Halacha
הלכה א
מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִהְיוֹת כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת תְּמִימִין וּמֻבְחָרִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב-כא) "תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן" זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה:
כסף משנה
1.
It is a positive commandment for all the sacrifices to be unblemished and of choice quality,1See the conclusion of these halachot (Chapter 7, Halachah 11). as [Leviticus 22:21] states: "unblemished to arouse favor."2The Sifra explains that the phrase should be understood, not only as a description. This is a positive commandment.3Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 61) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 286) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.הלכה ב
וְכָל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מוּם לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה וְלוֹקֶה עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב-כ) "כּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזּוֹ אַזְהָרָה לְמַקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין אֲפִלּוּ הִקְדִּישׁוֹ לִדְמֵי [נְסָכִים] לוֹקֶה שֶׁבִּזְיוֹן קָדָשִׁים הוּא:
כסף משנה
2.
[Conversely,] anyone who consecrates a blemished animal for the altar violates a negative commandment4Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 285) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. One is liable for merely consecrating such an animal even if it is never actually offered on the altar (Sefer HaChinuch). and is liable for lashes5The Sefer HaChinuch questions why lashes should be given, because the transgression does not involve a deed, but explains that it can be considered comparable to temurah, exchanging an animal for a sacred animal. There too the exchange/consecration of the animal is considered as significant enough to warrant lashes. for consecrating it, as [ibid.:20] states: "Whatever has a blemish should not be sacrificed." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning against consecrating a blemished animal. Even one who consecrates such an animal for the money to pay for libations6And thus the animal will be sold, rather than offered on the altar itself. is liable for lashes, for this represents a disgrace to the sacrifices.7For as above, the sacrifices should be associated only with perfect and unblemished animals. Anything less is an insult to He to Whom they are offered.הלכה ג
הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לוֹמַר שְׁלָמִים וְאָמַר עוֹלָה עוֹלָה וְאָמַר שְׁלָמִים לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ פִּיו וְלִבּוֹ שָׁוִים. לְפִיכָךְ הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לוֹמַר עַל בַּעַל מוּם עוֹלָה וְהִקְדִּישׁוֹ שְׁלָמִים אוֹ שְׁלָמִים וְאָמַר עוֹלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לְאִסּוּר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. מִי שֶׁדִּמָּה שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהַקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהִקְדִּישׁ הֲרֵי זֶה קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
3.
[When a person consecrates an animal and] intends to say [that it is consecrated as] a peace offering, but actually says "as a burnt offering," or [intended to consecrate it] as a burnt offering, but said, "a peace offering," his statements are of no consequence unless his mouth and his heart are identical.8See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:12; Hilchot Nizirut 9:8. This is a general principle: Whenever a person wants to take a vow, consecrate an article, or set it aside as holy, his statements must reflect the will of his heart. Therefore if one intended to consecrate a blemished animal as a burnt offering, but consecrated it as peace offering or intended to consecrate it as a peace offering, but consecrated it as burnt offering, he is not liable for lashes even though he intended to perform a transgression.If someone thought that it was permitted to consecrate a blemished animal for the altar and did so, the consecration is effective and he is not liable for lashes.9Since he did not know of the prohibition involved, his act does not minimize the holiness of the sacrifices. Hence the consecration is effective. And since, he did not act intentionally. He is not liable for lashes. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on this point, based on his understanding of Temurah 17a. The commentaries elaborate on this difference of opinion.
הלכה ד
הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּעַל מוּם לְשֵׁם קָרְבָּן לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין (ויקרא כ״ב:כ״ב) "לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ אֵלֶּה לַה'". וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה אַזְהָרָה לַשּׁוֹחֵט. וְכֵן הַזּוֹרֵק דַּם בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן (ויקרא כב-כד) "לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ (אֵלֶּה) לַה'" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה אַזְהָרָה לַזּוֹרֵק. וְכֵן הַמַּקְטִיר אֵימוּרֵי בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ״ב:כ״ב) "וְאִשֶּׁה לֹא תִתְּנוּ מֵהֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ" אֵלּוּ הַחֲלָבִים. נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁאִם הִקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם וּשְׁחָטוֹ וְזָרַק דָּמוֹ וְהִקְטִיר אֵימוּרָיו לוֹקֶה אַרְבַּע מַלְקִיּוֹת:
כסף משנה
4.
