Bechorot Daf 44 (בכורות דף מ״ד)
Daf: 44 | Amudim: 44a – 44b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (44a)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
The Sages’ reply to Rabbi Yosei concludes: a sunken nose makes one a charum even if he cannot paint both eyes in one stroke
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כּוֹחֵל שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת.
English Translation:
Rather, even if he does not paint both of his eyes as one, any priest with an abnormally sunken nose is considered a ḥarum.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens mid-sentence, completing the baraita begun at the end of 43b. Rabbi Yosei had defined a charum (חָרוּם) narrowly: only one whose nose is so sunken that he can apply kohl to both eyes in a single stroke of the brush. The Sages answered ‘You have gone too far’ (הִפְלַגְתָּ), and here they finish the thought: even if he cannot paint both eyes together, any priest with an abnormally sunken nose is a charum. Rabbi Yosei’s image is an extreme test case; the Sages refuse to make the extreme the definition, and include every perceptible depression of the bridge of the nose within the Torah’s blemish of Vayikra 21:18.
Key Terms:
- חָרוּם = a priest with a flattened or sunken nose, listed among the blemishes in Vayikra 21:18
- כּוֹחֵל = paints the eyes with kohl (eye-paint), applied with a small brush or stick
- שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת = both eyes as one — in a single stroke, possible only if the nose does not rise between them
- הִפְלַגְתָּ = you have exaggerated / gone too far (from the previous segment)
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
What are ‘both eyes above’ and ‘both eyes below’? If it means gazing upward or downward, one-up-one-down duplicates the next case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה. מָה ״שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה״ ״שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה״? אִילֵּימָא שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה — דְּחָזֵי לְמַעְלָה, שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה — דְּחָזֵי לְמַטָּה, עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה — דַּחֲזַאי עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה, הַיְינוּ ״רוֹאֶה אֶת הַחֶדֶר וְאֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה כְּאֶחָת״!
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if both of one’s eyes are above or both of his eyes are below, he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean when it mentions a priest wherein both of his eyes are above or both of his eyes are below? If we say that the phrase: Both of his eyes are above, means that he constantly gazes upward, and the phrase: Both of his eyes are below, means that he constantly gazes downward, then the case where one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below must similarly mean that he gazes with one of his eyes downward and one of his eyes upward. But if so, this is identical to the next case in the mishna, that one sees both the room on the ground floor and the upper story as one.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the 43a mishna’s list of eye blemishes: both eyes above, both below, one above and one below, and ‘sees the room and the upper story as one.’ It tries the obvious reading — these describe the direction of the gaze, a priest who constantly looks up or down. But then ‘one eye above and one below’ would describe a man whose eyes look in two different directions at once, and that is exactly the next item, one who sees the ground-floor room and the attic simultaneously. A mishna does not list the same case twice, so the reading must be wrong.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה / לְמַטָּה = both of his eyes above / below (from the 43a mishna)
- דְּחָזֵי = that he looks, gazes
- רוֹאֶה אֶת הַחֶדֶר וְאֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה כְּאֶחָת = sees the room and the upper story as one — the eyes point in two directions at once
- הַיְינוּ = that is the same as — the Gemara’s term for an objection that two clauses are redundant
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
The mishna speaks of where the eyes sit in the face, not where they look; the last clause covers normally placed eyes that diverge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה — דְּקָיְימָן לְמַעְלָה, שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה — דְּקָיְימָן לְמַטָּה, עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה — דְּקָיְימִי עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה, וְקָיְימִי כְּסִדְרָן נָמֵי, וְרוֹאֶה אֶת הַחֶדֶר וְאֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה כְּאַחַת.
English Translation:
Rather, the phrase: Both of his eyes are above, is referring to a case where his eyes are situated above their normal place, and the phrase: Both of his eyes are below, is referring to a case where his eyes are situated below their normal place. Similarly, the case where one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below is where one of his eyes is situated above and one of his eyes is situated below. And the mishna adds that in a case where his eyes are situated in their proper arrangement as well, but he sees the room on the ground floor and the upper story as one, he too is considered blemished.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer shifts from gaze to anatomy. ‘Above’ and ‘below’ describe eyes physically set higher or lower in the face than normal (דְּקָיְימָן), and ‘one above and one below’ is a face in which the eyes are set at uneven heights. The final clause then adds a genuinely different case: the eyes sit in their proper place (כְּסִדְרָן), yet they look in divergent directions, so that he sees the room and the attic together. Each item in the mishna is now distinct — three of placement and one of function — and the redundancy disappears.
Key Terms:
- דְּקָיְימָן = that they are situated — referring to the physical position of the eyes
- כְּסִדְרָן = in their proper arrangement
- וְקָיְימִי כְּסִדְרָן נָמֵי = and even when they are in their proper place — introducing the fourth, functional case
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
The source: ‘in his eye’ (Vayikra 21:20) includes every blemish of the eye, including the priest of whom another says ‘he is looking at me’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּעֵינוֹ — כׇּל מָה שֶׁבְּעֵינוֹ, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה, שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה, עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה, וְרוֹאֶה אֶת הַחֶדֶר וְאֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה כְּאֶחָת, אוֹ שֶׁמְּדַבֵּר עִם חֲבֵירוֹ וְאַחֵר אוֹמֵר: לִי רוֹאֶה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to blemishes that disqualify priests: “Or a cataract or a tevallul in his eye” (Leviticus 21:20). Since it is obvious that a cataract or a tevallul can occur only in one’s eyes, why does the verse state: In his eye? The term “in his eye” indicates that any blemish that is in his eye disqualifies him from performing the Temple service. From here the Sages stated: If both of his eyes are below or both of his eyes are above, or if one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below, or if he sees the room and the upper story as one, or if when he speaks with his friend another person says: He is looking at me, he is blemished and is disqualified from performing the Temple service.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks for the Scriptural basis of these eye blemishes and cites a baraita on Vayikra 21:20, ‘or a cataract or a tevallul in his eye’ (אוֹ תְבַלֻּל בְּעֵינוֹ). Since a cataract and a tevallul can only be in the eye anyway, the word ‘in his eye’ is superfluous and comes to include everything that is in his eye. The baraita then lists the cases of our mishna and adds a vivid one: when the priest speaks with his friend, a third person says ‘he is looking at me’ — a pronounced squint. Whatever makes the priest’s eyes conspicuously abnormal falls under this inclusive word.
Key Terms:
- בְּעֵינוֹ = in his eye — the superfluous word in Vayikra 21:20 that includes all eye blemishes
- דַּק = a cataract or film over the eye
- תְּבַלּוּל = a condition in which the white of the eye intrudes into the iris (literally ‘mixing’)
- לִי רוֹאֶה = he is looking at me — the observer’s impression produced by a strong squint
- מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ = from here they said — the derivation underlying a list of rulings
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Blindness in one eye already disqualifies; pale spots and constant tearing are included by the word ‘ish’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עִוֵּר — בֵּין סוֹמֵא בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו, בֵּין סוֹמֵא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו. חֲוַרְוָור וְהַמַּיִם הַקְּבוּעִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ עִוֵּר״.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: When it is stated that a blind man [iver] is disqualified from performing the Temple service (see Leviticus 21:18), this applies whether he is blind in both of his eyes or blind in one of his eyes. With regard to a priest who cannot see due to pale spots on the eye or due to tears streaming from the eye that are constant, from where is it derived that he is disqualified? The same verse states: “A blind man [ish iver].” The superfluous word “ish” serves to include these conditions as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second baraita treats the first item of the Torah’s list in Vayikra 21:18, ‘a blind man’ (אִישׁ עִוֵּר). Blindness in a single eye counts as blindness for this purpose. The baraita then extends the category to a priest whose eyes are still physically present but who cannot see properly because of pale spots (חֲוַרְוָור) or a constant flow of tears (מַיִם הַקְּבוּעִין). The derivation rests on the apparently superfluous word ‘ish’ — the verse could simply have said ‘blind’ — which widens the disqualification beyond the plain meaning of the term.
Key Terms:
- עִוֵּר = blind — here including blindness in one eye
- סוֹמֵא = a blind person
- חֲוַרְוָור = white or pale spots on the eye that obstruct vision
- מַיִם הַקְּבוּעִין = fixed, constant water — a permanent stream of tears
- אִישׁ = man — the extra word in ‘ish iver’ that includes further conditions
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא (צריכותא)
Rava explains why five separate words are needed; first step: ‘blind’ alone might mean only eyes that are absent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אִישׁ״, ״עִוֵּר״, ״דַּק״, ״תְּבַלּוּל״, ״בְּעֵינוֹ״? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עִוֵּר״ מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ כְּלָל, אֲבָל חֲוַרְוָור וְהַמַּיִם הַקְּבוּעִין דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בֵּיהּ — לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אִישׁ״.
