Bekhorot

IF HE HAS ADDITIONAL FINGERS AND ADDITIONAL TOES ON HIS HANDS AND FEET etc. Said R. Isaac: And both1 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.2 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’?3 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.4 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!5 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 nethinim6 diminish in Israel!7 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]8 whereas the Sages declare him fit. One Master9 holds that it is due to an unusual weakness which has befallen the right hand, and the other Master10 holds that it is due to unusual strength which has accrued to the left hand. 11 MISHNAH. [IF ONE IS LIKE AN] ETHIOPIAN, A GIHUR, A LABKAN, A KIPPEAH,12 A DWARF, A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE, INTOXICATED, OR AFFLICTED WITH PLAGUE MARKS WHICH ARE CLEAN13 — [THESE DEFECTS] DISQUALIFY IN HUMAN BEINGS14 BUT NOT IN ANIMALS. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: ONE SHOULD NOT FOR CHOICE SACRIFICE A MAD ANIMAL. R. ELEAZAR15 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’?16 and it was found to be white flowers, [snowflakes]?17 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.18 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.17 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?19 — Said R. Papa: Kippeah is a tall, thin20 and unshapely person. Said Resh Lakish: An abnormally tall man should not marry an abnormally tall woman, lest their offspring be [like] a mast.21 A male dwarf should not marry a female dwarf, lest their offspring be a dwarf of the smallest size.22 A man abnormally white-complexioned should not marry an equally white-complexioned woman, lest their offspring be excessively white-complexioned.23 A very dark-complexioned man should not marry an equally very dark-complexioned woman, lest their offspring may be pitch black.24 A DEAF-MUTE PERSON, AN IMBECILE, AN INTOXICATED PERSON. But does not an intoxicated priest profane the Temple-service?25 Should not this defect then be mentioned in connection with the disqualifying blemishes [of a priest]?26 — [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.27 For it was taught: A priest who ate preserved figs from Keilah28 and drank milk and29 fermented honey, if he entered the Temple, incurs liability [to excision].30 MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING ARE FIT IN THE CASE OF HUMAN BElngs,31 BUT UNFIT IN THE CASE OF ANIMALS: A FATHER WITH ITS SON,32 A TREFAH, AN ANIMAL EXTRACTED BY MEANS OF THE CAESAREAN SECTION.33 A PRIEST WHO CONTRACTS AN ILLEGAL MARRIAGE34 IS UNFIT [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD] UNTIL HE VOWS NOT TO DERIVE ANY BENEFIT FROM THE WOMAN.35 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 Aaron36 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?37 — 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 West38 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,39 performs the Temple-services [even before divorce] and then leaves the Temple-service40 to divorce her. But why do we not fear lest he may go to a Sage and obtain release from his vow?41 — He holds the opinion: A vow must be specified in detail [before it can be invalidated].42 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.43 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 community with regard to inter-marriage. decrease in their number, for they would then be distinguishable and marked off from the rest of the community (R. Gershom.) 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. disease is disqualified, for in that case he is forbidden to enter the Temple-court on pain of excision. his joints seem to be ‘loose.’ albino (Jast.) difference between holy and unholy etc., thus service in that condition profanes, v. Zeb. 17b. service in the Temple actually invalid. which is explicitly stated (in Ker. 13b) as profaning the service. 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’. sacrifice an animal and its young on the same day. subsequently consults a wise man in order to nullify the vow. nature of the vow.