A consecrated animal became blemished. As we know, in that case it must be redeemed. Once it is redeemed, the animal returns to being an ordinary animal, although not entirely. Certain things remain prohibited: one may not shear it, and its offspring also remain prohibited. Thus, it retains a certain level of sanctity.
The Mishnah discusses the difference between two types of animals: one that was consecrated when it was already blemished, and one that was consecrated while it was whole and only afterward became blemished. There is a practical difference depending on when the consecration took place—whether it was consecrated while it was fit for the altar or while it was already blemished.
When a person consecrates a blemished animal, it is similar to consecrating a piece of wood. The animal receives only what is called monetary sanctity; it does not receive intrinsic sanctity, because it was already blemished and therefore could not receive the stronger level of sanctity. It is as though one consecrated the animal for its value. With this lower level of sanctity, once the animal is redeemed, it becomes completely permissible.
When a person consecrates an animal and it subsequently becomes blemished, however, the animal receives intrinsic sanctity. At the time it was consecrated, it was whole and fit for the altar. Therefore, even after its redemption, certain prohibitions remain. The sanctity is stronger because the animal was consecrated while it was whole.
The Mishnah discusses the laws that apply after the animal is redeemed, including whether it gives birth to a firstborn, whether its slaughter requires the gifts to a priest, whether it may be shorn or worked, whether its offspring and milk are permitted, whether one who slaughters it outside the Temple courtyard is liable, whether its sanctity can be transferred to another animal, and what happens if the animal dies before it is redeemed.
The Mishnah begins: “All consecrated animals that had a permanent blemish before their consecration.” The blemish existed before they were consecrated. What type of sanctity do they have? They have monetary sanctity.
As Rashi explains at the beginning of the passage, the only thing one can do with such an animal is redeem it. One cannot bring it on the altar because it is blemished. Its sanctity therefore means that one consecrates it in order to sell it and use the money to purchase an offering that can be placed on the altar. This is called monetary sanctity.
Once the animal has been redeemed, if it gives birth, it is liable under the laws of the firstborn. It is not merely liable under those laws; if it is slaughtered, one must also give the required gifts to the priest—the shoulder, jaw, and stomach. After redemption, the animal becomes an ordinary animal. One may shear it and work it, and its offspring and milk are permitted.
That is the entire point: initially, the animal never had strong sanctity. Therefore, when it is redeemed, its sanctity is removed completely, and the animal may be used normally.
Ordinarily, if one slaughters a consecrated animal outside the Temple courtyard, one is liable for slaughtering outside the permitted area. But in this case, even before redemption, if the animal had already possessed a minor blemish, there is no liability for slaughtering it outside. Since the animal was consecrated while already blemished, its sanctity is not sufficiently strong for that prohibition to apply.
The same applies to substitution. If a person has a consecrated animal and wishes to transfer its sanctity to another animal, the rule is that the attempted substitution causes both animals to become consecrated. Here, however, the law of substitution does not apply, because the first animal does not possess intrinsic sanctity.
If the animal dies before it is redeemed, one nevertheless redeems it and then feeds the carcass to the dogs. Normally, one does not redeem an animal after it has died. We previously explained that redemption generally requires the animal to be brought before the court so that it can be evaluated and stand before the priest. Here, however, because the sanctity is not severe, redemption may be performed even after the animal’s death.
The Mishnah excludes a firstborn animal and an animal tithe. Even if either of them has a blemish, a more stringent sanctity applies. Regarding a firstborn, what creates its sanctity is the opening of the womb, so a blemish does not prevent it from becoming holy. Regarding the animal tithe, there is no distinction between a good animal and a defective one. The animals may be whole or blemished; the good one is holy as a whole animal, and the bad one is holy despite its blemish.
Therefore, with these two types of animals, it makes no difference whether they were fit when they were born. Even if a firstborn was born with a blemish, it still possesses the sanctity of a firstborn. Likewise, even if an animal was born blemished, it is still subject to the laws of the animal tithe.
The Mishnah then discusses the opposite case: “A firstborn whose blemish preceded its consecration.” In other words, the animal was consecrated and only afterward became permanently blemished. The same applies if it had a temporary blemish that would eventually pass, and only afterward developed a permanent blemish.
