Bekhorot 43

Bekhorot 43

לִפְסוֹל בִּמְקוֹם אַחִים,

There is a practical difference with regard to disqualifying the widow, through his ḥalitza, from entering into levirate marriage in a case where there are other brothers. According to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that this individual is certainly a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally, his ḥalitza is of no effect whatsoever, and therefore she may enter into levirate marriage with one of the other brothers. Conversely, according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, since it is possible that he is not a eunuch and his ḥalitza is valid, she is forbidden to the other brothers as their brother’s wife.

וְלַחְלוֹץ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם אַחִים, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

And there is also a practical difference between their opinions with regard to performing ḥalitza with the widow in a case where there are no brothers other than this tumtum. According to Rabbi Yehuda, ḥalitza is not necessary in this case, as she requires ḥalitza only if her late husband had brothers who are obligated to perform levirate marriage, and this individual is definitely a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that he must perform ḥalitza with her, in case he is a male and not a eunuch.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין.

מַתְנִי׳ מוּמִין אֵלּוּ, בֵּין קְבוּעִין בֵּין עוֹבְרִים — פּוֹסְלִין בָּאָדָם, וְיָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן: הַכִּילוֹן, וְהַלַּפְתָּן, וְהַמַּקָּבָן, וְשֶׁרֹאשׁוֹ שָׁקוּט, וּסְקִיפַת.

MISHNA: Concerning these blemishes which were taught with regard to an animal, whether they are permanent or transient, they also disqualify in the case of a person, i.e., they disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service. And in addition to those blemishes, there are other blemishes that apply only to a priest: One whose head is pointed, narrow above and wide below; and one whose head is turnip-like, wide above and narrow below; and one whose head is hammer-like, with his forehead protruding; and one whose head has an indentation; and one wherein the back of his head protrudes.

וּבַעֲלֵי חֲטָרוֹת — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין. הַקֵּרֵחַ פָּסוּל. אֵיזֶהוּ קֵרֵחַ? כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שִׁיטָה שֶׁל שֵׂעָר מוּקֶּפֶת מֵאוֹזֶן לְאוֹזֶן, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ — הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר.

And with regard to those with humped backs, Rabbi Yehuda deems them fit for service and the Rabbis deem them disqualified. The kere’aḥ is disqualified from performing the Temple service. What is a kere’aḥ? It is anyone who does not have a row of hair encircling his head from ear to ear. If he has a row of hair from ear to ear, that person is fit for service.

גְּמָ׳ אַמַּאי? וְהָאִיכָּא יַבֶּלֶת, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּאָדָם! וְתוּ: דַּק תְּבַלּוּל, דְּלָא כְּתִיבִי בִּבְהֵמָה!

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna say that all the blemishes that disqualify an animal disqualify a priest as well? But there is the blemish of a wart, which is not written in the Torah with regard to a person but is written with regard to an animal (see Leviticus 22:22). And furthermore, there are also the blemishes of a cataract and a tevallul, which appear in the Torah with regard to a person but are not written in the Torah with regard to an animal (see Leviticus 21:20). Why, then, does the mishna on 38a teach that such blemishes disqualify an animal?

מֵילָף יָלְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: בָּאָדָם לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ יַבֶּלֶת, בַּבְּהֵמָה לֹא נֶאֱמַר דַּק תְּבַלּוּל, מִנַּיִן לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גָּרָב״ ״גָּרָב״, ״יַלֶּפֶת״ ״יַלֶּפֶת״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

The Gemara responds: These blemishes are derived from one another, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a person, i.e., a priest, it is not stated of him that a wart disqualifies him from Temple service, and in the case of an animal, it is not stated that a cataract or a tevallul disqualify it from being sacrificed. From where is it derived that one applies that which is said of this case to that case, and that which is said of this case to that case? The verse states: “Scabbed” and “scabbed,” “scurvy” and “scurvy,” both with regard to a person and an animal (Leviticus 21:20; 22:22), which serves to draw a verbal analogy from the verses.

