QUESTION: The Mishnah states that all animals of Kodshim that possessed a permanent blemish (Mum Kavu'a) before they were consecrated as Kodshim, and then died before they were redeemed, may be redeemed after their death, with the exception of a Bechor and an animal of Ma'aser Behemah. RASHI (DH v'Yotz'in) explains that even after the Kodshim are consecrated they do not have "Kedushah Chamurah," a strong degree of Kedushah, because they possessed a Mum Kavu'a before they were consecrated and were not fit to be offered on the Mizbe'ach as a Korban. Rashi (DH v'Im Mesu) explains further that since they do not have "Kedushah Chamurah," they may be redeemed after their death, and their corpses may be fed to the dogs. However, a Bechor and Ma'aser Behemah cannot be redeemed, because they have Kedushah even when they have a Mum.

This Mishnah seems to contradict the Gemara in Pesachim (29a). The Gemara there cites a Beraisa that records a dispute about one who eats Chametz of Hekdesh (Chametz that was designated as a gift of Bedek ha'Bayis to the Beis ha'Mikdash). The Tana Kama in the Beraisa maintains that one is Chayav for the Isur of Me'ilah, while another opinion ("Yesh Omrim") maintains that one is not Chayav for Me'ilah. Rav Yosef explains that the dispute depends on whether one is allowed to redeem Kodshim in order to feed it to dogs. The Tana Kama maintains that one may redeem Kodshim to feed to dogs, and thus the Chametz of Hekdesh is considered to have monetary value; when one uses that value for personal benefit, he is Chayav for Me'ilah. The other Tana maintains that one may not redeem Kodshim to feed it to dogs. Therefore, Chametz of Hekdesh on Pesach has no monetary value, and one who eats that Chametz on Pesach is not Chayav for Me'ilah.

How can a Tana maintain that one may not redeem even Hekdesh of Kedushas Damim (such as an object or animal that is Hekdesh but that cannot be offered on the Mizbe'ach)? The Mishnah here explicitly states that the dead animal may be redeemed! This question is strengthened by the fact that when the Gemara later (15a) discusses the argument about whether one may redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs, it cites the argument only with regard to the second case of the Mishnah -- animals that were sanctified before they developed a Mum. The Gemara there implies that animals that possessed a Mum before they were sanctified may be redeemed according to all opinions!

ANSWER: The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#1) answers that everyone agrees that mid'Oraisa one may redeem Kodshim that cannot be offered on the Mizbe'ach. Even the opinion in Pesachim that maintains that one may not redeem the Kodshim maintains that this is only an Isur d'Rabanan. Therefore, that opinion maintains that when the Mishnah here says that one may redeem the blemished animal that died, it means that mid'Oraisa it may be redeemed; there nevertheless is an Isur d'Rabanan against redeeming it.

However, according to the opinion that the Rabanan prohibited redeeming Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs, such a decree effectively removes the Isur of Me'ilah from Chametz of Hekdesh that one eats during Pesach. How can the Rabanan remove the Isur d'Oraisa of Me'ilah? TOSFOS in Pesachim (29a, DH Ein) explains that, in reality, the Rabanan did not remove the Isur d'Oraisa of Me'ilah. Rather, they decreed that one may not redeem the Chametz of Hekdesh, and, as a consequence, the Chametz loses its monetary value. Since the Isur of Me'ilah applies only to an object that has some monetary value, the Isur of Me'ilah does not apply to Chametz of Hekdesh, since it is now worthless. (D. BLOOM)

QUESTION: The Mishnah (14a) states that when one designates an animal as Kodshim after it developed a Mum, and then he slaughtered that animal outside of the Azarah, he is not Chayav for transgressing the Isur of Shechutei Chutz. The Gemara quotes Rebbi Elazar who has a different reading of the Mishnah. According to his reading, the Mishnah states that one is Chayav for such an act.

Why should a person be Chayav for slaughtering this animal outside of the Azarah? Since the animal became Kadosh when it had a Mum, it should be considered "Eino Ra'uy Lifnim" (not fit to be brought as a Korban in the Beis ha'Mikdash). One who slaughters, outside the Azarah, an animal that is not fit to be brought as a Korban does not transgress the prohibition of Shechutei Chutz!

Rebbi Elazar explains that the Mishnah is not discussing the prohibition of slaughtering Kodshim outside of the Azarah. It is discussing an entirely different prohibition. The Mishnah is discussing one who slaughters an animal with a Mum on a Bamas Yachid, a private altar, during the time when it was permitted to offer Korbanos on such an altar. The Mishnah is teaching that slaughtering an animal with a Mum on a Bamas Yachid is prohibited by a Lo Sa'aseh and punishable with Malkus.

Why, though, is this law included in the Mishnah here? The Mishnah is discussing the differences between an animal that was sanctified before it developed a Mum and an animal that was sanctified after it developed it Mum. With regard to the prohibition of slaughtering a blemished animal on a Bamas Yachid, there is no difference between the two cases; the prohibition applies equally whether the Mum developed before or after the animal was sanctified!

ANSWER: The CHAZON ISH (Kodshim 18:6) answers that Rebbi Elazar maintains that the Mishnah is teaching a law relevant to the rest of the laws of the Mishnah. One might have thought that the laws in the Mishnah apply only during the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash (when private altars are forbidden). Only during the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash does an animal that developed a Mum before it was sanctified not have full Kedushah (because, from the moment it became Kadosh, it could not be offered on the Mizbe'ach). In contrast, during the periods when private altars were permitted, an animal sanctified when it has a Mum perhaps acquires full Kedushah, since one may offer a blemished animal on a private altar!

The Mishnah, according to Rebbi Elazar, therefore teaches that this is not so. An animal with a Mum may not be brought on a private altar, just as it may not be offered in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The laws of the Mishnah apply at all times, even when private altars were permitted.