When the animal was consecrated, it was fit for the altar, and it therefore received intrinsic sanctity. Later, after it developed a permanent blemish, it became eligible for redemption. Although redemption permits one to eat the animal, even with ritual impurity, it retains a certain level of sanctity. One may not shear it or work it, and its offspring and milk remain prohibited.
In this second case, if the animal is female and gives birth to a firstborn, there is no firstborn status, because the laws of the firstborn apply to ordinary animals and not to consecrated animals. One is also not required to give the gifts to the priest. Thus, the shoulder, jaw, and stomach do not have to be given when the animal is slaughtered.
After redemption, the animal itself becomes an ordinary animal, but its wool and labor remain prohibited, and its offspring and milk are prohibited. If one slaughters it outside the Temple courtyard before redeeming it, one is liable. The law of substitution also applies: if one attempts to transfer the sanctity of this animal to another animal, the substitution is effective, because the original animal possesses intrinsic sanctity.
If the animal dies before redemption, it may not be redeemed after death. It must be buried. The reason is that redemption requires standing and valuation before the priest. A dead animal cannot stand before the priest, so redemption is impossible.
Rashi explains the case in which the offspring and milk are prohibited. The mother became pregnant before redemption. Since she became pregnant while she was still consecrated, the offspring and milk remain prohibited even if the animal gives birth after redemption.
The discussion also addresses a minor blemish, such as a defect in the eye. These are blemishes from which the animal may nevertheless be fit for the altar according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva maintains that if such an animal was placed on the altar, it would not have to be removed. Therefore, this type of blemish does not exempt a person from the prohibition of slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard. The general rule is that one is exempt only when the animal has a blemish such that, if it had been placed on the altar, it would have to be removed.
To summarize this part of the Mishnah, there are two cases. In the first, the animal was already blemished and was then consecrated. After redemption, it becomes completely ordinary. Therefore, if it gives birth, the offspring is subject to the laws of the firstborn. In the second case, the animal was consecrated while whole and only afterward became blemished. Even after redemption, it retains a certain level of sanctity. Therefore, its offspring is not subject to the laws of the firstborn, and the other prohibitions we discussed remain in force.
The Gemara returns to the first case. The Mishnah said that after redemption the animal is subject to the laws of the firstborn and to the gifts given to the priest. This implies that these laws apply only after redemption. Before redemption, even though the animal possesses only monetary sanctity because it was consecrated while blemished, it is exempt from the laws of the firstborn and from the priestly gifts.
Thus, if it gives birth before redemption, the offspring is not subject to the laws of the firstborn, and if it is slaughtered before redemption, the priestly gifts do not have to be given. Monetary sanctity is sufficient to exempt the animal from these laws. As Rashi explains, intrinsic sanctity certainly exempts an animal from the laws of the firstborn, as is derived from the verses. The Mishnah teaches that even monetary sanctity has this effect.
After redemption, however, the animal becomes completely ordinary. It may be shorn and worked. Before redemption, even though it has only monetary sanctity, shearing and working it are prohibited. This supports the teaching of Rabbi Elazar concerning animals consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple.
Rabbi Elazar discusses animals consecrated for their value, with the intention that they be sold and the money used for the maintenance of the Temple. Although these animals cannot be used as offerings, they are still prohibited from being shorn or worked while they remain consecrated. The Gemara asks whether our Mishnah can serve as a source for Rabbi Elazar’s ruling.
The answer is that there is a distinction. Our Mishnah is discussing an animal with a blemish that was consecrated so that its value could be used to purchase an offering for the altar. Rabbi Elazar is discussing an animal consecrated for the general treasury of the Temple. In our Mishnah, the consecrated money is connected to the altar, because it will be used to purchase an offering. Therefore, the sages instituted that shearing and working are prohibited until redemption, since this case resembles intrinsic sanctity.
