Halacha
הלכה א
כָּל הַמּוּמִין הַפּוֹסְלִין בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה חֲמִשִּׁים וּכְבָר נִמְנוּ:
כסף משנה
1.
There are a total of 50 blemishes that disqualify both a man1I.e., a priest from serving in the Temple. and an animal.2From being offered as a sacrifice. They have already been listed.3See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7.הלכה ב
וְיֵשׁ מוּמִין אֲחֵרִים מְיֻחָדִין בַּבְּהֵמָה וְאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִהְיוֹת בְּאָדָם. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים הֵם וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אִם הָיָה גַּלְגַּל עֵינָהּ עָגל כְּשֶׁל אָדָם. עֵינָהּ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה קְטַנָּה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּז. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה אֹזֶן גְּדוֹלָה וְאֹזֶן קְטַנָּה אֲפִלּוּ קְטַנָּה עַד כְּפוֹל כָּשֵׁר. אִם יֵשׁ בְּלֹבֶן עֵינָהּ יַבֶּלֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שֵׂעָר. אִם נִקַּב הָעוֹר שֶׁבֵּין שְׁנֵי חֳטָמֶיהָ בַּמָּקוֹם הַנִּרְאֶה. פִּיהָ דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר פָּרוּס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻדָּד כְּשִׁפּוּד:
כסף משנה
2.
There are other blemishes that are unique to animals and are not appropriate to be found in humans at all.4See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains that it appears that the Rambam's intent is not that if these conditions are found in men, they do not disqualify a priest. Instead, the intent is that it is extremely uncommon to find such a condition in a human. Hence they are "not appropriate." Nevertheless, if a priest does have such a condition, it is considered as a blemish and he is disqualified. There are 23 of these; they are: a) the animal's eyeball's are round like humans; b) one eye is large like a calf's and the other is small like a duck's;5If, however, both are small or both are large, this is not considered a blemish. Note the contrast to the blemishes for humans mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 8:6 (Kessef Mishneh). if, however, one ear is large and one ear is small, even if it is small as a bean, it is acceptable; c) if there is an eruption in the white of the eye that has a hair growing from it;6If, however, it does not have a hair, it is not considered as a blemish (Bechorot 40b). d) if the cartilage between its two nostrils was perforated in a place which can be seen;7Compare to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:6. e) its mouth resembles that of a swine; i.e., its upper jaw overlapped its lower jaw, even though it is not pointed like a spit.הלכה ג
חִטֶּיהָ הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּקְּבוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מִקְצָתָן אוֹ שֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ אִם נֶעֶקְרוּ חִטֶּיהָ הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּעֵת שֶׁפּוֹתַחַת פִּיהָ וְצוֹוַחַת הֵן נִרְאִין חֲסֵרִין:
כסף משנה
3.
f) If its outer tonsils8Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:4). There he also suggests an alternate meaning, the animal's teeth. were perforated; g) their substance was reduced, even though a portion of them remained; h) they shriveled; i) its inner tonsils were removed;9If, however, their substance was merely reduced, this is not considered as a disqualifying blemish. See Halachah 8 and notes. [this is considered a blemish],10I.e., this explanation is necessary because usually, the inner tonsils are not seen. because when it opens its mouths and shriek, it will be seen that they are missing.הלכה ד
אִם נִטְּלוּ קַרְנֶיהָ וְזִכְרוּתָן עִמָּהֶן וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר מֵהֶן כְּלוּם. אֲבָל נְקֵבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קַרְנַיִם כְּשֵׁרָה. אִם נִפְגַּם הָעוֹר שֶׁחוֹפֶה אֶת גִּיד הַבְּהֵמָה. אִם נִפְגְּמָה הָעֶרְוָה שֶׁל נְקֵבָה. אִם נִפְגַּם הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַפֶּרֶק. אִם הָיְתָה רֹאשׁ הַזָּנָב מְפֻצָּל לִשְׁנַיִם בִּשְׁנֵי עֲצָמִים. אִם הָיָה בֵּין חֻלְיָא לְחֻלְיָא מְלֹא אֶצְבַּע בָּשָׂר. אִם הָיָה הַזָּנָב קָצָר. וְעַד כַּמָּה. בִּגְדִי חֻלְיָא אַחַת מוּם שְׁתַּיִם כָּשֵׁר. וּבְטָלֶה אֹרֶךְ שְׁתֵּי חֻלְיוֹת מוּם. הָיְתָה שָׁלֹשׁ כָּשֵׁר. זְנַב הַגְּדִי שֶׁהָיָה רַךְ וּמְדֻלְדָּל דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר. אִם נִשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם מִן הַזָּנָב. אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם מִצַּלְעוֹתָיו כָּשֵׁר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּגָלוּי:
כסף משנה
4.
