Bekhorot 43b — the Talmud in English

And we raise the question:

What difference is there between

a

koen disqualified because of a defect,

and a koen disqualified because

he is not equal among the offspring of Aaron?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them concerning invalidating the service,

whether his service becomes invalid.

A defect,

a

koen who has a defect, invalidates the service.

For it is written: “He has a defect

and he shall not profane.”

But this one,

who is not equal among the offspring of Aaron, does not invalidate the service.

And we raise the question:

What difference is there between

this one disqualified because

he is not equal among the offspring of Aaron,

and this one disqualified

because of appearance to the eye [because they are repulsive to those who see them]? For example, his eyelashes fell out [below, 43b], or his teeth were removed [below, 44a].

And they answer:

And we answer:

There is a difference between them concerning a positive commandment.

For this one who is not equal among the offspring of Aaron, if he performs the service, he violates a positive commandment. For this is implied by the verse: only one equal among the offspring of Aaron performs the service; by implication, one who is not equal shall not perform it. This is a negative prohibition derived from a positive commandment. But one disqualified because of appearance to the eye does not violate a positive commandment.

We now explain the defects enumerated in the Mishna: pointed-headed, turnip-headed, mallet-headed, sloped-headed, and cut-away-headed.

Pointed-headed: for his head resembles a vessel.

His head resembles the cover of a barrel, pointed above and wide below.

Turnip-headed: for his head resembles the upper part of a turnip.

His head resembles the head of a turnip, whose upper part is wide and becomes narrower downward.

The tanna taught:

Another defect, which was not enumerated in the Mishna:

and his neck stands in the middle of his head,

for his head protrudes backward as much as forward.

Mallet-headed: for his head resembles a mallet,

Rashi’s version is

“a hammer,”

for his head resembles an axe, whose nape is rounded and narrow .

And one whose head is sloped,

that is,

before him,

for his head is sloped before him diagonally .

And one whose head is cut away

that is,

behind him,

for the height of his head is lacking behind him.

The tanna taught: “sloped” —

before him, and “cut away” —

behind him.

And the expression “cut away” is

as people say: “a piece was taken,”

for he appears as one from whom a piece was taken behind him .

The tanna taught:

Other defects:

and his neck is sloped, and hanging.

Sloped, for it is hidden and concealed,

for his head lies between his shoulders and resembles one whose head is hanging.

Hanging, for it is long and hanging,

for his neck is long and thin, and his face protrudes greatly outward. [Rabbeinu Gershom].

We learned in the Mishna:

And those with humps, Rabbi Yehuda

declares fit, whereas the Sages declare disqualified.

And we explain: Concerning a hump

in which there is a bone, everyone agrees that he is disqualified. When they dispute

Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages, it is concerning a hump

in which there is no bone. One Master holds,

the Sages who disqualified him,

that he is not equal among the offspring of Aaron. And one Master holds,

Rabbi Yehuda who declared him fit, that since there is no bone in it,

it is merely flesh.

It is merely a piece of flesh.

We learned in the Mishna:

The bald one is disqualified.

Rava said: They taught

that he is disqualified

only when he does not have

a row of hair encircling from ear to ear

behind him;

but even if

he has

a row of hair

before him,

he is still a bald one, and all the more so when he has none at all, even before him.

But if he has

a row of hair

behind him and before him, he is fit. And all the more so if he has hair behind him and does not have it before him,

for this is more attractive than having hair around the head while being bald in the middle .

And there are those who teach it

with reference

to the conclusion,

which teaches:

And if he has it, he is fit.

And concerning this

Rava said: They taught

that when he has it he is fit

only when he has it behind him

a row of hair encircling from ear to ear,

and does not have it before him. But if he has it both behind him and before him, he is disqualified,

for he is more repulsive.

And all the more so if he has it before him and does not have it behind him. And all the more so when he has none at all, he is disqualified.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The bald-headed, the dwarfs, and the weeping-eyed,

whose eyes discharge and stream water,

are disqualified, because they are not equal among the offspring of Aaron.

And we challenge:

The bald-headed—

this

we already learned

in the Mishna.

The dwarfs we already learned

below [45b], “the short and the dwarf.” What did Rabbi Yohanan teach us?

