Temurah 8A

איתיביה: בבכור נאמר ״לא תפדה״ ונמכר הוא, במאי עסקינן? אילימא בזמן הזה ⁠— אימא סיפא: ״ואת דמם תזרוק על המזבח״, בזמן הזה מי איכא מזבח? אלא פשיטא בזמן שבית המקדש קיים.

§ Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: With regard to a firstborn offering, it is stated: “But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you should not redeem; they are holy: And you should sprinkle their blood against the altar” (Numbers 18:17). But it may be sold to another priest for consumption after its sacrifice. What era are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say it is in the present, say the latter clause of the verse: “And you should sprinkle their blood against the altar.” Is there an altar in the present? Rather, it is obvious that it is referring to the time when the Temple is standing.

ובמאי? אילימא בבעל מום ⁠— אימא סיפא: ״ואת דמם תזרוק על המזבח ואת חלבם תקטיר״⁠ — מי חזי להקרבה?! אלא לאו בתם, וקתני נמכר הוא, אלמא אית להו לכהן זכייה בגויה!

And what sort of animal are we dealing with here? If we say that it is referring to a blemished animal, say the latter clause of the verse: “And you should sprinkle their blood against the altar, and burn their fat.” Is a blemished animal fit for sacrifice? Rather, is it not referring to an unblemished animal? And the baraita teaches that it may be sold. Evidently, the priest has the right of acquisition to an unblemished firstborn offering even when the Temple is standing and the animal must be sacrificed.

מידי איריא? רישא ⁠— בבעל מום, סיפא ⁠— בתם.

Rav Naḥman responds: Are the two clauses of the verse comparable? The first clause is stated with regard to a blemished animal, and it is teaching that it may be sold, and the latter clause is stated with regard to an unblemished animal, and it teaches that it is sacrificed as an offering. Unblemished animals may not be sold when the Temple is standing.