As we learned on
yesterday’s daf (=page) according to the
Mishnah if an animal that was a
ba’al mum – it had a permanent blemish that precluded it from being brought as a sacrifice – was consecrated by its owner and then was redeemed, it becomes an ordinary animal. This stands in contrast with an animal that was consecrated as a sacrifice and developed a
mum – a permanent blemish – afterwards. In such a case, even though its condition does not allow it to be brought as a sacrifice and it must be redeemed, nevertheless it retains an element of holiness.
The
baraita on today’s
daf that makes this point concludes the discussion of each type of animal with a general principle. Regarding the animal that was a
ba’al mum prior to being consecrated the
baraita states:
The general rule in this matter is: They are like unconsecrated animals in all particulars. The only religious duty which applies to them is that of valuing them for redemption.
Regarding the animal that became a ba’al mum only after being consecrated as a sacrifice the baraita states:
The general rule in the matter is that they are like consecrated animals in all particulars. You have only the permission to eat them.
The difference between the two cases is whether when the animal was sanctified it became holy with kedushat ha-guf – intrinsic holiness. Since a ba’al mum cannot be brought on the altar, the level of holiness that such an animal received was external holiness; only its monetary value became holy. A perfect animal that was sanctified for sacrifice receives inherent kedushah; its body is holy. Even if it cannot be brought on the altar and must be redeemed it can never become an ordinary animal. Based on this we can understand, for example, that shearing an animal for its wool would be forbidden only in the case of an animal that is intrinsically holy. An animal whose kedushah is only monetary can be sheared or made to work, so long as the proceeds go to the Temple.
