Bekhorot 16A

לאתויי חלבו.

serves to include its milk in the prohibition, i.e., it is prohibited to consume milk of disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed.

אמר מר: אין נפדין תמימין, ואין מתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה. תמימים הוא דלא מיפרקי, הא בעלי מומין ⁠— מיפרקי. לכל שירצה הוא דאין מתפיסן, הא לאותו זבח ⁠— מתפיסן.

The Talmud analyzes the baraita. The Master said above: With regard to disqualified sacrificial animals whose consecration preceded their blemish, their offspring are sacred and may not be redeemed while they are unblemished, and one may not dedicate them as any offering he desires. The Talmud infers: It is only unblemished offspring that one may not redeem, which indicates that one may redeem blemished offspring. Likewise, it is only for any offering he desires that he may not dedicate the offspring, but for the same offering as the mother, one may dedicate the offspring.

היכי משכחת לה? דמתפיסן לאותו זבח, ונפדין במומן. נימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב הונא?

The Talmud asks: How can you find a situation that includes both of these inferences? They apply in a case where one dedicates the unborn offspring as the same offering for which its mother was consecrated, and it may then be redeemed after having developed a blemish. The Talmud remarks: should we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, who maintains that the offspring cannot be redeemed and rules that one must leave them to die?

אמר לך רב הונא: הוא הדין דאפילו בעלי מומין אין נפדין, ואיידי דתנא רישא ״נפדין תמימים״⁠ — תנא נמי סיפא ״אין נפדין תמימים״, ואיידי דתנא רישא ״לכל זבח שירצה״⁠ — תנא נמי סיפא ״לכל זבח שירצה״.

Rav Huna could have said to you: The inferences upon which the refutation is based are false. Just as these unblemished offspring cannot be redeemed, the same is true with regard to blemished animals, as even blemished offspring cannot be redeemed. And since the former clause taught the phrase: They may be redeemed unblemished, the latter clause also taught the phrase: They may not be redeemed unblemished. And since the former clause taught: As any offering he desires, the latter clause also taught: As any offering he desires. According to Rav Huna, no inferences can be made from these rulings of the baraita because they were phrased in this manner for the sake of symmetry between its two sections, rather than to teach a specific halakha.