But is not the voluntary [communal] offering also an olah, so what is the difference between the words of R’ Elazar and the words of the Sages? Rather, when [an animal] comes as an obligatory offering, [the owner] must lean on it and bring wine libations, and its libations are bought from his [funds]. And if [the owner] was a Kohen, the [right to perform] its service and its hide belong to him. But when it is a voluntary [communal] offering, [the owner] does not lean on it and does not bring libations for it; but [rather] and its libations are bought from communal funds. [And] even if [the owner] is a Kohen, [the right to perform] its service and its hide belong to the members of the mishmar.

[Concerning] the temurah of the firstborn [ani-mal] and the [animal] tithe, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring ad infinitum: all these are like the original firstborn- and tithe-offerings, but they are eaten by the owners when they become blemished.  What [is the difference] between a firstborn or tithe animal and all the other offerings? That all of- ferings may be sold in the market and slaughtered in the market, and may be weighed against a litra weight, with the exception of the firstborn and tithe [animals]; and [all offerings] are subject to redemption, and their temuros likewise are subject to redemption, with the exception of the firstborn and tithe animals; and [all sacrificial offerings] are brought from outside the Land [of Israel], with the exception of a bechor or maaser animal, However, if [bechor or maaser animals] were brought: if they are unblemished, they are offered; if they are blemished, they are eaten in their blemished state by the owners. R’ Shimon says: What is the reason [for this difference]? It is that bechor and maaser animals have a remedy in their [present] place, but [in the case of] all other offerings, even if they develop a blemish, they remain in their consecrated state.