Bekhorot 43b

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין מוּמָא לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן? אִיכָּא מִשּׁוּם אַחוֹלֵי עֲבוֹדָה: מוּמָא מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״מוּם בּוֹ וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל״, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן לָא מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה.

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between a priest disqualified from performing the Temple service due to a full-fledged blemish that disqualifies both people and animals, and a priest disqualified from performing the Temple service because he is not equal among the seed of Aaron? The Gemara responds: There is a difference between them with regard to profaning the Temple service. A priest with a full-fledged blemish who performs rites in the Temple profanes the service he has performed, as it is written: “He has a blemish; that he not profane My Sanctuaries” (Leviticus 21:23). A priest who is not equal among the seed of Aaron does not profane the service he performs.

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, וּמִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ עֲשֵׂה.

The Gemara further asks: What difference is there between a priest disqualified from performing the Temple service because he is not equal among the seed of Aaron, e.g., one whose head is pointed, and a priest disqualified from performing the Temple service due to the mere appearance of a blemish, such as one whose eyelashes have fallen out, as stated in the mishnayot further on in this chapter? The Gemara responds: There is a difference between them with regard to the violation of the prohibition, which is stated as a positive mitzva, i.e., that priests who are equal shall serve in the Temple. A priest who is not equal among the seed of Aaron who performs the Temple service transgresses this prohibition. By contrast, a priest who is disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish is disqualified by rabbinic law, and he does not transgress a Torah prohibition by performing the Temple service.

כִּילוֹן — דְּדָמֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ לְאַכְלָא, ״לַפְתָּא״ — דְּדָמֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ לְגַדְגָּלִידָא דְּלִיפְתָּא, תָּנָא: וְצַוָּארוֹ עוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע רֹאשׁוֹ.

§ The Gemara clarifies the blemishes that the mishna lists as disqualifying a priest: One whose head is pointed [ kilon ], this is one whose head resembles the cover of a barrel, narrow above and wide below. One whose head is turnip-like, this is one whose head resembles the top of a turnip, wide above and narrow below. The Sages taught in a baraita another detail relating to this blemish: And his neck stands in the middle of his head, i.e., his head protrudes equally in all directions around his neck, whereas a typical person’s neck is situated at the back of his head.

מַקָּבָן — דְּדָמֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ לְמַקָּבָן, ״וְשֶׁרֹאשׁוֹ שָׁקוּט״ — מִלְּפָנָיו, ״וּסְקִיפָת״ — מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: שְׁקִיל פִּיסָּא. תָּנָא: וְצַוָּארוֹ שָׁקוּט וְשָׁמוּט. ״שָׁקוּט״ — דַּחֲבִיס מִחְבָּס, ״שָׁמוּט״ — דַּאֲרִיךְ וּשְׁמִיט.

One whose head is hammer-like [ makkavan ], this is one whose head resembles a hammer, with his forehead protruding. And one whose head is indented [ shakut ], this is one with a depression in the front of his head. And one wherein the back of his head protrudes [ sekifat ] is someone for whom it appears a piece from the back of his head has been removed, as people say: A piece has been taken [ shakil pisa ]. Sekifat is understood to be an abbreviation of that term. The Sages taught in a baraita : And a priest whose neck is short, or one whose neck is narrow, is disqualified from performing the Temple service as well. A priest with a short neck is one whose neck is hidden and is not visible between his shoulders. A priest with a narrow neck is one whose neck is long and narrow.

וּבַעֲלֵי חֲטָרוֹת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כּוּ׳. דְּאִית בֵּיהּ עֶצֶם, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּפָסְלָא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי — דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ עֶצֶם: מָר סָבַר — הָא אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, וּמָר סָבַר — קִרְקוּרָא דְּבִישְׂרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

The mishna teaches: And with regard to those with humped backs, Rabbi Yehuda deems them fit for service and the Rabbis deem them disqualified. The Gemara elaborates: In a case where there is a bone in his hump, everyone agrees that the priest is disqualified for Temple service. They disagree when there is no bone. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that this person is not equal among the seed of Aaron and is therefore disqualified from performing the Temple service; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that it is merely a piece of flesh and is not considered a blemish.

הַקֵּרֵחַ פָּסוּל. אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְפָנָיו, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו — כָּשֵׁר, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו וְאֵין לוֹ לְפָנָיו.