מַפְנֵי, דְּאִי לָא מַפְנֵי, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: אָדָם מִבְּהֵמָה לָא יָלֵיף, שֶׁכֵּן הִיא עַצְמָהּ קְרֵיבָה לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ; בְּהֵמָה מֵאָדָם לָא יָלְפָא, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בְּמִצְוֹת.

The Gemara notes: These verses must be free, i.e., they are superfluous and are stated only for the purpose of the verbal analogy. This means that the verbal analogy cannot be refuted by logical reasoning, whereas if the verses are not free one can refute the analogy if there is a significant difference between the two cases. As, if they are not free, the verbal analogy can be refuted as follows: One cannot derive the disqualifications of a person for performing the Temple service from those of an animal, as the case of an animal can be considered more stringent because the animal itself is sacrificed upon the altar. Similarly, one cannot derive the disqualifications of an animal from those of a person, as one can claim that the halakha with regard to a person should be more stringent, since a person was included in the performance of mitzvot.

לָאיֵי, אַפְנוֹיֵי מַפְנֵי, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״יַלֶּפֶת״ וְלָא בָּעֵי ״גָּרָב״, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: וּמָה יַלֶּפֶת דְּלָא מְאִיסָא הָוֵי מוּמָא, גָּרָב דִּמְאִיס לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? ״גָּרָב״ ״גָּרָב״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

Indeed, the terms are free. Accordingly, since these disqualifications are derived from a verbal analogy they must be accepted as though they were written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara proves these verses are free: Let the Merciful One write that scurvy disqualifies a person and an animal, and it would be unnecessary for the Merciful One to write that a scab disqualifies them, as I would say: And if scurvy, which is not repulsive, is considered a disqualifying blemish, then in the case of a scab, which is repulsive, is it not all the more so a disqualifying blemish? If so, then with regard to “scabbed” and “scabbed,” which the Merciful One writes with regard to a person and an animal, why do I need them? Evidently, they are to be considered free for the verbal analogy.

וְלִכְתְּבִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא כּוּלְּהוּ בְּחַד, וְגָרָב וְיַלֶּפֶת הָכָא וְהָכָא, וְלֵילְפוּ מֵחֲדָא!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if animals and priests are disqualified by the same blemishes, let the Merciful One write all the disqualifying blemishes with regard to one of them, either a person or an animal, and let the Merciful One write that a scab and scurvy disqualify both here and here, for the purpose of the verbal analogy, and let all the other blemishes be derived in one case from the other one, through the verbal analogy.

אַהֵיָיא בְּהֵי לִיכְתֹּב רַחֲמָנָא? אִי כְּתַב בְּאָדָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כֹּל דְּפָסוּל בְּאָדָם פָּסוּל בִּבְהֵמָה, קָלוּט וְחוּטִין דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאָדָם, בִּבְהֵמָה נָמֵי לָא לִיפַּסְלוּ.

The Gemara responds: To which is this referring, i.e., in which case should the Merciful One write all the blemishes? If the Merciful One had written all of them with regard to a person then I would say: All blemishes that disqualify in the case of a person likewise disqualify in the case of an animal. If so, then with regard to closed hooves and damaged gums, which are not written with regard to a person as they are not relevant because a person has no hooves and his gums are covered with teeth, I would say: In the case of an animal as well they should not disqualify.

וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא כּוּלְּהוּ בִּבְהֵמָה, הָוֵה אָמֵינָא: כֹּל דְּפָסוּל בִּבְהֵמָה פָּסוּל בְּאָדָם, גִּבֵּן וְחָרוּם דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בִּבְהֵמָה — בְּאָדָם נָמֵי לָא לִיפַּסְלוּ.

