טז לא לעולם בזמן הזה מי קתני מוכרין אותו תמים חי אין שחוט לא הא גופא אתא לאשמועינן דבזמן הזה נמי מוכרין אותו תמים חי
16 but a blemished firstling whether alive or slaughtered; and [the priest] may also betroth a woman with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is considered his money.');"><sup>46</sup></span> Said R'Nahman in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a priest can sell it alive.');"><sup>47</sup></span> was taught only for nowadays,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the Temple is no longer in existence, and the firstling is consequently not destined for the altar.');"><sup>48</sup></span> since a priest has a claim upon it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Alive, for even nowadays a firstling belongs to the priest.');"><sup>49</sup></span> But in Temple times, since an unblemished firstling is destined to be offered up, we may not sell it alive unblemished.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a priest has no claim on it except from the time when the parts of the sacrifice are burnt on the altar.');"><sup>50</sup></span> Raba raised an objection to R'Nahman: An unblemished firstling may be sold alive. [It says,] 'alive', implying, but not slaughtered. Now to what period does this refer? Shall I say that this refers nowadays?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer waiting till a blemish occurs to the animal in order to be able to eat it.');"><sup>51</sup></span> Is there an unblemished animal that may be slaughtered [nowadays]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it would be slaughtering sacrifices outside the Temple wall.');"><sup>52</sup></span> Then obviously you must say that the term 'alive' refers to Temple times<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When, however, it may not be sold slaughtered, for it is an abuse of holy things to make an ordinary transaction with its flesh.');"><sup>53</sup></span> and yet it says: An unblemished firstling may be sold alive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We therefore see that one may sell an unblemished firstling alive in Temple times, contrary to the opinion of R. Nahman.');"><sup>54</sup></span> - No! One can still maintain that it refers to nowadays, for does it state: One may sell it unblemished alive, but not slaughtered?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For us to infer that we are not dealing with the present time, since nowadays there can be no unblemished slaughtered firstling.');"><sup>55</sup></span> It wishes to inform us of this very thing, that a firstling [nowadays] may be sold unblemished alive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it might have occurred to you to think that the priest has no claim on it until the firstling is blemished. It is not, however, the object of the Mishnah that we should deduce therefrom that we may not sell a slaughtered firstling, as we are dealing with the present time and nowadays there is no unblemished slaughtered firstling.');"><sup>56</sup></span>