בכורות 45 — Soncino English Talmud

¹A BA'AL HA-PIHIN AND AN ‘IKKEL — [ALL THESE DEFECTS RENDER A PRIEST UNFIT]. WHAT IS AN ‘IKKEL? ONE WHOSE LEGS DO NOT TOUCH EACH OTHER WHEN HE PUTS HIS FEET TOGETHER, [BANDY LEGGED]. IF HE HAS A LUMP PROJECTING FROM HIS THUMB, OR IF HIS HEEL PROJECTS BEHIND, OR IF HIS FEET ARE WIDE LIKE THOSE OF A GOOSE OR IF HIS FINGERS LIE ONE ABOVE THE OTHER OR IF THEY ARE GROWN TOGETHER UP TO THE ROOT [THE MIDDLE JOINT], HE IS FIT [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD]; IF BELOW THE ROOT, IF HE CUTS IT, HE IS ALSO FIT. IF HE HAS AN ADDITIONAL FINGER AND HE CUT IT OFF, IF THERE WAS A BONE IN IT, HE IS UNFIT, BUT IF NOT, HE IS FIT. IF HE HAS ADDITIONAL FINGERS AND ADDITIONAL TOES, ON EACH HAND AND FOOT SIX FINGERS AND SIX TOES, [MAKING ALTOGETHER] TWENTY-FOUR [FINGERS AND TOES], R. JUDAH DECLARES SUCH A PRIEST FIT FOR THE PRIESTHOOD, WHEREAS THE SAGES DECLARE HIM UNFIT. IF ONE HAS EQUAL STRENGTH IN BOTH HANDS, RABBI DECLARES HIM UNFIT, WHEREAS THE SAGES DECLARE HIM FIT. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture says]: Broken-footed. I have here mentioned only the case of broken-footed [as making a priest unfit for the priesthood]. Whence do we deduce the inclusion of one who knocks his ankles against each other or one who is bandy-legged or one who is club-footed? The text states, ‘Or broken-footed’. A Tanna taught: Ba'al ha-pikin and shufnor. R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan: Ba'al ha-pikin is one who has many calves and shufnor is one without calves. IF HE HAS A LUMP PROJECTING FROM THE THUMB, OR IF HIS HEEL PROJECTS BEHIND. Said R. Eleazar: This [latter defect] means the leg coming out in the middle of the foot. OR IF HIS FEET WERE AS WIDE AS THOSE OF A GOOSE. Said R. Papa: You should not say that the feet must be thin as well as not separated; even if they are only thin, although separated [they make a priest unfit for the priesthood]. OR IF HIS FINGERS LIE ONE ABOVE THE OTHER OR ARE GROWN TOGETHER. Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture says]: Broken-handed. I have here mentioned only the case of broken-handed [as making a priest unfit]. Whence do we deduce that if his fingers lie one above the other or are grown together above the root and he cut them that he is unfit? But did you not say [in the Mishnah that in the latter instance] he is fit? — Rather read ‘he did not cut them’. Whence then do we derive these cases? — The text states: ‘Or broken-handed’. IF HE HAS AN ADDITIONAL FINGER AND HE CUT IT OFF, IF THERE WAS A BONE IN IT HE IS UNFIT. BUT IF NOT, HE IS FIT. Rabbah b. bar Hana reported in the name of R. Johanan: Provided the additional finger is counted with the others. Our Rabbis taught: An additional [finger] if it has a bone in it, even without a nail, makes a person unclean by contact and by carrying it. It also causes tent uncleanness, and is counted in the number of one hundred and twenty-five [limbs]. Rabbah b. Bar Hana reported in the name of R. Johanan: Provided the additional finger is counted with the others. Said R. Hisda: The following ruling was taught by our great Master [Rab], may the Lord be his support! An additional finger if there is a bone in it, even without a nail, makes a person unclean by contact and by carrying it but it does not cause tent uncleanness. Said Rabbah b. Bar Hana: Provided the additional finger is not counted with the others. Said R. Hanina: They have put their teaching on the level with prophecy. For in either case [the ruling just quoted is difficult to understand]. If the additional finger is considered a limb [legally], then it should even cause tent uncleanness; and if it is not a limb [legally], then it should not even make a person unclean by contact and by carrying it! — Said R. Huna b. Manoah in the name of R. Aha b. Ika: The Rabbis applied here the rule of a bone which is the size of a barleycorn. R. Papa says: We declare him unclean in the case where the additional finger was not counted with the others on account of the case where the additional finger is counted with the others. But if this be so, then in the case where the additional finger is not counted with the others, it should also cause tent uncleanness? — The Rabbis made a distinction in order that terumah and consecrated ob