And if you would say: Let the Merciful One write all the blemishes with regard to an animal, I would say: All blemishes that disqualify in the case of an animal likewise disqualify in the case of a person. Accordingly, with regard to a gibben, one with blemished eyebrows, or a ḥarum, one with a sunken nose, which are not written with regard to an animal as such blemishes do not occur among animals, I would say: In the case of a person as well they should not disqualify. Therefore, the Torah delineates all the disqualifying blemishes with regard to both an animal and a person in order to state the blemishes that are unique to animals and the blemishes that are unique to people.

וְלִכְתְּבִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא כּוּלְּהוּ בְּחַד, וְהָנָךְ דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאִידַּךְ — לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּבְהֵמָה, וְהָנָךְ דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאִידַּךְ — לִכְתּוֹב בְּאָדָם, וְגָרָב וְיַלֶּפֶת — הָכָא וְהָכָא, וְלֵילְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי.

The Gemara asks: But even so, why is it necessary for the Torah to delineate all the common blemishes? Let the Merciful One write all of them in the verses discussing one of them, either an animal or a person, and as for those that are not relevant for the other, i.e., those blemishes that apply only in the case of an animal, let the Merciful One write with regard to an animal, and as for those that are not relevant for the other, i.e., those blemishes relevant only to a person, let the Merciful One write with regard to a person. And let the Torah write the blemishes of a scab and scurvy both here and there, for the purpose of the verbal analogy, and let the fact that their common blemishes disqualify in both cases be derived from one another.

אֶלָּא, כְּתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כׇּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִשְׁנֵית — לֹא נִשְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.

Rather, the reason the Torah repeats their common blemishes is in accordance with that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. It is the style of the Torah to repeat a passage even in order to teach only one additional halakha. Consequently, with regard to the blemishes of a person and an animal, their common blemishes were repeated on account of those blemishes that apply only to an animal or a person.

אָמַר רָבָא: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא מוּם בְּאָדָם, מוּם בְּקָדָשִׁים, מוּם בִּבְכוֹר?

§ Rava says: Why do I need the Merciful One to write that a blemish causes disqualification from Temple service in the case of a person, i.e., a priest (see Leviticus 21:17–23), and that a blemish causes disqualification in the case of sacrificial animals (see Leviticus 22:20–25), and that a blemish causes disqualification for sacrifice in the case of a firstborn animal (see Deuteronomy 15:21)?

צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא מוּם בְּאָדָם, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בְּמִצְווֹת. אָדָם מִבְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן הוּא עַצְמוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.

Rava answers: They are all necessary. As, had the Merciful One written only that a blemish causes disqualification in the case of a person, one might suggest that blemishes cause disqualification only in that case, since a person was included in the performance of mitzvot. Similarly, had the Merciful One written only that blemishes disqualify a firstborn animal from being sacrificed, it could be claimed that one cannot derive the disqualification of a person on account of blemishes from the disqualification of a firstborn animal, since an animal has an added aspect of stringency in that it itself is sacrificed upon the altar.

קָדָשִׁים מִבְּכוֹר לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם.

Additionally, one cannot derive the disqualifications of sacrificial animals from those of a firstborn animal, since the sanctity of a firstborn animal is from the womb, i.e., from birth, whereas the sanctity of other offerings applies only upon consecration by a person, and they are therefore of a lesser sanctity.

אָדָם מִקֳּדָשִׁים לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן הֵן עַצְמָן קְרֵיבִין. בְּכוֹר מִקֳּדָשִׁים לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מְרוּבָּה.

Furthermore, had the Merciful One written only that sacrificial animals are disqualified due to blemishes, it could be claimed that one cannot derive the disqualifications of a person from that of sacrificial animals, as the offerings themselves are sacrificed. Similarly, one cannot derive the disqualifications of a firstborn animal from those of sacrificial animals, as the sanctity of other offerings is greater than that of a firstborn animal because there are many types of other offerings, whereas a firstborn animal has only one type of sanctification. Therefore, it was necessary for the Merciful One to specify that blemishes disqualify in each case.

