Bechorot Daf 45 (בכורות דף מ״ה)
Daf: 45 | Amudim: 45a – 45b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (45a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
The catalogue of leg and foot blemishes continues: the ba’al happikim, the ikkel (bowlegged), protruding toe-joint or heel, and feet wide like a goose’s
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבַעַל הַפִּיקִים, הָעִיקֵּל. אֵיזֶהוּ הָעִיקֵּל? כׇּל שֶׁהוּא מַקִּיף פַּרְסוֹתָיו וְאֵין אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו נוֹקְשׁוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ. פִּיקָּה יוֹצֵא מִגּוּדָּלוֹ, עֲקֵיבוֹ יוֹצֵא לַאֲחוֹרָיו, פַּרְסוֹתָיו רְחָבוֹת כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז.
English Translation:
and a ba’al happikim, and the ikkel. What is the ikkel? It is anyone who places his feet together and his knees do not knock into each other, i.e., he is bowlegged. A priest with a protuberance emerging alongside the thumb of his hand or the big toe of his foot,or one whose heel emerges and protrudes back from his foot, or one whose feet are wide like those of a goose are all disqualified from performing the Temple service.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna, which began its list of leg blemishes at the end of 44b, continues the catalogue of physical irregularities that disqualify a kohen from the avodah. The ba’al happikim has prominent bony protuberances on his legs, while the ikkel is defined anatomically: when he brings his feet together, his knees do not meet, so that his legs bow outward. The mishna then adds three foot deformities: a bony knob projecting at the base of the big toe (or thumb), a heel that juts out behind the foot, and broad, flat feet resembling those of a goose. All of these fall under the Torah’s general category of ‘shever regel’ (Vayikra 21:19), as the Gemara will shortly derive.
Key Terms:
- בַּעַל הַפִּיקִים = one with large bony protuberances (pikim) on the legs
- עִיקֵּל = bowlegged — feet together, knees apart
- אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו = his knees
- פִּיקָּה יוֹצֵא מִגּוּדָּלוֹ = a knob of bone projecting at his big toe or thumb
- עֲקֵיבוֹ יוֹצֵא לַאֲחוֹרָיו = his heel protrudes behind
- כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז = like a goose’s — broad and flat
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Fused and overlapping fingers, where the joint is the boundary, and an extra digit removed: the bone decides
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו מוּרְכָּבוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ, אוֹ קְלוּטוֹת לְמַעְלָה עַד הַפֶּרֶק — כָּשֵׁר, לְמַטָּה מִן הַפֶּרֶק וַחֲתָכָהּ — כָּשֵׁר, הָיְתָה בָּהּ יְתֶרֶת וַחֲתָכָהּ, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם — פָּסוּל, וְאִם לָאו — כָּשֵׁר.
English Translation:
A priest whose fingers or toes are configured one upon the other, or one whose fingers or toes are attached, is likewise disqualified. But if they were attached from above the palm of the hand or the bottom of the foot only until the middle joint, he is fit. If they were attached below the joint, higher up on the finger or toe, and he cut to separate them, he is fit. In a case where there was an extra finger or toe on his hand or foot and he cut it, if that extra appendage contains a bone, the priest is disqualified even after it was cut, and if there is no bone the priest is fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna turns to the hands. Fingers or toes that lie one over the other, or that are joined together, constitute a blemish. The joint is the dividing line: webbing that runs only from the base of the digit up to the middle joint is a normal configuration and the kohen is fit; webbing that extends beyond the joint is a blemish, but if he surgically separates the digits he becomes fit again. An extra digit that is removed is treated differently: if it contained bone, its removal leaves the kohen ‘missing a limb’ (chaser) and he remains disqualified, whereas a boneless growth may simply be cut away.
Key Terms:
- מוּרְכָּבוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ = overlapping one upon another
- קְלוּטוֹת = joined, webbed together
- פֶּרֶק = joint (here, the middle knuckle of the digit)
- וַחֲתָכָהּ = and he cut it (to separate the digits or remove the growth)
- יְתֶרֶת = an extra digit
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה (מחלוקת)
Two disputes: twenty-four digits (R. Yehuda fit, Sages unfit) and the ambidextrous kohen (Rebbi unfit, Sages fit)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵר בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו, שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ — עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין. הַשּׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו — רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.
English Translation:
If there was an extra appendage on his hands and on his feet, six on each for a total of twenty-four, Rabbi Yehuda deems the priest fit and the Rabbis deem him disqualified. With regard to one who is ambidextrous and has control of both of his hands, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the priest disqualified, as his halakhic status is like that of one who is left-handed, and the Rabbis deem him fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna closes the hand-and-foot section with two disagreements. A kohen with six digits on each hand and foot, twenty-four in all, is fit according to Rabbi Yehuda, since the extra digits are symmetrical and complete, while the Sages see it as an irregularity that disqualifies him. Regarding the ambidextrous kohen, the positions are reversed in a sense: Rebbi disqualifies him, viewing his use of the left hand as a sign of weakness in the right (akin to one who is left-handed, who is disqualified), while the Sages consider him fit. The Gemara on 45b will trace both disputes to their roots.
Key Terms:
- יָתֵר בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו = an extra digit on his hands and feet
- שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ — עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע = six and six, twenty-four in total
- הַשּׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו = one who controls both his hands — ambidextrous
- רַבִּי = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, redactor of the Mishna
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
‘Or broken-footed’: the extra word ‘or’ includes all leg deformities; Rabbi Yochanan defines ba’al happikin and shufnar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁבֶר רָגֶל — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁבֶר רֶגֶל, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הַקִּישָׁן וְהָעִיקֵּל וְהַקִּילְבָּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ שֶׁבֶר רָגֶל״. תָּנָא: בַּעַל הַקִּיפִּין וְהַשּׁוּפְנָר. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּעַל הַפִּיקִּין — שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כְּסָתוֹת הַרְבֵּה, שׁוּפְנָר — שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּסָתוֹת כׇּל עִיקָּר.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From the verse that states: “Broken-footed” (Leviticus 21:19), I have derived only that a broken leg disqualifies a priest from performing the Temple service. From where do I derive to include that the kishan, i.e., one who knocks his ankles or his knees together; the ikkel; and the kilvan are disqualified as well? The same verse states: “Or broken-footed.” The term “or” serves to include all blemishes of the leg. It was also taught in a baraita: A ba’al hakippin and the shufnar are blemished. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A ba’al happikin is one who has large protuberances on his leg, while a shufnar is one who has no protuberances at all.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens with a baraita deriving the leg blemishes from the Torah. The verse ‘or shever regel’ (Vayikra 21:19) could have been read narrowly as referring only to a literally broken leg; the word ‘or’ broadens it to include the kishan (whose ankles or knees knock together), the ikkel, and the kilvan. A second baraita adds the ba’al happikin and the shufnar, and Rabbi Yochanan defines them as opposites: the former has many large bony protuberances, the latter has none at all, so that his leg lacks its normal contours. Both extremes deviate from the norm, which is the governing principle of this whole perek.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁבֶר רָגֶל = ‘broken-footed’ — the Torah’s term (Vayikra 21:19)
- ״אוֹ״ = ‘or’ — an inclusive term that broadens the category
- קִישָׁן = one whose ankles or knees knock together
- קִילְבָּן = a leg deformity listed in the 44b mishna
- כְּסָתוֹת = protuberances, bony bulges on the leg
- שׁוּפְנָר = one whose leg lacks the normal protuberances entirely
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא (פירוש המשנה)
Rabbi Elazar: the ‘protruding heel’ means the shin sits in the middle of the foot; Rav Pappa: goose feet means flat, even with separated toes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פִּיקָּה יוֹצָא מִגּוּדָּלוֹ, וַעֲקֵיבוֹ יוֹצֵא לַאֲחוֹרָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שׁוֹקוֹ יוֹצֵא בָּאֶמְצַע רַגְלוֹ. פַּרְסוֹתָיו רְחָבוֹת כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא תֵּימָא דִּטְרִיפָה וְלָא סְדִיקָא, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דִּטְרִיפָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּסְדִיקָא.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches that one with a protuberance emerging alongside the thumb of his hand or the big toe of his foot, and one whose heel emerges and protrudes back from his foot are disqualified. Rabbi Elazar says: The description: One whose heel emerges and protrudes back from his foot, means his calf, i.e., his lower leg, emerges from the middle of his foot. The mishna also teaches that one whose feet are wide like those of a goose is disqualified. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that this is referring only to one whose feet are entirely like those of a goose, i.e., his feet are flat and his toes are not split. Rather, once one’s feet are flat he is considered blemished, even though his toes are split.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains two clauses of the mishna. Rabbi Elazar interprets ‘his heel protrudes behind’ as describing a leg that joins the foot at its midpoint rather than at the rear, so that a long section of heel extends backward. Rav Pappa clarifies the comparison to a goose: one should not think the blemish requires both features of a goose’s foot (a flat sole and webbed, unsplit toes). Flatness alone is enough, even if his toes are properly separated. The definitions show the Gemara tightening the mishna’s images into precise anatomical criteria.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹקוֹ = his shin, lower leg
- בָּאֶמְצַע רַגְלוֹ = in the middle of his foot
- טְרִיפָה = flat (of the sole)
- סְדִיקָא = split — toes separated
- לָא תֵּימָא… אֶלָּא = do not say… rather — a formula correcting a mistaken reading
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
On fused fingers: the baraita begins its derivation from ‘broken-handed’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו מוּרְכָּבוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ, אוֹ קְלוּטוֹת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שֶׁבֶר יָד״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁבֶר יָד.