One who slaughters a blemished animal for the sake of a sacrifice10The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that he must slaughter the animal for the sake of a sacrifice to be liable. is liable for lashes,11Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 288) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. for [ibid.:22] states: "Do not offer these12The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes. to God." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to one who slaughters.Similarly, one who pours the blood of blemished animals on the altar is liable for lashes,13Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 93) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 289) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. for, with regard to them,14The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes. [ibid.:24] states: "Do not offer to God." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to one who pours the blood of blemished animals on the altar.
And also one who sets afire the selected portions of blemished sacrifices on the altar is liable for lashes,15Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 94) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 290) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. for, with regard to them,16Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 288) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. [ibid.:22] states: "Do not place them as a fire offering on the altar." This refers to the fats. Thus we can deduce that one who consecrates a blemished animal, slaughtered it, poured its blood [on the altar], and set afire its selected portions is worthy of four sets of lashes.
הלכה ה
אֶחָד בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ אוֹ בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר אִם הִקְרִיבוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּכָל אֵלּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז-א) "לֹא תִזְבַּח לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה אַזְהָרָה לְבַעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה בִּבְהֵמָה גָּרָב לַח אוֹ חֲזָזִית אִם הִקְרִיבָהּ לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
5.
One transgresses the above commandments whether the animal has a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish, he violates all of these commandments, as [Deuteronomy 17:1] states: "Do not sacrifice to God your Lord an ox or a sheep that has a blemish." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning [against offering] an animal with a temporary blemish,17Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 95) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 494) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In his hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, the Ramban differs and maintains that this should not be considered as a separate commandment, but rather as an element of the above commandments. Even according to the Rambam, this one negative commandment includes all of the three prohibitions mentioned above. for example, an animal had a moist skin eruption or a boil.18See Chapter 2, Halachah 7, where these blemishes are listed. If he sacrificed, it, he is liable for lashes.הלכה ו
וְלֹא קָרְבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבַד אֶלָּא אַף קָרְבְּנוֹת עַכּוּ''ם אִם הִקְרִיבָן וְהֵן בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ״ב:כ״ה) "וּמִיַּד בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ אֶת לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מִכָּל אֵלֶּה":
כסף משנה
6.
[The above applies], not only to sacrifices of the Jewish people, but also to the sacrifices brought by gentiles.19See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2-3 for a description of these sacrifices. If [a priest] offered [such sacrifices] and the animals were blemished, he is liable for lashes,20Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 96) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 292) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 22:25] states: "From the hands of foreigners, you may not offer the food of your God from all of these."21The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes.הלכה ז
הַמַּטִּיל מוּם בְּקָדָשִׁים כְּגוֹן שֶׁסִּמֵּא עֵינוֹ אוֹ קָטַע יָדוֹ לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בְּקָרְבָּן (ויקרא כב-כא) "כָּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה אַזְהָרָה שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן בּוֹ מוּם. וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּם שֶׁהֲרֵי הָיָה רָאוּי לְקָרְבָּן וּפְסָלוֹ. אֲבָל בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָבַר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
7.
One who brings about a blemish in a sacrificial animal, e.g., he blinded its eye or cut off its hand,22The examples the Rambam gives are permanent blemishes. Generally, temporary blemishes cannot be brought about by human acts. Moreover, even if a person does cause a temporary blemish, he does not violate this prohibition. There is a logical basis for this conclusion, because as long as the animal is not permanently blemished, it is not disqualified as an offering (Radbaz; Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 287). is liable for lashes.23Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 97) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 287) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. For with regard to a sacrifice, [Leviticus 22:21] states: "It shall not have any blemish." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning not to cause a blemish."Lashes are given [for the violation of this prohibition] only when the Temple was standing, for then [the animal] was fit to be offered as a sacrifice and [the person] disqualified it. In the present age, by contrast, even though one transgressed a negative commandment, he is not liable for lashes.24The Radbaz explains that this concept can be derived from the prooftext cited in Halachah 1: "unblemished to arouse favor." Implied is that when a sacrificial animal can arouse favor, i.e., when there is a Temple where it can be offered, it must be unblemished. If that is not the case, there is no penalty for causing such a blemish.
The Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries have noted that the Rambam's ruling appears to be in contradiction with Avodah Zarah 13b which implies that there is no prohibition at all in causing a blemish in the present era, because there is no Temple where the sacrifices can be offered. The Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) and others explain that the difference can be resolved on the basis of the Rambam's ruling (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15) that if the altar is constructed on the Temple Mount, sacrifices may be brought even if the entire Temple has not been rebuilt.
הלכה ח
הֵטִיל מוּם בְּקָדָשִׁים וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֵטִיל בָּהּ מוּם אַחַר הַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
8.
If a person brought about a blemish25From Chapter 2, Halachah 15, it would appear that if the first merely brought about a temporary blemish, the second would be liable. in a sacrificial animal and another person came and brought about a second blemish, the second person is not liable for lashes.26For the animal was already disqualified due to the actions of the first person. Although the second person is not liable for lashes, he is still considered to have violated a Scriptural prohibition.הלכה ט
אֶחָד הַמֵּטִיל מוּם בַּקָּדָשִׁים עַצְמָן אוֹ בִּתְמוּרָתָן חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁהַמֵּטִיל מוּם בִּתְמוּרָתָן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לְקָרְבָּן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וְכֵן הַמֵּטִיל מוּם בַּתְּשִׁיעִי שֶׁל טָעוּת עֲשִׂירִי אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
9.
[This prohibition applies] both with regard to one who causes a blemish in sacrificial animals themselves or in animals to which their holiness was transferred27Although it is forbidden to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal to another animal, once that act has been performed, the second animal is consecrated and the prohibitions associated with a sacrifice apply to it. with the exception of a firstborn or a tithed animal. In those instances, one who causes a blemish in an animal to which their holiness was transferred is not liable for lashes, for they are not fit to be sacrificed, as will be explained in the appropriate place.28Hilchot Temurah 3:1. Similarly, one who causes a blemish in the ninth animal which was mistakenly called the tenth,29As explained in Hilchot Bechorot 8:1-2, when a person is tithing his flocks and he mistakenly calls the ninth animal to emerge, the tenth. In such an instance, a certain measure of holiness is conveyed upon that animal and it cannot be eaten until it becomes blemished. It should not, however, be offered on the altar. Since it is not fit to be offered, causing a blemish in it does not make one liable for lashes. is not liable for lashes.הלכה י
הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלַת מוּם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלּוֹקֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ נִתְקַדְּשָׁה וְתִפָּדֶה בְּעֵרֶךְ הַכֹּהֵן וְתֵצֵא לְחֻלִּין וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ קָרְבָּן. וְכֵן הַדִּין בְּבֶהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהּ מוּם. וּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה הִיא לִפְדּוֹת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהֶן מוּם וְיֵצְאוּ לְחֻלִּין וְיֵאָכְלוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים י״ב:ט״ו) "רַק בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ בָשָׂר". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁהַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בַּעֲרָכִין שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז-יא) "וְאִם כָּל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנּוּ קָרְבָּן לַה'" שֶׁהוּא מְדַבֵּר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ:
כסף משנה
10.
Although one who consecrates a blemished animal30This is speaking about an animal with a permanent blemish. The laws that apply if it has merely a temporary blemish are mentioned in the following halachah. [for the sacrifices of] the altar is liable for lashes,31As stated in Halachah 1. [the animal] becomes consecrated. It must be redeemed [after] evaluation by a priest.32As indicated by the sources cited by the Rambam at the conclusion of this halachah, the evaluation of the animal's worth must be made by a priest and not by any other person. It then reverts to the status of an ordinary [animal]33Once such an animal has been redeemed, it may be shorn or used for labor (Hilchot Me'ilah 1:9). and its money should be used to purchase [an animal for the same type of] sacrifice. This law also applies when a consecrated animal contracts a disqualifying blemish.34I.e., they should be redeemed and a sacrifice brought with the money, as stated in Hilchot Arachin 5:11.It is a positive commandment to redeem sacrificial animals that contracted disqualifying blemishes and cause them to revert to the status of an ordinary animal so that one may partake of them,35Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 86) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 441) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Deuteronomy 12:15] states: "Nevertheless, whenever your heart desires, you may slaughter and partake of meat." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the verse is speaking about consecrated animals that must be redeemed.36I.e., the new concept taught by the verse is not that one may slaughter ordinary animals and partake of their meat, for there is no need for a verse to teach us that. Instead, the new idea is that consecrated animals can be redeemed and then used as food. It is, however, forbidden to shear them and perform work with them even after they have been redeemed (Hilchot Me'ilah, loc. cit.). We already explained in [Hilchot] Arachin37Hilchot Arachin, loc. cit. that [Leviticus 27:11] states: "With regard to any impure animal38Bechorot 37b explains that the intent is not an animal from an impure species, but rather an animal from a kosher species that became disqualified because of a blemish, for there is a second verse (27:27) that speaks about evaluating non-kosher animals. of which a sacrifice should not be brought as an offering to God, [you shall have the animal stand before the priest...]",39To be evaluated and then it may be redeemed. is speaking about blemished animals that have been redeemed.
