Bejorot 45

וּבַעַל הַפִּיקִים, הָעִיקֵּל. אֵיזֶהוּ הָעִיקֵּל? כׇּל שֶׁהוּא מַקִּיף פַּרְסוֹתָיו וְאֵין אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו נוֹקְשׁוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ. פִּיקָּה יוֹצֵא מִגּוּדָּלוֹ, עֲקֵיבוֹ יוֹצֵא לַאֲחוֹרָיו, פַּרְסוֹתָיו רְחָבוֹת כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז.

and a ba’al happikim, and the ikkel. What is the ikkel? It is anyone who places his feet together and his knees do not knock into each other, i.e., he is bowlegged. A priest with a protuberance emerging alongside the thumb of his hand or the big toe of his foot,or one whose heel emerges and protrudes back from his foot, or one whose feet are wide like those of a goose are all disqualified from performing the Temple service.

אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו מוּרְכָּבוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ, אוֹ קְלוּטוֹת לְמַעְלָה עַד הַפֶּרֶק — כָּשֵׁר, לְמַטָּה מִן הַפֶּרֶק וַחֲתָכָהּ — כָּשֵׁר, הָיְתָה בָּהּ יְתֶרֶת וַחֲתָכָהּ, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם — פָּסוּל, וְאִם לָאו — כָּשֵׁר.

A priest whose fingers or toes are configured one upon the other, or one whose fingers or toes are attached, is likewise disqualified. But if they were attached from above the palm of the hand or the bottom of the foot only until the middle joint, he is fit. If they were attached below the joint, higher up on the finger or toe, and he cut to separate them, he is fit. In a case where there was an extra finger or toe on his hand or foot and he cut it, if that extra appendage contains a bone, the priest is disqualified even after it was cut, and if there is no bone the priest is fit.

יָתֵר בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו, שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ — עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין. הַשּׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו — רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.

If there was an extra appendage on his hands and on his feet, six on each for a total of twenty-four, Rabbi Yehuda deems the priest fit and the Rabbis deem him disqualified. With regard to one who is ambidextrous and has control of both of his hands, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the priest disqualified, as his halakhic status is like that of one who is left-handed, and the Rabbis deem him fit.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁבֶר רָגֶל — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁבֶר רֶגֶל, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הַקִּישָׁן וְהָעִיקֵּל וְהַקִּילְבָּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ שֶׁבֶר רָגֶל״. תָּנָא: בַּעַל הַקִּיפִּין וְהַשּׁוּפְנָר. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּעַל הַפִּיקִּין — שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כְּסָתוֹת הַרְבֵּה, שׁוּפְנָר — שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּסָתוֹת כׇּל עִיקָּר.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From the verse that states: “Broken-footed” (Leviticus 21:19), I have derived only that a broken leg disqualifies a priest from performing the Temple service. From where do I derive to include that the kishan, i.e., one who knocks his ankles or his knees together; the ikkel; and the kilvan are disqualified as well? The same verse states: “Or broken-footed.” The term “or” serves to include all blemishes of the leg. It was also taught in a baraita: A ba’al hakippin and the shufnar are blemished. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A ba’al happikin is one who has large protuberances on his leg, while a shufnar is one who has no protuberances at all.

פִּיקָּה יוֹצָא מִגּוּדָּלוֹ, וַעֲקֵיבוֹ יוֹצֵא לַאֲחוֹרָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שׁוֹקוֹ יוֹצֵא בָּאֶמְצַע רַגְלוֹ. פַּרְסוֹתָיו רְחָבוֹת כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא תֵּימָא דִּטְרִיפָה וְלָא סְדִיקָא, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דִּטְרִיפָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּסְדִיקָא.

The mishna teaches that one with a protuberance emerging alongside the thumb of his hand or the big toe of his foot, and one whose heel emerges and protrudes back from his foot are disqualified. Rabbi Elazar says: The description: One whose heel emerges and protrudes back from his foot, means his calf, i.e., his lower leg, emerges from the middle of his foot. The mishna also teaches that one whose feet are wide like those of a goose is disqualified. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that this is referring only to one whose feet are entirely like those of a goose, i.e., his feet are flat and his toes are not split. Rather, once one’s feet are flat he is considered blemished, even though his toes are split.

אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו מוּרְכָּבוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ, אוֹ קְלוּטוֹת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שֶׁבֶר יָד״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁבֶר יָד.

The mishna further teaches that a priest whose fingers or toes are configured one upon the other, or whose fingers or toes are attached, is likewise disqualified from performing the Temple service. But if they were attached from the hand or foot from above the palm of the hand or the bottom of the foot until the middle joint, or if they were attached below the joint, higher up on the finger or toe, and he cut to separate them, he is fit. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Broken-handed” (Leviticus 21:19). I have derived only that a broken hand disqualifies a priest.

אֶצְבָּעוֹת מוּרְכָּבוֹת לְמַעְלָה אוֹ קְלוּטוֹת לְמַעְלָה מִן הַפֶּרֶק, וְהָאָמְרַתְּ כָּשֵׁר! אֶלָּא וְלֹא חֲתָכָן, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ שֶׁבֶר יָד״.

From where do I derive that if his fingers or toes are configured one upon the other, or if they are attached from the hand or foot above the middle joint and he cut them to separate them, that he is disqualified? The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to ask: But didn’t you say in the mishna that if he separates his fingers he is fit? Rather, the baraita is referring to a priest whose fingers or toes are attached above the middle joint and he did not cut them. From where is it derived that he is disqualified? The verse states: “Or broken-handed.”

הָיְתָה בּוֹ יְתֶרֶת וַחֲתָכָהּ, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם — פָּסוּל, וְאִם לָאו — כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁנִּסְפֶּרֶת עַל גַּבֵּי הַיָּד.

§ The mishna teaches: In a case where there was an extra finger or toe on his hand or foot and he cut it, if that extra appendage contains a bone, the priest is disqualified even after it was cut, as he is considered to be missing a limb, and if not, the priest is fit. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And this is the halakha only in a case where it can be counted along the back of the hand or foot, i.e., the extra digit is situated in a row with his other fingers or toes. Only in such a situation is an additional appendage considered a distinct limb to the extent that if it contains a bone he is disqualified even after it has been cut away.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יְתֵירָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם, וְאֵין בָּהּ צִפּוֹרֶן — מְטַמָּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וּמְטַמָּא בְּאֹהֶל, וְעוֹלָה לְמִנְיַן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּבְנִסְפֶּרֶת עַל גַּב הַיָּד.

With regard to extra appendages the Sages taught: In the case of an extra appendage that was cut from a corpse, which contains a bone, then even if it does not have a nail it imparts ritual impurity both through contact and by carrying it, and it imparts impurity in a tent,as is the halakha with regard to the limb of a corpse. And if the extra appendage has no flesh surrounding the bone and therefore does not impart the impurity of a limb from a corpse, it is included in the count of 125 bones, which constitute a majority of the number of bones in a human being. A majority of bones imparts impurity in a tent, even if there is no flesh on any of them. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And it is considered a limb only when it can be counted along the back of the hand or foot.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל אֲמָרוֹ, הַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ: יְתֶרֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם וְאֵין בָּהּ צִפּוֹרֶן — מְטַמָּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵין מְטַמָּא בְּאֹהֶל. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּבְשֶׁאֵינָהּ נִסְפֶּרֶת עַל גַּב הַיָּד.

Rav Ḥisda says: This matter was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. An extra appendage that contains a bone and does not have a nail imparts ritual impurity through contact and by carrying, but it does not impart impurity in a tent. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And it does not impart impurity in a tent only when it is not counted along the back of the hand or foot.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עָשׂוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּדִבְרֵי נְבִיאוּת, מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי אֵבֶר הוּא — בְּאֹהֶל נָמֵי תְּטַמֵּא, וְאִי לָאו אֵבֶר הוּא — בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא נָמֵי לָא לִיטַמֵּי!

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sages rendered their statements in this case like statements of prophecy, i.e., there is no rationale for this halakha, as whichever way you look at it there is a difficulty: If a digit that is not counted with the other digits is considered a limb, it should impart impurity in a tent as well; and if it is not a limb, it also should not impart impurity through contact or by carrying.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: מִשּׁוּם עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.

Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ said in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: This appendage imparts impurity through contact and by carrying because the Sages touched upon it, i.e., issued a ruling concerning it, and determined that the halakhot of a bone the volume of a barley grain apply to it, i.e., it is considered a bone fragment and not a limb. Accordingly, it does not impart impurity in a tent.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִסְפֶּרֶת, אַטּוּ נִסְפֶּרֶת. אִי הָכִי, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִסְפֶּרֶת בְּאֹהֶל נָמֵי תְּטַמֵּא!

Rav Pappa said: It is a rabbinic decree that an appendage that is not counted with the other digits imparts impurity through contact and carrying, due to a case where the appendage is counted with the other digits,in which case it is considered a limb and imparts impurity in a tent. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then an appendage that is not counted should impart impurity in a tent as well.

עֲבַדוּ רַבָּנַן הֶיכֵּירָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִישְׂרְפוּ עֲלַיְיהוּ תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים.

The Gemara explains: The Sages implemented a distinction by decreeing this appendage imparts impurity only through contact and carrying, in order that people will know that this impurity applies by rabbinic law and not by Torah law. And therefore they will not come to burn teruma, i.e., the portion of produce designated for the priest, or consecrated items that have been rendered impure on account of this type of impurity, as by Torah law they are ritually pure and may not be burned.

תְּנַן הָתָם: רוֹב בִּנְיָנוֹ וְרוֹב מִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוֹבַע — טְמֵאִין. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ רוֹב בִּנְיָנוֹ? שְׁנֵי שׁוֹקַיִים וְיָרֵךְ אֶחָד, הוֹאִיל וְרוֹב גּוֹבְהוֹ בְּגָדוֹל. אֵיזֶהוּ רוֹב מִנְיָנוֹ? מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

§ With regard to impurity imparted by extra appendages, we learned in a mishna there (Oholot 2:1): A majority of the skeletal structure or a majority of the number of bones in the corpse of a dead person, even when there is not a quarter of a kav of bones among them, are impure. Concerning the ruling of this mishna, the Sages taught in a baraita: What is considered a majority of the skeletal structure of a corpse? It is two calves and one thigh, since this constitutes a majority of the height of an adult. What is considered a majority of the number of bones? One hundred and twenty-five bones.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: תַּנָּא מִנְיָינָא אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְתַנְיָא: חָסֵר, שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא מָאתַיִם, וְיָתֵר, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מָאתַיִם וּשְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד — כּוּלָּן עוֹלִין לְמִנְיַן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה, זִיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְאִינָשֵׁי.

Ravina said to Rava: Is the tanna coming to teach us a number? It is obvious that as there are 248 bones in the human body, 125 of them constitute a majority. Rava responded: The tanna teaches us that the halakha is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a corpse that lacks some bones and has only 200 bones, or one that has extra and has 281 bones, all of them are included in the count of 125. In other words, whether the number of 125 is in a majority or minority of that particular corpse, this number of bones imparts impurity, as one follows the majority of people, and most people have 248 bones.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּתַלְמִידָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל שֶׁשָּׁלְקוּ זוֹנָה אַחַת שֶׁנִּתְחַיְּיבָה שְׂרֵיפָה לַמֶּלֶךְ, בָּדְקוּ וּמָצְאוּ בָּהּ מָאתַיִם וַחֲמִשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם, אָמַר לָהֶם: שֶׁמָּא בְּאִשָּׁה בְּדַקְתֶּם, שֶׁהוֹסִיף לָהּ הַכָּתוּב שְׁנֵי צִירִים וּשְׁנֵי דְּלָתוֹת.

With regard to the number of limbs or bones in the human body, Rabbi Yehuda says that Shmuel says: There was an incident involving the students of Rabbi Yishmael, who boiled the corpse of a prostitute who was sentenced by the king to death by burning, in order to separate her flesh from her bones. They examined and found she had 252 limbs. They were puzzled by their finding, as the Sages say that the human body has only 248 limbs. Shmuel said to them: Perhaps you examined the corpse of a woman, as the verse added to her two hinges and two doors, for a total of 252 limbs.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁצִּירִים לַבַּיִת — כָּךְ צִירִים לָאִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתִּכְרַע וַתֵּלֶד כִּי נֶהֶפְכוּ עָלֶיהָ צִרֶיהָ״. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדְּלָתוֹת לַבַּיִת — כָּךְ דְּלָתוֹת לָאִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֹא סָגַר דַּלְתֵי בִטְנִי״.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: Just as a house has hinges [tzirim], so too, a woman has hinges, as it is stated: “And she bowed herself and brought forth, for her pains [tzireha] came suddenly upon her” (I Samuel 4:19). Rabbi Yehoshua says: Just as a house has doors, so too, a woman has doors, as it is stated: “Because it did not shut the doors of my womb” (Job 3:10).

