Bechorot Daf 43 (בכורות דף מ״ג)
Daf: 43 | Amudim: 43a – 43b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (43a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s answer, begun on 42b: the first practical difference is whether the tumtum’s chalitza disqualifies the widow from the other brothers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לִפְסוֹל בִּמְקוֹם אַחִים,
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes Rava’s sentence from the end of 42b, where the Gemara asked what practical difference there is between Rabbi Yehuda (a tumtum who was opened and found male does not perform chalitza, because he is like a eunuch) and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda (a tumtum does not perform chalitza, lest he be opened and found to be a eunuch from birth). For Rabbi Yehuda, the opened tumtum is treated as a certain saris chama, a man who was never fit for yibbum at all, so his chalitza is a meaningless act and the widow remains free to enter levirate marriage with one of the other brothers. For Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda the eunuch status is only a possibility. His chalitza might therefore be valid, and a woman who has received chalitza is forbidden to all the brothers. The difference is thus one of certainty versus doubt, and it shows up in the most practical way: may the other brothers still take her?
Key Terms:
- לִפְסוֹל בִּמְקוֹם אַחִים = to disqualify (the widow) where there are other brothers — i.e., to render her forbidden to them through his chalitza
- חֲלִיצָה = the ceremony releasing a childless widow from the levirate bond (Devarim 25:9)
- סְרִיס חַמָּה = a eunuch from birth (literally ‘eunuch of the sun’, from the day he first saw the sun), not subject to yibbum or chalitza
- טוּמְטוּם = a person whose genitalia are concealed, so that his sex is unknown
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
The second practical difference: whether chalitza is required at all when the tumtum is the only brother
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלַחְלוֹץ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם אַחִים, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava adds the mirror case. When the tumtum is the deceased’s only brother, Rabbi Yehuda frees the widow without any ceremony: a definite saris chama never creates a levirate bond, so there is nothing to release. Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, who regards his eunuch status as only a doubt, requires the tumtum to perform chalitza in case he is in fact a normal male whose chalitza is needed to free her. The two differences together sharpen the dispute: Rabbi Yehuda’s position yields leniency in both directions (she may marry a brother, and she needs no chalitza), while Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda’s position yields stringency in both.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם אַחִים = where there are no other brothers
- אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ = there is (a practical difference) between them
- זִיקָה = the levirate bond linking the widow to her late husband’s brothers
Segment 3
TYPE: הדרן
Hadran: the conclusion of the sixth perek, Al Elu Mumin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין.
English Translation:
HADRAN: We shall return to you, Perek Al Elu Mumin — the sixth chapter of Bechorot concludes here.
קלאוד על הדף:
With this the sixth perek of Bechorot, Al Elu Mumin, comes to a close. The perek opened on 37a with the blemishes of the ear and worked its way through the eye, nose, lips, mouth, legs, tail and genitalia of the animal, setting out which permanent, visible blemishes permit a firstborn to be slaughtered outside the Temple. Its final pages turned to borderline creatures, the tumtum and the androginos, and that discussion carried the Gemara into the laws of yibbum and chalitza for a human tumtum. The traditional hadran declares the learner’s intention to return to the perek and the perek’s ‘return’ to the learner. The masechet continues with the seventh perek, and Bechorot has nine perakim in all.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ = we shall return to you — the formula said on completing a perek
- עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין = for these blemishes — the opening words and title of the sixth perek
- פֶּרֶק = a chapter of the Mishna and Talmud
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
Opening of Perek 7, Mumin Elu: every animal blemish disqualifies a kohen, plus blemishes of the head unique to people
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ מוּמִין אֵלּוּ, בֵּין קְבוּעִין בֵּין עוֹבְרִים — פּוֹסְלִין בָּאָדָם, וְיָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן: הַכִּילוֹן, וְהַלַּפְתָּן, וְהַמַּקָּבָן, וְשֶׁרֹאשׁוֹ שָׁקוּט, וּסְקִיפַת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The seventh perek turns from the blemished firstborn animal to the blemished kohen. Its opening principle links the two lists: every blemish taught in the previous perek for an animal, permanent or transient, also disqualifies a kohen from the avodah. The kohen, however, has additional disqualifications that an animal does not, and the mishna begins with five irregular head shapes: the kilon (pointed, narrow above and wide below), the laftan (turnip-shaped, wide above and narrow below), the makkavan (hammer-shaped, with a protruding forehead), one whose head is indented, and one whose head is flattened or protrudes at the back. None of these is a wound or a defect in function; they are departures from normal appearance, and the Gemara will explain why they nonetheless disqualify.