jects might not be burnt [unnecessarily] on account of it. We have learnt elsewhere: The greater portion of a corpse [as measured by size of limbs] and the larger number of joints and limbs, even though there is not among them one quarter of a kab of bones, convey tent uncleanness. Our Rabbis taught: What is the greater part of a corpse? Two legs and a thigh, since this is the greater part of the height of a tall person. What is the larger number of joints and limbs? One hundred and twenty-five [limbs]. Said Rabina to Raba: Is it the object of the Tanna to teach us calculation? He replied to him: He informs us of the following as it was taught: If a person is defective [in the number of joints], having only two hundred, or if one has additional limbs, having two hundred and eighty-one, all these joints are counted in the number of one hundred and twenty-five. What is the reason? Follow the majority of people [who have only two hundred and forty-eight joints and limbs]. R. Judah related in the name of Samuel: The disciples of R. Ishmael once dissected the body of a prostitute who had been condemned to be burnt by the king. They examined and found two hundred and fifty-two joints and limbs. [They came and inquired of R. Ishmael: ‘How many joints has the human body?’ He replied to them: ‘Two hundred and forty-eight.]’ Thereupon they said to him: ‘But we have examined and found two hundred and fifty-two’? He replied to them: ‘Perhaps you made the postmortem examination on a woman, in whose case Scripture adds two hinges [in her sexual organ] and two doors of the womb’. It was taught: R. Eleazar said: As a house has hinges, so a woman's body has hinges [in her sexual organ], as it is written in the Scriptures: She bowed herself and brought forth, for her pains [zireha] came suddenly upon her. R. Joshua says: As a house has doors, so a woman's womb has doors, as it is said in the Scriptures: Because it shut not up the doors of my mother's womb. R. Akiba says: As a house has a key, so a woman has a key, [the womb], as it is written in the Scriptures: And opened her womb. According to the opinion of R. Akiba, is there not a difficulty in connection with what R. Ishmael's disciples discovered? — It may be that since it is small, it was dissolved in the course of dissecting. Said Rab: And all these do not cause tent uncleanness, for it is said in the Scriptures: This is the law when a man dieth in a tent, [implying], a thing which is common to all human beings [causes tent uncleanness]. Said Abaye to him: And has not a man also [some of these additional limbs]? Does not Scripture say: Pangs, [zirim] have taken hold upon me as the pangs of a woman that travailleth? These are hinges of flesh. But does not Scripture say: O my lord, by reason of the vision my pains, [zirai], have come upon me? — Here again the verse refers to ‘hinges’ of flesh. It also stands to reason. For if you will not say so, to whom then will you apply the accepted statement that there exist two hundred and forty-eight limbs [in the human body], for it can apply neither to a man nor to a woman.55^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ

^ᵃnote:It is almost like an additional finger.
^ᵇnote:As thin as those of a goose and their length and width are alike.
^ᶜnote:Viz., towards the nail, the fingers being all attached to each other.
^ᵈnote:In order to divide the fingers.
^ᵉnote:For the priesthood, for it is like losing a limb.
^ᶠnote:Since the fingers are equal in number.
^ᵍnote:As they hold that a portion of the vigour of the right hand has gone to the left.
^ʰnote:Holding that additional strength was given to the left hand.
^ⁱnote:Lev. XXI, 19.
^ʲnote:Appearing as if possessing many calves on his legs, very thick-fleshed.
^ᵏnote:A file-shaped leg.
^ˡnote:Half of the foot is in the front and the other half in the rear.
^ᵐnote:So Rashi understands vphry here. The Arukh says that vphry means: The length and width of the feet are alike. Rashi in his commentary on the Mishnah appears to combine both interpretations. Tosaf. Yom Tob suggests that Rashi on the Mishnah means that they are either thin or that their length etc.
^ⁿnote:Lev. XXI, 19.
^ᵒnote:The ‘above’ here has the same meaning as ‘below’ in the Mishnah.
^ᵖnote:From the additional word ‘or’ we make this deduction.