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּפְתֵּחַ לַבַּיִת, כָּךְ מַפְתֵּחַ לָאִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּפְתַּח אֶת רַחְמָהּ״. לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קַשְׁיָא דְּתַלְמִידֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל! דִּלְמָא אַיְּידֵי דְּזוּטַר אִתְּמוֹחֵי מִתְּמַח.

Rabbi Akiva says: Just as there is a key to a house, so too, there is a key to a woman, as it is stated: “And He opened her womb” (Genesis 30:22). The Gemara challenges: The incident involving the students of Rabbi Yishmael, who found that the woman had only four additional limbs rather than five, i.e., there was no key, poses a difficulty for Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara responds: Perhaps since it is small, it dissolved in the water when they boiled the corpse.

אָמַר רַב: וְכוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל״, דָּבָר הַשָּׁוֶה לְכׇל אָדָם.

Rav says: And all of them, i.e., all the limbs found only in a woman, do not impart impurity in a tent, as it is stated: “This is the law: When a person dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), indicating that only an item that is equal for all people, male and female, imparts impurity in a tent.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּבְאִישׁ לֵיכָּא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״צִירִים אֲחָזוּנִי כְּצִירֵי יוֹלֵדָה״! צִירֵי בָשָׂר. וְהָכְתִיב: ״אֲדֹנִי בַּמַּרְאָה נֶהֶפְכוּ צִירַי״! הָכָא נָמֵי צִירֵי בָשָׂר. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, מָאתַיִם וְאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנֶה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? לָא בְּאִישׁ וְלָא בְּאִשָּׁה.

Abaye said to him: And are there no hinges in a man? But isn’t it written: “Pangs [tzirim] have taken hold upon me, as the pangs of a woman in travail” (Isaiah 21:3)? The Gemara responds: The verse is referring specifically to hinges of flesh, which are not considered limbs, as they contain no bones. The Gemara persists: But isn’t it written: “My lord, by reason of the vision my pains [tzirai] come” (Daniel 10:16)? The Gemara responds: Here too, the verse is referring to hinges of flesh. The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable that the hinges of a male are only of flesh, as if you do not say so, then as far as the 248 limbs that the Sages stated constitute a human body, how can you find them? Neither in a man nor in a woman.

יָתֵר בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, וַתְּהִי עוֹד מִלְחָמָה, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי אִישׁ מָדוֹן אֶצְבַּע יָדָיו וְאֶצְבַּע רַגְלָיו שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ״, מָר סָבַר בִּגְנוּתֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּעֵי, וּמָר סָבַר בִּשְׁבָחֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּעֵי.

§ The mishna teaches that if one has an extra appendage on his hands and on his feet, six on each for a total of twenty-four, Rabbi Yehuda deems him fit while the Rabbis disqualify him. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: And both derived their opinions from one verse, as it is stated with regard to David’s war against the Philistines: “And there was again war at Gath” (II Samuel 21:20), and it is also written in that same verse: “And there was a champion, who had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, twenty-four in number.” One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that the verse speaks of negative qualities of the champion, and therefore it may be derived from here that extra appendages are blemishes; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the verse speaks in his praise, which means that extra appendages are not blemishes at all.

אָמַר רַבָּה: מָה לִי דִּכְתִיב ״שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מִסְפָּר״? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: שֵׁית דִּידֵיהּ וְשֵׁית דְּכַרְעֵיהּ, כְּתַב ״עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע״. וְאִי כְּתַב ״עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הוּא חֲמֵשׁ מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּשְׁבַע מֵהַאי גִּיסָא, כְּתַב ״שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ״. ״מִסְפָּר״ — בְּנִסְפֶּרֶת עַל גַּבֵּי הַיָּד.