English Translation:
The mishna further teaches that a priest whose fingers or toes are configured one upon the other, or whose fingers or toes are attached, is likewise disqualified from performing the Temple service. But if they were attached from the hand or foot from above the palm of the hand or the bottom of the foot until the middle joint, or if they were attached below the joint, higher up on the finger or toe, and he cut to separate them, he is fit. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Broken-handed” (Leviticus 21:19). I have derived only that a broken hand disqualifies a priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites the mishna’s clause about overlapping and webbed fingers and brings a parallel baraita, structured exactly like the one on the legs. The verse ‘shever yad’ (Vayikra 21:19), read literally, would teach only that a broken hand is a blemish. The baraita is about to extend the category to other hand deformities, and the next segment will show that the extension needs careful wording to avoid contradicting the mishna.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁבֶר יָד = ‘broken-handed’ (Vayikra 21:19)
- אֵין לִי אֶלָּא = I have only (this case) — the opening of a midrashic expansion
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The baraita cannot mean separated fingers are unfit, since the mishna rules them fit; it must mean webbed fingers that were not cut
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶצְבָּעוֹת מוּרְכָּבוֹת לְמַעְלָה אוֹ קְלוּטוֹת לְמַעְלָה מִן הַפֶּרֶק, וְהָאָמְרַתְּ כָּשֵׁר! אֶלָּא וְלֹא חֲתָכָן, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ שֶׁבֶר יָד״.
English Translation:
From where do I derive that if his fingers or toes are configured one upon the other, or if they are attached from the hand or foot above the middle joint and he cut them to separate them, that he is disqualified? The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to ask: But didn’t you say in the mishna that if he separates his fingers he is fit? Rather, the baraita is referring to a priest whose fingers or toes are attached above the middle joint and he did not cut them. From where is it derived that he is disqualified? The verse states: “Or broken-handed.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita as it was first cited spoke of fingers joined above the joint ‘and he cut them,’ and declared such a kohen disqualified. The Gemara immediately objects: the mishna explicitly rules that one who separated such fingers is fit! The baraita is therefore emended to read ‘and he did not cut them.’ It is the uncorrected webbing above the joint that the word ‘or’ in ‘or broken-handed’ includes as a blemish, in harmony with the mishna. This is a typical case of the Gemara adjusting a baraita’s text to resolve a contradiction with a mishna.
Key Terms:
- וְהָאָמְרַתְּ כָּשֵׁר = but you said (in the mishna) he is fit!
- אֶלָּא = rather — introducing the corrected reading
- וְלֹא חֲתָכָן = and he did not cut them
- ״אוֹ שֶׁבֶר יָד״ = ‘or broken-handed’ — the inclusive ‘or’ again
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan: an excised extra digit with bone disqualifies only if it stood in line with the other fingers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָיְתָה בּוֹ יְתֶרֶת וַחֲתָכָהּ, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם — פָּסוּל, וְאִם לָאו — כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁנִּסְפֶּרֶת עַל גַּבֵּי הַיָּד.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: In a case where there was an extra finger or toe on his hand or foot and he cut it, if that extra appendage contains a bone, the priest is disqualified even after it was cut, as he is considered to be missing a limb, and if not, the priest is fit. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And this is the halakha only in a case where it can be counted along the back of the hand or foot, i.e., the extra digit is situated in a row with his other fingers or toes. Only in such a situation is an additional appendage considered a distinct limb to the extent that if it contains a bone he is disqualified even after it has been cut away.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna ruled that a kohen whose extra bony digit was cut off remains disqualified as ‘missing a limb.’ Rabbi Yochanan, through Rabba bar bar Chana, restricts this: the digit counts as a genuine limb only when it is ‘counted along the back of the hand,’ that is, it stands in the row with the other fingers as a true sixth finger. A growth protruding elsewhere on the hand is not a limb, so removing it does not leave him lacking a limb. This criterion of being ‘nisperet’ will now carry over into the laws of impurity.
Key Terms:
- רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה = Amora who transmits many teachings of Rabbi Yochanan
- נִסְפֶּרֶת עַל גַּבֵּי הַיָּד = counted along the back of the hand — aligned with the other fingers
- אֵבֶר = limb (a bone with flesh and sinews)
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
Impurity of an extra digit from a corpse: with bone but no nail it imparts impurity by contact, carrying and ohel, and joins the count of 125 bones
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יְתֵירָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם, וְאֵין בָּהּ צִפּוֹרֶן — מְטַמָּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וּמְטַמָּא בְּאֹהֶל, וְעוֹלָה לְמִנְיַן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּבְנִסְפֶּרֶת עַל גַּב הַיָּד.
English Translation:
With regard to extra appendages the Sages taught: In the case of an extra appendage that was cut from a corpse, which contains a bone, then even if it does not have a nail it imparts ritual impurity both through contact and by carrying it, and it imparts impurity in a tent,as is the halakha with regard to the limb of a corpse. And if the extra appendage has no flesh surrounding the bone and therefore does not impart the impurity of a limb from a corpse, it is included in the count of 125 bones, which constitute a majority of the number of bones in a human being. A majority of bones imparts impurity in a tent, even if there is no flesh on any of them. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And it is considered a limb only when it can be counted along the back of the hand or foot.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara extends the discussion of extra digits to tumat met, the impurity of a corpse. A baraita rules that such a digit, if it contains bone, has the status of a limb from a corpse even without a fingernail: it imparts impurity by contact (maga), by carrying (masa), and under a roof (ohel). If it is bare bone, it still counts toward the 125 bones that form a majority of the skeleton, which together impart impurity in a tent. Rabbi Yochanan again limits this to a digit counted in line with the others on the hand, matching his ruling for the kohen.
