Parallel
בכורות 43
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
The difference is with reference to disqualifying [the woman] where there are suitable brothers. There is also a difference as to whether halizah should be performed where there are no other brothers. MISHNAH. THESE BLEMISHES [NAMED ABOVE], WHETHER PERMANENT OR TRANSITORY, MAKE HUMAN BEINGS UNFIT. TO THEM MUST BE ADDED [IN THE CASE OF BLEMISHES OF HUMAN BEINGS]. KILON, LIFTAN, MAKKABAN, ONE WHOSE HEAD IS ANGULAR AND ONE WHOSE OCCIPUT HAS THE SHAPE OF SEKIFAS [LINTEL]. AS REGARDS HUMPBACKED MEN, R. JUDAH CONSIDERS THEM FIT, WHEREAS THE SAGES CONSIDER THEM UNFIT. A BALD-HEADED PERSON IS UNFIT [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD]. BALD-HEADED [IN THE LEGAL SENSE] IS HE WHO HAS NOT A LINE OF HAIR FROM EAR TO EAR. IF HOWEVER HE HAS, THEN HE IS FIT. GEMARA. But why [do these blemishes make a human being unfit]? And is there not the case of yabeleth, which is not written in the Scriptures in connection with the blemishes of a human being? And, moreover, dak and teballul , [mentioned above as blemishes in regard to a firstling], are not mentioned in the Law in connection with the blemishes of an animal? — We infer one from the other. For it was taught: In connection with a human being. yabeleth is not stated [as a blemish] and in connection with an animal, dak and teballul are not stated as blemishes. Whence do we infer that we apply the expressions used in connection with one to the other and vice versa? The text states ‘garab’, [a dry scab], [in connection with a human being] and repeats ‘garab’ [in connection with an animal]; also ‘yallefeth’, [lichen] is stated [in connection with a human being] and ‘yallefeth’ is repeated [in connection with an animal], in order to conclude a gezarah shawah. Now [these] expressions are free [for interpretation]. For if they were not free [for interpretation], it can be objected [as follows]: We cannot infer [the blemishes in connection with] a human being from those of an animal, for in the latter case the animal itself is offered on the altar. Again we cannot infer [blemishes in connection with an] animal from those in connection with a human being, as the latter has many commands to carry out. Surely it is so? [These expressions] are indeed free [for interpretation]. For the Divine Law should say that ‘yallefeth’ is a blemish, and there would be no need to state ‘garab’, as I would have argued [as follows]: If ‘yallefeth’, which is not repulsive. is yet considered a disqualifying blemish, how much more so is this the case with reference to garab, which is repulsive? What need is there therefore for the Divine Law to write, ‘garab’, ‘garab’? They must consequently be free [for interpretation]. And why does not the Divine Law state all the blemishes in one connection and ‘garab’ and ‘yallefeth’ both here [in connection with a human being] and there [in connection with an animal], and then we would have inferred one [section of blemishes] from the other [section]? — In connection with which [section of blemishes] should the Divine Law have stated [all the blemishes]? If it had stated them in connection with a human being, I might have thought that whatever blemish disqualifies a human being also disqualifies an animal; closed hoofs and defective teeth, however, which do not apply to a human being, do not make the animal unfit either. And if the Divine Law had stated all [the blemishes] in connection with an animal, I might have thought that whatever makes an animal unfit makes a human being unfit, but the blemishes of a defective eyebrow or flat nose, which do not apply to an animal, do not make a human being unfit either. And why does not the Divine Law state all the [appropriate] blemishes in connection with one [section of blemishes], and those blemishes which do not apply to a human being, let the Divine Law mention in connection with [the blemishes of] an animal and let those blemishes which do not apply to an animal be stated in connection with human blemishes, together with garab and yallefeth written both here [among the blemishes of a human being] and there [among the blemishes of an animal], so that one may be inferred from the other? — Rather [the explanation is] as a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: Wherever