^ᵠnote:I.e., is in line with the rest of the fingers, it is then that the Mishnah regards it as a limb.
^ʳnote:Although it does not possess a nail, the additional finger of a corpse is still considered a limb, since it is in line with the rest of the fingers.
^ˢnote:Where, for example, it has a small quantity of flesh attached to it, even it be less than the size of an olive. For if there were a piece of flesh the size of an olive on the bone, then even if the additional finger were not in line with the rest of the fingers or even if there were not a bone in the additional finger, it would have caused tent uncleanness, for the rule is that the flesh of a corpse the size of an olive causes tent uncleanness. Again, if there were not any flesh at all on the bone, then even if the additional finger were in line with the rest, it would not have been considered a limb, since bones as such do not cause tent uncleanness, unless where there is a majority of the joints or the greater part of the corpse. But now since there is a small portion of flesh, even though not the size of an olive, the additional finger of a corpse causes uncleanness because it is in line with the rest and is legally recognized as a limb.
^ᵗnote:Tent uncleanness is uncleanness arising from being under the same tent and shelter with, or forming a tent and shelter over, a corpse; v. Num. XIX, 14.
^ᵘnote:If there is no flesh the size of an olive, the additional finger is counted as a limb among the one hundred and twenty-five limbs and joints, as this constitutes the greater number of limbs of the two hundred and forty-eight limbs and joints of which the human body is composed, the law being that the majority of the joints and limbs of a corpse causes tent uncleanness.
^ᵛnote:Where the additional finger is not in line with the rest, as explained below, there being here two disqualifications; first that there are no nails, and secondly its not being in line with the rest of the fingers. But if it has a nail in it, the additional finger makes tent uncleanness although it is not in line.
^ʷnote:So Sh. Mek. cur. edd. R. Johanan.
^ˣnote:Just as the Prophets are not required to give reasons for their utterances, so the teachers in the passage just quoted also give no reason for their ruling.
^ʸnote:Which makes a person unclean either by carrying it or coming in contact with it, but does not cause tent uncleanness.
^ᶻnote:Legally where the additional finger is not in line with the rest, there is no uncleanness, only for fear that this might bring about laxity in a case where the additional finger is in line, where it legally causes uncleanness, the Rabbis declared uncleanness also in the former case.
^ᵃᵃnote:Had every form of uncleanness been declared, including that of ohel, one might have been led to believe that an additional finger not in line is a genuine limb, and therefore terumah etc. might come to be wrongly burnt as a consequence.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., ‘structure’.
^ᵃᶜnote:A small measure of capacity.
^ᵃᵈnote:Oh. II, 1.
^ᵃᵉnote:Without reckoning the head, for as regards the frame of a corpse, the head is not taken into consideration. This measurement applies to a tall person only but not to a small person.
^ᵃᶠnote:Var. lec.: R. Adda b. Ahaba.
^ᵃᵍnote:For since there are two hundred and forty-eight joints in the human body, it is obvious that the majority is one hundred and twenty-five, and what need is there for the Tanna of the Baraitha to teach us this?
^ᵃʰnote:A man born with two fingers missing on each hand and two toes on each leg i.e., eight members. Now since every finger has six bones, this makes altogether a total of forty-eight joints of which this man is short. Thus he has only two hundred joints of the two hundred and forty-eight which the human body contains.
^ᵃⁱnote:If a woman is born with two additional fingers on her hands and two additional toes on her legs and each one has six bones, we have a total of twenty-four additional limbs. In addition, there are five extra limbs in the case of a woman, viz. two hinges, two doors and the womb (v. infra). We have therefore altogether twenty-nine additional limbs. Add this to two hundred and forty-eight, and we have a grand total of two hundred and seventy-seven. Rashi says that he cannot account for the other four so as to make up the number to two hundred and eighty-one. R. Gershom however explains that for every six bones in a finger there is a corresponding extra bone in the arm. Consequently, as there are four additional fingers and toes, we have a further four limbs, which bring the number of joints to two hundred and eighty-one.
^ᵃʲnote:The Tanna therefore informs us that although one hundred and twenty-five is not the actual majority of limbs in the case of a woman who has additional fingers or the bare majority in the case of one who has less than the usual number of limbs, we accept the number in all cases as the greater number of limbs causes tent uncleanness.