Key Terms:
- מוּמִין אֵלּוּ = these blemishes — the opening words and title of the seventh perek
- קְבוּעִין / עוֹבְרִים = permanent / transient blemishes
- פּוֹסְלִין בָּאָדָם = disqualify in a person, i.e., a kohen from the Temple service
- כִּילוֹן = one whose head is pointed, like a cone
- לַפְתָּן = one whose head is shaped like a turnip (lefet)
- מַקָּבָן = one whose head is shaped like a hammer (makevet)
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
Hunchbacks: Rabbi Yehuda deems them fit, the Rabbis disqualify; the kere’ach and the ring of hair from ear to ear
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues with two more appearance-based disqualifications. On those with a hump (ba’alei chatarot), Rabbi Yehuda deems them fit and the Sages disqualify; the Gemara on 43b will explain that the dispute concerns a hump without bone. The kere’ach, a bald man, is disqualified, and the mishna defines him precisely: one who lacks a band of hair running around the head from ear to ear. If that band is present, he is fit. The definition will itself become the subject of Rava’s two competing readings on 43b.
Key Terms:
- בַּעֲלֵי חֲטָרוֹת = those with humps
- קֵרֵחַ = a bald person
- שִׁיטָה שֶׁל שֵׂעָר = a row or band of hair
- מוּקֶּפֶת מֵאוֹזֶן לְאוֹזֶן = encircling (the head) from ear to ear
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
The lists are not identical: the Torah names a wart only for animals, and dak and tevallul only for kohanim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אַמַּאי? וְהָאִיכָּא יַבֶּלֶת, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּאָדָם! וְתוּ: דַּק תְּבַלּוּל, דְּלָא כְּתִיבִי בִּבְהֵמָה!
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the mishna’s sweeping claim that animal blemishes and kohen blemishes are the same. The Torah’s list for the kohen (Vayikra 21:18-20) includes dak and tevallul in the eye, which the list for animals (Vayikra 22:22) lacks, while the animal list includes yabelet, a wart, which the kohen’s list omits. If so, how can the mishna say that all animal blemishes disqualify a kohen, and how could the mishna of the previous perek (38a) count dak and tevallul among the blemishes of an animal? The question forces the Gemara to show where the cross-application of the lists comes from.
Key Terms:
- יַבֶּלֶת = a wart
- דַּק = a film or cataract over the eye
- תְּבַלּוּל = a white streak that intrudes into the iris (tevallul be’eino)
- דְּלָא כְּתִיב בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = which is not written in the Torah (for that case)
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
A baraita: the lists are cross-applied through a gezeira shava of garav and yalefet, which appear in both
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is that the two lists are derived from one another. A baraita notes that the words garav (scab) and yalefet (scurvy) appear in both the kohen’s list and the animal’s list. A gezeira shava, a verbal analogy based on identical words in two passages, links the passages, so that whatever is stated in one is applied to the other. The wart of the animal list therefore disqualifies a kohen, and the dak and tevallul of the kohen’s list disqualify an animal.
Key Terms:
- מֵילָף יָלְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי = they are derived from one another
- גָּרָב = a dry scab or skin eruption
- יַלֶּפֶת = a moist scurvy or lichen
- גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה = a verbal analogy — a hermeneutic rule linking two passages that share a word or phrase
- לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה = to apply what is stated in this case to that case
Segment 8
TYPE: הערה
The words must be mufneh (free), or the analogy would be refuted by the differences between a kohen and an animal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַפְנֵי, דְּאִי לָא מַפְנֵי, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: אָדָם מִבְּהֵמָה לָא יָלֵיף, שֶׁכֵּן הִיא עַצְמָהּ קְרֵיבָה לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ; בְּהֵמָה מֵאָדָם לָא יָלְפָא, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בְּמִצְוֹת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara adds a technical requirement. A gezeira shava whose words are needed for their plain meaning can be refuted by pointing to a relevant difference between the two subjects; only when the words are mufneh, superfluous and available for the analogy, does the derivation stand regardless. Here such refutations are easy to find in both directions. An animal is stricter because it is itself offered on the altar, so one cannot learn the kohen from it; a person is stricter because he is commanded in mitzvot, so one cannot learn the animal from him. The analogy will therefore work only if the words garav and yalefet can be shown to be free.
Key Terms:
- מַפְנֵי = free, i.e., superfluous words available for a gezeira shava
- אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ = it can be refuted
- קְרֵיבָה לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ = it is offered upon the altar
- נִתְרַבָּה בְּמִצְוֹת = he is included (obligated) in mitzvot
Segment 9
TYPE: ראיה
Proof that the words are free: had the Torah written only yalefet, garav would follow by kal vachomer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara demonstrates that the words are indeed free. Had the Torah written only yalefet, which is not repulsive, a kal vachomer would teach that garav, which is repulsive, is surely a blemish too. Writing garav in each list is therefore superfluous for its own content, and the Torah’s choice to write it anyway marks it as available for the analogy. Since the words are free, the gezeira shava cannot be refuted by the differences between people and animals, and the cross-application of the lists stands as firmly as if it were explicit.