הלכה יא
מַה בֵּין בַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ לְבַעֲלַת מוּם עוֹבֵר. שֶׁבַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ אִם יָלְדָה וְהִיא קֹדֶשׁ יִפָּדֶה הַוָּלָד וְיֵצֵא לְחֻלִּין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא תָּמִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִקָּר. וְאִם נִתְעַבְּרָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה וְיָלְדָה אַחַר פִּדְיוֹן הַוָּלָד חֻלִּין. וְאִם מֵתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה נִפְדֵּית אַחַר שֶׁתָּמוּת. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא חָלָה קְדֻשָּׁה גְּמוּרָה עַל גּוּפָהּ אֶלָּא עַל דָּמֶיהָ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ. אֲבָל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלַת מוּם עוֹבֵר אוֹ תְּמִימָה וְאַחַר שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁהּ נוֹלַד לָהּ מוּם קָבוּעַ. אִם מֵתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה תִּקָּבֵר כִּשְׁאָר הַקָּדָשִׁים הַתְּמִימִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בַּעֲרָכִין. וְאִם נִשְׁחֲטָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ נִפְדֵּית כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ תֵּאָכֵל. וְאִם יָלְדָה יִקְרַב וְלָדָהּ. נִתְעַבְּרָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה וְיָלְדָה אַחַר שֶׁנִּפְדֵּית הַוָּלָד אָסוּר וְאֵינוֹ נִפְדֶּה. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. סָמוּךְ לְפִדְיוֹן אִמּוֹ מַתְפִּיס זֶה הַוָּלָד לְשֵׁם אוֹתוֹ הַזֶּבַח. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַקְרִיבוֹ [מִכֹּחַ אִמּוֹ] מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּא מִכֹּחַ קְדֻשָּׁה דְּחוּיָה:
כסף משנה
11.
What are the differences between [the laws pertaining to an animal] with a permanent blemish and one with a temporary blemish? If an animal with a permanent blemish40It had a permanent blemish before it was consecrated. gives birth while it is consecrated,41I.e., before it was redeemed. the offspring must be redeemed; it then receives the status of an ordinary animal even if it is unblemished.42This represents a departure from the usual practice, because generally, unblemished animals are not redeemed, but are offered as sacrifices; see Teumrah 33b. [The rationale is that] a secondary entity should not be treated with greater severity than the primary entity.43I.e., it would not be appropriate for the animal that was consecrated not to be offered as a sacrifice and its offspring, which was never directly consecrated, to be used for that purpose. If it became pregnant before it was redeemed and it gave birth after it was redeemed, the offspring has the status of an ordinary animal.44For it was redeemed together with its mother. If [the consecrated animal that was blemished] died before it was redeemed, it should be redeemed after it died.45And then its meat can be used even as food for animals, and certainly for humans. Moreover, a formal process of evaluation by a court is not required before its redemption. [The rationale is that] holiness never encompassed its actual body, only its worth, because it had a permanent blemish.46The Rambam is explaining why leniency is granted to redeem it after it died although generally we do not redeem a consecrated animal to feed its meat to the dogs (Chapter 2, Halachah 10; based on Temurah 6:5). In this instance, however, because the animal was blemished permanently, the consecration never affected its actual body, only its worth (i.e., it was not destined to be sacrificed itself, but rather to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice). Hence, after it dies, it can still be sold after it is redeemed.If, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that possesses a temporary blemish or he consecrates an unblemished animal and after he consecrated it, it contracted a permanent blemish [different laws apply]. If it died before it was redeemed, it should be buried like other unblemished consecrated animals,47Rather than redeemed. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11. because it must be stood before the court and evaluated,48And this process of evaluation must be performed while the animal is alive. as we explained in [Hilchot] Arachin.49Hilchot Arachin 5:12. If it was slaughtered before it was redeemed, it may be redeemed as long as it is making convulsive motions.50For as long as it is making convulsive motions, it is considered alive and the process of evaluation can take place (ibid.:13). Afterwards, one may partake of it. If it gave birth, its offspring may be sacrificed.51See Hilchot Temurah 4:9. If it became pregnant before it was redeemed52But after it contracted a permanent blemish. and it gave birth before it was redeemed, the offspring is forbidden.53To be used for ordinary purposes by Rabbinic decree. Although according to Scriptural Law, its holiness has departed, our Sages forbade its use, lest many such animals be maintained and flocks of them raised (Bechorot 15b). It may not be redeemed. What should be done? Before the mother is redeemed, the offspring should be dedicated to the same [type of] sacrifice as its mother,54It then receives holiness on its own accord, independent of its mother. because it may not be offered because of [the sanctification of] its mother, because its [holiness] comes from sanctification that was suspended.55Since the mother was unfit to be sacrificed because of its blemish, its holiness is considered to be suspended. Because the holiness of the mother was suspended, the offspring is not considered to be consecrated to the complete extent. Hence it must be consecrated again.