By contrast, in the case of an animal consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple, the money has no connection to the altar. It is simply being donated to the treasury. Therefore, our Mishnah cannot serve as a source for Rabbi Elazar’s ruling. The prohibition in our Mishnah may be a rabbinic decree intended to prevent people from confusing monetary sanctity connected to the altar with intrinsic sanctity. No such proof can be brought regarding monetary sanctity for the general maintenance of the Temple.
The Gemara then returns to the statement that the offspring and milk are permitted after redemption. What is the case? If the animal became pregnant and gave birth only after redemption, there is no difficulty. Once the animal was redeemed, it became completely ordinary, so naturally its offspring and milk are permitted.
The novelty must therefore be that the animal became pregnant before redemption and gave birth afterward. Since the fetus is considered part of its mother, one might think that when the mother is redeemed, the fetus should not be included. Perhaps the mother is redeemed, but the fetus, which was already inside her, remains consecrated. The Mishnah teaches that the redemption of the mother also applies to the fetus. The redemption of the mother is effective for the fetus as well.
Rashi explains the opposite case. If the animal became pregnant before redemption and gave birth before redemption, the offspring is prohibited. The offspring that are born before redemption remain prohibited even after the mother is redeemed, and they must themselves be redeemed. They may not be brought as offerings, even if they are born without a blemish.
Although the offspring are not blemished, one cannot bring them on the altar. Their sanctity comes from their mother, and the mother herself was not fit to be brought on the altar. One cannot make the secondary element more stringent than the principal element. Since the offspring derive their sanctity from a mother that cannot be brought on the altar, they also cannot be brought on the altar.
The Gemara then asks what should be done with these offspring. They were born before redemption, so they are prohibited. Can they be redeemed while they are still whole, or must one wait until they develop a blemish?
Ordinarily, a consecrated animal cannot be redeemed while it is whole. One must wait until it becomes blemished. The question is whether these offspring are different because they come from a mother that was already blemished and could be redeemed immediately. Perhaps the offspring should not be more stringent than their mother. If the mother did not have to wait for a blemish, perhaps the offspring may also be redeemed while whole.
Rashi presents the question: Can the offspring born before the mother’s redemption be redeemed while they are still whole, or must one wait until they become blemished?
The answer is that they may be redeemed while whole. Their intrinsic sanctity does not take effect. The reason is that the offspring must not be more stringent than the principal element, their mother. The mother had a permanent blemish and could therefore be redeemed immediately. Since the offspring derive their status from the mother, they too may be redeemed immediately.
The Gemara develops this point further. The only reason one can redeem the offspring while they are whole is that they come from a mother that was already blemished. What would be the law if there were no such basis?
The Gemara gives the following case. A person took an animal that was whole and consecrated it for its value, intending to sell it and use the money to purchase an offering. In that case, the animal itself is fit for the altar. Although the person’s stated intention was to use its value, because the animal is whole and fit to be offered, it receives intrinsic sanctity. It cannot be redeemed until it develops a blemish.
In the case of the offspring born from the blemished mother, however, the reason they can be redeemed while whole is that the mother serves as the basis for their status. The mother could be redeemed immediately, so the offspring cannot be more stringent than she is.
In the ordinary case, where a whole animal was consecrated for its value, one must wait until it becomes blemished before redeeming or selling it. Even though the person intended only to use its monetary value to purchase an offering, the animal itself is fit for the altar, and its status is elevated to intrinsic sanctity.
Rashi explains why the Gemara chooses the example of a male animal consecrated for its value. A ram is ordinarily suitable as a burnt offering. Although the person intended to sell it and use the money to purchase a burnt offering, the animal itself can serve as that offering. Therefore, it receives intrinsic sanctity. One should not sell it; one can bring the animal itself on the altar.
If the animal later becomes blemished, it may then be redeemed. But one does not have to wait for a blemish, because it can be brought as an offering in its present state. Monetary sanctity imposed on a whole animal that is fit for the altar takes effect on the animal itself as intrinsic sanctity.
This explains the distinction. In the case of the offspring, the only reason they may be redeemed while whole is that they derive their status from a mother that was already blemished. In the ordinary case of a whole animal consecrated for its value, the animal is fit for the altar and therefore receives intrinsic sanctity. It cannot be redeemed until it becomes blemished.
