As we learned on yesterday’s daf according to the Mishna 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 principle in this matter is: They are like non-sacred animals in all matters. They have only the mitzva 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 principle in the matter is that they are like consecrated animals in all matters. 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 kedusha; 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 kedusha is only monetary can be sheared or made to work, so long as the proceeds go to the Temple.