Key Terms:
- לָאיֵי = no — indeed (the words are free)
- דְּלָא מְאִיסָא = which is not repulsive
- לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן = is it not all the more so? — the conclusion of a kal vachomer
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר = an a fortiori inference from a lenient case to a stringent one
- לְאַפְנוֹיֵי = to be free (for the gezeira shava)
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
If the lists are derived from one another, why write them twice? List everything once and rely on the gezeira shava
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִכְתְּבִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא כּוּלְּהוּ בְּחַד, וְגָרָב וְיַלֶּפֶת הָכָא וְהָכָא, וְלֵילְפוּ מֵחֲדָא!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established the analogy, the Gemara turns it against the Torah’s own wording. If garav and yalefet in both places suffice to transfer every blemish from one list to the other, why does the Torah write out two nearly overlapping lists? It could have listed all the blemishes in one place, written garav and yalefet in the other, and let the gezeira shava do the rest. The question presumes that the Torah does not spend words without purpose.
Key Terms:
- לִכְתְּבִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא כּוּלְּהוּ בְּחַד = let the Merciful One write them all in one (place)
- הָכָא וְהָכָא = here and here, i.e., in both passages
- רַחֲמָנָא = the Merciful One — the Gemara’s term for God as Author of the Torah
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Had the Torah listed everything for the kohen, blemishes impossible in a person (closed hooves, gums) would not apply to animals
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַהֵיָיא בְּהֵי לִיכְתֹּב רַחֲמָנָא? אִי כְּתַב בְּאָדָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כֹּל דְּפָסוּל בְּאָדָם פָּסוּל בִּבְהֵמָה, קָלוּט וְחוּטִין דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאָדָם, בִּבְהֵמָה נָמֵי לָא לִיפַּסְלוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that a single list would mislead. If all the blemishes were written for the kohen, one would infer that only blemishes that disqualify a person disqualify an animal. Blemishes that cannot occur in a person, such as closed (unsplit) hooves or defects of the gums, would then be excluded for animals as well. The separate animal list is needed to include the blemishes unique to animals.
Key Terms:
- אַהֵיָיא בְּהֵי לִיכְתֹּב = in which of them should it be written?
- קָלוּט = an animal whose hooves are closed, not split (Vayikra 22:23)
- חוּטִין = a defect of the gums
- לֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאָדָם = which do not exist in a person
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
And had the Torah listed everything for animals, blemishes unique to people (gibben, charum) would not disqualify a kohen
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא כּוּלְּהוּ בִּבְהֵמָה, הָוֵה אָמֵינָא: כֹּל דְּפָסוּל בִּבְהֵמָה פָּסוּל בְּאָדָם, גִּבֵּן וְחָרוּם דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בִּבְהֵמָה — בְּאָדָם נָמֵי לָא לִיפַּסְלוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reverse holds as well. A single list written for animals would imply that only animal blemishes disqualify a kohen, and the gibben (defective eyebrows) and the charum (sunken nose), which have no equivalent in animals, would be left out. Each list is therefore needed for the blemishes peculiar to its own subject.
Key Terms:
- גִּבֵּן = one with defective eyebrows, per the mishna on 43b
- חָרוּם = one with a sunken or flattened nose, per the mishna on 43b
- לֵיתַנְהוּ בִּבְהֵמָה = which do not exist in an animal
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Then write the shared blemishes once, the unique ones in each list, and garav and yalefet in both
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִכְתְּבִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא כּוּלְּהוּ בְּחַד, וְהָנָךְ דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאִידַּךְ — לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּבְהֵמָה, וְהָנָךְ דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאִידַּךְ — לִכְתּוֹב בְּאָדָם, וְגָרָב וְיַלֶּפֶת — הָכָא וְהָכָא, וְלֵילְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses further. The previous answer explains why each list must contain its unique blemishes, but not why the shared blemishes are repeated. The Torah could have written the shared blemishes in one list, the unique blemishes in each, and garav and yalefet in both for the gezeira shava. The repetition of the common blemishes still seems unnecessary.