חֲדָא מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא, תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי? מֵהֵי תֵּיתֵי?! לָא לִכְתֹּב רַחֲמָנָא בִּבְכוֹר, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתָן מְרוּבָּה, וְנוֹהֲגִין בִּפְשׁוּטִין.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, the disqualification of one of these cases cannot be derived from only a single other one. But let one of them be derived from the other two. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: From which two should the other one be derived? If you will say: Let the Merciful One not write that blemishes disqualify a firstborn animal and one should derive that case from these, i.e., the disqualifications of a person and sacrificial animals, this suggestion can be rejected. What is notable about these? They are notable in that their sanctity is greater than that of a firstborn offering, as in the case of a person, he is included in the performance of mitzvot; and in the case of a sacrificial animal, there are many types of offerings. Moreover, the halakhot of these blemishes apply to regular, i.e., non-firstborn, animals and people.

בְּקָדָשִׁים, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתָן מֵאֲלֵיהֶן!

Furthermore, if one will say: Let the Merciful One not write that blemishes disqualify sacrificial animals and one should derive that case from these cases, a person, i.e., a priest, and a firstborn animal, this too can be rejected: What is notable about these? They are notable in that their sanctity is automatic and requires no consecration, as a priest is a priest by virtue of being the son of a priest, and a firstborn attains its status by being the first child of its mother, while offerings are consecrated by their owners.

בְּאָדָם, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן הֵן עַצְמָן קְרֵיבִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ! צְרִיכִי.

Finally, if one will say: Let the Merciful One not write that blemishes disqualify a person and one should derive that case from these cases, the firstborn animal and sacrificial animals, this suggestion too can be rejected: What is notable about these? They are notable in that they themselves are sacrificed upon the altar, whereas a person is not. Therefore, all three verses are necessary, to teach that blemishes disqualify in all these cases.

יָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן בְּאָדָם. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כֹּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן״, אִישׁ שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן.

§ The mishna teaches that in addition to those blemishes that disqualify an animal, there are other blemishes that apply to a person despite the fact that they are not actual defects. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: These halakhot are derived from that which the verse states: “No man among the seed of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come forward to sacrifice the offerings of the Lord made by fire” (Leviticus 21:21). The verse indicates that the priest must be a man who is equal among the seed of Aaron, i.e., one whose appearance is similar to the other priests.

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין מוּמָא לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן? אִיכָּא מִשּׁוּם אַחוֹלֵי עֲבוֹדָה: מוּמָא מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״מוּם בּוֹ וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל״, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן לָא מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה.

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between a priest disqualified from performing the Temple service due to a full-fledged blemish that disqualifies both people and animals, and a priest disqualified from performing the Temple service because he is not equal among the seed of Aaron? The Gemara responds: There is a difference between them with regard to profaning the Temple service. A priest with a full-fledged blemish who performs rites in the Temple profanes the service he has performed, as it is written: “He has a blemish; that he not profane My Sanctuaries” (Leviticus 21:23). A priest who is not equal among the seed of Aaron does not profane the service he performs.

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, וּמִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ עֲשֵׂה.

The Gemara further asks: What difference is there between a priest disqualified from performing the Temple service because he is not equal among the seed of Aaron, e.g., one whose head is pointed, and a priest disqualified from performing the Temple service due to the mere appearance of a blemish, such as one whose eyelashes have fallen out, as stated in the mishnayot further on in this chapter? The Gemara responds: There is a difference between them with regard to the violation of the prohibition, which is stated as a positive mitzva, i.e., that priests who are equal shall serve in the Temple. A priest who is not equal among the seed of Aaron who performs the Temple service transgresses this prohibition. By contrast, a priest who is disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish is disqualified by rabbinic law, and he does not transgress a Torah prohibition by performing the Temple service.

כִּילוֹן — דְּדָמֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ לְאַכְלָא, ״לַפְתָּא״ — דְּדָמֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ לְגַדְגָּלִידָא דְּלִיפְתָּא, תָּנָא: וְצַוָּארוֹ עוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע רֹאשׁוֹ.