j) If its horns and their inner fibrous tissue was removed and nothing of it remained;11Compare to Halachah 8. a female animal that has horns is acceptable;12Similarly, if a male was born without horns, their absence is not considered as a blemish (Ma'aseh Rokeach). k) if the substance of the skin which covers the male organ of an animal was blemished; l) if the substance of the female organ of an animal was blemished;13I.e., the portion of the female organ that projects outside the body [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:5)]. m) if the substance of the tail is blemished from its bone; [if its substance is blemished] from its joint, it is not [a blemish];14Rashi (Bechorot 39b) explains that the tail of an animal is made up of several vertebrae. If it is severed in the midst of a vertebra, it is considered as a blemish. If, however, if is severed at the joint between one vertebra and another, it is not considered as a blemish. n) if the tip of the tail was split into two with two separate bones; o) if there was a finger's breadth of flesh between every joint on the tail; p) if the tail was [overly] short.To what extent? For a kid, one vertebra is a blemish, but two are not. For a lamb, a length of two vertebrae is a blemish, but three is acceptable. q) if the tail of a kid was soft and hanging loosely like that of a pig; r) if one of the tail bones was broken.15The commentaries refer to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11 which states: "Whenever there is a groove made in any bone that is apparent, it is considered a blemish. It is included in the category charutz mentioned in the Torah." The tail is considered such a limb; the ribs are not. If, however, one of the ribs are broken, it is acceptable, because [the blemish] is not visible.
הלכה ה
בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם אוֹ אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ רַגְלַיִם. אִם הָיְתָה אַחַת מֵרַגְלָיו וְיָדָיו פַּרְסָתָהּ עֲגֻלָּה כְּשֶׁל חֲמוֹר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא סְדוּקָה וּפְרוּסָה. אִם הָיְתָה יָדוֹ אוֹ רַגְלוֹ קְלוּטָה כְּשֶׁל חֲמוֹר וְזֶהוּ (ויקרא כב-כג) "קָלוּט" הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. אִם נִגְמְמוּ טְלָפֶיהָ וְזִכְרוּתָן עִמָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מִזִּכְרוּתָן מְעַט קָרוֹב לַבָּשָׂר:
כסף משנה
5.
A five-legged animal; t) a three-legged animal;16See the parallel to Hilchot Shechitah 8:11. u) the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was round like that of a donkey even if has split hooves; v) if the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was not split like that of a donkey. This is the meaning of the term kalut mentioned in the Torah;17Leviticus 22:23. w) if its hoofs and the fibrous substance inside has shriveled, even though there remains some of that fibrous substance next to the flesh,הלכה ו
כָּל מוּם מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְשִׁבְעִים מוּם הַמְּנוּיִין בַּבְּהֵמָה פּוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. וְאִם נָפַל אֶחָד מֵהֶם בִּתְמִימָה שֶׁהִיא קֹדֶשׁ תִּפָּדֶה וְתֵצֵא לְחֻלִּין. חוּץ מִזָּקֵן וְחוֹלֶה וּמְזֹהָם שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְקָרְבָּן אֵינוֹ נִפְדֶּה. אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה קַיָּם וְרוֹעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד בּוֹ מוּם אַחֵר קָבוּעַ מִשְּׁאָר הַמּוּמִין וְיִפָּדֶה. וְכֵן בֶּהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהּ מוּם עוֹבֵר אֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה וְלֹא נִפְדֵּית:
כסף משנה
6.
All of the 73 blemishes18The 23 mentioned here and the 50 mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7. listed disqualify an animal from being offered as a sacrifice. If an animal that is consecrated contracts one of these blemishes, it should be redeemed and it becomes like an ordinary animal with the exception of an animal that is old, sick, or foul-smelling.19These blemishes are mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:12-13. Although such animals are unfit for sacrifice, they may not be redeemed.20Rashi (Bechorot 41b) states: "Because these are not absolute blemishes." Instead, they should be maintained until they contract another permanent blemish.21Which would disqualify it in its own right. Then it should be redeemed. Similarly, a consecrated animal that contracts a temporary blemish should neither be redeemed,22Because as of yet, it is not permanently disqualified as a sacrifice. nor sacrificed.23Because in its present state, it is not fit for sacrifice.הלכה ז
אַרְבָּעָה מוּמִין עוֹבְרִים יֵשׁ בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. גָּרָב לַח. חֲזָזִית שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִצְרִית. מַיִם שֶׁיּוֹרְדִין בָּעַיִן וְאֵינָן קְבוּעִין. סַנְוִירִין שֶׁאֵינָן קְבוּעִין:
כסף משנה
7.