Key Terms:
- וְהָנָךְ דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאִידַּךְ = and those which do not exist in the other
- לֵילְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי = let them be derived from one another
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
The principle of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: a passage that is repeated is repeated for the sake of its new element
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, כְּתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כׇּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִשְׁנֵית — לֹא נִשְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the difficulty with a general rule of Torah style taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: when a passage is stated and then stated again, it is repeated only for the sake of the new detail it introduces. The Torah does not hesitate to restate a whole list in order to add a single item. The shared blemishes are repeated in each list because each list has to present its own unique blemishes, and the Torah preferred to give each a complete passage. The repetition is a matter of style and teaches no independent law.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael
- פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִשְׁנֵית = a passage that was stated and repeated
- דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ = the new matter introduced in it
Segment 15
TYPE: שאלה
Rava: why does the Torah state blemish three times, for the kohen, for consecrated animals, and for the firstborn?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא מוּם בְּאָדָם, מוּם בְּקָדָשִׁים, מוּם בִּבְכוֹר?
English Translation:
§ 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)?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava raises a parallel question at a higher level. The Torah states that a blemish disqualifies in three separate contexts: the kohen (Vayikra 21:17-23), consecrated animals in general (Vayikra 22:20-25), and the firstborn animal (Devarim 15:21). Why not state it once and derive the others? The answer will follow the familiar pattern of tzerichuta, showing that each case has a feature that prevents learning it from the others.
Key Terms:
- מוּם בְּאָדָם = a blemish in a person (a kohen)
- מוּם בְּקָדָשִׁים = a blemish in consecrated animals
- מוּם בִּבְכוֹר = a blemish in a firstborn animal
- לְמָה לִי = why do I need it?
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Tzerichuta: the kohen cannot teach the animals, nor the firstborn the kohen
Hebrew/Aramaic:
צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא מוּם בְּאָדָם, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בְּמִצְווֹת. אָדָם מִבְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן הוּא עַצְמוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava answers that all three are necessary. Had the Torah stated the rule only for the kohen, one could say that a person is stricter because he is commanded in mitzvot, so the rule would not extend to animals. Had it been stated only for the firstborn, one could not derive the kohen from it, because the animal is stricter in another way: it is itself offered upon the altar. Rava’s argument uses the same two points of difference that the Gemara used earlier against an unsupported gezeira shava.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכָא = it is necessary — the opening of a tzerichuta, a demonstration that each of several texts is needed
- אָתֵי = it comes, i.e., can be derived
- הוּא עַצְמוֹ קָרֵב = it itself is offered
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
Consecrated animals cannot be learned from the firstborn, whose holiness is from the womb
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָדָשִׁים מִבְּכוֹר לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The firstborn is also stricter than ordinary consecrated animals in a third respect: its holiness is inherent from birth (kedushato me-rechem), while other offerings become holy only when a person consecrates them. One might therefore think that only the firstborn, with its stronger sanctity, is disqualified by a blemish, and that ordinary offerings are not.
Key Terms:
- קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם = its sanctity is from the womb, i.e., automatic from birth
- הֶקְדֵּשׁ = consecration of an animal by its owner
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
Neither the kohen nor the firstborn can be learned from consecrated animals
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָדָם מִקֳּדָשִׁים לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן הֵן עַצְמָן קְרֵיבִין. בְּכוֹר מִקֳּדָשִׁים לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מְרוּבָּה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Had the Torah stated the rule only for consecrated animals, the kohen could not be learned from them, because they are themselves offered on the altar. Nor could the firstborn be learned from them, because consecrated animals in general have a ‘greater’ sanctity in the sense the English explains: there are many kinds of offerings, while the firstborn has only one kind of holiness. Each verse therefore covers a case that the others could not reach on their own.
Key Terms:
- הֵן עַצְמָן קְרֵיבִין = they themselves are offered
- קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מְרוּבָּה = its sanctity is greater (here: manifold, many kinds of offerings)
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא ודחייה
Derive one from the other two? Not the firstborn: the kohen and consecrated animals have greater sanctity and apply to non-firstborns
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲדָא מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא, תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי? מֵהֵי תֵּיתֵי?! לָא לִכְתֹּב רַחֲמָנָא בִּבְכוֹר, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתָן מְרוּבָּה, וְנוֹהֲגִין בִּפְשׁוּטִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara proposes the next step in the standard sequence: one case cannot be derived from a single other case, but perhaps it can be derived from two together (a binyan av from two sources, or mah ha-tzad). It tests each possibility. The firstborn cannot be derived from the kohen and consecrated animals, since both have a ‘greater sanctity’ (the person through mitzvot, the offerings through their many kinds), and both apply to ordinary, non-firstborn people and animals.
Key Terms:
- תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי = let one be derived from two
- מֵהֵי תֵּיתֵי = from which (two) should it be derived?