§ The mishna teaches that the kere’aḥ , i.e., anyone who does not have a row of hair encircling his head from ear to ear, is disqualified from performing the Temple service. Rava says: The Sages taught that a kere’aḥ is disqualified only if he does not have a row of hair in the back of his head but he has a row of hair in the front. But if he has a row of hair both in the front and in the back, he is fit for performing the Temple service. And all the more so, when he has hair in the back but he does not have in the front he is fit for performing the Temple service, as this is typical of older men.

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא, וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ — הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו וְאֵין לוֹ לְפָנָיו, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ בֵּין לְאַחֲרָיו בֵּין לְפָנָיו — פָּסוּל, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְפָנָיו וְאֵין לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו, וּדְאֵין לוֹ כְּלָל — דְּפָסוּל.

And there are those who teach the statement of Rava with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: And if he has a row of hair, that person is fit for performing the Temple service. Rava says: The Sages taught that such a person is fit only when he has a row of hair in the back but he does not have in the front. But if he has a row of hair both in the back and in the front, he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. And all the more so, one who has a row of hair in the front and does not have in the back, or one who does not have any hair at all, is disqualified.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַקַּרְחָנִין וְהַנַּנָּסִין וְהַזַּבְלְגָנִין — פְּסוּלִין, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן. קַרְחָנִין — תְּנֵינָא! נַנָּסִין — תְּנֵינָא!

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The bald priests, and the priests who are dwarves, and the priests with leaky eyes, are disqualified from performing the Temple service, since they are not equal among the seed of Aaron. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan to state this? With regard to bald priests, we learn in the mishna that they are disqualified. Similarly, with regard to priests who are dwarves, we learn in a mishna (45b) that they are disqualified.

זַבְלְגָנִין אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן, וּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

The Gemara responds: It was necessary for him to teach us this statement with regard to priests with leaky eyes, as the halakha with regard to them does not appear in any mishna. And furthermore, it was necessary for him to reiterate the halakha with regard to bald priests and dwarves lest you say they are disqualified only by rabbinic law, due to the appearance of a blemish. Rabbi Yoḥanan therefore teaches that they are disqualified by Torah law, as they are not equal among the seed of Aaron.

וְהָא כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן (אִיתְנָא) [מִיתְנָא] קָתָנֵי, וְשֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ רִיסֵי עֵינָיו פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: תָּנֵי חֲדָא, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכוּלְּהוּ.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But anywhere that a priest is deemed disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish, the tanna teaches this explicitly, e.g., in the mishna on this amud : And one whose eyelashes have fallen out is disqualified from performing the Temple service, due to the appearance of a blemish. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is necessary, lest you say the tanna taught explicitly in one instance that a priest is disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish but the same is true with regard to all of those listed after the first clause of the mishna, starting from the case of priests with humped backs. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches that this is not the halakha .

וְהָא כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא מִיהְדָּר וּמִיתְנָא, קָא הָדַר וְתָנֵי: וְשֶׁנִּיטְּלוּ שִׁינָּיו פָּסוּל מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן! אֶלָּא, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא, דְּתַנְיָא: הַקַּרְחָנִין וְהַנַּנָּסִין וְהַזַּבְלְגָנִין כְּשֵׁרִים, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ פָּסוּל אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

The Gemara persists: But anywhere that there is a priest disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish, the tanna repeats and teaches explicitly that this is the reason. As the tanna repeats and teaches (44a): And one whose teeth fell out is disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish. Rather, the reason Rabbi Yoḥanan reiterates the halakha with regard to a bald priest and a dwarf is to exclude that which is taught in a baraita , as it is taught in a baraita : The bald priests, the dwarves, and the priests with leaky eyes are fit for performing the Temple service by Torah law, and the Sages said they are disqualified only due to the appearance of a blemish. Rabbi Yoḥanan therefore teaches that they are disqualified by Torah law, as they are not equal among the seed of Aaron.

מַאן הַאי תַּנָּא? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״הַכֹּהֲנִים״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַקַּרְחָנִין.

The Gemara notes: Who is this tanna who says that such priests are fit by Torah law? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: When the verse states: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces” (Leviticus 1:8), this serves to include the bald priests in the performance of the Temple service.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין לוֹ גְּבִינִין, אוֹ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא גְּבִין אֶחָד — זֶהוּ גִּבֵּן הָאָמוּר בְּתוֹרָה. רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: (שֶׁגְּבִינִין) [שֶׁגְּבִינָיו] שׁוֹכְבִין. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁתֵּי שִׁדְרָאוֹת.

