Bekhorot

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’.1 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’?2 — The difference is as regards the transgression of a positive precept.3 KILON is one whose head has the shape of a basket [akla].4 LIFTAN is one whose head resembles a slice of turnip [lifta].5 A Tanna taught:6 Where the neck stands in the centre of the head.7 MAKKABAN is one whose head resembles a mallet [makkaban]. ONE WHOSE HEAD IS ANGULAR means, in the front of the head.8 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],9 as people say, a piece is taken off.10 A Tanna taught: One whose neck is shakut or shamut. Shakut is one whose neck is sunk,11 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.12 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.13 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-eyed14 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]?15 — 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’.16 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,17 but the same applies to the rest,18 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?’19 — 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’.20 Who is this Tanna?21 — It is R. Judah. For it has been taught, R. Judah says: Scripture says: ‘The priests’,22 [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.23 R. DOSA SAYS:24 ONE WHOSE EYEBROWS LIE FLAT [OVERSHADOWING THE EYES]. R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAYS: ONE WHO HAS A DOUBLE BACK OR A DOUBLE SPINE.25 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.26 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!27 — Said Raba: This28 is what is deduced by interpretation from: or a gibben.29 R. DOSA SAYS etc. Does this mean that he can live?30 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;31 if an animal [miscarried], the creature born is forbidden to be eaten?32 — This objection has already been raised by R. Shimi b. Hiyya.33 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.34 ONE WHOSE TWO EYES ARE ABOVE OR WHOSE TWO EYES ARE BELOW;35 A PERSON WHOSE ONE EYE SEES ABOVE AND THE OTHER BELOW; ONE WHO TAKES IN THE ROOM AND THE CEILING IN ONE GLANCE;36 ONE WHO COVERS [HIS EYES] FROM THE SUN;37 A ZAGDAN38 AND A ZIRAN — [ALL THESE ARE UNFIT FOR THE PRIESTHOOD]. ONE WHOSE EYELIDS HAVE FALLEN OFF IS UNFIT [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD] FOR APPEARANCE SAKE.39 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.40 R. Jose says: Harum only refers to one who paints both his eyes with one movement. [The Rabbis] said to him: You have exaggerated, eyelids are hairless or one whose teeth were removed; v. infra. positive precept, according to the following reasoning: ‘One who is like the seed of Aaron’ may officiate in the Temple, but not one who is not like the seed of Aaron. Now this negative conclusion is merely an inference and not an explicit negative precept, and therefore it only possesses the force of a positive precept. statement is independent of the Mishnah, and means: And there is yet another blemish not mentioned in the Mishnah, viz., etc. the way round the head and the baldness is in the centre. There is also another version as follows: This is meant only where he has the line of hair both in the front and hinder parts, but where he has none, then he is fit (to officiate in the Temple). And this is certainly the case when he has this line of hair in the hinder part of the head but not in the front, (Sh. Mek.) condition performed the service (v. supra). R. Johanan hence informs us that these cases come under the category of those ‘who are not like the seed of Aaron’. first part of the Mishnah, which mentions KILON etc., these are made unfit because they come under the class of those ‘who are not like the seed of Aaron’, as stated supra. Consequently. R. Johanan needs to inform us that the reason for the others too is because ‘they are not like the seed of Aaron. could we have assumed that the reason ‘for appearance sake’ applies to the blemishes enumerated in the second clause of our Mishnah? We must consequently maintain that only where the reason ‘for appearance sake’ is stated explicitly do we accept that reason, but where it does not say so, we do not hold that the unfitness is ‘for appearance sake’. What need, therefore, is there for R. Johanan's explanation? because he ‘is not like the seed of Aaron’. priest. The difference between them, however, as to what precisely is the biblical gibben. eyebrow. particle ‘or’.