Key Terms:
- מְטַמָּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא = imparts impurity by contact and by carrying
- מְטַמָּא בְּאֹהֶל = imparts impurity to people and objects under the same roof
- צִפּוֹרֶן = fingernail
- מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה = 125 — a majority of the 248 limbs/bones of the body
- אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת = a limb of a corpse, which imparts impurity like the corpse itself
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Chisda reports Rav’s ruling: an extra digit with bone but no nail imparts impurity by contact and carrying, but not in a tent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל אֲמָרוֹ, הַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ: יְתֶרֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם וְאֵין בָּהּ צִפּוֹרֶן — מְטַמָּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵין מְטַמָּא בְּאֹהֶל. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּבְשֶׁאֵינָהּ נִסְפֶּרֶת עַל גַּב הַיָּד.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda says: This matter was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. An extra appendage that contains a bone and does not have a nail imparts ritual impurity through contact and by carrying, but it does not impart impurity in a tent. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And it does not impart impurity in a tent only when it is not counted along the back of the hand or foot.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda introduces a teaching of ‘our great rabbi,’ Rav, with a phrase of reverence and blessing. Rav’s ruling is a middle position: the extra digit imparts impurity by contact and carrying, but not by ohel. Rabbi Yochanan’s transmission harmonizes this with the baraita by applying it to a digit that is not counted in line with the other fingers. The result is a three-tier picture: a digit in line is a full limb, one not in line has a reduced status, and the Gemara now asks how such a reduced status makes sense.
Key Terms:
- רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל = our great teacher — Rav Chisda’s title for Rav
- הַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ = may the Omnipresent be his help — a phrase of honour and blessing
- וְאֵין מְטַמָּא בְּאֹהֶל = but does not impart impurity in a tent
- שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִסְפֶּרֶת = that is not counted in line with the fingers
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Yochanan: the ruling is like prophecy — whichever way you look at it, it lacks logic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עָשׂוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּדִבְרֵי נְבִיאוּת, מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי אֵבֶר הוּא — בְּאֹהֶל נָמֵי תְּטַמֵּא, וְאִי לָאו אֵבֶר הוּא — בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא נָמֵי לָא לִיטַמֵּי!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sages rendered their statements in this case like statements of prophecy, i.e., there is no rationale for this halakha, as whichever way you look at it there is a difficulty: If a digit that is not counted with the other digits is considered a limb, it should impart impurity in a tent as well; and if it is not a limb, it also should not impart impurity through contact or by carrying.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan sharply questions the middle position. Either the non-aligned digit is a limb, in which case it should impart impurity in a tent as well, or it is not, in which case it should impart no impurity at all. Calling the Sages’ words ‘like words of prophecy’ means that the ruling is accepted on authority but has no evident reasoning behind it. The next two segments offer two rationales to rescue the ruling from this charge.
Key Terms:
- עָשׂוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּדִבְרֵי נְבִיאוּת = they made their words like words of prophecy — a ruling without stated reasoning
- מָה נַפְשָׁךְ = whichever way you look at it — a dilemma
- אִי… וְאִי = if… and if — the two horns of the dilemma
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Huna bar Manoach: the digit has the status of a bone the size of a barley grain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: מִשּׁוּם עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ said in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: This appendage imparts impurity through contact and by carrying because the Sages touched upon it, i.e., issued a ruling concerning it, and determined that the halakhot of a bone the volume of a barley grain apply to it, i.e., it is considered a bone fragment and not a limb. Accordingly, it does not impart impurity in a tent.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first answer gives the ruling a basis in established law. A bone of a corpse the size of a barley grain (etzem kase’orah) imparts impurity by contact and carrying but not in a tent, as the Mishna in Oholot teaches. The Sages simply classified the non-aligned digit as such a bone rather than a limb, so its pattern of impurity follows exactly that of a barley-grain bone. On this view the ruling is not illogical at all; the digit is neither a limb nor nothing, but a bone fragment.
Key Terms:
- עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה = a bone the size of a barley grain — imparts impurity by contact and carrying, not in a tent
- נָגְעוּ בָּהּ = they touched on it — they ruled concerning it
- מִשְּׁמֵיהּ = in the name of
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ וקושיא
Rav Pappa: a rabbinic decree, lest one confuse a non-aligned digit with an aligned one; then why not impart ohel impurity too?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִסְפֶּרֶת, אַטּוּ נִסְפֶּרֶת. אִי הָכִי, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִסְפֶּרֶת בְּאֹהֶל נָמֵי תְּטַמֵּא!
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said: It is a rabbinic decree that an appendage that is not counted with the other digits imparts impurity through contact and carrying, due to a case where the appendage is counted with the other digits,in which case it is considered a limb and imparts impurity in a tent. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then an appendage that is not counted should impart impurity in a tent as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa offers a different explanation. By Torah law a non-aligned digit may impart no impurity at all, but the Sages decreed that it impart impurity by contact and carrying lest people treat an aligned digit, which is a true limb, as pure. The Gemara presses the obvious objection: if the concern is confusion with a full limb, the decree should be complete and include impurity in a tent as well.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירָה… אַטּוּ = a decree (on this case) because of (that case)
- אִי הָכִי = if so
- נִסְפֶּרֶת / שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִסְפֶּרֶת = an aligned digit / a non-aligned digit
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
The partial decree is a deliberate marker, so that teruma and kodashim touched by it are not burned
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עֲבַדוּ רַבָּנַן הֶיכֵּירָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִישְׂרְפוּ עֲלַיְיהוּ תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: The Sages implemented a distinction by decreeing this appendage imparts impurity only through contact and carrying, in order that people will know that this impurity applies by rabbinic law and not by Torah law. And therefore they will not come to burn teruma, i.e., the portion of produce designated for the priest, or consecrated items that have been rendered impure on account of this type of impurity, as by Torah law they are ritually pure and may not be burned.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains that the incompleteness of the decree is intentional. By leaving out tent impurity, the Sages created a visible sign (heikera) that this impurity is rabbinic. Since teruma and consecrated food that contract an impurity only of rabbinic status are suspended rather than burned, the marker prevents people from burning food that is pure by Torah law. The answer illustrates a recurring rabbinic technique: a decree is shaped so that its rabbinic nature remains recognizable.
Key Terms:
- הֶיכֵּירָא = a distinguishing sign, a marker
- תְּרוּמָה = the priestly portion of produce, which must be burned if it becomes definitely impure
- קָדָשִׁים = consecrated items
- לִישְׂרְפוּ = they would burn
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה וברייתא
Oholot 2:1: a majority of the skeleton by structure or by number imparts impurity; the baraita defines both majorities
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: רוֹב בִּנְיָנוֹ וְרוֹב מִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוֹבַע — טְמֵאִין. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ רוֹב בִּנְיָנוֹ? שְׁנֵי שׁוֹקַיִים וְיָרֵךְ אֶחָד, הוֹאִיל וְרוֹב גּוֹבְהוֹ בְּגָדוֹל. אֵיזֶהוּ רוֹב מִנְיָנוֹ? מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה.
English Translation:
§ With regard to impurity imparted by extra appendages, we learned in a mishna there (Oholot 2:1): A majority of the skeletal structure or a majority of the number of bones in the corpse of a dead person, even when there is not a quarter of a kav of bones among them, are impure. Concerning the ruling of this mishna, the Sages taught in a baraita: What is considered a majority of the skeletal structure of a corpse? It is two calves and one thigh, since this constitutes a majority of the height of an adult. What is considered a majority of the number of bones? One hundred and twenty-five bones.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings the mishna in Oholot that underlies the earlier mention of the count of 125. Two kinds of majority of a corpse’s skeleton impart tent impurity even when the bones amount to less than a quarter-kav: a majority of its structure (rov binyano) and a majority of its number (rov minyano). The baraita defines the first as the two shins and one thigh, since together they make up most of a person’s height, and the second as 125 bones, a majority of the 248 limbs. These are independent thresholds, one measured by height and one by count.
