Temurah 33A

הא מה אני מקיים ״ואם כל בהמה אשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן לה׳״⁠ — בבעלי מומין שיפדו.

But if the halakha of standing and valuation is already mentioned with regard to a non-kosher animal, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And if it be any non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering to YHWH, then he should set the animal before the priest. And the priest should value it.” The verse is referring to blemished animals, which are unfit for sacrifice just like non-kosher animals, and it teaches that they can be redeemed.

יכול יפדו על מום עובר? תלמוד לומר ״אשר לא יקריבו ממנה״⁠ — שאינה קריבה כל עיקר, יצתה זו שאינה קריבה היום אלא למחר.

The baraita continues: One might have thought that any blemished animal can be redeemed, even for a temporary blemish. Therefore, the verse states: “Non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering,” which indicates that only a blemished animal that may not be sacrificed at all, i.e., one with a permanent blemish, is redeemed. This animal with a temporary blemish is thereby excluded, as it may not be sacrificed today, but it may be sacrificed tomorrow.

ואמר רחמנא: עביד לה העמדה והערכה.

The Talmud concludes its reasoning: And God states that one should perform standing and valuation for a blemished animal, in accordance with the verse “Then he should set the animal before the priest. And the priest should value it.” Since the verse requires that the animal have a permanent blemish to be redeemed, it must be referring to an animal consecrated for the altar, as all animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed, even unblemished ones. Furthermore, as this is an unattributed baraita that appears in the Sifra, it is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, the disputant of R' Shimon, and therefore it follows the opinion of the Rabbis of the Mishnah. It may therefore be concluded from the baraita that the Rabbis hold that one redeems an animal consecrated for the altar with standing and valuation, as maintained by R' Yoḥanan.