^ᵃᵏnote:Inserted from Sh. Mek.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., the muscles.
^ᵃᵐnote:Doors moving in sockets.
^ᵃⁿnote:The word vhrm (her pains) coming from the word rhm literally rendered means ‘hinges’.
^ᵃᵒnote:I Sam. IV, 19.
^ᵃᵖnote:Job. III, 10.
^ᵃᵠnote:Gen. XXX, 22.
^ᵃʳnote:Who only found two hundred and fifty-two limbs in a woman's body, while according to R. Akiba who mentions that the womb was an extra limb, there is another limb, making two hundred and fifty-three in all.
^ᵃˢnote:Var. lec. Raba.
^ᵃᵗnote:The five additional limbs of a woman.
^ᵃᵘnote:Num. XIX, 14.
^ᵃᵛnote:But a thing which is not common to both men and women does not clause tent uncleanness, the word ost meaning human being in general and not exclusively a man.
^ᵃʷnote:Which we say belong only to a woman-the ‘hinges’.
^ᵃˣnote:Isa. XXI, 3.
^ᵃʸnote:V. p. 307, supra n. 5.
^ᵃᶻnote:Which have no bones and are therefore not regarded as genuine limbs.
^ᵇᵃnote:Dan. X, 16.
^ᵇᵇnote:That zirim written in connection with a man is not an additional limb and thus there would be another limb in the case of a man.
^ᵇᶜnote:On the number of human limbs given here v. Mak., Sonc. ed., p. 169 n. 5.

²IF HE HAS ADDITIONAL FINGERS AND ADDITIONAL TOES ON HIS HANDS AND FEET etc. Said R. Isaac: And both derive their views from [the interpretation of] the same verse: And there was yet a battle in Gath where there was a man of great stature that had on every hand six fingers and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number. One Master holds that Scripture means to disparage him, while the other Master [R. Judah] holds that Scripture means to praise him. Said Rabbah: Why does Scripture say: ‘Six’, ‘six’ and ‘twenty-four in number’? It was necessary [to state all these numbers]. For if the Divine Law had only said ‘six’ [fingers] and ‘six’ [toes], I might have thought that the one word ‘six’ referred to one hand and the other ‘six’ referred to one leg. Therefore the Divine Law says: Twenty-four. And if the Divine Law had said only ‘twenty-four’, I might have thought that it meant five fingers on one hand and seven fingers on the other, [the same applying to the feet]. Therefore the Divine Law says: ‘Six’, ‘six’ ‘in number’ teaching us that the case here is one where the additional fingers are counted with the others. It has been taught: R. Judah says: A man once came before R. Tarfon with additional fingers and toes, six on each, making altogether twenty-four. He said to him: May the like of you increase in Israel! Said R. Jose to him: Do you bring a proof from this incident? This is really what R. Tarfon said to him. May through people like you bastards and nethinim diminish in Israel! IF ONE HAS EQUAL STRENGTH IN BOTH HANDS. Our Rabbis taught: If one is left-handed or left-legged, Rabbi declares him unfit [for the priesthood] whereas the Sages declare him fit. One Master holds that it is due to an unusual weakness which has befallen the right hand, and the other Master holds that it is due to unusual strength which has accrued to the left hand. MISHNAH. [IF ONE IS LIKE AN] ETHIOPIAN, A GIHUR, A LABKAN, A KIPPEAH, A DWARF, A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE, INTOXICATED, OR AFFLICTED WITH PLAGUE MARKS WHICH ARE CLEAN — [THESE DEFECTS] DISQUALIFY IN HUMAN BEINGS BUT NOT IN ANIMALS. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: ONE SHOULD NOT FOR CHOICE SACRIFICE A MAD ANIMAL. R. ELEAZAR SAYS: ALSO THOSE AFFLICTED WITH WARTS ARE UNFIT IN HUMAN BEINGS BUT ARE FIT IN ANIMALS. GEMARA. [ONE WHO IS LIKE] AN ETHIOPIAN, is one abnormally black-complexioned. GIHUR is one who is [abnormally] white-spotted in the face. LABKON is one who is [abnormally] red-spotted [in the face]. Now is this really so? Was there not a man who cried out: ‘Who wants to buy levkoiums’? and it was found to be white flowers, [snowflakes]? Rather [the following are the correct definitions]: [ONE LIKE] AN ETHIOPIAN is one who is [abnormally] black-complexioned. GIHUR is one who is [abnormally red-spotted in the face], as people call gihia flame-red. LABKAN is one who is [abnormally] white-spotted [in the face], as we know from one who cried out: ‘Who wants levkoiums’? and it was found to be white flowers. KIPPEAH. R. Zebid taught: This means [extremely] tall. Now