MISHNA: If a priest has no eyebrows, or if he has only one eyebrow, that is the gibben that is stated in the Torah in the list of blemished priests (see Leviticus 21:20). Rabbi Dosa says: A gibben is one whose eyebrows are so long that they lie flat and cover his eyes. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: A gibben is one who has two backs and two spines.

גְּמָ׳ וְגִבֵּן — דְּאֵין לוֹ מַשְׁמַע? וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״גִּבֵּן״ — שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גְּבִינִין הַרְבֵּה, אֵין לוֹ גְּבִינִין, אוֹ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא גְּבִין אַחַד — מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ גִבֵּן״. אָמַר רָבָא: זֶהוּ מִדְרָשׁ ״אוֹ גִּבֵּן״.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the gibben stated in the Torah is one who lacks eyebrows. The Gemara asks: But does gibben mean one who does not have eyebrows? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita : When it is stated that a priest who is a gibben is disqualified from performing the Temple service (see Leviticus 21:20), this is referring to one who has many eyebrows. With regard to one who has no eyebrows or who has only one eyebrow, from where is it derived that he is disqualified as well? The same verse states: “Or a gibben .” Clearly, the disqualification of one lacking eyebrows is not derived from the mention of a gibben , but from the term “or.” Rava said the mishna should be understood as follows: One who has no eyebrows is disqualified, and this is derived from the exposition of the phrase “or a gibben .”

רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּחָיֵי? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּפֶּלֶת בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁתֵּי שִׁדְרָאוֹת, וְאָמַר רַב: בָּאִשָּׁה — אֵינוֹ וָולָד, בַּבְּהֵמָה — אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה!

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Dosa says a gibben is one whose eyebrows are so long that they lie flat and cover his eyes, and Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says that a gibben is one who has two backs and two spines. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a person with two backs and two spines is capable of living? But it was stated that the Sages discussed the case of one who miscarries an entity that has two backs and two spines, and Rav said that in the case of a woman who miscarries such an entity, it is not considered an offspring, as it cannot survive, and therefore she does not have the ritual impurity caused by childbirth, and in the case of an animal who miscarries, the entity is prohibited for consumption.

כְּבָר רְמָא נִיהֲלֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁימִי אֶת! אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁשִּׁדְרָתוֹ עֲקוּמָּה.

The Gemara responds: Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya already raised this contradiction to Rav, his grandfather, and Rav said to him: Are you really Shimi? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus is not referring literally to someone with two backs and two spines, but to a person whose spine is crooked, causing it to appear as though he has two spines. Such a person can survive but is disqualified from performing the Temple service.

מַתְנִי׳ הֶחָרוּם פָּסוּל. אֵיזֶהוּ חָרוּם? הַכּוֹחֵל שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת. שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה, וּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה, עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה, רוֹאֶה אֶת הַחֶדֶר וְאֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה כְּאֶחָד, סָכֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ, וְהַזַּגְדָּן, וְהַצַּיְרָן, וְשֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ רִיסֵי עֵינָיו — פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

MISHNA: The ḥarum is disqualified from performing the Temple service. What is a ḥarum ? It is one who can paint both of his eyes as one, with one brushstroke, because he has a sunken nose. If both of one’s eyes are above or both of his eyes are below; or if one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below; or if both eyes are in the proper place but he sees both the room on the ground floor and the upper story as one, at the same time; and likewise those unable to look at the sun; and one whose eyes are different; and one whose eyes tear constantly, these are disqualified from performing the Temple service. And one whose eyelashes have fallen out is disqualified from performing the Temple service due to the appearance of a blemish. Unlike the others listed in this mishna, who are disqualified by Torah law, one with this condition is not disqualified by Torah law. Rather, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting a priest with such a condition to perform the Temple service.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״חָרוּם״ — שֶׁחוֹטְמוֹ שָׁקוּעַ, חוֹטְמוֹ סוֹלֵד, חוֹטְמוֹ בּוֹלֵם, חוֹטְמוֹ נוֹטֵף, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ חָרוּם״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין ״חָרוּם״ אֶלָּא הַכּוֹחֵל שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הִפְלַגְתָּ,

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita : When it is stated that a ḥarum is considered a blemished priest (Leviticus 21:18), this is referring to a priest whose nose is sunk. If his nose retreats, i.e., it is very short and contracted upward, or if his nose is blocked, or if his nose is so long that it droops, from where is it derived that he is considered blemished? The same verse states: “Or a ḥarum .” The term “or” serves to include all blemishes of the nose. Rabbi Yosei says: A ḥarum is only one who can paint both of his eyes as one. They said to him: You have gone too far in limiting your definition of a ḥarum .