יד ואם איתא דכי א"ר יוסי הגלילי ממונו הוא מחיים
14 in which, on account of the fact that it is not destined to be sacrificed, the priests possess a proprietary right; but at the time when the Temple still existed, when it would have been destined to be sacrificed, the law would not have been so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priests would not have had in it a proprietary right nor have been able to use it for the betrothal of a woman. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> And Raba asked R. Nahman: [Was it not taught:] <i>If a soul sin and commit a trespass against the Lord and lie unto his neighbour…</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, V, 21. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> this indicates also minor sacrifices, as these are considered private property;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in Temple times, since the text requires the offender to bring a trespass offering. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean? And Rabina replied that the latter case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where they are considered private property. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> deals with firstlings from outside [Palestine] and is in accordance with R. Simeon, who maintains that if they were brought [to Palestine] in an unblemished condition, they will be sacrificed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. III. 5. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> Now this is so only if they were brought [to Palestine, which implies that] there is no necessity to bring them there in the first instance for that specific purpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since they need not be brought and sacrificed they are considered the private property of the priests as stated by R. Jose the Galilean. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Now, if it is the fact that R. Jose the Galilean considers them private property while alive,