is it really so? Has not R. Abbuha taught: Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, takes pride in men of high stature? Because it is written in the Scriptures: Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them whose height was like the height of the cedars? — Said R. Papa: Kippeah is a tall, thin and unshapely person. Said Resh Lakish: An abnormally tall man should not marry an abnormally tall woman, lest their offspring be [like] a mast. A male dwarf should not marry a female dwarf, lest their offspring be a dwarf of the smallest size. A man abnormally white-complexioned should not marry an equally white-complexioned woman, lest their offspring be excessively white-complexioned. A very dark-complexioned man should not marry an equally very dark-complexioned woman, lest their offspring may be pitch black. A DEAF-MUTE PERSON, AN IMBECILE, AN INTOXICATED PERSON. But does not an intoxicated priest profane the Temple-service? Should not this defect then be mentioned in connection with the disqualifying blemishes [of a priest]? — [The Mishnah] refers to other things from which one can become intoxicated, and this will not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Judah. For it was taught: A priest who ate preserved figs from Keilah and drank milk and fermented honey, if he entered the Temple, incurs liability [to excision]. MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING ARE FIT IN THE CASE OF HUMAN BElngs, BUT UNFIT IN THE CASE OF ANIMALS: A FATHER WITH ITS SON, A TREFAH, AN ANIMAL EXTRACTED BY MEANS OF THE CAESAREAN SECTION. A PRIEST WHO CONTRACTS AN ILLEGAL MARRIAGE IS UNFIT [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD] UNTIL HE VOWS NOT TO DERIVE ANY BENEFIT FROM THE WOMAN. ALSO ONE WHO MAKES HIMSELF UNCLEAN THROUGH CONTACT WITH THE DEAD IS UNFIT, UNTIL HE UNDERTAKES THAT HE WILL NO LONGER MAKE HIMSELF UNCLEAN THROUGH THE DEAD. GEMARA. THE FOLLOWING ARE FIT IN A HUMAN BEING etc. What does the Mishnah mean by the expression A FATHER WITH ITS SON? Shall I say that it refers to Aaron and his son, to which the corresponding case in an animal would be a he-goat and its young? But does this law apply in such circumstances? Has it not been taught: The law prohibiting the killing of an animal and its young on the same day applies only to females and their young, but not to males and their young? — Rather the Mishnah refers to a she-goat and its young. Would not then a parallel case in human beings be a priestess and her son? But is a priestess suitable for Temple-service? — One may still say that the Mishnah refers to Aaron and his son and that the corresponding case here is a he-goat and its young. For it was explained in the West in the name of R. Jose b. Abin [as follows]: This proves that Hanania taught this Mishnah. For we have learnt [in a Baraitha]: The law prohibiting the killing of an animal and its young on the same day refers only to females and their young but not to males and their young. But Hanania says: It applies to males and their young as well as to females. A PRIEST WHO CONTRACTS AN ILLEGAL MARRIAGE etc. A Tanna taught: He vows, performs the Temple-services [even before divorce] and then leaves the Temple-service to divorce her. But why do we not fear lest he may go to a Sage and obtain release from his vow? — He holds the opinion: A vow must be specified in detail [before it can be invalidated]. This is no difficulty according to him who says that a vow is required to be specified [before it can be invalidated]. But according to him who says that there is no need to specify in detail a vow before it can be invalidated, what answer would you give? — We make him interdict himself by vow in public. This is no difficulty according to him who holds that an interdiction by vow imposed on a person in public can not be invalidated. But according to him who holds that an interdiction by a vow imposed on a person in public can be invalidated — what answer would you give? — We impose an interdiction by vow^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ

^ᵇᵈnote:R. Judah and the Sages.
^ᵇᵉnote:II Sam. XXI, 20.
^ᵇᶠnote:Could I not have inferred one number from the other?
^ᵇᵍnote:But not to two legs and two hands.
^ᵇʰnote:Proving that additional fingers are marks of strength.