There are four temporary blemishes [that disqualify] both a man and an animal:24In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 2:2), the Rambam also mentions a dislocated or broken limb that can be healed. a) a moist skin eruption;25See Chapter 1, Halachah 5, and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:4. b) a boil that does not resemble those of Egypt;26Unlike the boils visited upon the Egyptians in the Ten Plagues (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:10), these boils are moist inside and can possibly heal. c) water that descends in the eyes that is not a permanent condition;27And thus prevents the animal or the person from seeing. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3), there are times when this blemish will heal and the water will cease descending. Then the sight of the person or animal will return. See Halachot 13-15 which describe the process through which it is determined whether the water in an animal's eyes is permanent or not. d) a degeneration of nerves in the eye that is not permanent.28See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).הלכה ח
יֵשׁ שָׁם אַרְבָּעָה חֳלָיִים אֲחֵרִים אִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶם בִּבְהֵמָה אֵין מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָהּ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִן הַמֻּבְחָר וְהַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (דברים יב-יא) "מִבְחַר נְדָרֶיךָ". וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁבְּלֹבֶן עֵינוֹ יַבֶּלֶת שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֵׂעָר. אִם נִגְמְמוּ קַרְנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מִזִּכְרוּתָן מְעַט סָמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר. אִם נִפְגְּמוּ חִטָּיו הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת. אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ בְּקָדָשִׁים לֹא קְרֵבִין וְלֹא נִפְדִּין. אֶלָּא יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם. וְאִם הִקְרִיבָן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהֻרְצוּ:
כסף משנה
8.
The are four other ailments that if found in an animal [prevent] it from being sacrificed. [The rationale is that such an animal] is not from the "choice," and Scripture [Deuteronomy 12:11] states [that sacrifices must come] "from the chosen of your vows."29The commentaries note that the Hebrew wording is not quoted exactly. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11.They are: a) an animal with an eruption in the white of its eye, but it does not have hair growing from it;30If hair is growing from it, it is considered as a permanent blemish, as stated in Halachah 2. b) the substance of the horns of an animal was reduced, but their inner fibrous tissue remained;31Compare to Halachah 4. c) the substance of its inner tonsils were reduced; or d) its inner tonsils shriveled.32Compare to Halachah 3. Since its inner tonsils are seen only when it shrieks, as long as something of their substance remains, it is not considered a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, the animal is not sacrificed.
If a consecrated animal had one of these blemishes, it is neither sacrificed not redeemed.33For an animal is redeemed only when it has a disqualifying blemish. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a [disqualifying] blemish.34At which point, it can be redeemed. If it was sacrificed, it appears to me that it is acceptable.35For its blemish did not disqualify it.
הלכה ט
וְכֵן בֶּהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהּ עֲבֵרָה אוֹ שֶׁהֵמִיתָה אֶת הָאָדָם בְּעֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים לֹא קְרֵבָה וְלֹא נִפְדֵּית עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד לָהּ מוּם קָבוּעַ:
כסף משנה
9.
Similarly, when a transgression was performed with a consecrated animal36It was sodomized, used for relations with a woman, worshiped as a false deity, or consecrated for that purpose, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 6. or it killed a person, but [was observed] only by one witness or by the owner,37Were it to have been observed by two witnesses, Torah Law would require it to be executed. This punishment is not given when the murder was observed only by one witness or the owner. See Chapter 4, Halachah 2. it is neither sacrificed not redeemed until it contracts a permanent blemish.הלכה י
בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהּ אַחַת מִן הַטְּרֵפִיּוֹת הָאוֹסְרוֹת אוֹתָהּ בַּאֲכִילָה אֲסוּרָה לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (מלאכי א-ח) "הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ הֲיִרְצְךָ אוֹ הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ". וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְקָרְבָּן אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לַכְּלָבִים. אֶלָּא יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ וְיִקָּבְרוּ:
כסף משנה
10.