Key Terms:
- רוֹב בִּנְיָנוֹ = the majority of its structure — defined by height
- רוֹב מִנְיָנוֹ = the majority of its number of bones — 125
- רוֹבַע = a quarter-kav of bones, another threshold for tent impurity
- שׁוֹקַיִים = the shins
- יָרֵךְ = thigh
- תְּנַן הָתָם = we learned there — citing a mishna from another tractate
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Ravina: is the tanna teaching arithmetic? Rava: 125 is a fixed number whatever this body’s count, following the majority of people
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: תַּנָּא מִנְיָינָא אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְתַנְיָא: חָסֵר, שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא מָאתַיִם, וְיָתֵר, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מָאתַיִם וּשְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד — כּוּלָּן עוֹלִין לְמִנְיַן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה, זִיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְאִינָשֵׁי.
English Translation:
Ravina said to Rava: Is the tanna coming to teach us a number? It is obvious that as there are 248 bones in the human body, 125 of them constitute a majority. Rava responded: The tanna teaches us that the halakha is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a corpse that lacks some bones and has only 200 bones, or one that has extra and has 281 bones, all of them are included in the count of 125. In other words, whether the number of 125 is in a majority or minority of that particular corpse, this number of bones imparts impurity, as one follows the majority of people, and most people have 248 bones.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina finds the number 125 superfluous: everyone knows the body has 248 limbs, and 125 is simply its majority. Rava answers that the number is fixed rather than relative. A body with only 200 bones or with as many as 281 still imparts impurity once 125 of its bones are present, even though 125 may be well over half or under half of that particular body. Halacha follows the norm of most people (zil batar ruba de’inashei), not the anomalies of the individual.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּא מִנְיָינָא אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן = is the tanna coming to teach us counting?
- חָסֵר / יָתֵר = a body lacking bones / with extra bones
- זִיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְאִינָשֵׁי = follow the majority of people
- רָבִינָא / רָבָא = Babylonian Amoraim
Segment 17
TYPE: סיפור
The students of Rabbi Yishmael examine the remains of an executed woman and count 252 limbs: a woman has two hinges and two doors more
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּתַלְמִידָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל שֶׁשָּׁלְקוּ זוֹנָה אַחַת שֶׁנִּתְחַיְּיבָה שְׂרֵיפָה לַמֶּלֶךְ, בָּדְקוּ וּמָצְאוּ בָּהּ מָאתַיִם וַחֲמִשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם, אָמַר לָהֶם: שֶׁמָּא בְּאִשָּׁה בְּדַקְתֶּם, שֶׁהוֹסִיף לָהּ הַכָּתוּב שְׁנֵי צִירִים וּשְׁנֵי דְּלָתוֹת.
English Translation:
With regard to the number of limbs or bones in the human body, Rabbi Yehuda says that Shmuel says: There was an incident involving the students of Rabbi Yishmael, who boiled the corpse of a prostitute who was sentenced by the king to death by burning, in order to separate her flesh from her bones. They examined and found she had 252 limbs. They were puzzled by their finding, as the Sages say that the human body has only 248 limbs. Shmuel said to them: Perhaps you examined the corpse of a woman, as the verse added to her two hinges and two doors, for a total of 252 limbs.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Shmuel relates a rare report of anatomical investigation in Chazal. The body of a woman executed by the government was given to the students of Rabbi Yishmael, who boiled it so that the bones could be separated and counted. They found 252 limbs rather than the 248 taught in Oholot 1:8. Their teacher explained that the 248 figure is based on a man, and that a woman’s body has four additional limbs, which the Sages called ‘two hinges and two doors,’ figurative names for parts of the female reproductive anatomy. The account reflects the Sages’ willingness to verify a halachic figure empirically and to treat the human body with sober, scholarly precision.
Key Terms:
- שָׁלְקוּ = they boiled (to separate flesh from bone)
- שֶׁנִּתְחַיְּיבָה שְׂרֵיפָה לַמֶּלֶךְ = who was condemned to burning by the king, i.e. by the ruling government
- מָאתַיִם וַחֲמִשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם = 252 limbs
- צִירִים = hinges
- דְּלָתוֹת = doors
- רַמַ״ח אֵבָרִים = the 248 limbs of the body (Oholot 1:8)
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Elazar finds the ‘hinges’ in Shmuel I 4:19 and Rabbi Yehoshua finds the ‘doors’ in Iyov 3:10
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁצִּירִים לַבַּיִת — כָּךְ צִירִים לָאִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתִּכְרַע וַתֵּלֶד כִּי נֶהֶפְכוּ עָלֶיהָ צִרֶיהָ״. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדְּלָתוֹת לַבַּיִת — כָּךְ דְּלָתוֹת לָאִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֹא סָגַר דַּלְתֵי בִטְנִי״.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: Just as a house has hinges [tzirim], so too, a woman has hinges, as it is stated: “And she bowed herself and brought forth, for her pains [tzireha] came suddenly upon her” (I Samuel 4:19). Rabbi Yehoshua says: Just as a house has doors, so too, a woman has doors, as it is stated: “Because it did not shut the doors of my womb” (Job 3:10).
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita shows that the house imagery for the female body is drawn from Tanakh. Rabbi Elazar reads the wife of Pinchas, who ‘bowed and gave birth, for her tzirim turned upon her,’ as using tzirim in its literal sense of hinges, the pivots on which the body opens in childbirth. Rabbi Yehoshua cites Iyov’s lament that ‘it did not shut the doors of my womb.’ The womb is thus pictured as a house, with hinges and doors that open at birth.
Key Terms:
- צִירִים לַבַּיִת = hinges of a house
- צִרֶיהָ = her pains — also read as her hinges (tzir)
- דַּלְתֵי בִטְנִי = the doors of my womb (Iyov 3:10)
- וַתִּכְרַע וַתֵּלֶד = and she crouched and gave birth (Shmuel I 4:19)
Segment 19
TYPE: ברייתא וקושיא ותירוץ
Rabbi Akiva adds a ‘key’ (from ‘He opened her womb’); the students found only four extra limbs, but the small one may have dissolved
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּפְתֵּחַ לַבַּיִת, כָּךְ מַפְתֵּחַ לָאִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּפְתַּח אֶת רַחְמָהּ״. לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קַשְׁיָא דְּתַלְמִידֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל! דִּלְמָא אַיְּידֵי דְּזוּטַר אִתְּמוֹחֵי מִתְּמַח.
English Translation:
Rabbi Akiva says: Just as there is a key to a house, so too, there is a key to a woman, as it is stated: “And He opened her womb” (Genesis 30:22). The Gemara challenges: The incident involving the students of Rabbi Yishmael, who found that the woman had only four additional limbs rather than five, i.e., there was no key, poses a difficulty for Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara responds: Perhaps since it is small, it dissolved in the water when they boiled the corpse.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva extends the image: just as a house has a key, so does a woman, as it says of Rachel, ‘and He opened her womb’ (Bereishit 30:22). This would yield five additional limbs, and the Gemara objects that Rabbi Yishmael’s students counted only four. The answer is that the ‘key’ is very small and could have disintegrated during boiling. The Gemara thereby preserves both the empirical report and Rabbi Akiva’s reading.
Key Terms:
- מַפְתֵּחַ = key
- וַיִּפְתַּח אֶת רַחְמָהּ = and He opened her womb (Bereishit 30:22)
- קַשְׁיָא = it is a difficulty
- אַיְּידֵי דְּזוּטַר אִתְּמוֹחֵי מִתְּמַח = since it is small, it dissolved
Segment 20
TYPE: מימרא
Rav: the additional limbs of a woman do not impart tent impurity, since ‘adam’ denotes what is common to all people
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב: וְכוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל״, דָּבָר הַשָּׁוֶה לְכׇל אָדָם.
English Translation:
Rav says: And all of them, i.e., all the limbs found only in a woman, do not impart impurity in a tent, as it is stated: “This is the law: When a person dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), indicating that only an item that is equal for all people, male and female, imparts impurity in a tent.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav limits the halachic impact of the extra limbs. The verse of tent impurity reads ‘This is the law: when a person (adam) dies in a tent’ (Bamidbar 19:14), and Rav reads ‘adam’ as referring to what is common to every human being. Since these four limbs exist only in women, a single one of them does not impart tent impurity as a limb of a corpse. The general count of 248 therefore remains the standard reference for all people.