§ The Gemara clarifies the blemishes that the mishna lists as disqualifying a priest: One whose head is pointed [kilon], this is one whose head resembles the cover of a barrel, narrow above and wide below. One whose head is turnip-like, this is one whose head resembles the top of a turnip, wide above and narrow below. The Sages taught in a baraita another detail relating to this blemish: And his neck stands in the middle of his head, i.e., his head protrudes equally in all directions around his neck, whereas a typical person’s neck is situated at the back of his head.

מַקָּבָן — דְּדָמֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ לְמַקָּבָן, ״וְשֶׁרֹאשׁוֹ שָׁקוּט״ — מִלְּפָנָיו, ״וּסְקִיפָת״ — מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: שְׁקִיל פִּיסָּא. תָּנָא: וְצַוָּארוֹ שָׁקוּט וְשָׁמוּט. ״שָׁקוּט״ — דַּחֲבִיס מִחְבָּס, ״שָׁמוּט״ — דַּאֲרִיךְ וּשְׁמִיט.

One whose head is hammer-like [makkavan], this is one whose head resembles a hammer, with his forehead protruding. And one whose head is indented [shakut], this is one with a depression in the front of his head. And one wherein the back of his head protrudes [sekifat] is someone for whom it appears a piece from the back of his head has been removed, as people say: A piece has been taken [shakil pisa]. Sekifat is understood to be an abbreviation of that term. The Sages taught in a baraita: And a priest whose neck is short, or one whose neck is narrow, is disqualified from performing the Temple service as well. A priest with a short neck is one whose neck is hidden and is not visible between his shoulders. A priest with a narrow neck is one whose neck is long and narrow.

וּבַעֲלֵי חֲטָרוֹת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כּוּ׳. דְּאִית בֵּיהּ עֶצֶם, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּפָסְלָא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי — דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ עֶצֶם: מָר סָבַר — הָא אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, וּמָר סָבַר — קִרְקוּרָא דְּבִישְׂרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

The mishna teaches: And with regard to those with humped backs, Rabbi Yehuda deems them fit for service and the Rabbis deem them disqualified. The Gemara elaborates: In a case where there is a bone in his hump, everyone agrees that the priest is disqualified for Temple service. They disagree when there is no bone. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that this person is not equal among the seed of Aaron and is therefore disqualified from performing the Temple service; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that it is merely a piece of flesh and is not considered a blemish.

הַקֵּרֵחַ פָּסוּל. אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְפָנָיו, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו — כָּשֵׁר, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו וְאֵין לוֹ לְפָנָיו.

§ The mishna teaches that the kere’aḥ, i.e., anyone who does not have a row of hair encircling his head from ear to ear, is disqualified from performing the Temple service. Rava says: The Sages taught that a kere’aḥ is disqualified only if he does not have a row of hair in the back of his head but he has a row of hair in the front. But if he has a row of hair both in the front and in the back, he is fit for performing the Temple service. And all the more so, when he has hair in the back but he does not have in the front he is fit for performing the Temple service, as this is typical of older men.

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא, וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ — הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו וְאֵין לוֹ לְפָנָיו, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ בֵּין לְאַחֲרָיו בֵּין לְפָנָיו — פָּסוּל, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְפָנָיו וְאֵין לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו, וּדְאֵין לוֹ כְּלָל — דְּפָסוּל.

And there are those who teach the statement of Rava with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: And if he has a row of hair, that person is fit for performing the Temple service. Rava says: The Sages taught that such a person is fit only when he has a row of hair in the back but he does not have in the front. But if he has a row of hair both in the back and in the front, he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. And all the more so, one who has a row of hair in the front and does not have in the back, or one who does not have any hair at all, is disqualified.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַקַּרְחָנִין וְהַנַּנָּסִין וְהַזַּבְלְגָנִין — פְּסוּלִין, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן. קַרְחָנִין — תְּנֵינָא! נַנָּסִין — תְּנֵינָא!