- מָה לְהָנָךְ = what (is notable) about these? — the formula of a refutation (pircha)
- פְּשׁוּטִין = ordinary (non-firstborn) people and animals
Segment 20
TYPE: דחייה
Not consecrated animals: the kohen and the firstborn have sanctity that comes of itself
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּקָדָשִׁים, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתָן מֵאֲלֵיהֶן!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Nor can consecrated animals be derived from the kohen and the firstborn. Both of these share a feature consecrated animals lack: their sanctity comes of itself. A kohen is a kohen by birth, the son of a kohen, and a firstborn is holy by being the first to open its mother’s womb, while ordinary offerings become holy only when their owners consecrate them.
Key Terms:
- קְדוּשָּׁתָן מֵאֲלֵיהֶן = their sanctity is of themselves, i.e., not dependent on any act of consecration
Segment 21
TYPE: דחייה ומסקנא
Not the kohen: the firstborn and consecrated animals are themselves offered on the altar. All three verses are needed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּאָדָם, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן הֵן עַצְמָן קְרֵיבִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ! צְרִיכִי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Finally, the kohen cannot be derived from the firstborn and consecrated animals, because both are themselves offered on the altar, which the kohen is not. Every combination is thus refuted by a feature shared by the two sources and absent from the third. The Gemara concludes tzerichi, all three verses are needed, completing Rava’s demonstration that the Torah’s threefold statement of the blemish rule is not redundant.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכִי = they are (all) necessary
- פִּירְכָא = a refutation of a proposed derivation
Segment 22
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan: the source for the kohen’s extra disqualifications is ‘of the seed of Aaron’, a man equal to the seed of Aaron
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן בְּאָדָם. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כֹּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן״, אִישׁ שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s statement that a kohen has disqualifications beyond those of an animal. Rabbi Yochanan finds the source in Vayikra 21:21, ‘Any man of the seed of Aaron the kohen who has a blemish.’ The words ‘of the seed of Aaron’ are read as a requirement that the kohen be equal to (shaveh) the seed of Aaron, similar in appearance to his fellow kohanim. The odd head shapes of the mishna are therefore disqualifications not because they are injuries but because they set the kohen visibly apart from the uniform appearance expected of those who serve in the Mikdash.
Key Terms:
- יָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן בְּאָדָם = (there are blemishes) in addition to them in a person
- מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי = from where are these matters (derived)?
- שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן = who is equal among the seed of Aaron, i.e., similar in appearance to other kohanim
Amud Bet (43b)
Segment 1
TYPE: שאלה ותירוץ
Difference between a true blemish and ‘not equal to the seed of Aaron’: only a true blemish profanes the service
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having identified two categories of disqualification, the Gemara asks how they differ in practice. A kohen with a true blemish who serves profanes the service he performed, as the verse says ‘he has a blemish, that he not profane My sanctuaries’ (Vayikra 21:23), so his avodah is invalid. A kohen who is merely ‘not equal to the seed of Aaron’ is barred from serving, but if he served, the service is not profaned and remains valid. The distinction places the head shapes and similar conditions on a lower level than the blemishes the Torah lists by name.
Key Terms:
- מוּמָא = a blemish (a true disqualifying blemish)
- אַחוֹלֵי עֲבוֹדָה = profaning (invalidating) the service
- מוּם בּוֹ וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל = he has a blemish, that he not profane (Vayikra 21:23)
Segment 2
TYPE: שאלה ותירוץ
Difference between ‘not equal to the seed of Aaron’ and mar’it ha’ayin: only the former violates a Torah aseh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, וּמִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ עֲשֵׂה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now distinguishes the middle category from a lower one still. Some conditions, such as missing eyelashes in the mishna below, disqualify only because of mar’it ha’ayin, the appearance of a blemish; that is a rabbinic disqualification. A kohen who is not equal to the seed of Aaron who serves transgresses a Torah prohibition stated in positive form, while one disqualified only for appearance transgresses nothing in the Torah. The result is a three-level scale: a true blemish (Torah prohibition and the service is profaned), not equal to the seed of Aaron (Torah prohibition, the service stands), and appearance alone (rabbinic only).
Key Terms:
- מַרְאִית הָעַיִן = the appearance (of a blemish) — a rabbinic disqualification for conditions that look like a blemish
- עֲשֵׂה = a positive commandment; here, a prohibition derived from positive phrasing (lav ha-ba mi-kelal aseh)
- אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ = there is a difference between them
Segment 3
TYPE: ביאור
The kilon and the laftan defined; a baraita adds that the laftan’s neck sits in the middle of his head
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּילוֹן — דְּדָמֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ לְאַכְלָא, ״לַפְתָּא״ — דְּדָמֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ לְגַדְגָּלִידָא דְּלִיפְתָּא, תָּנָא: וְצַוָּארוֹ עוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע רֹאשׁוֹ.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now defines the mishna’s terms. The kilon’s head resembles the cover of a barrel, narrow above and wide below. The laftan’s head resembles the top of a turnip, wide above and narrow below. A baraita adds a detail about the laftan: his neck stands in the middle of his head, so that the head bulges out equally on all sides, rather than sitting at the back as in a typical person.