English Translation:
Rava says: Why do I need the Merciful One to write the terms “man,” “blind,” “cataract,” “tevallul,” and “in his eye” (Leviticus 21:18, 20)? All these are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only “blind,” then one might say that a blind person is disqualified because his eyes are not in their sockets at all, i.e., they were enucleated. But in the case of a priest with pale spots on the eye or tears streaming from the eye that are constant, where his eyes are still in their sockets but he cannot see, perhaps he is not considered blemished. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “man” to include these conditions as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava now justifies the Torah’s use of five terms for eye blemishes — ‘man,’ ‘blind,’ ‘cataract,’ ‘tevallul,’ and ‘in his eye’ — in the classic Talmudic form of a tzerichuta (צְרִיכוּתָא), showing that no term can be learned from another. Had the Torah written only ‘blind,’ one might have thought it means a man whose eyes are missing altogether. Pale spots or constant tears, where the eyes are physically present, might not be included, so the Torah wrote ‘man’ to include them. Each term will be shown to stretch the category one step further than the one before it.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכִי = they are necessary — introducing a demonstration that each term teaches something unique
- רַחֲמָנָא = the Merciful One — a common Aramaic name for God as Author of the Torah
- דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ כְּלָל = that they are not there at all — eyes that are absent
- דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בֵּיהּ = that they are present in him — eyes physically there but impaired
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא (צריכותא, המשך)
‘Man’ alone covers only total loss of sight; ‘cataract’ adds impaired sight, and ‘tevallul’ adds eyes whose parts are mixed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אִישׁ״ — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קָא חָזֵי כְּלָל, אֲבָל מַחְסוֹרַיְיתָא — לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״דַּק״. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״דַּק״ — מִשּׁוּם דִּמְחַסְּרָן, אֲבָל מְבַלְבְּלִיתָא — לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״תְּבַלּוּל״.
English Translation:
And had the Merciful One written only “man,” one might have thought that only total blindness disqualifies a priest, because he cannot see at all. But if his condition causes merely impaired vision, then he is not considered blemished. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “cataract” to include conditions of impaired vision as well. And had the Merciful One written only that a priest with a cataract is disqualified, it might have been thought that such a priest is disqualified because his vision is impaired. But if his vision is not impaired but his eyes are mixed, i.e., the black and white parts of his eyes are mixed together, then he is not disqualified. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “tevallul.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The chain continues. ‘Man’ might have been limited to cases where the priest cannot see at all; a priest whose vision is merely diminished (מַחְסוֹרַיְיתָא) needs the word ‘cataract’ (דַּק). ‘Cataract’ in turn might have been limited to defects that reduce sight, so the Torah added ‘tevallul’ for a condition in which sight is not reduced but the black and white of the eye are mixed together (מְבַלְבְּלִיתָא). The progression moves steadily from function toward appearance: a blemish need not impair vision at all to disqualify the priest.
Key Terms:
- מַחְסוֹרַיְיתָא = conditions of deficiency — impaired but not lost vision
- מְבַלְבְּלִיתָא = conditions of mixing — the colours or parts of the eye blended together
- דִּמְחַסְּרָן = because they are deficient (in seeing)
- תְּבַלּוּל = from the root בלל, to mix — the white intruding into the dark of the eye
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא (צריכותא, סיום)
‘Tevallul’ alone covers only mixing; ‘in his eye’ adds mere deviations from normal appearance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״תְּבַלּוּל״ — מִשּׁוּם דִּמְבַלְבְּלָן, אֲבָל מִשּׁוּם מְשַׁנְּיוּתָא — לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בְּעֵינוֹ״.
English Translation:
And had the Merciful One written only “tevallul,” one might say that this disqualifies a priest because his eyes are mixed. But the Torah does not disqualify a priest due to a deviation from normal appearance, e.g., especially large eyes, or eyes situated higher than normal. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “in his eye.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The final link: ‘tevallul’ could be read as limited to the mixing of the eye’s parts. A deviation from the normal appearance — eyes unusually large, or set higher or lower in the face, as in the 43a mishna — involves no mixing and no loss of sight, so the Torah wrote ‘in his eye’ to include such deviations (מְשַׁנְּיוּתָא) as well. This ties Rava’s analysis back to the opening of the daf: the mishna’s ‘both eyes above’ and ‘both eyes below,’ now understood as abnormal placement, are disqualified precisely by this last, most inclusive word.
Key Terms:
- מְשַׁנְּיוּתָא = deviations — appearance that differs from the norm without any functional defect
- דִּמְבַלְבְּלָן = because they are mixed
- בְּעֵינוֹ = in his eye — the term that covers all remaining eye abnormalities
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא (סיכום)
Rava’s summary: dimness from ‘man,’ impairment from ‘cataract,’ mixing from ‘tevallul,’ deviation from ‘in his eye’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכָּךְ, כֹּל מֵחֲמַת כַּהְיוּתָא — אָתְיָא מֵ״אִישׁ״, מַחְסוֹרַיְיתָא — מִ״דַּק״, מְבַלְבְּלִיתָא — מִ״תְּבַלּוּל״, מְשַׁנְּיוּתָא — מִ״בְּעֵינוֹ״.
English Translation:
In summary, Rava says: Therefore, all blemishes of the eyes that disqualify a priest on account of dimness, i.e., blindness, are derived from the term “man.” All blemishes of the eyes that are related to vision impairment are derived from “cataract.” All blemishes that are related to parts of the eye being intermingled are derived from “tevallul.” Finally, the disqualification of deviations is derived from “in his eye.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava sums up the system in four categories, each anchored in its own word: everything caused by dimness or loss of sight (כַּהְיוּתָא) from ‘man’; impaired vision from ‘cataract’; mixing of the eye’s parts from ‘tevallul’; and deviations of appearance from ‘in his eye.’ (The word ‘blind’ itself supplies the basic case of missing or sightless eyes.) The result is a complete taxonomy of eye blemishes in which every case on the 43a mishna has a defined textual home — a characteristic example of the Gemara mapping a mishna’s list onto the precise wording of the verse.
Key Terms:
- הִלְכָּךְ = therefore — introducing a summary conclusion
- כַּהְיוּתָא = dimness — loss of sight
- אָתְיָא מֵ… = comes from — is derived from (a particular word)
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא (פירוש המשנה)
Sakhei shemesh means those who ‘hate’ the sun; Rav Huna illustrates ‘different eyes,’ and Rav Yehuda takes offense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סָכֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״סָנֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ״. זַגְדְּיָין. מַחְוֵי רַב הוּנָא: חַד מִדִּידַן וְחַד מִדִּידְהוּ, וְאִיקְּפַד רַב יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that those unable to look at the sun [sakhei shemesh] are disqualified from performing the Temple service. Rav Yosef taught that this is a reference to those who hate the sun [sanei shemesh], i.e., they are incapable of opening their eyes in sunlight. The mishna further states that one whose eyes are different is disqualified from performing the Temple service. In order to illustrate this blemish, Rav Huna pointed with his finger while saying: The term: Different eyes, is referring to an individual wherein one of his eyes is like ours and one of his eyes is like theirs. And since Rav Huna was pointing at Rav Yehuda, who had abnormal eyes, Rav Yehuda took offense.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains two more terms from the mishna. Rav Yosef’s tradition reads sakhei shemesh (סָכֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ, ‘those who look at the sun’) as sanei shemesh (סָנֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ), ‘those who hate the sun’ — people whose eyes are so sensitive that they cannot open them in sunlight. For zagdiyan, eyes that differ from each other, Rav Huna gave a demonstration: one eye like ours and one like theirs, that is, two eyes of different appearance. According to the explanation reflected in the translation, his gesture pointed toward Rav Yehuda, whose eyes were of this kind, and Rav Yehuda was offended. The Gemara records the moment candidly: even an illustration in a halachic discussion can hurt, and a teacher must be careful how he demonstrates a blemish.
