops a מום, and transfers its kedushah onto the larger one, so that the middle one is permitted, and the larger one is definitely hekdesh.