The Torah commands in Parashat Emor (Vayikra 22:20), “Kol Asher Bo Mum Lo Takribu” – that we may not offer a blemished animal as a sacrifice. This verse is understood as forbidding not just the actual sacrificing of a blemished animal, but even the “Hakdasha” – the verbal consecration of such an animal. Simply declaring a blemished animal sacred as a sacrifice transgresses this prohibition. The Sefer Ha’hinuch writes that this prohibition applies in all places and in all times, even nowadays. Although we are unable to offer sacrifices without the Bet Ha’mikdash, nevertheless, the consecration itself transgresses this command, and thus one can violate this prohibition even nowadays, when we do not have the Bet Ha’mikdash. The Sefer Ha’hinuch writes that it would appear, at first glance, that one who violates this prohibition by consecrating an animal would not receive Malkut, as this prohibition seemingly falls under the category of “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh” – a prohibition which is not violated by committing an action. After all, this prohibition is transgressed by making a verbal pronouncement, declaring the animal sacred, without performing a concrete act. Violations which do not entail an action are not punishable by Malkut, and thus, we would assume, this prohibition, too, is not punishable by Malkut. Surprisingly, however, the Rambam, in Hilchot Issureh Mizbe’ah (1:12), writes that one who consecrates a Ba’al Mum (blemished animal) is, in fact, liable to Malkut. The Sefer Ha’hinuch suggests that the Rambam perhaps likened this case to that of Temura – when one declares the transfer of sanctity from a consecrated animal to a different animal, which the Torah forbids. The prohibition of Temura marks an exceptional instance of a violation which is committed verbally but is nevertheless punishable by Malkut. The Sefer Ha’hinuch speculates that the Rambam perhaps understood that this exception extends to all situations of a forbidden consecration, and thus includes the case of consecrating a Ba’al Mum. In the end, the Sefer Ha’hinuch writes that he feels that consecrating a Ba’al Mum should not be punishable by Malkut, but nevertheless, he humbly submits to the view of the Rambam, “Ki Malach Hashem Seva-ot Hu” – because he is like “an angel of the G-d of Hosts” (based on Malachi 2:7). In discussing this prohibition, the Sefer Ha’hinuch writes that one transgresses this command by consecrating blemished animals “Le’hakribam La’mizbe’ah” – “to offer them on the altar.” This would seem to imply that one violates this command only if he consecrates a Ba’al Mum as a sacrifice, and not if he consecrates it for its value, meaning, for the purpose of selling it and using the money for a sacrifice. However, the Minhat Hinuch comments that the Sefer Ha’hinuch’s formulation here is imprecise, for in truth, one violates this prohibition even by consecrating a Ba’al Mum for its value. The Minhat Hinuch explains that consecrating a Ba’al Mum is disrespectful to the service in the Bet Ha’mikdash even if the animal itself is not offered as a sacrifice, and is instead sold for money which is then used to purchase a sacrifice. To prove this point, the Minhat Hinuch cites sources indicating that one violates this prohibition if he consecrates a blemished goat to be used as the “Se’ir Ha’mishtale’ah” on Yom Kippur. This is the goat which was sent out into the desert and cast from a cliff to symbolize the banishment of the nation’s misdeeds. Although this goat is not offered as a sacrifice, nevertheless, one who consecrates a Ba’al Mum for this purpose transgresses this prohibition. This demonstrates that consecrating a Ba’al Mum is forbidden even without the intent of offering this animal as a sacrifice.