With regard to that verse, Rabba says: Why do I need that which is written in the verse: “On every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, twenty-four in number”? Isn’t it obvious that one who has six appendages on each limb will have twenty-four in total? Rabba explains: All of these details are necessary, as, had the Merciful One written only six and six, I would say there were six of his hand and six of his foot, i.e., he had only twelve appendages. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “twenty-four.” And had the Merciful One written only “twenty-four,” I would say he had five fingers on this side and seven fingers on that side. Therefore, the verse wrote six and six. The verse concludes with the term “in number” to indicate that these fingers were counted in a single row on the back of the hand.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, יָתֵר בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע. אָמַר לוֹ: כְּמוֹתְךָ יִרְבּוּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה? כָּךְ אָמַר לוֹ: כְּמוֹתְךָ יִתְמַעֲטוּ מַמְזֵירֵי וּנְתִינֵי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל!

With regard to the dispute concerning whether or not extra appendages are a blemish, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: There was an incident involving one man who came before Rabbi Tarfon, and he had extra appendages on his hands and on his feet, six and six, for a total of twenty-four appendages. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: There should increase among the Jewish people those that are like you, i.e., strong men. Clearly, extra appendages are not a blemish but a praiseworthy condition. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Yehuda: You seek to bring a proof from there? This is what Rabbi Tarfon actually said to him: All mamzerim and Gibeonites should be like you, i.e., physically weak, so that they should decrease from the Jewish people.

הַשּׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן — אִיטֵּר, בֵּין בַּיָּד בֵּין בָּרֶגֶל — פָּסוּל. הַשּׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו — רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. מָר סָבַר — כְּחִישׁוּתָא אַתְחִלָא בְּיָמִין, וּמָר סָבַר — בְּרִיּוּתָא אַתְחִלָא בִּשְׂמֹאל.

§ The mishna teaches that in the case of a priest who has control of both of his hands, i.e., he is ambidextrous, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him disqualified and the Rabbis deem him fit. With regard to this dispute the Sages taught in a baraita: One whose left side is dominant, whether his left hand or his left foot, is disqualified from performing the Temple service. Furthermore, in the case of one who has control of both of his hands, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him disqualified and the Rabbis deem him fit. The Gemara explains this dispute: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that he learned to control his left hand because a weakness began in his right hand. He is therefore disqualified, as his right hand is weak. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that a strength began in his left hand that allowed him to control both hands. Nevertheless, his right hand remains strong.

מַתְנִי׳ הַכּוּשִׁי, הַגִּיחוֹר, וְהַלַּבְקָן, וְהַקִּפֵּחַ, וְהַנַּנָּס, וְהַחֵרֵשׁ, וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה, וְהַשִּׁיכּוֹר, וּבַעֲלֵי נְגָעִים טְהוֹרִים — פְּסוּלִין בְּאָדָם וּכְשֵׁרִים בַּבְּהֵמָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹטָה מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּעֲלֵי הַדִּלְדּוּלִין פְּסוּלִין בָּאָדָם וּכְשֵׁרִין בַּבְּהֵמָה.

MISHNA: Concerning the kushi, the giḥor, the lavkan, the kipe’aḥ, the dwarf, the deaf-mute, the imbecile, the drunk, and those with ritually pure marks, their conditions disqualify a person from performing the Temple service and are valid, i.e., they do not disqualify with regard to being sacrificed, in the case of an animal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: An imbecile among animals is not optimal for sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar says: Even with regard to those with flesh or skin that hangs from their body, that blemish disqualifies in the case of a person and is valid in the case of an animal.

גְּמָ׳ כּוּשִׁי — אוּכָּמָא, גִּיחוֹר — חִיוָּורָא, לַבְקָן — סוּמָּקָא. אִינִי? וְהָא הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״מַאן בָּעֵי לוּקְיָאנֵי״, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח חִיוָּורָא! אֶלָּא: כּוּשִׁי — אוּכָּמָא, גִּיחוֹר — סוּמָּקָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: ״סוּמָּקָא גִּיחְיָא״, לַבְקָן — חִיוָּורָא, כְּהָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״מַאן בָּעֵי לוּקְיָאנֵי״, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח חִיוָּורֵי.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a kushi, a giḥor, and a lavkan are disqualified. The Gemara explains: A kushi is one whose skin is extremely black, a giḥor is one whose skin is extremely white, and a lavkan is one whose skin is extremely red. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But there was a certain person who said to others: Who wants a lukiyani lamb, and the lamb was found to be white. Rather, a kushi is one whose skin is extremely black; a giḥor is one whose skin is extremely red, as people say about one whose skin is extremely red: Giḥia red; and a lavkan is one whose skin is extremely white, as in the case of that person who said: Who wants a lukiyani, and it was found to be white.