Key Terms:
- ״אָדָם כִּי יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל״ = ‘a person who dies in a tent’ (Bamidbar 19:14)
- דָּבָר הַשָּׁוֶה לְכׇל אָדָם = something common to all people
- וְכוּלָּן = and all of them — the extra limbs of a woman
Segment 21
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Abaye: men too have ‘tzirim’ in Yeshayahu and Daniel; those are hinges of flesh, as the count of 248 proves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּבְאִישׁ לֵיכָּא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״צִירִים אֲחָזוּנִי כְּצִירֵי יוֹלֵדָה״! צִירֵי בָשָׂר. וְהָכְתִיב: ״אֲדֹנִי בַּמַּרְאָה נֶהֶפְכוּ צִירַי״! הָכָא נָמֵי צִירֵי בָשָׂר. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, מָאתַיִם וְאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנֶה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? לָא בְּאִישׁ וְלָא בְּאִשָּׁה.
English Translation:
Abaye said to him: And are there no hinges in a man? But isn’t it written: “Pangs [tzirim] have taken hold upon me, as the pangs of a woman in travail” (Isaiah 21:3)? The Gemara responds: The verse is referring specifically to hinges of flesh, which are not considered limbs, as they contain no bones. The Gemara persists: But isn’t it written: “My lord, by reason of the vision my pains [tzirai] come” (Daniel 10:16)? The Gemara responds: Here too, the verse is referring to hinges of flesh. The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable that the hinges of a male are only of flesh, as if you do not say so, then as far as the 248 limbs that the Sages stated constitute a human body, how can you find them? Neither in a man nor in a woman.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye challenges Rav: verses in Yeshayahu (‘tzirim have seized me like the pangs of a woman in labour’) and Daniel (‘my tzirim turned upon me’) attribute tzirim to men. The Gemara answers that these are ‘hinges of flesh,’ without bone, which are not counted as limbs. The Gemara adds a supporting argument: if men also had bony hinges, the number 248 would match neither a man nor a woman. The count fixed by the Mishna thus anchors the interpretation of the verses.
Key Terms:
- צִירֵי בָשָׂר = hinges of flesh — without bone, and therefore not limbs
- ״צִירִים אֲחָזוּנִי״ = ‘pangs have seized me’ (Yeshayahu 21:3)
- ״נֶהֶפְכוּ צִירַי״ = ‘my pangs have turned upon me’ (Daniel 10:16)
- הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא = so too it is reasonable — supporting logic
Amud Bet (45b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא (מקור המחלוקת)
Rabbi Yitzchak: both sides of the twenty-four-digit dispute read the same verse about the Philistine champion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵר בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, וַתְּהִי עוֹד מִלְחָמָה, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי אִישׁ מָדוֹן אֶצְבַּע יָדָיו וְאֶצְבַּע רַגְלָיו שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ״, מָר סָבַר בִּגְנוּתֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּעֵי, וּמָר סָבַר בִּשְׁבָחֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּעֵי.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if one has an extra appendage on his hands and on his feet, six on each for a total of twenty-four, Rabbi Yehuda deems him fit while the Rabbis disqualify him. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: And both derived their opinions from one verse, as it is stated with regard to David’s war against the Philistines: “And there was again war at Gath” (II Samuel 21:20), and it is also written in that same verse: “And there was a champion, who had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, twenty-four in number.” One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that the verse speaks of negative qualities of the champion, and therefore it may be derived from here that extra appendages are blemishes; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the verse speaks in his praise, which means that extra appendages are not blemishes at all.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzchak traces the dispute over twenty-four digits to the verse in Shmuel II 21:20 describing a Philistine ‘man of stature’ at Gat who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. The Sages read the description as part of the giant’s grotesqueness, which shows that extra digits are a deformity. Rabbi Yehuda reads it as praise of his formidable physique, which shows they are no blemish. A single verse thus yields opposite conclusions depending on whether its tone is heard as mockery or admiration.
Key Terms:
- אִישׁ מָדוֹן = a man of stature (or of strife) — the Philistine giant
- בִּגְנוּתֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּעֵי = it speaks to his disgrace
- בִּשְׁבָחֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּעֵי = it speaks in his praise
- מָר סָבַר… וּמָר סָבַר = one Sage holds… and the other holds
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא (דיוק בפסוק)
Rabba: ‘six and six’, ‘twenty-four’ and ‘in number’ are each needed to describe a symmetrical extra digit in line with the others
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה: מָה לִי דִּכְתִיב ״שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מִסְפָּר״? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: שֵׁית דִּידֵיהּ וְשֵׁית דְּכַרְעֵיהּ, כְּתַב ״עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע״. וְאִי כְּתַב ״עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הוּא חֲמֵשׁ מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּשְׁבַע מֵהַאי גִּיסָא, כְּתַב ״שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ״. ״מִסְפָּר״ — בְּנִסְפֶּרֶת עַל גַּבֵּי הַיָּד.
English Translation:
With regard to that verse, Rabba says: Why do I need that which is written in the verse: “On every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, twenty-four in number”? Isn’t it obvious that one who has six appendages on each limb will have twenty-four in total? Rabba explains: All of these details are necessary, as, had the Merciful One written only six and six, I would say there were six of his hand and six of his foot, i.e., he had only twelve appendages. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “twenty-four.” And had the Merciful One written only “twenty-four,” I would say he had five fingers on this side and seven fingers on that side. Therefore, the verse wrote six and six. The verse concludes with the term “in number” to indicate that these fingers were counted in a single row on the back of the hand.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba explains why the verse appears to repeat itself. ‘Six and six’ alone might mean six on his hands and six on his feet in total; ‘twenty-four’ alone might mean five on one side and seven on the other. Only the combination conveys six on each of the four limbs. The final word ‘mispar’ (in number) teaches that the extra digits were countable along the hand, in line with the others, which connects the verse to Rabbi Yochanan’s criterion from 45a.
Key Terms:
- מָה לִי = why do I need
- צְרִיכִי = they are necessary
- הֲוָה אָמֵינָא = I would have thought
- מֵהַאי גִּיסָא = from this side
- ״מִסְפָּר״ = ‘in number’ — countable in line on the hand
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא (מעשה)
Rabbi Tarfon and the man with twenty-four digits: a blessing of praise according to Rabbi Yehuda, a wish for decrease according to Rabbi Yosei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, יָתֵר בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע. אָמַר לוֹ: כְּמוֹתְךָ יִרְבּוּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה? כָּךְ אָמַר לוֹ: כְּמוֹתְךָ יִתְמַעֲטוּ מַמְזֵירֵי וּנְתִינֵי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל!
English Translation:
With regard to the dispute concerning whether or not extra appendages are a blemish, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: There was an incident involving one man who came before Rabbi Tarfon, and he had extra appendages on his hands and on his feet, six and six, for a total of twenty-four appendages. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: There should increase among the Jewish people those that are like you, i.e., strong men. Clearly, extra appendages are not a blemish but a praiseworthy condition. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Yehuda: You seek to bring a proof from there? This is what Rabbi Tarfon actually said to him: All mamzerim and Gibeonites should be like you, i.e., physically weak, so that they should decrease from the Jewish people.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda brings an incident in support of his view that extra digits are no blemish: Rabbi Tarfon greeted such a man with ‘May there be more like you in Israel,’ as if the trait were admirable. Rabbi Yosei disputes the report and reports Rabbi Tarfon’s words differently: ‘May the mamzerim and Netinim in Israel be as few as those like you.’ On this version Rabbi Tarfon saw the condition as a rare anomaly. The same incident thus mirrors the dispute over the verse.
Key Terms:
- כְּמוֹתְךָ יִרְבּוּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל = may those like you increase in Israel
- מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה = is there proof from there?
