Bekhorot 15A

״זו דברי רבי שמעון ומחלוקתו״ מיבעיא ליה!

Since both R' Shimon and the Rabbis agree that an animal which was blemished before it was consecrated can be redeemed, he should have said: This is the statement of R' Shimon and those who disagree with him.

אמרי: רב כרבי שמעון בן לקיש, דאמר לרבנן: קדשי בדק הבית היו בכלל העמדה והערכה, קדשי מזבח לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה, ולא מיתוקמא מתניתין כרבנן, דקתני סיפא: ואם מתו יקברו.

The rabbis said in response that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon ben Lakish, who says: According to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the Temple maintenance were included in the obligation of standing and valuation, whereas animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the obligation of standing and valuation. And therefore it is not possible to interpret the Mishnah in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as the latter clause teaches: And if animals consecrated for the altar died, they must be buried even if their consecration preceded their blemish, as they are included in the obligation of standing and valuation.

אמר: ממאי דהא ״מתו יקברו״ משום דבעי העמדה והערכה הוא? דלמא משום דאין פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים הוא! אמרי: אם כן, ניתני: ״אם נעשו טריפה יקברו״.

The Talmud says: From where is it known that this ruling of the Mishnah: If they died they must be buried, is due to the fact that they require standing and valuation? Perhaps it is because one may not redeem sacrificial animals in order to feed them to dogs. The rabbis said in response: If that were so, let the Mishnah teach: If one of them became an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within 12 months [tereifa], it must be buried. Since a tereifa can be stood before the priest, the only reason to require its burial must be due to the prohibition against redeeming a sacrificial animal in order to feed it to dogs.