Key Terms:
- אַכְלָא = the cover of a barrel
- גַּדְגָּלִידָא דְּלִיפְתָּא = the top (stalk end) of a turnip
- צַוָּארוֹ עוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע רֹאשׁוֹ = his neck stands in the middle of his head
Segment 4
TYPE: ביאור וברייתא
The makkavan, shakut and sekifat defined; a baraita adds a short neck and a long, narrow neck
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַקָּבָן — דְּדָמֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ לְמַקָּבָן, ״וְשֶׁרֹאשׁוֹ שָׁקוּט״ — מִלְּפָנָיו, ״וּסְקִיפָת״ — מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: שְׁקִיל פִּיסָּא. תָּנָא: וְצַוָּארוֹ שָׁקוּט וְשָׁמוּט. ״שָׁקוּט״ — דַּחֲבִיס מִחְבָּס, ״שָׁמוּט״ — דַּאֲרִיךְ וּשְׁמִיט.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The makkavan’s head resembles a hammer, with the forehead jutting forward. Shakut refers to an indentation at the front of the head, and sekifat to the back of the head, which looks as though a piece has been cut away. The Gemara supports this from the everyday expression shakil pisa, ‘a piece has been taken’. A baraita adds two disqualifying neck shapes: shakut, a neck sunk between the shoulders and hidden, and shamut, a neck that is long and drawn out. All of these belong to the category of ‘not equal to the seed of Aaron’.
Key Terms:
- מַקָּבָן = hammer-headed (from makevet, a hammer)
- שָׁקוּט = indented; of the neck, short and sunken
- סְקִיפָת = flattened or cut away at the back of the head
- שְׁקִיל פִּיסָּא = ‘a piece has been taken’ — popular expression the Gemara links to sekifat
- שָׁמוּט = drawn out, long and narrow (of the neck)
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
The hump: with bone, all agree he is disqualified; without bone, the Rabbis see inequality and Rabbi Yehuda mere flesh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara limits the dispute in the mishna. When the hump contains bone, everyone agrees the kohen is disqualified. The disagreement concerns a hump of flesh without bone. The Rabbis hold that such a kohen is still not equal to the seed of Aaron, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that a lump of flesh is not significant enough to disqualify. The dispute is therefore about how great a departure from normal appearance must be.
Key Terms:
- דְּאִית בֵּיהּ עֶצֶם = where it has bone in it
- כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי = everyone agrees
- קִרְקוּרָא דְּבִישְׂרָא בְּעָלְמָא = merely a lump of flesh
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא
Rava on the kere’ach (first version): hair in front only disqualifies; hair in back, with or without hair in front, is fit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava qualifies the mishna’s ruling on the bald kohen. In this version his statement refers to the first clause, ‘the kere’ach is disqualified’, and limits it to one who lacks hair at the back but has it in front. If he has hair at the back, whether or not he also has it in front, he is fit. The case of hair at the back and baldness in front is fit all the more, since that is the common pattern of balding with age and does not set a man apart from other kohanim.
Key Terms:
- לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא = they taught (this) only (in the case of)
- לְאַחֲרָיו / לְפָנָיו = behind him (at the back of his head) / in front
- כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן = all the more so
Segment 7
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא
Second version: Rava’s limitation refers to the latter clause; only hair at the back without hair in front is fit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Some taught Rava’s statement as a limitation of the latter clause, ‘if he has (the band of hair), he is fit’. In this version the only fit case is one with hair at the back and none in front, the familiar pattern of an older man. Hair both in front and at the back is disqualified, and all the more so hair in front alone or no hair at all. The two versions agree on the extremes and differ on the case of hair both front and back, which the first version deems fit and the second disqualifies.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא = there are those who teach it on the latter clause
- סֵיפָא / רֵישָׁא = the latter clause / the first clause of a mishna
- דְּאֵין לוֹ כְּלָל = one who has none at all
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא וקושיא
Rabbi Yochanan: the bald, dwarfs and those with leaky eyes are ‘not equal to the seed of Aaron’. But two of these are already in mishnayot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַקַּרְחָנִין וְהַנַּנָּסִין וְהַזַּבְלְגָנִין — פְּסוּלִין, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן. קַרְחָנִין — תְּנֵינָא! נַנָּסִין — תְּנֵינָא!