Key Terms:
- סָכֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ = those who look at the sun (the mishna’s term), read by Rav Yosef as סָנֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ, haters of the sun
- זַגְדְּיָין = one whose two eyes differ from each other
- מַחְוֵי = he demonstrated, pointed
- אִיקְּפַד = he took offense, was annoyed
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A baraita defines zagdum as mismatched eyebrows; answer: any pair that does not match is called zagdum
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: שָׁכְבָנָא — שֶׁגְּבִינָיו שׁוֹכְבִים, זַגְדּוֹם — אֶחָד שָׁחוֹר וְאֶחָד לָבָן. תַּנָּא: כֹּל זוּגָא דְּלָא שָׁוֵי לַהֲדָדֵי, ״זַגְדּוֹם״ קָרֵי לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to Rav Huna’s interpretation of one whose eyes are different: When the Sages taught that a shekhavna is disqualified from performing the Temple service, they were referring to one whose eyebrows lie flat [shokhvim] and cover his eyes. When they taught that one whose eyes are different [zagdum] is disqualified, they were referring to a case where one of his eyebrows is black and one is white. The Gemara responds: With regard to any pair of limbs that are not identical to one another, the tanna of this baraita calls them different.
קלאוד על הדף:
An objection is raised from a baraita which defines two terms: a shekhavna is one whose eyebrows lie flat and hang over the eyes, and a zagdum is one whose eyebrows are of two colours, one black and one white. This seems to contradict Rav Huna, who applied the term to the eyes themselves. The Gemara resolves it by broadening the word: any pair of features that are not equal to one another is called zagdum. The term names a type of asymmetry rather than one specific organ, so both mismatched eyes and mismatched eyebrows qualify.
Key Terms:
- מֵיתִיבִי = they raised an objection — introducing a challenge from a tannaitic source
- שָׁכְבָנָא = one whose eyebrows lie flat (שׁוֹכְבִים) over his eyes
- גְּבִינָיו = his eyebrows
- זַגְדּוֹם = one with a mismatched pair — here eyebrows of different colours
- זוּגָא דְּלָא שָׁוֵי לַהֲדָדֵי = a pair that is not equal to one another
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא (פירוש המשנה)
Defining the tzayran: drooping or round eyes, and several kinds of tearing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַצַּיְרָן. עֵינָיו תְּרוּטוֹת, וְצִירָנִיּוֹת, דּוֹמְעוֹת, דּוֹלְפוֹת, טוֹרְדוֹת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that one whose eyes tear constantly is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara cites a baraita that defines such an individual: His eyes, i.e., his eyelids, droop and can open only partially, or his eyes are round; his eyes tear, or tears stream from his eyes, or tears flow intensely from them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna listed the tzayran (צַיְרָן) among the disqualified, and a baraita describes the range of conditions included. His eyelids may droop so that the eyes open only partly (תְּרוּטוֹת), or the eyes may be round (צִירָנִיּוֹת); or they may tear, drip, or stream intensely. The baraita’s list is graded by the intensity of the tearing, from occasional moisture to a heavy flow, all of which count as a permanent abnormality of the eye when constant.
Key Terms:
- צַיְרָן = a priest whose eyes are round or tear constantly
- תְּרוּטוֹת = drooping, partly closed (eyelids)
- צִירָנִיּוֹת = round — the shape that gives the tzayran his name
- דּוֹמְעוֹת / דּוֹלְפוֹת / טוֹרְדוֹת = tearing / dripping / streaming — ascending degrees of tearing
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא, קושיא ותירוץ
Zadir, lupin and timyan: strange eyes, too many eyelashes, eyelashes gone — and the contradiction with ‘eyelashes fell out’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנָּא: הַזִּדֵּיר וְהַלּוּפְיָן (וְהַתָּמִיר) [וְהַתִּימְיָן]. זִוֵּיר — דִּמְזַוַּר עֵינֵיהּ, לוּפְיָן — דִּנְפִישִׁין זִיפֵיהּ, (תָּמִיר) [תִּימְיָן] — שֶׁתַּמּוּ (זִיפִין) [זִיפָיו]. וְהָנֵי גַּבֵּי מוּמִין תָּנוּ לְהוּ? וְהָתְנַן: שֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ רִיסֵי עֵינָיו פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאִשְׁתְּיוּר גַּרְדּוּמֵי, הָא דְּלָא אִישְׁתְּיוּר גַּרְדּוּמֵי.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: The zadir, and the lupin, and the tamir are disqualified from performing the Temple service. Zadir is a reference to one whose eyes are strange. Lupin is a reference to one with an abundance of eyelashes. Tamir is a reference to one whose eyelashes are depleted. The Gemara asks: And does the tanna teach these cases together with full-fledged blemishes? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: One whose eyelashes have fallen out is disqualified from performing the Temple service due to the appearance of a blemish? Clearly, this is not considered an actual blemish. The Gemara answers that it is not difficult. This mishna is referring to a case where the roots of his eyelashes remain, whereas that baraita is referring to a case where the roots do not remain.
קלאוד על הדף:
A further baraita adds three terms: the zadir, whose eyes look strange; the lupin, with an abundance of eyelashes; and the timyan, whose eyelashes are gone. The Gemara objects: the 43a mishna ruled that one whose eyelashes fell out is disqualified only ‘because of appearance’ (מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן), a rabbinic rule, yet the baraita lists the timyan alongside genuine Torah blemishes. The answer distinguishes cases: where stubs of the lashes remain (גַּרְדּוּמֵי), it is only a matter of appearance, as in the mishna; where nothing remains, it is a true blemish, as in the baraita. The same visible condition can belong to two different legal categories depending on whether the organ is diminished or wholly missing.
Key Terms:
- זִדֵּיר / זִוֵּיר = one whose eyes are strange in appearance
- לוּפְיָן = one with an abundance of eyelashes
- תִּימְיָן = one whose eyelashes are depleted (from תַּמּוּ, they have come to an end)
- זִיפֵיהּ = his eyelashes (literally ‘bristles’)
- מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן = because of appearance — a rabbinic disqualification, not a Torah blemish
- גַּרְדּוּמֵי = stumps, remnants — here the roots of the eyelashes
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה
A new list: eyes like a calf’s or a goose’s, disproportionate body or nose, tzomem and tzome’a, protruding lips, missing teeth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ עֵינָיו גְּדוֹלוֹת כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל, אוֹ קְטַנּוֹת כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז. גּוּפוֹ גָּדוֹל מֵאֵבָרָיו, אוֹ קָטָן מֵאֵבָרָיו. חוֹטְמוֹ גָּדוֹל מֵאֵבָרָיו, אוֹ קָטָן מֵאֵיבָרָיו. הַצִומֵּם וְהַצִּומֵּעַ — אֵיזֶהוּ צִומֵּעַ? כֹּל שֶׁאׇזְנָיו קְטַנּוֹת, וְהַצִּומֵּם — כֹּל שֶׁאׇזְנָיו דּוֹמוֹת לִסְפוֹג. שְׂפָתוֹ הָעֶלְיוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה, הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. וְשֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ שִׁינָּיו — פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: If a priest’s eyes are large like those of a calf or small like those of a goose; if his body is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs; if his nose is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, he is disqualified. And the tzomem and the tzome’a are also disqualified. What is a tzome’a? It is anyone whose ears are small. And what is the tzomem? It is anyone whose ears are similar to a sponge. If his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower lip or his lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip, that is a blemish. And one whose teeth fell out is disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna, still within perek 7 (מומין אלו), moves from the eyes to the proportions of the face and body. Eyes as large as a calf’s or as small as a goose’s, a body too large or too small for the limbs, and a nose too large or too small are all blemishes. Two ear conditions are defined: the tzome’a has very small ears and the tzomem has spongy ears. Protruding upper or lower lips are a full blemish, but missing teeth disqualify only ‘because of appearance,’ a rabbinic rule. The guiding idea, implicit throughout the chapter, is that the priest serving in the Mikdash should present a whole and harmonious appearance; disproportion itself is a defect.
Key Terms:
- מַתְנִי׳ = abbreviation of mishnatenu, ‘our mishna’
- גּוּפוֹ גָּדוֹל מֵאֵבָרָיו = his body is large relative to his limbs — disproportion
- צִומֵּעַ = one whose ears are small
- צִומֵּם = one whose ears are like a sponge
- עוֹדֶפֶת = protrudes beyond
- מַרְאִית הָעַיִן = appearance — a rabbinic disqualification
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא (אגדה)
Rav: Moshe Rabbeinu was ten amot tall, since he spread the tent over the ten-amah boards of the Mishkan
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב: מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּפְרֹשׂ אֶת הָאֹהֶל עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן״, מִי פְּרָשׂוֹ? מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ פְּרָשׂוֹ, וּכְתִיב: ״עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת אוֹרֶךְ הַקָּרֶשׁ״.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rav says: Moses, our teacher, was ten ammot tall, as it is stated: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle” (Exodus 40:19). Who spread the tent over the Tabernacle? Moses, our teacher, spread it, and it is written with regard to the height of the Tabernacle: “Ten ammot shall be the length of a board” (Exodus 26:16). Moses must have been at least as tall as the Tabernacle itself for him to have spread the tent over it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens its discussion of ‘body larger than his limbs’ with an aggadic statement of Rav. Shemot 40:19 says ‘he spread the tent over the Mishkan,’ and the context indicates that Moshe himself did so. The boards of the Mishkan were ten amot high (Shemot 26:16), so Moshe, who spread the covering over them, must have been ten amot tall. The derivation reads the verse with deliberate literalness to draw out an image of Moshe’s stature, physical as well as spiritual, which sets up the challenge that follows.