- מַמְזֵירֵי = mamzerim — children of forbidden unions, who may not marry into the general community
- נְתִינֵי = Netinim — descendants of the Givonim (Yehoshua 9), also barred from marrying into the community
- יִתְמַעֲטוּ = may they decrease
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא ומחלוקת
The left-handed kohen is disqualified; on the ambidextrous one, Rebbi sees weakness in the right, the Sages strength in the left
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשּׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן — אִיטֵּר, בֵּין בַּיָּד בֵּין בָּרֶגֶל — פָּסוּל. הַשּׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו — רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. מָר סָבַר — כְּחִישׁוּתָא אַתְחִלָא בְּיָמִין, וּמָר סָבַר — בְּרִיּוּתָא אַתְחִלָא בִּשְׂמֹאל.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that in the case of a priest who has control of both of his hands, i.e., he is ambidextrous, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him disqualified and the Rabbis deem him fit. With regard to this dispute the Sages taught in a baraita: One whose left side is dominant, whether his left hand or his left foot, is disqualified from performing the Temple service. Furthermore, in the case of one who has control of both of his hands, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him disqualified and the Rabbis deem him fit. The Gemara explains this dispute: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that he learned to control his left hand because a weakness began in his right hand. He is therefore disqualified, as his right hand is weak. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that a strength began in his left hand that allowed him to control both hands. Nevertheless, his right hand remains strong.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita rules that an itter, one whose left hand or foot is dominant, is disqualified, since the avodah is performed with the right hand. For one who uses both hands equally, the Gemara explains the dispute as a question of cause. Rebbi assumes the ambidexterity arose from a weakness in the right hand, which makes him comparable to a left-handed person. The Sages assume it arose from extra strength in the left, so his right hand is fully capable and he is fit.
Key Terms:
- אִיטֵּר = left-handed (or left-footed)
- כְּחִישׁוּתָא = weakness
- בְּרִיּוּתָא = strength, health
- אַתְחִלָא = began, developed
- יָמִין / שְׂמֹאל = right / left
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
Conditions that disqualify a kohen but not an animal: unusual complexion and stature, deafness, mental incapacity, drunkenness, pure skin marks; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar add qualifications
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַכּוּשִׁי, הַגִּיחוֹר, וְהַלַּבְקָן, וְהַקִּפֵּחַ, וְהַנַּנָּס, וְהַחֵרֵשׁ, וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה, וְהַשִּׁיכּוֹר, וּבַעֲלֵי נְגָעִים טְהוֹרִים — פְּסוּלִין בְּאָדָם וּכְשֵׁרִים בַּבְּהֵמָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹטָה מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּעֲלֵי הַדִּלְדּוּלִין פְּסוּלִין בָּאָדָם וּכְשֵׁרִין בַּבְּהֵמָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Concerning the kushi, the giḥor, the lavkan, the kipe’aḥ, the dwarf, the deaf-mute, the imbecile, the drunk, and those with ritually pure marks, their conditions disqualify a person from performing the Temple service and are valid, i.e., they do not disqualify with regard to being sacrificed, in the case of an animal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: An imbecile among animals is not optimal for sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar says: Even with regard to those with flesh or skin that hangs from their body, that blemish disqualifies in the case of a person and is valid in the case of an animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna lists conditions that disqualify a person from the avodah but do not disqualify an animal from the altar. These are the categories that 43b classed as disqualifying because of appearance (mar’it ha’ayin): the kohen does not look ‘equal among the seed of Aaron’, and the service in the Mikdash calls for a uniform, unremarkable appearance among those who serve. They include a kushi, gichor and lavkan (unusual complexions), the kipe’ach (unusually tall and gaunt) and the dwarf, the deaf-mute, the shoteh, the drunk, and one with pure nega’im. These are rules of the Temple service’s uniformity of appearance, not judgments of human worth. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel adds that a mentally deficient animal is valid but not choice, and Rabbi Elazar adds dangling growths of skin or flesh.
Key Terms:
- כּוּשִׁי = one of very dark complexion
- גִּיחוֹר / לַבְקָן = one of unusual complexion — red / very pale (as clarified in the Gemara)
- קִפֵּחַ = an unusually tall, gaunt person
- נַנָּס = dwarf
- חֵרֵשׁ / שׁוֹטֶה = a deaf-mute / one lacking mental capacity
- נְגָעִים טְהוֹרִים = skin marks that are not tzara’at and do not render him impure
- אֵינָהּ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר = not of the choicest — valid but not ideal
- דִּלְדּוּלִין = hanging growths of skin or flesh
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא (פירוש)
Defining the complexions: a first identification is overturned by the ‘lukiyani’ lamb; gichor is red, lavkan is white
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ כּוּשִׁי — אוּכָּמָא, גִּיחוֹר — חִיוָּורָא, לַבְקָן — סוּמָּקָא. אִינִי? וְהָא הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״מַאן בָּעֵי לוּקְיָאנֵי״, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח חִיוָּורָא! אֶלָּא: כּוּשִׁי — אוּכָּמָא, גִּיחוֹר — סוּמָּקָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: ״סוּמָּקָא גִּיחְיָא״, לַבְקָן — חִיוָּורָא, כְּהָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״מַאן בָּעֵי לוּקְיָאנֵי״, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח חִיוָּורֵי.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a kushi, a giḥor, and a lavkan are disqualified. The Gemara explains: A kushi is one whose skin is extremely black, a giḥor is one whose skin is extremely white, and a lavkan is one whose skin is extremely red. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But there was a certain person who said to others: Who wants a lukiyani lamb, and the lamb was found to be white. Rather, a kushi is one whose skin is extremely black; a giḥor is one whose skin is extremely red, as people say about one whose skin is extremely red: Giḥia red; and a lavkan is one whose skin is extremely white, as in the case of that person who said: Who wants a lukiyani, and it was found to be white.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara first suggests that kushi is very dark, gichor very white and lavkan red. It rejects this from a market incident: a seller called out ‘Who wants lukiyani?’ and the animals turned out to be white, which shows that the root lavkan means white. The definitions are corrected: gichor is red, as in the idiom ‘gichya red’, and lavkan is white. As with the leg blemishes, the Gemara uses everyday speech to fix the meaning of a technical term in the mishna.
Key Terms:
- אוּכָּמָא = black, dark
- חִיוָּורָא = white
- סוּמָּקָא = red
- לוּקְיָאנֵי = a market term for white animals, related to lavkan
- כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי = as people say — proof from common usage
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Is a tall man blemished? God takes pride in the tall Emori; Rav Pappa: the kipe’ach is tall and gaunt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קִפֵּחַ. תָּנֵי רַב זְבִיד: גָּבוֹהַּ. אִינִי? וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מִנַּיִן שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִשְׁתַּבֵּחַ בְּבַעֲלֵי קוֹמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָנֹכִי הִשְׁמַדְתִּי אֶת הָאֱמֹרִי מִפְּנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר כְּגֹבַהּ אֲרָזִים גׇּבְהוֹ״. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בַּאֲרִיכָא שְׁמִיטָה סַנְיָא.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that a kipe’aḥ is disqualified. Rav Zevid taught that this is referring to one who is extremely tall. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that one who is tall is considered blemished? But didn’t Rabbi Abbahu teach: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is praised through His destruction of those of stature? As it is stated: “Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars” (Amos 2:9). Rav Pappa said in response: The mishna is not referring to one who is tall and has a healthy build, but to one who is long, emaciated, and ugly.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Zevid identifies the kipe’ach as a tall person. The Gemara objects from Rabbi Abahu’s teaching that God’s greatness is shown in destroying the Emori ‘whose height was like the cedars’ (Amos 2:9); the victory over them would mean little if height were a defect. Rav Pappa answers that the mishna means a tall person who is disproportionately thin and lanky, whose appearance draws attention. Imposing stature in itself is no blemish.