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan rules that bald kohanim, dwarfs and those whose eyes run (zavlganin) are disqualified because they are not equal to the seed of Aaron. The Gemara asks why he needed to say this, since the bald kohen is already disqualified in the mishna here and the dwarf in a mishna on 45b. This opens a short sugya on what Rabbi Yochanan added.
Key Terms:
- קַרְחָנִין = bald men
- נַנָּסִין = dwarfs
- זַבְלְגָנִין = those whose eyes constantly run or tear
- תְּנֵינָא = we have (already) learned it (in a mishna)
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
He needed to teach the case of leaky eyes, and to establish that the others are a Torah disqualification, not mere appearance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זַבְלְגָנִין אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן, וּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the case of zavlganin appears in no mishna, so Rabbi Yochanan’s statement adds that much. As for the bald and the dwarf, he restates them to fix their level on the scale set out above: one might have thought they are disqualified only for mar’it ha’ayin, by rabbinic law, so he teaches that they are disqualified as ‘not equal to the seed of Aaron’, by Torah law.
Key Terms:
- אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן = he needed to teach us
- מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא = lest you say
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But the mishna marks mar’it ha’ayin explicitly when it applies. Answer: one might think it said so once and meant all
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן (אִיתְנָא) [מִיתְנָא] קָתָנֵי, וְשֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ רִיסֵי עֵינָיו פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: תָּנֵי חֲדָא, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכוּלְּהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects that there was no room for error: when a disqualification is only because of appearance, the tanna says so explicitly, as in the case of missing eyelashes. Since the mishna said no such thing about the bald man, he must be disqualified by Torah law. The Gemara answers that one might have thought the tanna marked mar’it ha’ayin once and intended it for the whole series of cases from the hunchback onward. Rabbi Yochanan rules out that reading.
Key Terms:
- מִיתְנָא קָתָנֵי = he teaches it explicitly
- תָּנֵי חֲדָא, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכוּלְּהוּ = he taught one, and the same applies to all of them
- רִיסֵי עֵינָיו = his eyelashes
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But the tanna repeats ‘mar’it ha’ayin’ each time. Rather, Rabbi Yochanan comes to reject a baraita that deems them fit by Torah law
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects that answer as well: the tanna repeats the phrase ‘because of mar’it ha’ayin’ each time it applies, as in the mishna about missing teeth (44a), so no one would extend it silently to other cases. The real purpose of Rabbi Yochanan’s statement is to rule against a baraita that teaches that the bald, dwarfs and those with leaky eyes are fit by Torah law and disqualified only because of appearance. Rabbi Yochanan holds that they are disqualified by Torah law as not equal to the seed of Aaron.
Key Terms:
- מִיהְדָּר וּמִיתְנָא = to repeat and teach (it again)
- שֶׁנִּיטְּלוּ שִׁינָּיו = whose teeth were removed
- לְאַפּוֹקֵי = to exclude, i.e., to reject (a contrary view)
Segment 12
TYPE: זיהוי
The baraita follows Rabbi Yehuda, who derives from ‘the kohanim’ (Vayikra 1:8) that bald kohanim are fit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן הַאי תַּנָּא? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״הַכֹּהֲנִים״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַקַּרְחָנִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the author of the baraita Rabbi Yochanan rejected: Rabbi Yehuda, who expounds the word ‘the kohanim’ in ‘and the sons of Aaron, the kohanim, shall arrange the pieces’ (Vayikra 1:8) to include bald kohanim in the service. This fits Rabbi Yehuda’s position in the mishna, where he is also lenient about a hump without bone. The Rabbis, and Rabbi Yochanan with them, hold the stricter view.
Key Terms:
- מַאן הַאי תַּנָּא = who is this tanna?
- הַכֹּהֲנִים = the kohanim — the word from which Rabbi Yehuda derives his inclusion
- לְרַבּוֹת = to include
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה
The gibben of the Torah: no eyebrows or only one; Rabbi Dosa: drooping eyebrows; Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus: two backs and two spines
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna defines the gibben of Vayikra 21:20. The first tanna says it is one who has no eyebrows or only one eyebrow (from gevinin, eyebrows). Rabbi Dosa says it is one whose eyebrows are so long that they lie down over his eyes. Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, whose views appeared often in the previous perek, takes gibben in its other sense, a hunchback: one who has two backs and two spines.
Key Terms:
- גְּבִינִין = eyebrows
- גִּבֵּן = (Torah term) one with an eyebrow defect, or a hunchback
- שֶׁגְּבִינָיו שׁוֹכְבִין = whose eyebrows lie down (droop over the eyes)
- שִׁדְרָה = spine
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A baraita reads gibben as one with excess eyebrows and derives the lack of eyebrows from ‘or’. Rava: the mishna means the exposition of ‘or a gibben’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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״.