Key Terms:
- גְּמָ׳ = abbreviation of Gemara, marking the start of the Talmudic discussion of the mishna
- מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ = Moses our teacher
- וַיִּפְרֹשׂ אֶת הָאֹהֶל עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן = and he spread the tent over the Mishkan (Shemot 40:19)
- קֶרֶשׁ = a board of the Mishkan’s walls, ten amot high
- אַמָּה = a cubit, roughly the length of a forearm
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rav Shimi bar Chiya: then Moshe was disproportionate! Rav: I meant the standard amah of the Sanctuary
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב: אִם כֵּן עֲשִׂיתוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ בַּעַל מוּם! דִּתְנַן: גּוּפוֹ גָּדוֹל מֵאֵבָרָיו אוֹ קָטָן מֵאֵבָרָיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁימִי! בְּאַמָּה שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ קָאָמֵינָא.
English Translation:
Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said to Rav: If so, you have rendered Moses, our teacher, a blemished person, as we learned in the mishna: If one’s body is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, then he is blemished. A typical person is no more than three arm-lengths [ammot] tall, and yet Moses was apparently ten times taller than the length of his own arm. Rav said to him: Shimi, when I said that Moses was ten ammot tall, I said so in reference to the cubit [amma] of a board used in the building of the Tabernacle. The limbs of Moses were proportional to the rest of his body, but he was indeed ten cubits tall.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Shimi bar Chiya links the aggada to our mishna: if Moshe was ten amot tall, he was disproportionate and would have the very blemish just listed. A normal person is about three of his own forearm-lengths tall. Rav answers sharply (‘Shimi!’) that he meant ten amot of the Sanctuary’s measure — the fixed standard amah used for the boards — not ten of Moshe’s own forearms; the commentators explain that Moshe’s limbs were correspondingly large, so that by his own measure he was perfectly proportioned. The exchange shows halacha checking aggada: a statement about Moshe’s greatness must not imply that Moshe bore a blemish.
Key Terms:
- עֲשִׂיתוֹ… בַּעַל מוּם = you have made him a blemished person
- אַמָּה שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ = the amah of the Sanctuary — the standard measure used in the Mishkan’s construction
- קָאָמֵינָא = I was saying, I meant
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
The measure of a disproportionate nose: a little finger
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוֹטְמוֹ גָּדוֹל וכו׳. תָּנָא: כְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה.
English Translation:
The mishna taught that if one’s nose is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, he is blemished. The Sages taught in a baraita: The measure of disproportion is the size of one’s small finger.
קלאוד על הדף:
For the nose that is too large or too small ‘relative to his limbs,’ a baraita supplies a measure: the size of the little finger. The commentators understand the finger as a personal yardstick: a nose whose deviation from the norm reaches this size relative to the person’s own body is a blemish. As with Moshe’s height, the standard is relative to the individual’s own proportions, not an absolute size.
Key Terms:
- חוֹטְמוֹ = his nose
- אֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה = the small finger — the measure given in the baraita
- תָּנָא = it was taught (in a baraita)
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא וסיפור
The tzime’ach is also disqualified — and the Sages learn the word’s meaning by overhearing an Arab trader
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַצִּומֵּם וְהַצִּומֵּעַ. תָּנָא: אַף הַצִּימֵּחַ. לָא הֲווֹ יָדְעִי רַבָּנַן מַאי ״צִימֵּחַ״, שְׁמַעוּ לְהָהוּא טַיָּיעָא דַּהֲוָה קָאָמַר: ״מַאן דְּבָעֵי צִימֵּחַ״, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח גַּדְיָא חֲזִיזָא.
English Translation:
§ The mishna also taught that the tzomem and the tzome’a are blemished. The Sages taught in a baraita: The tzime’aḥ is also disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Sages did not know what a tzime’aḥ is. They heard a certain Arab who was saying: Who wants a tzime’aḥ, and it was found to be a long-eared goat.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita adds a third ear condition, the tzime’ach (צִימֵּחַ). The Sages did not know what the word meant until they heard an Arab trader calling out ‘Who wants a tzime’ach?’ and found that he was selling a goat whose ears were unusual (rendered in the translation as a long-eared goat). The Talmud elsewhere records similar episodes in which the Sages clarified a rare word from everyday speech, for example by listening to the household of Rebbi (Rosh Hashana 26b). Living language preserved meanings that had slipped out of the study hall.
Key Terms:
- צִימֵּחַ = an ear condition, illustrated by a goat with unusual ears
- טַיָּיעָא = an Arab, often a travelling merchant
- גַּדְיָא חֲזִיזָא = the goat with the distinctive ears that clarified the word
- לָא הֲווֹ יָדְעִי רַבָּנַן = the Sages did not know — a formula introducing the clarification of an obscure word
Segment 19
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Chisda: a hornless she-goat and a horned ewe are fit for the altar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: עֵז שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קַרְנַיִם, וְרָחֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קַרְנַיִם — כְּשֵׁרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara discusses the halakha of a tzomem, tzome’a, and tzime’aḥ with regard to animals. Rav Ḥisda says: A female goat that has no horns and a female lamb that has horns are fit for sacrificing upon the altar, i.e., they are not considered blemished, despite the fact that they differ from regular female goats and female lambs.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now asks how such features affect animals. Rav Chisda rules that a she-goat with no horns and a ewe that has horns are fit for the altar. Both deviate from the norm of their species, yet neither has lost anything or gained an extra limb that counts as a blemish. This is an important contrast with the priest: for a kohen, deviation from normal appearance alone can disqualify (as Rava derived from ‘in his eye’), while for animals the list of blemishes is narrower.
Key Terms:
- עֵז = a she-goat
- רָחֵל = a ewe
- כְּשֵׁרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ = fit with regard to the altar — may be offered as sacrifices
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא (סיוע)
Support: some features look like blemishes but are not — a firstborn with them may be offered in the Mikdash but not slaughtered outside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כְּמוּמִין, וְאֵינָן כְּמוּמִין, וְשׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶם בְּמִקְדָּשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא בַּמְּדִינָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: עֵז שֶׁאֵין (לוֹ) [לָהּ] קַרְנַיִם, וְרָחֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ (לוֹ) [לָהּ] קַרְנַיִם, וְהַצִּימֵּחַ, וְהַצִּימֵּם, וְהַצִּימֵּעַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: There are matters that appear like blemishes but they are not truly like blemishes, and one may therefore slaughter sacrificial animals on account of them in the Temple, i.e., they are fit for sacrifice despite these blemishes; but if they are firstborn animals, they are not permitted for slaughter in the rest of the country on account of these blemishes, as the unique physical characteristics of these animals are not true blemishes. And these are the blemishes: A female goat that has no horns, and a female lamb that has horns, and the tzime’aḥ, and the tzomem, and the tzome’a.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita supports Rav Chisda. Certain features ‘are like blemishes but are not like blemishes’: an animal with them may be sacrificed in the Mikdash, but a firstborn bearing them may not be slaughtered ‘in the country’ (בַּמְּדִינָה), that is, outside the Temple as a blemished bechor. The list includes the hornless goat, the horned ewe, and the three ear conditions just discussed for priests: tzime’ach, tzomem and tzome’a. So the very conditions that disqualify a priest are no blemish at all in an animal, a clear demonstration that the blemish laws of priests and animals, though both rooted in Vayikra, are separate systems.
Key Terms:
- יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כְּמוּמִין וְאֵינָן כְּמוּמִין = there are things that look like blemishes but are not
- שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶם בְּמִקְדָּשׁ = one slaughters (offers) with them in the Temple — they do not disqualify a sacrifice
- בַּמְּדִינָה = in the country — outside the Mikdash, where a blemished firstborn is slaughtered and eaten
- תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי = it was also taught thus — a baraita supporting an Amora
Segment 21
TYPE: מימרא
Horns removed with their bone: unfit but not redeemable; hooves removed with their bone: unfit and redeemable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: נִטְּלוּ קַרְנוֹתָן וְזַכְרוּתָן עִמָּהֶן — פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵין פּוֹדִין עֲלֵיהֶם. נִטְּלוּ טְלָפַיִים וְזַכְרוּתָם עִמָּהֶן — פְּסוּלִין, וְנִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶם.