a section of the Law is taught and afterwards repeated, the section is repeated for the sake of a new point added. Said Raba: What need is there for the Divine Law to state blemishes in connection with a human being, [a priest], consecrated sacrifices, and a first-born animal? It was necessary [to state all these sections of blemishes]. For if the Divine Law had only stated the section of blemishes in connection with a human being. we might have thought that the reason was because he carries out many commands. We cannot again infer [the blemishes] of a human being from those of a first-born animal, as we might have thought that the reason in the latter case was because the animal itself was offered up on the altar. You cannot either infer [the blemishes of] consecrated animals from those of a first-born animal, as we might have thought that the reason in the latter case was because it was consecrated from the womb. Nor can you infer [the blemishes of] a human being from those of consecrated animals, as we might have thought that the reason in the case of the latter was that they themselves are sacrificed. Neither can you infer [the blemishes of] a first-born animal from those of consecrated animals, for we might have thought that the reason in the case of the latter was because the holiness [of a consecrated animal] has a wider scope. We cannot therefore infer one [section of blemishes] from another single [section of blemishes]. Why not, however, infer one [section of blemishes] from the other two? — Which [section] should the Divine Law have omitted? Should the Divine Law have omitted [the section relating to blemishes of] the first-born animal, leaving it to be inferred from the other [two sections of blemishes]? We might then have thought that the other [two sections] are different, seeing that their holiness has a wider scope and that they also apply to plain, [non-first-born]. Should the Divine Law have omitted [the section of blemishes relating to] consecrated animals, leaving me to infer it from the other two [sections]? We might then have thought that the reason in the latter case was because they are holy on their own accord. Should the Divine Law have omitted [the section of blemishes relating to] a human being, which we would then have inferred from the other two sections? I might have thought that the reason in the latter case was because they themselves are sacrificed on the altar. Hence it was necessary [to state the three sections of blemishes]. TO THESE MUST BE ADDED IN CONNECTION WITH BLEMISHES OF HUMAN BEINGS. Whence is this proven? Said R. Johanan: Scripture says: ‘No man of the seed of Aaron the Priest that hath a blemish’, [intimating] that a man who is like the seed of Aaron [is rendered unfit by a blemish].43
—
What is the practical difference between [a priest] with a blemish and one ‘who is not like the seed of Aaron’? — The difference is whether the Temple-service is profaned. If it is an actual blemish, the service is profaned, for it is written: ‘Because he hath a blemish, that he profane not’. If, however, it is a case of not being ‘like the seed of Aaron’, then the Temple-service is not profaned. What is also the difference between the case of one ‘who is not like the seed of Aaron’ and of a priest who is unfit ‘for appearance sake’? — The difference is as regards the transgression of a positive precept. KILON is one whose head has the shape of a basket [akla]. LIFTAN is one whose head resembles a slice of turnip [lifta]. A Tanna taught: Where the neck stands in the centre of the head. MAKKABAN is one whose head resembles a mallet [makkaban]. ONE WHOSE HEAD IS ANGULAR means, in the front of the head. SEKIFAS means, the hinder part of the head. A Tanna taught: [‘One whose head is angular’ means, in the front, whereas Sekifas means to the hinder part], as people say, a piece is taken off. A Tanna taught: One whose neck is shakut or shamut. Shakut is one whose neck is sunk, and shamut is one whose neck is long and thin. AS TO HUMP-BACKED MEN, R. JUDAH etc. If he has [a hump] in which there is a bone, all the authorities concerned agree that he is unfit [for priestly service]. The dispute arises with [a hump] in which there is no bone. One Master holds: This is a case where ‘he is not like the seed of Aaron’ and the other Master [R. Judah] holds: It is merely an elevation of the flesh [swelling]. A BALD-HEADED PERSON IS UNFIT. Said Raba: This is meant only where he has not a line of hair from ear to ear in the hinder part, but he has it in the front; but where he has this both in the hinder and in the front parts, he is fit [for Temple service]. And this is certainly the case where he has a line of hair in the hinder part and not in the front part. Some there are who refer Raba's explanation to the second clause: IF HE HAS, THEN HE IS FIT. Said Raba: This is meant only where he has the line of hair in the hinder part but not in the front part, but where he has this both in the hinder and front parts, he is unfit. And this is certainly the case where he has the line of hair in the front part and not in the hinder part. And [this is also certainly the case] where he has no line of hair at all, [that he is unfit]. Said R. Johanan: Bald-heads, dwarfs and the blear-eyed are unfit [for the priesthood] because ‘they are not like the seed of Aaron’. But have we not already learnt both the cases of baldheads and dwarfs [in the Mishnah]? — R. Johanan needs to teach us the case of the blear-eyed [not mentioned in the Mishnah]. And even with regard to the rest, you might have thought that their unfitness was ‘for appearance sake’. But does not the Tanna already state explicitly wherever it is a case ‘for appearance sake’, for it says: If his eyelids are hairless, he is unfit ‘for appearance sake’? — You might however have assumed that he states one case, but the same applies to the rest, But does not the Tanna wher ever there is an example of unfitness for appearance sake, repeat this [as in the following]: One whose teeth were removed is unfit [for the priesthood] ‘for appearance sake?’ — Rather [the explanation is that the purpose of R. Johanan is] to exclude what has been taught: Bald-heads, dwarfs, and the blear-eyed are fit [for the priesthood] and they have been stated to be disqualified only ‘for appearance sake’. Who is this Tanna? — It is R. Judah. For it has been taught, R. Judah says: Scripture says: ‘The priests’, [intimating] the inclusion of bald-heads [as fit for priestly service]. MISHNAH. ONE WHO HAS NO EYEBROWS OR HAS ONLY ONE EYEBROW [IS UNFIT], THIS BEING THE GIBBEN OF THE BIBLE. R. DOSA SAYS: ONE WHOSE EYEBROWS LIE FLAT [OVERSHADOWING THE EYES]. R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAYS: ONE WHO HAS A DOUBLE BACK OR A DOUBLE SPINE. GEMARA. But does gibben [by itself] imply that he has no eyebrows? Against this I quote the following: Gibben implies that he has many eyebrows. Whence do we know [that a priest is unfit for the priesthood] if he has no eyebrows or only one eyebrow? The text states: Or a gibben! — Said Raba: This is what is deduced by interpretation from: or a gibben. R. DOSA SAYS etc. Does this mean that he can live? Has it not been stated: In the case of a birth given to a creature which possesses a double back or a double spine, Rab said: If it was a woman [who miscarried], it is not regarded as an offspring; if an animal [miscarried], the creature born is forbidden to be eaten? — This objection has already been raised by R. Shimi b. Hiyya. And the former answered him: ‘Are you the Shimi [famed for your wisdom]? [The Mishnah here means] where the spine was curved [thus appearing a double spine]’. MISHNAH. A HARUM IS UNFIT [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD]. WHAT IS HARUM? ONE WHO CAN PAINT BOTH OF HIS EYES WITH ONE MOVEMENT. ONE WHOSE TWO EYES ARE ABOVE OR WHOSE TWO EYES ARE BELOW; A PERSON WHOSE ONE EYE SEES ABOVE AND THE OTHER BELOW; ONE WHO TAKES IN THE ROOM AND THE CEILING IN ONE GLANCE; ONE WHO COVERS [HIS EYES] FROM THE SUN; A ZAGDAN AND A ZIRAN — [ALL THESE ARE UNFIT FOR THE PRIESTHOOD]. ONE WHOSE EYELIDS HAVE FALLEN OFF IS UNFIT [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD] FOR APPEARANCE SAKE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Harum is one whose nose is sunk [above, between the eyes]. Whence do we know that one whose nose is turned up [snub-nosed] or obstructed, or whose nose overhangs [his lips is unfit for the priesthood]? There is a scriptural text: or a harum. R. Jose says: Harum only refers to one who paints both his eyes with one movement. [The Rabbis] said to him: You have exaggerated,
—