(It must be noted that the commentaries have questioned this ruling, because in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4, the Rambam writes that the holiness of consecrated animals is never suspended. It can, however, be explained that a suspension stemming from a permanent blemish is different, because the animal can never be fit for sacrifice again. See a parallel in Hilchot Temurah 3:4.)
הלכה יב
כָּל פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין כְּשֶׁיִּפָּדוּ מֻתָּר לְשָׁחֳטָן בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים וּלְמָכְרָן שָׁם וְלִשְׁקל בְּשָׂרָם בְּלִיטְרָא כִּשְׁאָר הַחֻלִּין חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּכִירָתָם בַּשּׁוּק מוֹסִיף בִּדְמֵיהֶן. שְׁאָר הַקָּדָשִׁים שֶׁדְּמֵיהֶן חוֹזְרִין לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי מֵבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶם בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן בַּשּׁוּק כְּחֻלִּין. אֲבָל הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁאֵין דְּמֵיהֶם לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא נֶאֱכָלִין בְּמוּמָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתָם בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים. וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָם שָׁם. אֲפִלּוּ הִתְפִּיס בְּכוֹר לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת אֵינוֹ נִשְׁקַל בְּלִיטְרָא וְלֹא יִמָּכֵר בַּשּׁוּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַתְפִּיס אֶלָּא דָּבָר הַקָּנוּי לוֹ קִנְיָן גָּמוּר:
כסף משנה
12.
Whenever a consecrated animal that was disqualified56Because of a blemish or similar reason. is redeemed, it may be slaughtered in a butchers' market and sold there, [after] being weighed with a scale like ordinary meat.57I.e., we do not say that since the animal was originally consecrated, it is disrespectful to treat it in this manner after it was redeemed. The Radbaz adds that the purchaser need not be notified that the meat came from a sacrifice that was disqualified. [The only] exceptions are the firstborn animals and the tithes.58See Hilchot Bechorot 1:18; 6:5-7 which mentions the restrictions against selling such meat.[The rationale for the distinction is that] selling the animal in the market causes its price to rise. Therefore other sacrifices whose value remains consecrated - for they are sold and the proceeds of the sale are used to bring another animal as a sacrifice - it should be sold in the market like an ordinary animal.59So that the best price could be received for it. In contrast, with regard to a first born animal and a tithed animal - since the proceeds of their sale do not remain consecrated, instead, the animals may be eaten [as ordinary meat,] because of the blemish, as will be explained60Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:18; Hilchot Bechorot 1:3; 6:4; Hilchot Temurah 3:1-2. - they may not be slaughtered in a butchers' market or sold there.61For this represents disdain for consecrated property. Even if [the value of] the firstborn animal was consecrated,62By the priest who received it after it was blemished. it should not be weighed on a scale and sold in a market.63One might think that since its value will be given to the Temple treasury, one would be allowed to sell it like normal meat to increase its price, as explained above. [The rationale is that] one may consecrate only an article that he has acquired in a complete and total manner.64In this instance, the priest cannot sell this animal in the market as private property. Hence he does not have the right to give this privilege to the Temple treasury (Rashi, Zevachim 75b).