קִפֵּחַ. תָּנֵי רַב זְבִיד: גָּבוֹהַּ. אִינִי? וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מִנַּיִן שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִשְׁתַּבֵּחַ בְּבַעֲלֵי קוֹמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָנֹכִי הִשְׁמַדְתִּי אֶת הָאֱמֹרִי מִפְּנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר כְּגֹבַהּ אֲרָזִים גׇּבְהוֹ״. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בַּאֲרִיכָא שְׁמִיטָה סַנְיָא.

§ The mishna teaches that a kipe’aḥ is disqualified. Rav Zevid taught that this is referring to one who is extremely tall. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that one who is tall is considered blemished? But didn’t Rabbi Abbahu teach: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is praised through His destruction of those of stature? As it is stated: “Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars” (Amos 2:9). Rav Pappa said in response: The mishna is not referring to one who is tall and has a healthy build, but to one who is long, emaciated, and ugly.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: גָּבוֹהַּ לֹא יִשָּׂא גְּבוֹהִית — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶן תּוֹרֶן, נַנָּס לֹא יִשָּׂא נַנֶּסֶת — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶם אֶצְבָּעִי, לָבָן לֹא יִשָּׂא לְבָנָה — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶם בּוֹהֵק, שָׁחוֹר לֹא יִשָּׂא שְׁחוֹרָה — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶן טָפוּחַ.

Reish Lakish says: A man who is tall should not marry a woman who is also tall, lest there emerge from them a child who is extremely tall. Similarly, a man who is a dwarf should not marry a woman who is also a dwarf, lest there emerge from them a child who is exceptionally short. A man whose skin is pale should not marry a woman whose skin is also pale, lest there emerge from them a child who is extremely pale. Likewise, a man whose skin is dark should not marry a woman whose skin is also dark, lest there emerge from them a child who is extremely dark.

הַחֵרֵשׁ, הַשּׁוֹטֶה, וְהַשִּׁכּוֹר. שִׁכּוֹר מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה, בַּהֲדֵי מוּמֵי דְּמַחֲילִי עֲבוֹדָה בָּעֵי לְמִיחְשַׁב!

§ The mishna teaches that the deaf-mute, the imbecile, and the drunk are disqualified. The Gemara challenges: Since one who is drunk profanes the Temple service, the blemish of drunkenness should have been counted in the previous chapter together with those who have blemishes that profane the service. By contrast, those listed in this mishna are disqualified only because they are not equal among the seed of Aaron, and the halakha is that rites performed by priests with such blemishes are not profaned after the fact (see 43b).

בִּשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים הַמְשַׁכְּרִים. וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: אָכַל דְּבֵילָה קְעִילִית, וְשָׁתָה חָלָב אוֹ דְּבַשׁ, נִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ — חַיָּיב.

The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where one became drunk through other intoxicating agents, not through wine. In such a case, the rites are not profaned. And this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that even in such a case the rites are profaned, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that a priest who ate pressed figs from Ke’ila or drank milk or honey, thereby becoming intoxicated, and entered the Sanctuary to serve, is liable to receive lashes. This is because he transgressed the prohibition: “Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 10:9). He understands that “strong drink” means any intoxicating agent. The verse indicates that one who performs the Temple service while drunk profanes the service, as it states immediately afterward: “And that you may put difference between the holy and the common.”

מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִין בָּאָדָם וּפְסוּלִין בַּבְּהֵמָה: אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, טְרֵיפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וְשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבֵירָה, וְשֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם.

MISHNA: These flaws do not disqualify a person from performing the Temple service, but they do disqualify an animal from being sacrificed: An animal whose mother or offspring were slaughtered that day, as slaughtering it would violate the prohibition against slaughtering the animal itself and its offspring on the same day; a tereifa; one born by caesarean section; one with which a transgression of bestiality was performed; and one that killed a person.

וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא נָשִׁים בַּעֲבֵירָה — פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיַּדִּירֶנָּה הֲנָאָה, וְהַמִּטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים — פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים.

And a priest who marries women by a transgression, e.g., a divorcée or a woman who underwent ḥalitza, is disqualified from performing the Temple service until he vows not to derive benefit from her. The vow ensures that he will divorce her promptly. And a priest who becomes impure through exposure to corpses is disqualified from performing the Temple service until he accepts upon himself a commitment that he will no longer become impure through exposure to corpses.

גְּמָ׳ וְאֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁירִין בָּאָדָם, מַאי (באותו) [״אוֹתוֹ] וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״?

GEMARA: The mishna teaches about these flaws that do not disqualify a person from performing the Temple service but do disqualify an animal from being sacrificed, one of which is: Itself and its offspring. The Gemara asks: To what possible case involving people is the mishna referring when it differentiates between people and animals with regard to the flaw of: Itself and its offspring?

אִילֵּימָא אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, דִּכְוָתֵיהּ תַּיִישׁ וּבְנוֹ, מִי נָהֵיג? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בִּנְקֵבוֹת, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים! אֶלָּא תְּיָישָׁה וּבְנָהּ, דִּכְוָותַהּ הָכָא כֹּהֶנֶת וּבְנָהּ, כֹּהֶנֶת בַּת עֲבוֹדָה הִיא?

If we say this is referring to Aaron and his sons, and it means that they may serve in the Temple on the same day, then in the corresponding situation the mishna must be referring to a male goat and its offspring. And does such a prohibition apply? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day applies to female animals, i.e., a mother and its offspring, but it does not apply to males, i.e., a father and its offspring. Rather, the mishna is referring to a female goat and its offspring, that they may not be slaughtered on the same day. If so, in the corresponding situation here, with regard to the priesthood, the mishna must be referring to a female priest and her son. But is a female priest fit for performing the Temple service at all? Clearly not.

לְעוֹלָם אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, דִּכְוָותַהּ הָכָא תַּיִישׁ וּבְנוֹ. אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: עֲדָא אָמְרָה חֲנַנְיָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בִּנְקֵבוֹת וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים, חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר: נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים וּבִנְקֵבוֹת.

The Gemara explains: Actually, the mishna is referring to Aaron and his sons, and in the corresponding situation here, it is referring to a male goat and its offspring. And as for the difficulty that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, applies only to the mother, they said in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: That is to say, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, as it is taught in a baraita: The prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day applies to female animals but it does not apply to male animals. Ḥananya says: It applies to both male and female animals.

וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא נָשִׁים כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: נוֹדֵר וְעוֹבֵד, יוֹרֵד וּמְגָרֵשׁ.

§ The mishna teaches that a priest who marries women by a transgression is disqualified from performing the Temple service until he vows not to derive benefit from her. It is taught in a baraita: If a priest was performing a sacrificial rite and it was discovered that he married a woman who was forbidden to him, he does not stop performing the rite. Rather, he vows not to derive benefit from her and then continues to perform the rite. Once he has finished, he descends from the altar and divorces his wife.

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָזֵיל לְגַבֵּי חָכָם וְשָׁרֵי לֵיהּ! קָסָבַר: צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר.

The Gemara asks: How can he be permitted to perform the Temple service before actually divorcing his wife? But let us be concerned that perhaps he will go before a Sage who will dissolve his vow. The Gemara responds: The tanna holds that when one seeks to dissolve a vow, he must delineate the conditions of the vow to the Sage. Accordingly, when the Sage hears that he uttered this vow because he married a woman who was forbidden to him, the Sage will not dissolve it.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּמַדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ בְּרַבִּים.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says one must delineate the conditions of the vow. But according to the one who says he does not need to delineate the conditions of the vow, what can be said? The Gemara responds that we administer the vow to the priest in public. Such a vow cannot be dissolved.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּדַּר בְּרַבִּים אֵין לוֹ הֲפָרָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ לוֹ הֲפָרָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּמַדְּרִינַן

The Gemara persists: This works out well according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has no option of nullification by a halakhic authority, but according to the one who says it has the option of nullification, what can be said? The Gemara responds that we administer the vow