Bekhorot

The difference is with reference to disqualifying [the woman] where there are suitable brothers.1 There is also a difference as to whether halizah should be performed where there are no other brothers.2 MISHNAH. THESE BLEMISHES [NAMED ABOVE], WHETHER PERMANENT OR TRANSITORY, MAKE HUMAN BEINGS UNFIT.3 TO THEM MUST BE ADDED [IN THE CASE OF BLEMISHES OF HUMAN BEINGS]. KILON,4 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,5 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,6 which is not written in the Scriptures in connection with the blemishes of a human being? 7 And, moreover, dak8 and teballul9 , [mentioned above as blemishes in regard to a firstling], are not mentioned in the Law in connection with the blemishes of an animal?10 — We infer one from the other.11 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.12 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.13 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.14 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?15 What need is there therefore for the Divine Law to write, ‘garab’, ‘garab’?16 They must consequently be free [for interpretation]. And why does not the Divine Law state all the blemishes17 in one connection18 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]?19 — 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,20 do not make the animal unfit either.21 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,22 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],23 and those blemishes which do not apply to a human being,24 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 one25 may be inferred from the other?26 — 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.27 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?28 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.29 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.30 You cannot either infer [the blemishes of] consecrated animals from those of a first-born animal,31 as we might have thought that the reason in the latter case was because it was consecrated from the womb.32 Nor can you infer [the blemishes of] a human being from those of consecrated animals,33 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.34 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?35 — 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]?36 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].37 Should the Divine Law have omitted [the section of blemishes relating to] consecrated animals, leaving me to infer it from the other two [sections]?38 We might then have thought that the reason in the latter case was because they are holy on their own accord.39 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?40 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’,41 [intimating] that a man who is like the seed of Aaron42 [is rendered unfit by a blemish].43 R. Judah his action is of no consequence and it does not prevent one of the others from carrying out the halizah ceremony, or marrying her; whereas according to R. Jose, since we only have a doubt lest the tumtum should be a saris, the action of the tumtum disqualifies her for the brothers, as it may be that the halizah is valid and, therefore, none of the brothers may marry her. They have, in consequence, to give her halizah again. halizah, for we regard him as a sure saris; whereas according to R. Jose, halizah is necessary in case he is not a saris. For R. Jose when he states in the Baraitha above that a tumtum gives no halizah, refers to a case where there are other suitable brothers who can perform the ceremony of halizah. the above Mishnahs, these are derived from the text ‘ill blemish’. But with reference to dak and teballul, one might object that since the law laid them down explicitly in connection with a human being and not in connection with the blemishes of an animal, then one can conclude that they do not apply to animals. connection with the blemishes of an animal. We also infer the blemishes of a human being from the blemishes of an animal, in a similar manner. with the blemishes of an animal. open as is the case with an animal, does a defect in them make him unfit for carrying out the priestly duties. teeth which comes under the category of .urj (Rashi). V supra 41a. sections, of blemishes like ‘Blind’, ‘Broken’ etc.? are taught, in the case of either a human being or an animal, Scripture does not refrain from repeating them. two? of consecrated animals and those of a human being. sections of blemishes, we could not have inferred the latter from the former. of sacrifices i.e., burnt-sacrifices, peace- sacrifices, trespass-sacrifices, etc. man of symmetrical features (normal) with the seed of Aaron, v. supra p. 14, n. 1].