Key Terms:
- גָּבוֹהַּ = tall
- בַּעֲלֵי קוֹמָה = people of great stature
- מִשְׁתַּבֵּחַ = takes pride, is praised
- אֲרִיכָא שְׁמִיטָה = tall and gaunt, lanky
- סַנְיָא = ugly, unsightly
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Reish Lakish’s advice against marriages that combine the same extreme of height or complexion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: גָּבוֹהַּ לֹא יִשָּׂא גְּבוֹהִית — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶן תּוֹרֶן, נַנָּס לֹא יִשָּׂא נַנֶּסֶת — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶם אֶצְבָּעִי, לָבָן לֹא יִשָּׂא לְבָנָה — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶם בּוֹהֵק, שָׁחוֹר לֹא יִשָּׂא שְׁחוֹרָה — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶן טָפוּחַ.
English Translation:
Reish Lakish says: A man who is tall should not marry a woman who is also tall, lest there emerge from them a child who is extremely tall. Similarly, a man who is a dwarf should not marry a woman who is also a dwarf, lest there emerge from them a child who is exceptionally short. A man whose skin is pale should not marry a woman whose skin is also pale, lest there emerge from them a child who is extremely pale. Likewise, a man whose skin is dark should not marry a woman whose skin is also dark, lest there emerge from them a child who is extremely dark.
קלאוד על הדף:
Prompted by the mishna’s categories of unusual appearance, Reish Lakish gives advice about marriage. Partners who share the same extreme trait (both very tall, both very short, both very pale or both very dark) risk having a child in whom the trait is greatly magnified. His words are practical counsel based on the observation that traits pass from parents to children, and they aim at moderation; they are not a judgment of any person’s worth. In context they explain how the unusual appearances that are disqualifying for the Temple service come about.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹרֶן = a mast — an extremely tall person
- אֶצְבָּעִי = finger-sized — an extremely short person
- בּוֹהֵק = extremely pale
- טָפוּחַ = extremely dark
- לֹא יִשָּׂא = should not marry — advice, not a prohibition
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
A drunk kohen profanes the avodah, so why is he listed with mere disqualifications of appearance?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַחֵרֵשׁ, הַשּׁוֹטֶה, וְהַשִּׁכּוֹר. שִׁכּוֹר מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה, בַּהֲדֵי מוּמֵי דְּמַחֲילִי עֲבוֹדָה בָּעֵי לְמִיחְשַׁב!
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that the deaf-mute, the imbecile, and the drunk are disqualified. The Gemara challenges: Since one who is drunk profanes the Temple service, the blemish of drunkenness should have been counted in the previous chapter together with those who have blemishes that profane the service. By contrast, those listed in this mishna are disqualified only because they are not equal among the seed of Aaron, and the halakha is that rites performed by priests with such blemishes are not profaned after the fact (see 43b).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes an anomaly in the mishna’s list. A kohen who serves after drinking wine profanes the service (Vayikra 10:9), so he belongs with the blemishes of the previous perek, whose service is invalid even after the fact. The list in this mishna contains only conditions whose service is valid after the fact, since they disqualify only because the kohen is ‘not equal among the seed of Aaron.’ Why then does the drunk appear here?
Key Terms:
- שִׁכּוֹר = drunk
- מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה = profanes (invalidates) the service
- בַּהֲדֵי = together with
- לְמִיחְשַׁב = to be counted
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
The mishna means drunkenness from other intoxicants, against Rabbi Yehuda, who holds a priest drunk on figs, milk or honey liable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים הַמְשַׁכְּרִים. וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: אָכַל דְּבֵילָה קְעִילִית, וְשָׁתָה חָלָב אוֹ דְּבַשׁ, נִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ — חַיָּיב.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where one became drunk through other intoxicating agents, not through wine. In such a case, the rites are not profaned. And this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that even in such a case the rites are profaned, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that a priest who ate pressed figs from Ke’ila or drank milk or honey, thereby becoming intoxicated, and entered the Sanctuary to serve, is liable to receive lashes. This is because he transgressed the prohibition: “Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 10:9). He understands that “strong drink” means any intoxicating agent. The verse indicates that one who performs the Temple service while drunk profanes the service, as it states immediately afterward: “And that you may put difference between the holy and the common.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the mishna refers to a kohen intoxicated by something other than wine. The Torah’s prohibition and the invalidation of the service apply only to wine, while other intoxication is a lesser disqualification. This contradicts Rabbi Yehuda, who reads ‘wine and strong drink’ as covering any intoxicant, so that a kohen who became drunk on pressed figs from Ke’ila, milk or honey and entered the Sanctuary is liable. The mishna follows the majority view.
Key Terms:
- שְׁאָר דְּבָרִים הַמְשַׁכְּרִים = other intoxicating substances
- דְּבֵילָה קְעִילִית = a pressed fig cake from Ke’ila, known for its potency
- ״יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר״ = ‘wine and strong drink’ (Vayikra 10:9)
- חַיָּיב = liable (to lashes)
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
The reverse list: conditions that disqualify an animal from the altar but not a kohen
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִין בָּאָדָם וּפְסוּלִין בַּבְּהֵמָה: אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, טְרֵיפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וְשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבֵירָה, וְשֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם.
English Translation:
MISHNA: These flaws do not disqualify a person from performing the Temple service, but they do disqualify an animal from being sacrificed: An animal whose mother or offspring were slaughtered that day, as slaughtering it would violate the prohibition against slaughtering the animal itself and its offspring on the same day; a tereifa; one born by caesarean section; one with which a transgression of bestiality was performed; and one that killed a person.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna now gives the opposite list: conditions that disqualify an animal but are irrelevant to a kohen. An animal whose mother or offspring was slaughtered that day (oto ve’et beno), a tereifa, an animal born by caesarean section (yotzei dofen), one used for a forbidden act, and one that killed a person are all unfit for the altar. A kohen in parallel circumstances, for example a son serving with his father, or a kohen born by caesarean section, may serve. The parallel prompts the Gemara’s question about the first item.
Key Terms:
- אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ = an animal and its offspring, which may not be slaughtered on the same day (Vayikra 22:28)
- טְרֵיפָה = an animal with a fatal defect
- יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן = born through the abdominal wall, by caesarean section
- שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבֵירָה = with which a transgression was committed (bestiality)
- שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם = that killed a person
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
A kohen in a forbidden marriage, or who defiles himself for the dead, is disqualified until he commits to reform
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא נָשִׁים בַּעֲבֵירָה — פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיַּדִּירֶנָּה הֲנָאָה, וְהַמִּטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים — פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים.
English Translation:
And a priest who marries women by a transgression, e.g., a divorcée or a woman who underwent ḥalitza, is disqualified from performing the Temple service until he vows not to derive benefit from her. The vow ensures that he will divorce her promptly. And a priest who becomes impure through exposure to corpses is disqualified from performing the Temple service until he accepts upon himself a commitment that he will no longer become impure through exposure to corpses.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two disqualifications of a kohen follow that depend on his conduct rather than his body. A kohen married to a woman forbidden to him, such as a divorcee or a chalutza, may not serve until he vows to derive no benefit from her, which in effect commits him to divorce her. A kohen who makes himself impure through contact with the dead may not serve until he undertakes to stop. In both cases the disqualification lasts as long as he persists in the transgression, and a firm commitment to reform lifts it.
Key Terms:
- הַנּוֹשֵׂא נָשִׁים בַּעֲבֵירָה = one who marries women in transgression — forbidden to a kohen (Vayikra 21:7)
- שֶׁיַּדִּירֶנָּה הֲנָאָה = that he vow not to derive benefit from her
- הַמִּטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים = one who defiles himself for the dead
- שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו = that he accept upon himself, commit
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
What human parallel to ‘oto ve’et beno’ could the mishna mean?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ וְאֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁירִין בָּאָדָם, מַאי (באותו) [״אוֹתוֹ] וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״?