When an animal contracts one of the conditions that render it treifah38An animal that will die within twelve months and is hence, forbidden to be eaten. and cause it to be forbidden to be eaten, it is forbidden [to be sacrificed on] the altar.39See the Kessef Mishneh who debates whether the disqualification is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. For behold it is written [Malachi 1:8]: "Present it please to your governor. Would he be pleased with you or show you favor?"40The passage in Malachi speaks of bringing blemished animals for sacrifice. The prophet asks whether a mortal governor would appreciate being given such offerings. Certainly, they are inappropriate to be offered to God. Although it is not fit to be sacrificed, it is not redeemed.41For there would be no purpose in its redemption, since it is inappropriate to use it as food for animals as the Rambam continues to explain. [The rationale is that] we do not redeem sacrificial animals to feed [their meat] to the dogs. Instead, it should pasture until it dies and then be buried.42See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:11.הלכה יא
נִשְׁחֲטָה וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵפָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תֵּצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ הַפְּנִימִיִּין חָסֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְרֵפָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּכֻלְיָא אַחַת אוֹ שֶׁנִּטַּל הַטְּחוֹל הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְתִשָּׂרֵף. לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם שֶׁאֵין חִסָּרוֹן שֶׁבִּפְנִים מוּם אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין חָסֵר כְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כח-יט) (במדבר כ״ח:ל״א) (במדבר כט-ח) "תְּמִימִם יִהְיוּ לָכֶם". וְכָל הַיָּתֵר כְּחָסֵר לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצָא שָׁם שָׁלֹשׁ כֻּלְיוֹת אוֹ שְׁנֵי טְחוֹלִים פְּסוּלָה:
כסף משנה
11.
If it was slaughtered and discovered to be tereifah, it should be taken out to the place of burning.43I.e., the place where impure sacrifices are burnt not as offerings. See ibid.:1.If the animal was known to be tereifah and slaughtered, it should be buried rather than burnt (Radbaz). [This law also applies] if it is discovered that one of its internal organs is lacking even if this does not cause it to be deemed a tereifah, for example, it has [only] one kidney or its spleen has been removed.44See Hilchot Shechitah 8:25; 6:20 which states that these conditions do not render an animal as tereifah. Such [an animal] is forbidden [to be offered] on the altar and must be burnt. [The rationale is] not because it is blemished, because an internal flaw is not considered as a disqualifying blemish.45See Halachah 4; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11. Instead, the rationale is that an animal that is lacking [an organ] should never be offered [as a sacrifice], as [Numbers 28:31] states: "They shall be perfect for you." [An animal] with an extra [organ] is considered as if it was lacking one.46And is hence disqualified as a sacrifice. This is a general principle in Torah Law. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; Hilchot Shechitah 8:4, 11, et al. Therefore if three kidneys or two spleens are found in [an animal], it is unacceptable.
הלכה יב
אֵי זוֹ הִיא סַנְוִירִין קְבוּעִים כָּל שֶׁשָּׁהָה שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם וְלֹא רָאָה. וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בְּיוֹם שִׁבְעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים מֵעֵת שֶׁהִרְגִּישׁוּ בּוֹ וּבְיוֹם אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים וּבְיוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים. אִם רָאָה מוֹנִים לוֹ שְׁמוֹנִים מֵעֵת שֶׁפָּסְקָה הָרְאִיָּה:
כסף משנה
12.
What is meant by a permanent degeneration of nerves in the eye?47Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter. An animal which [was observed] for eighty days and it did not see. We inspect it three times: on the twenty-seventh day from the time when its difficulty was sensed, on the fifty-fourth day, and on the eightieth day. If its sight [returned and then was lost again],48In the midst of the above period. we count from the time it stopped seeing.הלכה יג
וּבַמֶּה יִוָּדַע שֶׁהַמַּיִם קְבוּעִין. כְּשֶׁאָכְלָה עֲשָׂבִים לַחִים מֵרֹאשׁ אֲדָר עַד חֲצִי נִיסָן וְאָכְלָה אַחֲרֵי כֵן עֲשָׂבִים יְבֵשִׁים אֱלוּל וַחֲצִי תִּשְׁרֵי וְלֹא נִתְרַפְּאָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מַיִם קְבוּעִים:
כסף משנה
13.
