Bekhorot

for although he cannot paint both his eyes with one movement,1 he is still a harum. ONE WHOSE TWO EYES ARE ABOVE OR WHOSE TWO EYES ARE BELOW. What [does the Mishnah mean by the expression] BOTH EYES ABOVE AND BOTH EYES BELOW? Shall I say BOTH EYES ABOVE mean that they [continuously] see above, the expression BOTH EYES BELOW, that they see below; and ONE EYE ABOVE AND ONE EYE BELOW [means] that one eye sees below and the other above?2 Then the latter case would be identical with the case ONE WHO TAKES IN THE ROOM AND THE CEILING IN ONE GLANCE [mentioned later in the Mishnah]? — Rather this is the explanation: The expression BOTH EYES ABOVE means that they stand above,3 [the expression] BOTH EYES BELOW means that they stand below, [the expression] ONE EYE ABOVE AND ONE EYE BELOW means that one eye stands above and one eye below. And even where the eyes are in their normal places, there is a case of unfitness where ONE TAKES IN THE ROOM AND THE CEILING IN ONE GLANCE. Whence do we prove this? — Our Rabbis taught. Scripture says: ‘In his eye’,4 every [defect] in connection with the eye. Hence [the Sages] say: One who has both eyes below or both eyes above or one eye above and one eye below or one who takes in the room and the ceiling in one glance or one who speaks with his friend, and another says, ‘He is looking at me’ — [all these defects render a priest unfit for the priesthood]. Our Rabbis taught. The text: ‘Blind’5 means blind in both eyes or In one eye. Whence do we derive the case of white spots [on the cornea] and eyes dripping with water, [both defects being] of a permanent character? There is a scriptural text: ‘[A blind] man.6 Said Raba: What need is there for the Divine Law to write: ‘blind man’, ‘dak’, ‘tebullal in his eye’?7 — It is necessary [to state all these cases]. For if the Divine Law had only said ‘Blind’, we might have thought that the reason was because the eyes were not there,8 but in the cases of white spots on the cornea and of dripping eyes, [both defects being] of a permanent character where the eyes are there, this is not so. Therefore Scripture says ‘[Blind] man’. And if the Divine Law had said ‘Man’ we might have thought that the reason was because the eyes cannot see at all [although they are there], but where however there was only defective vision,9 it is not so. Therefore the Divine Law says ‘Dak.’ And if the Divine Law had said [only] Dak, we might have thought that the reason was because there was defective vision, but where there was confusion [of the colours in the eye]10 it is not so, therefore the Divine Law says ‘tebullal’. And if the Divine Law had only said teballul, we might have thought that the reason was because of the confusion [of the colours in the eye], but where It was a case of a different location [of the eyes],11 it is not so. Therefore the Divine Law says: ‘In his eye’. Said Raba: Consequently, every case of blindness12 we derive from the text ‘Man’. Every case of defective vision, we derive from the text ‘dak’. Every case of confusion [of colours in the eye] we derive from the text ‘te ballul’, and every case of a different location [in the two eyes] we derive from the text ‘In his eye’. ONE WHO COVERS [HIS EYES] FROM THE SUN. R. Joseph taught: One who hates13 the sun [a blinkard]. ZAGDAN. R. Huna showed by gestures, one eye like ours14 and the other, like theirs.15 Rab Judah was annoyed. An objection was raised: Shakbonah is one whose eyebrows overshadow16 [his eyes]. Zagdan is one who has one black and one white [eyebrow]. A Tanna taught: Any pair [of eyes] which is not properly matched17 is called zagdan. ZIRAN. It has been taught: One whose eyes are bleared18 and granulated; weeping, dripping and running.19 A Tanna taught: Zewir, lufyon, and tamir are blemishes. Zewir is one whose eyes are unsteady [mezawar]. Lufyon is one having thick and connected eyebrows, and tamir is one whose eyebrows are gone. And is the latter defect reckoned among disqualifying blemishes? Have we not learnt: ONE WHOSE EYELIDS ARE HAIRLESS IS UNFIT [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD] ‘FOR APPEARANCE SAKE?’20 — This offers no difficulty. In the one case,21 the root remains, in the other,22 it does not remain. MISHNAH. ONE WHOSE EYES ARE AS LARGE AS A CALF'S OR AS SMALL AS THOSE OF A GOOSE; OR WHOSE BODY IS [UNDULY] LARGE FOR HIS LIMBS;23 [UNDULY] SMALL FOR HIS LIMBS; OR WHOSE NOSE IS [UNDULY] LARGE FOR HIS LIMBS; OR WHOSE NOSE IS [UNDULY] SMALL FOR HIS LIMBS; ZOMEM AND ZOMEA’. WHAT IS ZOMEA’? ONE WHOSE AURICLES ARE VERY SMALL. WHAT IS ZOMEM? ONE WHOSE AURICLES RESEMBLE A SPONGE. IF THE UPPER LIP OVERLAPS THE LOWER OR THE LOWER LIP OVERLAPS THE UPPER, THIS IS A BLEMISH. ONE WHOSE TEETH HAVE FALLEN OUT IS UNFIT [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD] FOR APPEARANCE SAKE. GEMARA. Said Rab: Moses our teacher was ten cubits in height,24 for it is said: And he spread abroad the tent over the tabernacle.25 Now who spread it? Moses our teacher; and Scripture says: Ten cubits shall be the length of the board.26 Said R. Shimi b. Hiyya to Rab: If so, you have made out that Moses was a blemished person,27 for we have learnt: ONE WHOSE BODY IS UNDULY LARGE FOR HIS LIMBS OR UNDULY SMALL FOR HIS LIMBS. — He replied to him: ‘Are you the Shimi [famed for your wisdom]. I refer to the cubit of the tabernacle.’28 ONE WHOSE NOSE WAS UNDULY LARGE etc. A Tanna taught: As [the width of] a small finger.29 ZOMEM AND ZOMEA’. A Tanna taught: [In addition to the blemishes mentioned] zimmeah is also a blemish. The Rabbis did not know what zimmeah was. They heard an Arab trader30 call out: Who wants a zimmeah? And it was found to be a shaggy goat.31 Said R. Hisda: A goat which has no horns and a ewe which has horns are fit for the altar. So indeed it has been taught: There are some defects [in a firstling] which appear like blemishes but are not actually blemishes and in consequence of which we slaughter the animal in the Temple32 but not without the Temple. And they are the following: A goat which has no horns and an ewe which has horns, a zimmeah, a zummum and a zomea’.33 R. Hisda reported in the name of Abimi: If its horns together with the bony inside [of the horns] have been removed, the animal is unfit for the altar, but may not be redeemed by reason of it.34 If its hoofs together with the bony inside [of the hoofs] have been removed, the animal is unfit, and may be redeemed by reason of it. An objection was raised: If the horns and hoofs together with their bony insides were removed, the animal is unfit, and may be redeemed by reason of it!35 — This presents no difficulty. In the one case36 [the horns] were uprooted,37 and in the other38 [the horns] were levelled.39 But if the horns were only levelled, is it even unfit [for the altar]? The following was cited in contradiction: If a [red] heifer has horns and hoofs which are black, let him lop off [the black top of the horns and hoofs]. — Explain this as follows: [The lopping off] is from the top part of their bony inside.40 [ and I would have known that the eye is meant, for these blemishes only concern the eye. The text therefore ‘In his eye’ is superfluous, unless for the purpose of deriving other cases therefrom. thereby. eyes were abnormal in this respect, that one eye was unduly large. constantly twinkling. Another opinion is, shutting with great trouble. Baraitha refers to a case where the root of the eyebrow and eyelid remains and even so he is unfit for the priesthood, whereas the Mishnah refers to where nothing remains of the root, and therefore the unfitness is only ‘for appearance sake’. fore-arm. person's body to his arm is only three to one. fore-arm, but somewhat to that of an ordinary person (the cubit used in the Tabernacle being slightly longer than an ordinary cubit, v. supra 40a). The reading is that of Sh. Mek. and R. Gershom. Cur. edd.; he refers to the cubit (for the measurement) of the board. The meaning is however the same]. height. regard to disqualifying for the altar. not extend; if then the black did not reach the bony inside, he may lop it off, and this does not make the animal blemished.