^ᵇⁱnote:The offspring of Nathin, a descendant of the Gibeonites. David decreed their exclusion from the Israelitish community with regard to inter-marriage.
^ᵇʲnote:May nethinim and bastards like you possessing additional fingers and toes be multiplied, so as eventually to cause a decrease in their number, for they would then be distinguishable and marked off from the rest of the community (R. Gershom.)
^ᵇᵏnote:A left-handed priest is unfit for the priesthood because Scripture says: And the Priest shall dip his right finger, (Lev. XIV, 16) from which we infer that wherever Scripture says finger with reference to a priest, it means that of the right hand. And a left-legged priest is unfit because Scripture says: To stand and to serve, (Deut. XVII, 12) intimating that the serving must be in the normal manner of standing, viz., on the right leg, v. Zeb. 24a.
^ᵇˡnote:Rabbi.
^ᵇᵐnote:The Sages.
^ᵇⁿnote:Left-handedness is therefore no defect.
^ᵇᵒnote:These terms are explained in the Gemara.
^ᵇᵖnote:E.g., a sore or a rising on the skin. There is no need for the Mishnah to mention that a priest with an unclean skin disease is disqualified, for in that case he is forbidden to enter the Temple-court on pain of excision.
^ᵇᵠnote:Viz. priests.
^ᵇʳnote:Bah. adds, b. Jacob.
^ᵇˢnote:So Jast. Rashi has here hbhheuk The Aruch has hbeuuk .
^ᵇᵗnote:White lambs (Rashi.).
^ᵇᵘnote:V. e. gihia.
^ᵇᵛnote:Am. II, 9.
^ᵇʷnote:vyhna lit. ‘loose’; one whose height is out of all proportion to his breadth, and on account of this, he sags and his joints seem to be ‘loose.’
^ᵇˣnote:Tall and slim.
^ᵇʸnote:Lit., ‘a fingerlet’.
^ᵇᶻnote:Which is almost a skin plague. Another explanation of the word evuc is: One glistening (with unsteady eyes), albino (Jast.)
^ᶜᵃnote:jhpy , a black earthenware pot.
^ᶜᵇnote:Because Scripture says: Do not drink wine nor strong drink (Lev. X, 9), and it continues: And that ye may put a difference between holy and unholy etc., thus service in that condition profanes, v. Zeb. 17b.
^ᶜᶜnote:Instead of mentioning it in connection with defects which are ‘not like the seed of Aaron’ and which do not render service in the Temple actually invalid.
^ᶜᵈnote:Who maintains that other things from which a man can become intoxicated have the same rule as drinking wine, which is explicitly stated (in Ker. 13b) as profaning the service.
^ᶜᵉnote:The name of a town in the lowland district of Judea. The figs which come from there are intoxicating.
^ᶜᶠnote:So Sh. Mek. cur. ‘or’.
^ᶜᵍnote:V. Ker. 13b and Sanh. 70b. The Mishnah therefore teaches us that only in the case of wine does he incur the guilt of excision, but with regard to other things which can make a man intoxicated, there is only a negative prohibition, derived from the text ‘And strong drink thou shalt not drink’.
^ᶜʰnote:Viz., priests.
^ᶜⁱnote:Whereas a priest and his son may officiate in the Temple on the same day, in the case of an animal it is forbidden to sacrifice an animal and its young on the same day.
^ᶜʲnote:Whereas a priest who is trefah etc. is fit to carry out his duties.
^ᶜᵏnote:Viz., a high priest who married a widow or a plain priest who married a divorcee or a woman released by halizah.
^ᶜˡnote:I.e., until he divorces her.
^ᶜᵐnote:I.e., a male and his offspring must not officiate on the same day.
^ᶜⁿnote:Hul. 78b.
^ᶜᵒnote:The Palestine colleges.
^ᶜᵖnote:Not to derive any benefit from his wife till he divorces her.
^ᶜᵠnote:Lit., ‘descends’, sc. from the altar.
^ᶜʳnote:We should not therefore permit him to perform his duties in the Temple after making the vow in case he subsequently consults a wise man in order to nullify the vow.
^ᶜˢnote:This being the case, the Sage, being informed of the reasons which prompted the vow, will not invalidate it.
^ᶜᵗnote:Before ten persons, and the wise man cannot invalidate a vow made in such circumstances without knowing the nature of the vow.