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The bald priests, and the priests who are dwarves, and the priests with leaky eyes, are disqualified from performing the Temple service, since they are not equal among the seed of Aaron. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan to state this? With regard to bald priests, we learn in the mishna that they are disqualified. Similarly, with regard to priests who are dwarves, we learn in a mishna (45b) that they are disqualified.

זַבְלְגָנִין אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן, וּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

The Gemara responds: It was necessary for him to teach us this statement with regard to priests with leaky eyes, as the halakha with regard to them does not appear in any mishna. And furthermore, it was necessary for him to reiterate the halakha with regard to bald priests and dwarves lest you say they are disqualified only by rabbinic law, due to the appearance of a blemish. Rabbi Yoḥanan therefore teaches that they are disqualified by Torah law, as they are not equal among the seed of Aaron.

וְהָא כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן (אִיתְנָא) [מִיתְנָא] קָתָנֵי, וְשֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ רִיסֵי עֵינָיו פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: תָּנֵי חֲדָא, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכוּלְּהוּ.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But anywhere that a priest is deemed disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish, the tanna teaches this explicitly, e.g., in the mishna on this amud: And one whose eyelashes have fallen out is disqualified from performing the Temple service, due to the appearance of a blemish. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is necessary, lest you say the tanna taught explicitly in one instance that a priest is disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish but the same is true with regard to all of those listed after the first clause of the mishna, starting from the case of priests with humped backs. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches that this is not the halakha.

וְהָא כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא מִיהְדָּר וּמִיתְנָא, קָא הָדַר וְתָנֵי: וְשֶׁנִּיטְּלוּ שִׁינָּיו פָּסוּל מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן! אֶלָּא, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא, דְּתַנְיָא: הַקַּרְחָנִין וְהַנַּנָּסִין וְהַזַּבְלְגָנִין כְּשֵׁרִים, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ פָּסוּל אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

The Gemara persists: But anywhere that there is a priest disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish, the tanna repeats and teaches explicitly that this is the reason. As the tanna repeats and teaches (44a): And one whose teeth fell out is disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish. Rather, the reason Rabbi Yoḥanan reiterates the halakha with regard to a bald priest and a dwarf is to exclude that which is taught in a baraita, as it is taught in a baraita: The bald priests, the dwarves, and the priests with leaky eyes are fit for performing the Temple service by Torah law, and the Sages said they are disqualified only due to the appearance of a blemish. Rabbi Yoḥanan therefore teaches that they are disqualified by Torah law, as they are not equal among the seed of Aaron.

מַאן הַאי תַּנָּא? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״הַכֹּהֲנִים״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַקַּרְחָנִין.

The Gemara notes: Who is this tanna who says that such priests are fit by Torah law? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: When the verse states: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces” (Leviticus 1:8), this serves to include the bald priests in the performance of the Temple service.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין לוֹ גְּבִינִין, אוֹ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא גְּבִין אֶחָד — זֶהוּ גִּבֵּן הָאָמוּר בְּתוֹרָה. רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: (שֶׁגְּבִינִין) [שֶׁגְּבִינָיו] שׁוֹכְבִין. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁתֵּי שִׁדְרָאוֹת.

MISHNA: If a priest has no eyebrows, or if he has only one eyebrow, that is the gibben that is stated in the Torah in the list of blemished priests (see Leviticus 21:20). Rabbi Dosa says: A gibben is one whose eyebrows are so long that they lie flat and cover his eyes. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: A gibben is one who has two backs and two spines.