English Translation:
With regard to the horns of an animal, Rav Ḥisda says that Ameimar says: If the horns of an animal were removed, and their bones, i.e., the bones inside the horns, were removed with them, the animal is unfit for sacrifice. But even so, one may not redeem the animal on account of such blemishes, as they are not full-fledged blemishes. But if the hooves were removed, and their bones, i.e., the portion of the leg to which the hooves are attached, were removed with them, they are unfit for sacrifice and they are even redeemed on account of such blemishes, as they are full-fledged blemishes.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda, citing Ameimar, distinguishes between two kinds of removal. If an animal’s horns were removed together with the bony core inside them, the animal is unfit for the altar, but this is not a full blemish, so a consecrated animal may not be redeemed on its account. If the hooves were removed together with the bone to which they are attached, the animal is both unfit and redeemable. A middle category emerges: a defect that bars the animal from the altar yet is not severe enough to release its sanctity through redemption.
Key Terms:
- קַרְנוֹתָן = their horns
- זַכְרוּתָן = literally ‘their maleness’ — here the bony core within the horn or above the hoof
- טְלָפַיִים = hooves
- פּוֹדִין עֲלֵיהֶם = one redeems (a consecrated animal) on their account
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A baraita says horns removed with their bone do allow redemption; answer: uprooted entirely versus merely cut
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: נִטְּלוּ קַרְנַיִין וּטְלָפַיִין וְזַכְרוּתָן עִמָּהֶן — פְּסוּלִין וְנִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶן! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִיתְעֲקוּר אִיתְעֲקוֹרֵי, הָא דְּאִיגּוּם אִיגּוֹמֵי.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda stated that the removal of a horn and its bone is not considered a full-fledged blemish that enables the animal to be redeemed. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If the horns or the hooves of an animal were removed, and their respective bones were removed with them, they are unfit and they are redeemed on account of them. The Gemara explains that it is not difficult. This baraita is referring to a case where the bone was entirely uprooted, which is a full-fledged blemish on account of which the animal may be redeemed. That statement of Rav Ḥisda is referring to a case where the bones were cut but were not uprooted entirely.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita lists horns and hooves together and rules that in both cases the animal is unfit and may be redeemed, contradicting Rav Chisda’s distinction. The Gemara resolves it by distinguishing two degrees of removal: where the bone was entirely uprooted (אִיתְעֲקוּר), it is a full blemish and redemption is permitted, as in the baraita; where the bone was only cut (אִיגּוּם), it disqualifies the animal from the altar but does not permit redemption, as Rav Chisda said.
Key Terms:
- אִיתְעֲקוּר אִיתְעֲקוֹרֵי = was completely uprooted
- אִיגּוּם אִיגּוֹמֵי = was cut off, trimmed
- לָא קַשְׁיָא = it is not difficult — introducing a resolution by distinguishing cases
Segment 23
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Does cutting even disqualify? The red heifer’s black horns may be trimmed; Ze’eiri: only above the bone
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּדְאִיגּוּם אִיגּוֹמֵי, פָּסוּל? וּרְמִינְהוּ: פָּרָה שֶׁקַּרְנֶיהָ וּטְלָפֶיהָ שְׁחוֹרִים — יָגוֹד! תַּרְגְּמַהּ זְעֵירִי: מֵעִילָּוֵי זַכְרוּת.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But in a case where the bones of the animal were cut, is the animal even rendered unfit? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Para 2:2): With regard to a red heifer whose horns and hooves are black, the halakha is that one should cut away the black parts so that the heifer remains entirely red. Evidently, cutting away the horns of the heifer does not inflict a blemish upon it. Ze’eiri interpreted the mishna as referring to cutting the horn specifically from above the bone inside it. In such a case, the heifer is not disqualified. Cutting the bone itself does disqualify the animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses further: does a cut horn disqualify at all? A mishna in Para (2:2) rules that a red heifer whose horns and hooves are black should have the black parts cut off (יָגוֹד), and the heifer remains valid — and the red heifer is disqualified by any blemish. Ze’eiri answers that the Para mishna refers to trimming the horn above its bony core (מֵעִילָּוֵי זַכְרוּת). Cutting only the outer horn is no defect; cutting into the bone is. The sugya thus ends with three tiers: trimming above the bone (no effect), cutting the bone (unfit, not redeemable), uprooting the bone (a full blemish).
Key Terms:
- וּרְמִינְהוּ = and they contrasted them — introducing a contradiction between sources
- פָּרָה = here the red heifer (פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה), which is disqualified by a blemish
- יָגוֹד = he should cut (the black part) off
- מֵעִילָּוֵי זַכְרוּת = from above the bone — trimming only the outer, insensitive horn
- תַּרְגְּמַהּ = he interpreted it, explained the source
Amud Bet (44b)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Blemishes of the torso and constitution: sagging breasts, swollen belly, protruding navel, epilepsy, a ‘spirit,’ and genital abnormalities
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ דַּדִּין שׁוֹכְבִין כְּשֶׁל אִשָּׁה, כְּרֵיסוֹ צָבָה, טִיבּוּרוֹ יוֹצֵא, נִכְפֶּה — אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת לְיָמִים, רוּחַ קְצָרָה בָּאָה עָלָיו, הַמְאוּשְׁבָּן, וּבַעַל גֶּבֶר.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: One who has breasts so large that they sag like those of a woman; or if one’s belly is swollen and protrudes; or if one’s navel protrudes; or if one is an epileptic, even if he experiences seizures only once in a long while; or one who is afflicted with a melancholy temper; or one whose scrotum is unnaturally long; or one whose penis is unnaturally long is disqualified from performing the Temple service.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues its catalogue of priestly blemishes, moving down the body. It lists breasts that sag like a woman’s, a swollen belly, a protruding navel, epilepsy (נִכְפֶּה) even if the seizures come only once in a long while, one afflicted by a ruach ketzarah (a spirit or melancholy affliction), and two abnormalities of the male genitals: an unusually elongated scrotum (מְאוּשְׁבָּן) and an unusually long member (בַּעַל גֶּבֶר). The inclusion of epilepsy ‘even once in many days’ shows that a recurring condition counts as a permanent blemish even when it is usually dormant. The genital blemishes belong to the Torah’s general category of physical abnormality in a priest (Vayikra 21:20 mentions the testicles explicitly), treated here with the same anatomical precision as the eyes and nose.
Key Terms:
- דַּדִּין שׁוֹכְבִין = sagging breasts
- כְּרֵיסוֹ צָבָה = his belly is swollen
- טִיבּוּרוֹ יוֹצֵא = his navel protrudes
- נִכְפֶּה = an epileptic, one subject to seizures
- אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת לְיָמִים = even once in many days — however infrequent the seizures
- מְאוּשְׁבָּן = one whose scrotum is abnormally elongated
- בַּעַל גֶּבֶר = one whose male member is abnormally long
Segment 2
TYPE: מימרא וברייתא
One may relieve oneself in public, but not drink water in public; the incident of a man whose belly swelled from holding back
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: מַשְׁתִּינִין מַיִם בִּפְנֵי רַבִּים, וְאֵין שׁוֹתִין מַיִם בִּפְנֵי רַבִּים. וְתַנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מַשְׁתִּינִין מַיִם בִּפְנֵי רַבִּים, וְאֵין שׁוֹתִין מַיִם בִּפְנֵי רַבִּים. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁבִּיקֵּשׁ לְהַשְׁתִּין מַיִם וְלֹא הִשְׁתִּין, וְנִמְצָא כְּרֵיסוֹ צָבָה.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara cites a halakha involving a swollen belly. Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, says that Torah scholars may urinate in public and they need not be concerned with issues of modesty, because holding back from urinating causes bodily harm. But they may not drink water in public, as such conduct is unbefitting a Torah scholar. And this is also taught in a baraita: Torah scholars may urinate in public, but they may not drink water in public. And there was an incident involving one who sought to urinate, and he did not urinate, and his belly was found to be swollen.
קלאוד על הדף:
Prompted by the ‘swollen belly,’ the Gemara turns to a medical-ethical teaching. Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, rules that one may urinate in the presence of many people — health overrides embarrassment — but should not drink water in front of many, which was regarded as unseemly for a Torah scholar. A baraita repeats the rule and adds an incident: a man who needed to relieve himself and held back was later found with a swollen belly. Chazal treat the body’s needs with frank realism: modesty is a real value, but it never justifies endangering health.
