Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 1

See the conclusion of these halachot (Chapter 7, Halachah 11).

The Sifra explains that the phrase should be understood, not only as a description.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 61) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 286) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Sefer 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).

The 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.

And thus the animal will be sold, rather than offered on the altar itself.

For 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.

See 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.

Since 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.

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that he must slaughter the animal for the sake of a sacrifice to be liable.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 288) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 93) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 289) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 94) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 290) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 288) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Sefer 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.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 7, where these blemishes are listed.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2-3 for a description of these sacrifices.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 96) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 292) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes.

The 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).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 97) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 287) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The 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.

From Chapter 2, Halachah 15, it would appear that if the first merely brought about a temporary blemish, the second would be liable.

For 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.

Although 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.

Hilchot Temurah 3:1.

As 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.

This 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.

As stated in Halachah 1.

As 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.

Once such an animal has been redeemed, it may be shorn or used for labor (Hilchot Me'ilah 1:9).

I.e., they should be redeemed and a sacrifice brought with the money, as stated in Hilchot Arachin 5:11.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 86) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 441) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.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.).

Hilchot Arachin, loc. cit.

Bechorot 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.

To be evaluated and then it may be redeemed.

It had a permanent blemish before it was consecrated.

I.e., before it was redeemed.

This represents a departure from the usual practice, because generally, unblemished animals are not redeemed, but are offered as sacrifices; see Teumrah 33b.

I.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.

For it was redeemed together with its mother.

And 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 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.

Rather than redeemed. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11.

And this process of evaluation must be performed while the animal is alive.

Hilchot Arachin 5:12.

For as long as it is making convulsive motions, it is considered alive and the process of evaluation can take place (ibid.:13).

See Hilchot Temurah 4:9.

But after it contracted a permanent blemish.

To 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 then receives holiness on its own accord, independent of its mother.

Since 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.)

Because of a blemish or similar reason.

I.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.

See Hilchot Bechorot 1:18; 6:5-7 which mentions the restrictions against selling such meat.

So that the best price could be received for it.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:18; Hilchot Bechorot 1:3; 6:4; Hilchot Temurah 3:1-2.

For this represents disdain for consecrated property.

By the priest who received it after it was blemished.

One 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.

In 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).