Mishneh Torah (Rambam) משנה תורה

It is a positive commandment for all the sacrifices to be unblemished and of choice quality, as [Leviticus 22:21] states: "unblemished to arouse favor." This is a positive commandment.

[Conversely,] anyone who consecrates a blemished animal for the altar violates a negative commandment and is liable for 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 libations is liable for lashes, for this represents a disgrace to the sacrifices.

[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. 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.

One who slaughters a blemished animal for the sake of a sacrifice is liable for lashes, for [ibid.:22] states: "Do not offer these 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, for, with regard to them, [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, for, with regard to them, [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.

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, for example, an animal had a moist skin eruption or a boil. If he sacrificed, it, he is liable for lashes.

[The above applies], not only to sacrifices of the Jewish people, but also to the sacrifices brought by gentiles. If [a priest] offered [such sacrifices] and the animals were blemished, he is liable for lashes, as [Leviticus 22:25] states: "From the hands of foreigners, you may not offer the food of your God from all of these."

One who brings about a blemish in a sacrificial animal, e.g., he blinded its eye or cut off its hand, is liable for lashes. 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.

If a person brought about a blemish in a sacrificial animal and another person came and brought about a second blemish, the second person is not liable for lashes.

[This prohibition applies] both with regard to one who causes a blemish in sacrificial animals themselves or in animals to which their holiness was transferred 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. Similarly, one who causes a blemish in the ninth animal which was mistakenly called the tenth, is not liable for lashes.

Although one who consecrates a blemished animal [for the sacrifices of] the altar is liable for lashes, [the animal] becomes consecrated. It must be redeemed [after] evaluation by a priest. It then reverts to the status of an ordinary [animal] 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. 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, 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. We already explained in [Hilchot] Arachin that [Leviticus 27:11] states: "With regard to any impure animal of which a sacrifice should not be brought as an offering to God, [you shall have the animal stand before the priest...]", is speaking about blemished animals that have been redeemed.

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 blemish gives birth while it is consecrated, the offspring must be redeemed; it then receives the status of an ordinary animal even if it is unblemished. [The rationale is that] a secondary entity should not be treated with greater severity than the primary entity. 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. If [the consecrated animal that was blemished] died before it was redeemed, it should be redeemed after it died. [The rationale is that] holiness never encompassed its actual body, only its worth, because it had a permanent blemish. 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, because it must be stood before the court and evaluated, as we explained in [Hilchot] Arachin. If it was slaughtered before it was redeemed, it may be redeemed as long as it is making convulsive motions. Afterwards, one may partake of it. If it gave birth, its offspring may be sacrificed. If it became pregnant before it was redeemed and it gave birth before it was redeemed, the offspring is forbidden. 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, because it may not be offered because of [the sanctification of] its mother, because its [holiness] comes from sanctification that was suspended.

Whenever a consecrated animal that was disqualified is redeemed, it may be slaughtered in a butchers' market and sold there, [after] being weighed with a scale like ordinary meat. [The only] exceptions are the firstborn animals and the tithes. [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. 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 explained - they may not be slaughtered in a butchers' market or sold there. Even if [the value of] the firstborn animal was consecrated, it should not be weighed on a scale and sold in a market. [The rationale is that] one may consecrate only an article that he has acquired in a complete and total manner.