Key Terms:
- מַשְׁתִּינִין מַיִם = one may urinate
- בִּפְנֵי רַבִּים = in the presence of many, in public
- אֵין שׁוֹתִין מַיִם בִּפְנֵי רַבִּים = one does not drink water in public — a matter of decorum
- מַעֲשֶׂה = an incident, a case that occurred
Segment 3
TYPE: סיפור
Shmuel needed to relieve himself on the festival Shabbat, they spread a cloak, and his father told him to retract
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁמוּאֵל אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ בְּשַׁבְּתָא דְרִגְלָא, נְגַדוּ לֵיהּ גְּלִימָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶתֵּן לָךְ אַרְבַּע מְאָה זוּזֵי וְזִיל אַהְדַּר עוֹבָדָא. אַתְּ — דְּאֶפְשָׁר לָךְ, דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ — לִיסְתַּכַּן.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: It was necessary for Shmuel to urinate on the Shabbat when everyone came to hear halakhot relating to the impending Festival. In order to afford him privacy, they spread a sheet for him. Shmuel then came before his father, who said to him: I will give you four hundred dinars if you will go and retract this incident, i.e., if you will state publicly that one may not hold back from urinating even at the expense of one’s privacy. Since you are an important man, you can have others spread a sheet around you. But with regard to one who cannot have others spread a sheet for him, should he endanger himself by seeking privacy? You must therefore teach that one should not hold back from urinating even in public.
קלאוד על הדף:
On the Shabbat before a festival (שַׁבְּתָא דְרִגְלָא), when large crowds gathered for the public lecture, Shmuel needed to relieve himself and his attendants held up a cloak to give him privacy. His father — Abba bar Abba, himself a respected sage — told him he would pay him four hundred zuz to go and undo the incident. ‘You can afford a screen; someone who cannot will endanger himself.’ The lesson is about the public example of a great teacher: Shmuel’s dignified privacy, harmless to him, might teach ordinary people that one must wait for privacy, at real risk to their health. A leader’s conduct is itself a ruling and must be calibrated for those who will imitate it.
Key Terms:
- שַׁבְּתָא דְרִגְלָא = the Shabbat of the festival — when the public gathered to hear the laws of the coming festival
- נְגַדוּ לֵיהּ גְּלִימָא = they stretched out a cloak for him (as a screen)
- אַהְדַּר עוֹבָדָא = reverse the deed — publicly undo the impression it created
- לִיסְתַּכַּן = should he endanger himself?
Segment 4
TYPE: סיפור
Mar bar Rav Ashi on a bridge: ‘Your mother-in-law is coming!’ — ‘Even in her ear’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אִיצְטְרִיךְ אַגּוּדָּא גַּמְלָא, אַשְׁתֵּין. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: חֲמָתָךְ קָאָתְיָא! אֲמַר לְהוּ: בְּאוּדְנַהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara further relates that it was necessary for Mar bar Rav Ashi to urinate while he was walking on the beams of a bridge, and therefore he urinated. They said to him: Your mother-in-law is coming. Mar bar Rav Ashi said to them: I would have done this even in her ear. Since holding back from urinating would place him in physical danger, he would not care that his mother-in-law was coming and might see him.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar bar Rav Ashi needed to urinate while crossing the beams of a bridge, and he did so. His companions warned him that his mother-in-law was approaching. His reply — ‘even in her ear’ — is deliberate hyperbole: so strongly did he hold that one must not endanger health by holding back that he would not stop even under the most embarrassing circumstances imaginable. The story dramatizes the halachic rule in personal terms, and the Gemara preserves it precisely because the speaker was a respected sage making a point.
Key Terms:
- אַגּוּדָּא גַּמְלָא = on the beams of a bridge
- חֲמָתָךְ = your mother-in-law
- בְּאוּדְנַהּ = in her ear — a hyperbolic expression of indifference to embarrassment where health is at stake
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Maybe the man’s belly swelled from a leech? No — his urine afterwards only dripped
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתִיפּוֹק לִי מִשּׁוּם עַלְקָא! בְּשׁוֹתֵת.
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to the incident cited in the baraita involving one who held back from urinating and his belly became swollen: And let me derive, i.e., can it not be said, that his belly swelled due to a leech that entered his intestines? The Gemara responds: The baraita is referring to a case where his urine would thereafter drip and no longer flowed in a healthy manner. Evidently, his health problems resulted from damage to the urinary tract.
קלאוד על הדף:
Returning to the incident of the man whose belly swelled, the Gemara asks whether the swelling could have had another cause, such as a leech he had swallowed. The answer: his urine thereafter only dripped (שׁוֹתֵת) instead of flowing normally, which shows that the damage was to the urinary tract and was caused by holding back. The Gemara insists that a medical anecdote cited to support a rule must actually demonstrate the cause it is cited for.
Key Terms:
- וְתִיפּוֹק לִי = and let me derive it from — could it not be attributed to
- עַלְקָא = a leech
- שׁוֹתֵת = dripping — urine that leaks rather than flows
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Two ducts separated by a membrane as thin as a garlic peel; if they are perforated into one another the man becomes sterile
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁנֵי נְקָבִים יֵשׁ בּוֹ בָּאָדָם, אֶחָד מוֹצִיא שֶׁתֶן וְאֶחָד מוֹצִיא שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, וְאֵין בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה אֶלָּא כִּקְלִיפַּת הַשּׁוּם. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָדָם נִצְרָךְ, אִם נִקְּבוּ זֶה לְתוֹךְ זֶה — נִמְצָא עָקָר.
English Translation:
Concerning this topic the Sages taught in a baraita: There are two orifices in a man. One of them expels urine and one of them expels semen, and there is only a partition about the thickness of a garlic peel between them. When a man needs to urinate and withholds the urine, if his urinary duct and seminal duct were punctured such that this duct leads into that one, he will be found to be barren, as his urine will penetrate into his seminal duct.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita describes male anatomy in order to explain the danger of holding back. A man has two passages, one for urine and one for semen, separated by a partition as thin as the peel of garlic. If a man restrains himself when he needs to urinate and the pressure ruptures the partition so that one duct opens into the other, he becomes sterile. The baraita’s concern is preventive: the halachic permission to relieve oneself even without privacy is grounded in a concrete understanding of the body’s vulnerability, and in the high value of the ability to have children.
Key Terms:
- נְקָבִים = openings, ducts
- שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע = semen
- קְלִיפַּת הַשּׁוּם = the peel of garlic — a proverbially thin membrane
- נִקְּבוּ זֶה לְתוֹךְ זֶה = were perforated into one another
- עָקָר = sterile, unable to have children
Segment 7
TYPE: דרשה
Reish Lakish on ‘no barren male or female among you or among your cattle’: when you are like your cattle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא יִהְיֶה בְךָ עָקָר וַעֲקָרָה וּבִבְהֶמְתֶּךָ״? אֵימָתַי לֹא יִהְיֶה בְךָ עָקָר? בִּזְמַן שֶׁ״בִּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ״.
English Translation:
Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “There shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle” (Deuteronomy 7:14)? It means as follows: When will there not be a barren male among you? At a time that you act as among your cattle, i.e., you urinate when the need arises, without hesitation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish reads Devarim 7:14, ‘There shall not be a barren male or female among you, or among your cattle,’ homiletically. The word ‘among your cattle’ (וּבִבְהֶמְתֶּךָ) is read as a condition: you will not be barren when you behave like your animals, which relieve themselves whenever the need arises without restraint. The derasha turns the medical teaching of the previous segment into a reading of a Torah blessing, binding physical health to the promise of fertility.
Key Terms:
- לֹא יִהְיֶה בְךָ עָקָר וַעֲקָרָה וּבִבְהֶמְתֶּךָ = there shall not be barren male or female among you or among your cattle (Devarim 7:14)
- אֵימָתַי = when?
- בִּזְמַן שֶׁ… = at a time that — reading the verse as a conditional promise
Segment 8
TYPE: דרשה
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: not barren of students, and prayers not ‘uprooted’ — when one makes oneself like an animal in humility
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: ״לֹא יִהְיֶה בְךָ עָקָר״ — מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים, ״וַעֲקָרָה״ — שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא תְּפִלָּתֶךָ עֲקוּרָה לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם. אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁאַתָּה מֵשִׂים עַצְמְךָ כִּבְהֵמָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says, with regard to the same verse, that the phrase “There shall not be male…barren among you” means you will not be barren of students, as one who leaves behind no students is considered barren. The term “or female barren” indicates that your prayers will not be barren, i.e., unheard, before the Omnipresent, but will be heard by Him. And when will they be heard? At a time when you place yourself in prayer as an animal, with humility.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi reads the same verse on a spiritual plane. ‘No barren male’ means you will not be barren of students, since a teacher’s disciples are his true offspring; ‘no barren female’ (עֲקָרָה) is read as ‘your prayer will not be uprooted’ (עֲקוּרָה) before God. When? When you make yourself like an animal — that is, humble and self-effacing. The verse ‘I was like a beast before You’ (Tehillim 73:22) expresses the same idea. A single verse thus moves, within two derashot, from bodily health to the two great forms of spiritual fruitfulness: Torah transmitted and prayer answered.