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches about these flaws that do not disqualify a person from performing the Temple service but do disqualify an animal from being sacrificed, one of which is: Itself and its offspring. The Gemara asks: To what possible case involving people is the mishna referring when it differentiates between people and animals with regard to the flaw of: Itself and its offspring?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara questions the first item in the list. Saying that the rule is ‘valid for a person’ means there must be a human parallel that is permitted, and the Gemara asks what that could be. The next segment considers the possibilities.
Key Terms:
- מַאי = what is
- ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ = itself and its offspring
- כְּשֵׁירִין בָּאָדָם = valid in a person
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Aaron and his sons would parallel a father goat, but the prohibition applies only to females; a mother and son would mean a female kohen, who does not serve
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִילֵּימָא אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, דִּכְוָתֵיהּ תַּיִישׁ וּבְנוֹ, מִי נָהֵיג? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בִּנְקֵבוֹת, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים! אֶלָּא תְּיָישָׁה וּבְנָהּ, דִּכְוָותַהּ הָכָא כֹּהֶנֶת וּבְנָהּ, כֹּהֶנֶת בַּת עֲבוֹדָה הִיא?
English Translation:
If we say this is referring to Aaron and his sons, and it means that they may serve in the Temple on the same day, then in the corresponding situation the mishna must be referring to a male goat and its offspring. And does such a prohibition apply? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day applies to female animals, i.e., a mother and its offspring, but it does not apply to males, i.e., a father and its offspring. Rather, the mishna is referring to a female goat and its offspring, that they may not be slaughtered on the same day. If so, in the corresponding situation here, with regard to the priesthood, the mishna must be referring to a female priest and her son. But is a female priest fit for performing the Temple service at all? Clearly not.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests two possibilities and finds problems with both. If the parallel is Aaron and his sons serving on the same day, the animal case would be a male goat and its offspring, but a baraita teaches that oto ve’et beno applies only to the mother, not the father. If the animal case is a mother and her offspring, the human parallel would be a female kohen and her son, and a woman does not serve in the Temple at all. Neither reading seems to work.
Key Terms:
- אִילֵּימָא = if you say
- תַּיִישׁ = a male goat
- תְּיָישָׁה = a female goat
- נוֹהֵג בִּנְקֵבוֹת וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים = applies to females and not to males
- כֹּהֶנֶת = a woman of priestly lineage
- בַּת עֲבוֹדָה = eligible for the service
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
The mishna does mean Aaron and his sons, and follows Chananya, who applies oto ve’et beno to males too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, דִּכְוָותַהּ הָכָא תַּיִישׁ וּבְנוֹ. אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: עֲדָא אָמְרָה חֲנַנְיָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בִּנְקֵבוֹת וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים, חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר: נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים וּבִנְקֵבוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: Actually, the mishna is referring to Aaron and his sons, and in the corresponding situation here, it is referring to a male goat and its offspring. And as for the difficulty that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, applies only to the mother, they said in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: That is to say, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, as it is taught in a baraita: The prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day applies to female animals but it does not apply to male animals. Ḥananya says: It applies to both male and female animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara keeps the first reading: Aaron and his sons, paralleled by a male goat and its offspring. In Eretz Yisrael they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin that the mishna follows the minority view of Chananya, who holds that the prohibition applies to fathers as well as mothers. According to Chananya the contrast in the mishna is coherent: a father and son may not be slaughtered on the same day, but a father and son may serve together.
Key Terms:
- לְעוֹלָם = actually, in truth
- בְּמַעְרְבָא = in the West — Eretz Yisrael
- עֲדָא אָמְרָה = this says, this implies
- חֲנַנְיָה = Tanna who disagrees with the Sages
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא
The kohen found to be in a forbidden marriage in the middle of the avodah vows and continues, then descends and divorces
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא נָשִׁים כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: נוֹדֵר וְעוֹבֵד, יוֹרֵד וּמְגָרֵשׁ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that a priest who marries women by a transgression is disqualified from performing the Temple service until he vows not to derive benefit from her. It is taught in a baraita: If a priest was performing a sacrificial rite and it was discovered that he married a woman who was forbidden to him, he does not stop performing the rite. Rather, he vows not to derive benefit from her and then continues to perform the rite. Once he has finished, he descends from the altar and divorces his wife.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita gives the practical procedure for the mishna’s ruling. If a kohen in the middle of the service is found to be married to a woman forbidden to him, he does not stop and leave. He takes the vow forbidding all benefit from her on the spot and completes the service, and once he has descended he gives her a get. The vow alone suffices for the service to continue, and the Gemara now asks whether a vow is a firm enough guarantee.
Key Terms:
- נוֹדֵר וְעוֹבֵד = he vows and serves
- יוֹרֵד וּמְגָרֵשׁ = he descends and divorces
- תָּנָא = it was taught
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A vow can be annulled by a Sage; but the tanna holds that one must specify the vow, and no Sage will release this one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָזֵיל לְגַבֵּי חָכָם וְשָׁרֵי לֵיהּ! קָסָבַר: צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: How can he be permitted to perform the Temple service before actually divorcing his wife? But let us be concerned that perhaps he will go before a Sage who will dissolve his vow. The Gemara responds: The tanna holds that when one seeks to dissolve a vow, he must delineate the conditions of the vow to the Sage. Accordingly, when the Sage hears that he uttered this vow because he married a woman who was forbidden to him, the Sage will not dissolve it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects that a vow is a weak guarantee: the kohen might go to a Sage and have it annulled (hatarat nedarim), and then keep the woman. The answer is that the tanna holds that one seeking annulment must tell the Sage the content and circumstances of the vow (tzarich lefaret et haneder). Once the Sage hears that the vow was taken to end a forbidden marriage, he will not annul it.
Key Terms:
- לֵיחוּשׁ = let us be concerned
- חָכָם = a Sage authorized to annul vows
- וְשָׁרֵי לֵיהּ = and he releases it for him
- צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר = one must specify the vow
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
For the view that specification is not needed: the vow is administered in public
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּמַדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ בְּרַבִּים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says one must delineate the conditions of the vow. But according to the one who says he does not need to delineate the conditions of the vow, what can be said? The Gemara responds that we administer the vow to the priest in public. Such a vow cannot be dissolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses: according to the view that one need not specify the vow to the Sage, the concern returns. The answer is that the kohen is made to vow in public, before many people. A vow taken in public is regarded as harder to annul, as the next segment spells out. The Gemara thus closes the gaps one by one, so that the kohen’s commitment cannot easily be undone.
Key Terms:
- הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר = this works well for the one who says
- אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר = but for the one who says
- מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר = what is there to say?
- בְּרַבִּים = in public, before many people
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (נמשך לדף מ״ו)
For the view that even a public vow can be annulled, the answer begins ‘we administer the vow…’ and continues on 46a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּדַּר בְּרַבִּים אֵין לוֹ הֲפָרָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ לוֹ הֲפָרָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּמַדְּרִינַן
English Translation:
The Gemara persists: This works out well according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has no option of nullification by a halakhic authority, but according to the one who says it has the option of nullification, what can be said? The Gemara responds that we administer the vow
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a final objection. Some hold that even a vow taken in public can be annulled, so a public vow is no guarantee either. The answer begins here, ‘we administer the vow,’ and continues on 46a, where the Gemara completes it: the vow is administered ‘al da’at rabbim’, dependent on the consent of the public, and such a vow cannot be annulled without them. The dispute over the strength of public vows is the basis for the laws of vowing ‘al da’at rabbim’ in the halachic codes.
Key Terms:
- נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּדַּר בְּרַבִּים = a vow taken in public
- הֲפָרָה = annulment (here used loosely for release by a Sage)
- דְּמַדְּרִינַן = we administer the vow — the sentence continues on 46a
- עַל דַּעַת רַבִּים = dependent on the consent of the public — the completion on 46a