The Gemara then returns to the prohibition against shearing and working the animal before redemption. The case is an animal that was already blemished when it was consecrated and was consecrated for the purpose of using its value to purchase an offering. Although it has only monetary sanctity, shearing and working it are prohibited until redemption.
This is a rabbinic decree. Since the money will be used for an offering, the case resembles intrinsic sanctity in that it has a connection to the altar. The sages therefore prohibited shearing and working the animal, so that people would not mistakenly treat it as though it had the stronger sanctity of an animal consecrated while whole.
The Gemara then examines the Mishnah’s statement that one who slaughters the animal outside the permitted area is liable. It cannot mean that he is liable to the punishment of excision, because once the animal is redeemed it becomes an ordinary animal. An ordinary animal slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard does not create that liability.
Rabbi Elazar therefore explains that the word “liable” means liable for lashes, and that the case is slaughtering the animal on a private altar. During the period when private altars were permitted, if one slaughtered a blemished consecrated animal on a private altar, one was liable for lashes.
The Gemara considers whether the prohibition against bringing a blemished animal on a private altar can be derived from a verse. Perhaps the verse is not needed for animals consecrated for offerings, because another verse already states that an animal that is blind or has a broken limb may not be offered. That verse clearly prohibits bringing a blemished animal on a public altar.
The Gemara suggests that the verse may instead be needed for a firstborn animal. One might have thought that a firstborn is different because it becomes holy automatically through the opening of the womb. Perhaps, even when it is blemished, it could be brought on a private altar. The verse teaches that a blemished firstborn may not be brought.
The Gemara challenges this as well. Why would one think that a firstborn is different from other consecrated animals? If the verse prohibits bringing a blemished animal on an altar, that should include a firstborn.
The Gemara then considers whether the verse is needed for an animal tithe. The law of animal tithe makes no distinction between a good animal and a defective one, as the verse states that one does not inspect the animals to distinguish between good and bad. One might therefore have thought that even an animal tithe with a blemish could be brought on the altar. The verse teaches that it may not.
But the Gemara answers that the law of an animal tithe can be derived through a comparison from the law of a firstborn. Therefore, the verse is not needed specifically for the animal tithe.
Rabbi Zeira raises another possibility. Perhaps the verse is not referring to ordinary consecrated animals at all. Perhaps it teaches that offspring born from consecrated animals may not be brought on the altar when they are blemished.
One might have thought that when a whole animal was consecrated and was pregnant, the sanctity of the mother also extended to the offspring in her womb. Since the offspring became holy together with the mother, perhaps they should be brought on the altar even if they are blemished. The verse teaches that this is not so.
The Gemara rejects this explanation through a teaching transmitted in the name of Rabbi Yishmael. The offspring of consecrated animals follow the ordinary law of consecrated animals; there is no special rule that allows them to be brought when blemished. The verse states that the consecrated offerings one vows must be brought to Jerusalem. This includes not only the animal that was consecrated but also its offspring and any substitution that becomes holy.
These are all animals that must be brought to Jerusalem and offered on the altar. The wording teaches that not only the original animal but also its offspring and substitution are included in the obligation to bring consecrated animals.
The Gemara derives an additional point from the word “your vow.” Just as an animal consecrated through a vow may not be brought when it is blemished, so too its offspring may not be brought when they are blemished. Even though the offspring became holy together with the mother, it remains subject to the ordinary prohibition against offering a blemished animal.
The final conclusion is therefore that the verse prohibiting the offering of a blemished animal applies to a private altar as well. When the Mishnah says that one who slaughters the animal outside is liable, it does not mean liability to excision. It means liability for lashes in a case where the animal was offered on a private altar. The verse teaches that a blemished animal may not be offered there, just as it may not be offered on the public altar.
The Gemara explains that no separate proof is needed for ordinary offerings, for firstborn animals, for animal tithes, or for the offspring of consecrated animals. Each of those cases can be understood through the verses and comparisons already discussed. The basic principle remains that a blemished animal, even when its sanctity arose through consecration, cannot be brought on the altar.