Key Terms:
- מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים = of students — spiritual offspring
- עֲקוּרָה = uprooted, rejected — a play on עֲקָרָה, barren
- לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם = before the Omnipresent (God)
- מֵשִׂים עַצְמְךָ כִּבְהֵמָה = make yourself like an animal — with humility, without self-importance
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Pappa: do not urinate on earthenware or hard ground; Rav: Babylonia’s waters flow to Ein Eitam; Abaye on modesty before a child
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא יַשְׁתִּין אָדָם מַיִם לֹא עַל כְּלֵי חֶרֶס, וְלֹא עַל מְקוֹם קָשֶׁה, דְּאָמַר רַב: הָנֵי מְדוֹרֵי דְּבָבֶל מְהַדְּרִי מַיָּא לְעֵין עֵיטָם. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָא אִיתְּתָא לָא תְּקוּם לְהֶדְיָא בְּאַנְפֵּי יָנוֹקָא, אַגִּיסָא לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites additional statements of the Sages with regard to urination. Rav Pappa says: A person should urinate in Babylonia only on the dust, as it absorbs the urine. He should not urinate either on an earthenware vessel or on a hard place, as the urine will not be absorbed and will eventually flow into the underwater rivers. As Rav says: Those inclines of Babylonia return the water through underground watercourses to the Spring of Eitam in Eretz Yisrael, from which water was taken to the Temple. Additionally, Abaye says: A woman should not stand openly in front of a child when she urinates. But if she urinates while turning sideways, we have no problem with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa rules that one should not urinate on an earthenware vessel or on hard ground. The translation, following the commentators, explains this in light of Rav’s statement that the slopes of Babylonia drain through underground channels back to Ein Eitam (עֵין עֵיטָם), the spring in Eretz Yisrael that supplied the Mikdash (see Yoma 31a); urine not absorbed by soft earth might ultimately reach that sacred water source. Abaye adds a rule of modesty: a woman should not stand directly facing a child when she relieves herself, though doing so turned sideways is permitted. These brief rulings show Chazal attending to cleanliness, reverence for the Mikdash, and modesty even in the most private matters.
Key Terms:
- כְּלֵי חֶרֶס = earthenware vessels
- מְקוֹם קָשֶׁה = a hard place, ground that does not absorb
- מְדוֹרֵי דְּבָבֶל = the slopes (or inclines) of Babylonia
- עֵין עֵיטָם = the spring of Eitam, the water source of the Mikdash
- אַגִּיסָא = sideways, turned to the side
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא ומימרא
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Reish Lakish on the illnesses caused by holding back bodily functions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: עַמּוּד הַחוֹזֵר מֵבִיא אָדָם לִידֵי הִדְרוֹקָן, סִילוֹן הַחוֹזֵר מֵבִיא אָדָם לִידֵי יֵרָקוֹן. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: דָּם רָבֶה — שְׁחִין רָבֶה, שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע רָבָה — צָרַעַת רָבָה, צוֹאָה רָבָה — הִדְרוֹקָן רָבֶה, מֵי רַגְלַיִם רָבִין — יֵרָקוֹן רָבֶה.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A mass of feces that is held back without being discharged causes a person to suffer from dropsy [hidrokan], while a stream of urine that is held back causes a person to suffer from jaundice. Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav Ketina says that Reish Lakish says: If one’s blood levels increase due to not undergoing bloodletting often enough, then boils will increase on him as well. If one’s semen levels increase due to not engaging in sexual intercourse often enough, then leprosy will increase on him. If one’s feces levels increase due to not relieving himself enough, dropsy will increase in him. Finally, if one’s urine levels increase due to not relieving himself enough, then jaundice will increase as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel warns that holding back feces brings on hidrokan (dropsy) and holding back urine brings on yerakon (jaundice). Reish Lakish, in a chain of transmission, extends the principle into a fourfold list: excess blood brings boils, excess semen brings tzara’at, excess feces brings dropsy, excess urine brings jaundice. The underlying medical theory is one of balance: what the body needs to release must be released in its time. The Rambam, in Hilchot De’ot 4, likewise counts not holding back one’s bodily needs among the basic rules of health.
Key Terms:
- עַמּוּד הַחוֹזֵר = a column (of feces) that is held back
- סִילוֹן הַחוֹזֵר = a stream (of urine) that is held back
- הִדְרוֹקָן = dropsy, abnormal swelling from fluid
- יֵרָקוֹן = jaundice
- שְׁחִין = boils
- צָרַעַת = tzara’at, the skin affliction of Vayikra 13
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא (פירוש המשנה)
What is a ruach ketzarit? A baraita: a ‘spirit of the fallen ones’ comes upon him
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רוּחַ קַצְרִית בָּאָה עָלָיו. מַאי נִינְהוּ? תָּנָא: רוּחַ בֶּן נְפָלִים בָּאָה עָלָיו.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that one who is afflicted with a melancholy temper is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara asks: What is this melancholy temper? A tanna taught: A fallen spirit, i.e., the spirit of a demon, has come upon him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks what the mishna means by a ruach ketzarit (רוּחַ קַצְרִית) and answers from a baraita: a ruach ben nefalim, the ‘spirit of the fallen ones,’ comes upon him — in the translation’s words, a demonic spirit. Chazal describe a periodic affliction of the mind or spirit, distinct from the epilepsy listed beside it, that overcomes the person from time to time. Like epilepsy, it disqualifies the priest even if it recurs only occasionally, since the service in the Mikdash demands complete composure and reliability.
Key Terms:
- רוּחַ קַצְרִית = literally a ‘short’ or constricted spirit — a recurring affliction of the spirit
- רוּחַ בֶּן נְפָלִים = a spirit of the fallen ones — understood as a harmful spirit that seizes the person
- מַאי נִינְהוּ = what are they? — requesting a definition
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא (פירוש המשנה)
Meshuban is a condition of the testicles and ba’al gever of the member; the synonyms kayyan and garbetan
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַמְאוּשְׁבָּן וּבַעַל גֶּבֶר. תָּנָא: מְשׁוּבָּן בַּבֵּיצִים, וּבַעַל גֶּבֶר בַּגִּיד. תָּנָא: מְשׁוּבָּן — זֶה הַקַּיָּין, הַגְרַבְתָּן — זֶה בַּעַל קִיק; קַיָּין — בַּבֵּיצִים, גְּרַבְתָּא — בַּגִּיד.
English Translation:
The mishna also teaches that one whose scrotum is unnaturally long [me’ushban] and one whose penis is unnaturally long [ba’al gever] are disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Sages taught in a baraita: A meshuban is one with exceedingly large testicles, and a ba’al gever is one with an unnaturally long penis. Similarly, it is taught in a baraita: A meshuban, this is synonymous with the kayyan. The garbetan, this is synonymous with a ba’al kik. A kayyan is one with a condition of the testicles, while a garbeta is one with a condition of the penis.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two baraitot define the mishna’s last two terms. The meshuban has abnormally large testicles, while the ba’al gever has an abnormally long member. The second baraita gives parallel terms in use elsewhere: the meshuban is also called a kayyan, and the garbetan is the one known as ba’al kik; the kayyan refers to the testicles and the garbeta to the member. As with the eyes, the Gemara takes care to fix the exact anatomical meaning of each term, since a precise definition determines who may serve in the Mikdash.
Key Terms:
- מְשׁוּבָּן = one with abnormally large testicles
- בַּעַל גֶּבֶר = one with an abnormally long member
- קַיָּין = a synonym for meshuban
- גְּרַבְתָּן / בַּעַל קִיק = synonyms for an abnormality of the member
- בֵּיצִים = testicles
- גִּיד = the male member
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא ושתי לשונות
How long is disqualifying? Rav Yehuda: to the knee; Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and an alternative version differ on the knee itself
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעַד כַּמָּה? מַחְוֵי רַב יְהוּדָה: עַד רְכוּבָּה. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: עַד רְכוּבָּה — פָּסוּל, לְמַעְלָה מִן רְכוּבָּה — כָּשֵׁר. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: עַד רְכוּבָּה — כָּשֵׁר, לְמַטָּה מִן הָרְכוּבָּה — פָּסוּל.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And how much is considered too long, which disqualifies the priest from performing the Temple service? Rav Yehuda pointed and said: Until the knee. It is likewise taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If one’s penis reaches until his knee he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. But if it reaches until just above his knee he remains fit. Some say if his penis reaches until the knee he is fit, but if it passes below the knee he is disqualified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara seeks a measure. Rav Yehuda indicates with a gesture: until the knee. A baraita in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov rules that reaching the knee disqualifies and anything above it is fit; another version (אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי) holds that reaching the knee is still fit and only extending below the knee disqualifies. The two versions agree on the measuring point and differ only on whether the boundary itself falls inside or outside the blemish — a typical Talmudic question about whether a limit is inclusive.
