Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 2-4

Sugya Map

• Issue: The intersection of "blemish" (mum) vs. "deficiency" (chissaron) vs. "loathsome status" (ma’us) regarding sacrificial eligibility.
• Nafka Mina: Can a consecrated animal be redeemed? Does it require burial/burning? Is the owner liable for lashes?
• Primary Sources: Leviticus 22:23, Malachi 1:8, Bechorot 39b, Temurah 30a.

Text Snapshot

Rambam Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 2:10 states: "When an animal contracts one of the conditions that render it tereifah... it is forbidden [to be offered on] the altar. For behold it is written Malachi 1:8: 'Present it please to your governor...'"

• Nuance: The Rambam distinguishes between a mum (which mandates redemption) and a tereifah (which mandates burning/burial, as it cannot be redeemed to be fed to dogs).

Readings

• Radbaz (ad loc): Notes that while a mum is a technical disqualification, a tereifah or missing organ is a fundamental failure of the requirement of tamim (perfection).
• Kessef Mishneh (ad loc): Debates whether the disqualification of tereifah is Scriptural or Rabbinic, centering on the gezerah shavah derived from mum.

Friction

Kushya: If a tereifah is not a "standard" blemish, why doesn't it fall under the rules of ordinary property? Terutz: The Rambam posits a hierarchy of disqualification. A mum is a blemish of the body, but a tereifah or chissaron (missing organ) is a deficiency of the essence. The logic of Malachi 1:8—"Would he be pleased with you?"—elevates the altar's standard above mere technical defect, requiring a "choice" animal.

Intertext

• Numbers 28:31: "They shall be perfect (temimim) for you."
• Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5: Rambam defines the scope of physical integrity.

Psak/Practice

The meta-halachic heuristic is that "perfection" (temimut) is not just the absence of a list of 73 blemishes; it is a positive requirement of functional integrity. If an animal is tereifah, its status is "loathsome"—it is not merely "not a sacrifice," it is "anti-sacrificial."

Takeaway

Sacrificial fitness is not defined solely by the absence of defects, but by the presence of functional wholeness. An animal that is technically "blemish-free" but lacks internal viability (tereifah) fails the fundamental mandate of "choice" offerings.