English Translation:
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.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara contrasts the mishna with a baraita. The baraita says the gibben is one with excessive eyebrows, and it derives the case of no eyebrows, or only one, from the extra word ‘or’ in ‘or a gibben’. The mishna seems to identify the gibben itself as one without eyebrows. Rava resolves the difficulty by reading the mishna loosely: when it says ‘this is the gibben stated in the Torah’, it means that this case is included in the verse ‘or a gibben’ by exposition of the word ‘or’.
Key Terms:
- לְמַשְׁמַע = does (gibben) mean…?
- וּרְמִינְהוּ = and he raised a contradiction
- אוֹ = or — an extra word expounded to include additional cases
- מִדְרָשׁ = exposition, a derivation from the text
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
Can a creature with two backs and two spines live? Rav ruled that such a birth is not a valad, and in an animal it is forbidden
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּחָיֵי? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּפֶּלֶת בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁתֵּי שִׁדְרָאוֹת, וְאָמַר רַב: בָּאִשָּׁה — אֵינוֹ וָולָד, בַּבְּהֵמָה — אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה!
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus. His definition assumes a kohen with two backs and two spines who is alive and able to serve. But Rav ruled about a miscarriage of a creature with two backs and two spines: in a woman it is not considered a child (so she does not incur the impurity of childbirth), and in an animal it is forbidden to eat. Both rulings presume that such a creature cannot survive.
Key Terms:
- לְמֵימְרָא דְּחָיֵי = is this to say that it lives?
- הַמַּפֶּלֶת = a woman (or animal) who miscarries
- אֵינוֹ וָולָד = it is not (considered) an offspring
- טוּמְאַת יוֹלֶדֶת = the impurity of a woman after childbirth (Vayikra 12)
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Shimi bar Chiyya raised this before Rav, who answered: ‘Are you Shimi?’ It means a crooked spine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּבָר רְמָא נִיהֲלֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁימִי אֶת! אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁשִּׁדְרָתוֹ עֲקוּמָּה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reports that this contradiction had already been put to Rav by his grandson Rav Shimi bar Chiyya. Rav’s reply, ‘Are you Shimi?’, expresses surprise that so capable a student would raise such a question. He explains that Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus does not mean two backs literally but a crooked spine that looks like two. Such a person can live, and he is disqualified from the service.
Key Terms:
- כְּבָר רְמָא נִיהֲלֵיהּ = he already raised (this contradiction) to him
- שִׁימִי אֶת = ‘Are you Shimi?’ — Rav’s exclamation to his grandson
- שִׁדְרָתוֹ עֲקוּמָּה = his spine is crooked
Segment 17
TYPE: משנה
The charum and a list of eye disqualifications; one whose eyelashes fell out is disqualified because of mar’it ha’ayin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna defines the charum of Vayikra 21:18 as one who can paint both eyes with one stroke of the brush, because his nose is so sunken that nothing separates them. It then lists eye conditions that disqualify a kohen: both eyes set high, both set low, one high and one low, one who sees the room and the upper story at once (a squint), one who cannot look at the sun, one whose eyes are different from each other, and one whose eyes tear constantly. Last, it says that one whose eyelashes fell out is disqualified because of mar’it ha’ayin. This is the explicit case of a rabbinic disqualification that the Gemara cited earlier on this amud.
Key Terms:
- חָרוּם = one with a sunken nose
- הַכּוֹחֵל שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת = one who paints both his eyes (with kohl) at once
- סָכֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ = those who cannot look at the sun
- זַגְדָּן = one whose eyes are different (from each other)
- צַיְרָן = one whose eyes tear constantly
- רִיסֵי עֵינָיו = his eyelashes
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita: charum is a sunken nose, and ‘or’ adds other nose defects; Rabbi Yosei limits charum to painting both eyes at once; ‘You have gone too far’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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,
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita defines charum as one whose nose is sunken. It derives from the extra word ‘or’ in ‘or a charum’ that a nose that is short and turned up, blocked, or so long that it droops is also a blemish. Rabbi Yosei holds that charum means only one who can paint both his eyes at once, the definition the anonymous mishna adopted. The Sages reply hiflagta, ‘you have gone too far’, and their argument continues on 44a.
Key Terms:
- שָׁקוּעַ = sunken
- סוֹלֵד = retracted, short and turned up
- בּוֹלֵם = blocked
- נוֹטֵף = drooping
- הִפְלַגְתָּ = you have gone too far, i.e., you have defined it too narrowly