Key Terms:
- וְעַד כַּמָּה = and up to how much? — asking for the measure
- רְכוּבָּה = the knee
- לְמַעְלָה מִן = above
- לְמַטָּה מִן = below
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי = there are those who say — an alternative version
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה (מחלוקת)
Mero’ach ashekh: the anonymous view and those of Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין לוֹ בֵּיצִים, אוֹ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּיצָה אַחַת — הֲרֵי זֶה ״מְרוֹחַ אָשֶׁךְ״ הָאָמוּר בְּתוֹרָה. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁנִּימּוֹחוּ אֲשָׁכָיו. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁרוּחַ בַּאֲשָׁכָיו. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁמַּרְאָיו חֲשׁוּכִין.
English Translation:
MISHNA: If one has no testicles, or if he has only one testicle, that is the mero’aḥ ashekh that is stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 21:20) among the blemishes that disqualify a priest from Temple service. Rabbi Yishmael says: A mero’aḥ ashekh is anyone whose testicles were crushed. Rabbi Akiva says: It is anyone that has wind in his testicles, i.e., they are swollen. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Mero’aḥ ashekh does not refer to the testicles; rather, the reference is to anyone whose appearance [marav] is especially dark [ḥashukhin].
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna defines a term the Torah itself uses in Vayikra 21:20, mero’ach ashekh (מְרוֹחַ אָשֶׁךְ). The anonymous first opinion says it is one with no testicles or only one. Rabbi Yishmael says it is one whose testicles were crushed; Rabbi Akiva, one with ‘wind’ in the testicles, that is, swelling; and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus reads the phrase as not referring to the testicles at all, but to one whose appearance is very dark (מַרְאָיו חֲשׁוּכִין). Four tannaim offer four readings of two words, and the Gemara will show that each grows out of a close reading of the verse.
Key Terms:
- מְרוֹחַ אָשֶׁךְ = the Torah’s term (Vayikra 21:20) for a blemish of the testicles
- אֲשָׁכָיו = his testicles
- נִימּוֹחוּ = were crushed
- רוּחַ בַּאֲשָׁכָיו = wind (swelling) in his testicles
- מַרְאָיו חֲשׁוּכִין = his appearance is dark
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא (טעמי המחלוקת)
Why Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva depart from the plain reading: the Torah would have said ‘chasar ashekh’ or ‘mimro’ach ashekh’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: הָא ״חֲסַר אָשֶׁךְ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי: שֶׁנִּמְרְחוּ אֲשָׁכָיו. קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הַאי ״מַמְרוֹחַ אָשֶׁךְ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי: שֶׁהָרוּחַ בַּאֲשָׁכָיו.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara explains why the tanna’im interpret mero’aḥ ashekh in different ways. It is difficult for Rabbi Yishmael: If mero’aḥ ashekh is referring to one who lacks two testicles, then the Torah should have stated: Ḥasar ashekh, lacking a testicle, rather than mero’aḥ ashekh. Therefore, he teaches that it is referring to one whose testicles were crushed. This is difficult for Rabbi Akiva: If mero’aḥ ashekh means one with crushed testicles, then the Torah should have stated: Mimro’aḥ ashekh, crushed testicles, not mero’aḥ ashekh. Therefore, he teaches that the Torah is referring to one who has wind in his testicles.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the dispute linguistically. Rabbi Yishmael rejects the anonymous view: had the Torah meant a missing testicle, it would have said ‘chasar ashekh,’ lacking a testicle; so he reads mero’ach from the root meaning to crush or smear (נִמְרְחוּ). Rabbi Akiva objects in turn: crushing would be expressed as ‘mimro’ach ashekh’; so he reads the word as related to ruach, wind, a swelling of the testicles. Each tanna treats the Torah’s precise wording as excluding the meaning that a different word would have conveyed.
Key Terms:
- קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ = it was difficult for him — the reason behind his interpretation
- חֲסַר אָשֶׁךְ = lacking a testicle — the expression the Torah would have used
- נִמְרְחוּ = were crushed, smeared
- מַמְרוֹחַ / מִמְרוֹחַ = crushed — the form the Torah would have used for crushing
- תְּנִי = teach, read it as
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא (טעמי המחלוקת)
Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus rearranges the letters: ‘mero’ach ashekh’ becomes ‘mar’av chashukhin’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס: הַאי ״רוּחַ אָשֶׁךְ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי שֶׁמַּרְאָיו חֲשׁוּכִין, קָסָבַר גּוֹרְעִין וּמוֹסִיפִין וְדוֹרְשִׁין.
English Translation:
This is difficult for Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus: If mero’aḥ ashekh is referring to one with wind in his testicles, then the Torah should have stated: Ruaḥ ashekh, wind in the testicles. Therefore, he teaches that the Torah is speaking of anyone whose appearance is especially dark. And how does he derive such an interpretation from the verse? He holds that the Sages subtract and add and interpret homiletically. Accordingly, the ḥet of mero’aḥ is removed along with the alef of ashekh. The ḥet is added to ashekh and the alef is added to mero’aḥ, and mero’aḥ ashekh is rearranged to state: Marav ḥashukhin, his appearance is dark.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus objects to Rabbi Akiva: wind in the testicles would have been written ‘ruach ashekh.’ He therefore reads the phrase as ‘his appearance is dark,’ by applying the hermeneutic principle ‘we subtract, add and interpret’ (גּוֹרְעִין וּמוֹסִיפִין וְדוֹרְשִׁין): the chet is taken from mero’ach and joined to ashekh, and the alef of ashekh is moved to mero’ach, yielding mar’av (his appearance) chashukh (dark). This is one of the boldest exegetical techniques in the Talmud, used by those tannaim who accept it to find a second meaning embedded in the letters of a phrase.
Key Terms:
- גּוֹרְעִין וּמוֹסִיפִין וְדוֹרְשִׁין = we subtract and add (letters) and interpret — a hermeneutic principle accepted by some tannaim
- רוּחַ אָשֶׁךְ = wind in the testicle — the phrase the Torah would have used
- קָסָבַר = he holds, is of the opinion
- חֲשׁוּכִין = dark
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Is this not the kushi of the 45b mishna? Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus does not list the kushi separately
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַיְינוּ כּוּשִׁי! רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס לָא תָּנֵי ״כּוּשִׁי״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if so, this is identical to one whose skin is extremely black, and the mishna on 45b explicitly states that such a priest is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus learns from the mishna only that a mero’aḥ ashekh is disqualified; he does not teach in that mishna the halakha that a person with extremely black skin is blemished.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks: a priest whose appearance is very dark is already listed in the mishna on 45b as the kushi, together with the very ruddy (גִּיחוֹר) and the very pale (לַבְקָן). The answer is that Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus does not include the kushi in that list, because for him the case is covered by the Torah’s own phrase mero’ach ashekh. These categories belong to the laws of the Mikdash, which require the kohanim serving there to share a uniform appearance (the Gemara on 45b will speak of being ‘equal to the seed of Aharon’); they are rules about uniformity in the Temple service, not judgments of human worth.
Key Terms:
- הַיְינוּ = that is the same as — an objection of redundancy
- כּוּשִׁי = one whose skin is very dark, listed in the mishna on 45b
- לָא תָּנֵי = does not teach, does not include (in his version of the list)
Segment 18
TYPE: משנה
The next mishna begins: one whose ankles or knees knock together as he walks
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ מַקִּישׁ בְּקַרְסוּלָּיו, וּבְאַרְכֻבּוֹתָיו,
English Translation:
MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: One whose legs are crooked and bend inward, causing him to knock his ankles or his knees into each other as he walks,
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna begins at the foot of the amud and continues on 45a. It turns from the torso to the legs: a priest whose legs bend inward so that his ankles or his knees knock against one another as he walks is disqualified. The catalogue thus continues its descent through the body, from eyes and face to torso and now the lower limbs, preserving the chapter’s head-to-foot order.
Key Terms:
- מַקִּישׁ = knocks, strikes together
- קַרְסוּלָּיו = his ankles
- אַרְכֻבּוֹתָיו = his knees