How is it known that the water [in its eyes] are permanent?49Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter. When it ate fresh grass from Rosh Chodesh Adar until the first half of Nisan50In Eretz Yisrael, these months are directly after the rainy season and the grasses are still fresh. and then51I.e., the grasses were eaten in this order. ate dried grass during Elul and the first half of Tishrei52In these months, rain has not descended for more than half a year and the grasses have dried. and was not healed.53Eating these grasses is a natural cure for this malady. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3). This indicates that the water is permanent.הלכה יד
וְכַמָּה תֹּאכַל מֵעֲשָׂבִים אֵלּוּ הַלַּחִים בַּזְּמַן הַלַּח וְהַיְבֵשִׁים בַּזְּמַן הַיָּבֵשׁ. כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת אוֹ יוֹתֵר קֹדֶם סְעֻדָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל כָּל יָמִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים אֵלּוּ. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁתֹּאכַל אוֹתָן בְּכָל יוֹם אַחַר שְׁתִיָּה. וְתִהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּשָּׂדֶה בְּעֵת אֲכִילָה. וְלֹא תִּהְיֶה לְבַדָּהּ אֶלָּא הִיא וּבְהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת לְצַוֵּות עִמָּהּ. אִם נַעֲשָׂה לָהּ כָּל אֵלּוּ וְלֹא נִתְרַפֵּאת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ קְבוּעִין וַדַּאי. וְאִם חָסֵר אֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה וְלֹא נִפְדֵּית:
כסף משנה
14.
How much of the fresh grass must be eaten in the season for fresh grass and the dried grass in the season for dried grass? At least54Needless to say, eating more increases the therapeutic value. an amount the size of a fig before its first meal in these three months.55I.e., the two month and a half periods. They must be eaten each day after drinking and it must be free [to roam] in the field while eating. It should not be alone, but with another animal for company. If all of this was done for it and it still was not healed, the water is definitely permanent. If one of these factors was lacking, there is a doubt concerning the matter56All of these aspects of the animal's treatment are discussed by our Sages (Bechorot 39a). If the treatment was not administered correctly, it is possible that the blemish is not permanent and could be healed through proper treatment. and [the animal] should be neither offered,57For even if the blemish is merely temporary, it is, nevertheless, unfit to be sacrificed. nor redeemed.58For until it is established that the blemish is permanent, the animal cannot be redeemed.הלכה טו
כֵּיצַד. אָכְלָה הַלַּח כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ בַּאֲדָר כֻּלּוֹ וַחֲצִי נִיסָן וְאָכְלָה אַחֲרָיו הַיָּבֵשׁ כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ בַּחֲצִי נִיסָן וְאִיָּר שֶׁנִּמְצָא שֶׁאָכְלָה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים עַל הַסֵּדֶר. אוֹ שֶׁאָכְלָה כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת אַחַר אֲכִילָה אוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁתִיָּה אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה קְשׁוּרָה אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לְבַדָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה בַּגִּנָּה הַסְּמוּכָה לָעִיר וְלֹא נִתְרַפֵּאת מִכָּל אֵלּוּ סָפֵק קְבוּעִין אוֹ עוֹבְרִים. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הֵטִיל בָּהּ מוּם אַחֵר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אֲכָלָהּ כְּמִשְׁפָּטָהּ בִּזְמַנֵּי הָאֲכִילָה וְלֹא נִתְרַפְּאָה הֲרֵי הִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ:
כסף משנה
15.
What is implied? It ate fresh grass as prescribed throughout Adar and during the first half of Nisan. Then it ate dried grass as prescribed during the second half of Nisan and the month of Iyar thus it ate the grasses for three months in the proper order.59But not at the appropriate time of year. Or it ate a fig-sized amount of grass after eating or before drinking, or it was tied, alone, or located in a garden near a city. If it was not healed after all these treatments, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the blemish is considered] as permanent or temporary. Hence, if one blemished it in another manner, he is not liable for lashes.60It is forbidden to cause a consecrated animal to incur a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, if the animal is already blemished, one who causes such a blemish is not liable for lashes, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 8. Since we are unsure of this animal's status, we cannot hold the one who causes the blemish liable. If it partook [of the grasses] in the prescribed manner during the prescribed times for eating and it was not healed, it is considered as permanently blemished.הלכה טז
יֵשׁ בַּדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם לְמַפְרֵעַ הִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ מֵעֵת שֶׁבָּאוּ לָהּ הַמּוּמִים אוֹ מֵעֵת שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ מֵרְפוּאָתָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ הַפּוֹדֶה אוֹתָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ מֵרְפוּאָתָהּ וְנֶהֱנֶה בְּאוֹתוֹ הַפִּדְיוֹן אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ מֵרְפוּאָתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק מוֹעֵל וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן מְעִילָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:
כסף משנה