Commentary for Kiddushin 109:2
אלא זכרים עולות הוא דהוו זבחי שלמים לא הוו אמר ר' אושעיא הכא בבא לחוב בדמיהן עסקינן והכי קאמר חיישינן שמא עולות ורבי מאיר היא דאמר הקדש במזיד מתחלל
- Said R'Oshaia: The reference here is to one who comes to accept responsibility for its value; and this is its meaning: we fear that they may be burnt-offerings; it being in accordance with R'Meir, who ruled: Hekdesh can be deliberately converted into hullin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal itself can certainly not be sacrificed. But if a person wishes to accept responsibility, redeem it, and so clear up all doubt, he must reckon with the possibility of its being a burnt-offering. Hence he must bring two animals or two sums of money and declare: 'If this found animal is a burnt-offering, let it be redeemed by one animal, or by one sum, which shall be likewise a burnt-offering, and the other shall be a peace-offering. Whereas if it is a peace-offering, let it be redeemed by the second, and the first be a burnt- offering, while the animal found becomes hullin.');"><sup>4</sup></span> But can [an object of] intrinsic sanctity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sanctity of the body,' i.e., an animal which is sacred and without blemish, so that it can be offered on the altar; as opposed to monetary sanctity, e.g., a consecrated animal which subsequently receives a blemish; it cannot be sacrificed itself, but must be redeemed and another animal bought with the money, which is sacrificed.');"><sup>5</sup></span> be redeemed?
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
R. Oshaia interprets the mishnah to refer to a case of one who finds the animal and wants to bring its value as an offering. What the mishnah says is that if he does so, he must bring the value of a burnt offering and a peace offering because a male animal may be either. Once he commits to this, the animal’s value is desacralized. This accords with R. Meir who holds that one may intentionally redeem hekdesh.