גְּמָ׳ וְגִבֵּן — דְּאֵין לוֹ מַשְׁמַע? וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״גִּבֵּן״ — שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גְּבִינִין הַרְבֵּה, אֵין לוֹ גְּבִינִין, אוֹ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא גְּבִין אַחַד — מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ גִבֵּן״. אָמַר רָבָא: זֶהוּ מִדְרָשׁ ״אוֹ גִּבֵּן״.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the gibben stated in the Torah is one who lacks eyebrows. The Gemara asks: But does gibben mean one who does not have eyebrows? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: When it is stated that a priest who is a gibben is disqualified from performing the Temple service (see Leviticus 21:20), this is referring to one who has many eyebrows. With regard to one who has no eyebrows or who has only one eyebrow, from where is it derived that he is disqualified as well? The same verse states: “Or a gibben.” Clearly, the disqualification of one lacking eyebrows is not derived from the mention of a gibben, but from the term “or.” Rava said the mishna should be understood as follows: One who has no eyebrows is disqualified, and this is derived from the exposition of the phrase “or a gibben.”

רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּחָיֵי? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּפֶּלֶת בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁתֵּי שִׁדְרָאוֹת, וְאָמַר רַב: בָּאִשָּׁה — אֵינוֹ וָולָד, בַּבְּהֵמָה — אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה!

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Dosa says a gibben is one whose eyebrows are so long that they lie flat and cover his eyes, and Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says that a gibben is one who has two backs and two spines. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a person with two backs and two spines is capable of living? But it was stated that the Sages discussed the case of one who miscarries an entity that has two backs and two spines, and Rav said that in the case of a woman who miscarries such an entity, it is not considered an offspring, as it cannot survive, and therefore she does not have the ritual impurity caused by childbirth, and in the case of an animal who miscarries, the entity is prohibited for consumption.

כְּבָר רְמָא נִיהֲלֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁימִי אֶת! אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁשִּׁדְרָתוֹ עֲקוּמָּה.

The Gemara responds: Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya already raised this contradiction to Rav, his grandfather, and Rav said to him: Are you really Shimi? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus is not referring literally to someone with two backs and two spines, but to a person whose spine is crooked, causing it to appear as though he has two spines. Such a person can survive but is disqualified from performing the Temple service.

מַתְנִי׳ הֶחָרוּם פָּסוּל. אֵיזֶהוּ חָרוּם? הַכּוֹחֵל שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת. שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה, וּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה, עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה, רוֹאֶה אֶת הַחֶדֶר וְאֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה כְּאֶחָד, סָכֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ, וְהַזַּגְדָּן, וְהַצַּיְרָן, וְשֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ רִיסֵי עֵינָיו — פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

MISHNA: The ḥarum is disqualified from performing the Temple service. What is a ḥarum? It is one who can paint both of his eyes as one, with one brushstroke, because he has a sunken nose. If both of one’s eyes are above or both of his eyes are below; or if one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below; or if both eyes are in the proper place but he sees both the room on the ground floor and the upper story as one, at the same time; and likewise those unable to look at the sun; and one whose eyes are different; and one whose eyes tear constantly, these are disqualified from performing the Temple service. And one whose eyelashes have fallen out is disqualified from performing the Temple service due to the appearance of a blemish. Unlike the others listed in this mishna, who are disqualified by Torah law, one with this condition is not disqualified by Torah law. Rather, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting a priest with such a condition to perform the Temple service.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״חָרוּם״ — שֶׁחוֹטְמוֹ שָׁקוּעַ, חוֹטְמוֹ סוֹלֵד, חוֹטְמוֹ בּוֹלֵם, חוֹטְמוֹ נוֹטֵף, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ חָרוּם״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין ״חָרוּם״ אֶלָּא הַכּוֹחֵל שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הִפְלַגְתָּ,

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When it is stated that a ḥarum is considered a blemished priest (Leviticus 21:18), this is referring to a priest whose nose is sunk. If his nose retreats, i.e., it is very short and contracted upward, or if his nose is blocked, or if his nose is so long that it droops, from where is it derived that he is considered blemished? The same verse states: “Or a ḥarum.” The term “or” serves to include all blemishes of the nose. Rabbi Yosei says: A ḥarum is only one who can paint both of his eyes as one. They said to him: You have gone too far in limiting your definition of a ḥarum.