And we answer: All of them are necessary:

the weeping-eyed, it was necessary for him to teach us,

as it was not taught. And it was also necessary for him to teach us concerning the bald-headed and dwarfs, for

it might enter your mind

that the reason they are disqualified

is because of appearance to the eye

alone. He therefore teaches us that they are disqualified because they are not equal among the offspring of Aaron; and the practical difference is that one violates a positive commandment.

And we challenge:

But wherever there is

a disqualification

because of appearance to the eye, it is explicitly taught concerning them,

for wherever the disqualification is because of appearance to the eye, the Mishna explicitly adds that this disqualification is because of appearance to the eye; from this you know that the other disqualifications are not for this reason. As it teaches in the Mishna below:

“And one whose eyelashes fell out is disqualified because of appearance to the eye.”

And if so, we know that the bald-headed and dwarfs are not disqualified because of appearance to the eye; what did Rabbi Yohanan come to teach us?

And we answer:

It might enter your mind that one matter was taught

in that case of one whose eyelashes fell out, whose disqualification is because of appearance to the eye,

and the same law applies

to

to all of them,

that it refers to all those disqualified in this chapter whose disqualification is only because of appearance to the eye [apart from the first part of the Mishna until “those with humps,” whose disqualification is because they are not equal among the offspring of Aaron]. Rabbi Yohanan therefore teaches us that this is not so, but all of them are disqualified because they are not equal among the offspring of Aaron.

And we still challenge: How could one have thought so?

But wherever there is

in this chapter an additional disqualification that is only because of appearance to the eye,

it repeats and explicitly teaches it,

for the tanna returns and explicitly teaches that it is because of appearance to the eye. For it teaches:

“And one whose teeth were removed is disqualified because of appearance to the eye,”

and necessarily the other disqualifications are not because of appearance to the eye. What need, then, was there for Rabbi Yohanan to teach us?

And we answer:

Rather,

Rabbi Yohanan comes

to exclude the teaching of this beraita. For it was taught: “The bald-headed, the dwarfs, and the weeping-eyed are fit, and they said that one is disqualified only because of appearance to the eye.”

And Rabbi Yohanan teaches us that the halakha is not in accordance with that beraita, but in accordance with the Mishna: they are disqualified because they are not equal among the offspring of Aaron.

And we raise the question:

Who is this tanna?

And we answer:

It is Rabbi Yehuda!

For it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says:

It is written: “And the sons of Aaron

the kohanim

And we expound in the Sifra:

to include the bald-headed [who are fit by Torah law].

[showing that they are fit by Torah law].

Mishna:

It is stated in the Torah concerning defects of the kohanim: “Or one with a high forehead.” And the Mishna explains what this defect is.

He has no eyebrows,

a koen who has no eyebrows. Or

he has only one eyebrow. This is the “high-foreheaded” one stated in the Torah!

Rabbi Dosa says:

A high-foreheaded one is

anyone whose eyebrows lie down,

whose eyebrow hairs are long and lie over his eyes.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says:

A high-foreheaded one is one

who has two backs

[not of the eye, but literally on the back]

and two spines 9.

Gemara:

And we raise the question: Does

“high-foreheaded”

mean that he has no

eyebrows

at all?

And we raise a contradiction: “High-foreheaded” —

I derive only one who

has many eyebrows,

whose two eyebrows are joined and there is no space between them.

But if

he has no eyebrows

at all,

or has only one eyebrow, from where

is it known that he is disqualified?

The verse says: “Or one with a high forehead,”

and from “or” we include one who has only one eyebrow or has none at all.

And this is difficult, for the wording of the tanna of the Mishna implies that he does not derive it from “or,” but that the meaning of “high-foreheaded” is that he has no eyebrows.

And we answer:

Rava said:

This too is what the Mishna teaches:

This is the exposition of “or one with a high forehead”

stated in the Torah!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Dosa says:

that the eyebrows lie down. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: that he has two backs and two spines.

And we raise the question:

Does this indicate

that one who has two backs and two spines can

live,

that he is capable of living?

But it was stated: A woman who miscarried a creature that has two backs and two spines. And Rav said

concerning it:

In a woman, it is not a fetus,

and she is not impure with the impurity of childbirth.

In an animal, it is forbidden to eat,

like an unslaughtered carcass, for slaughter does not help it because it is considered dead. How, then, can this koen be alive, such that it disqualifies him from the service?

And we answer:

It was already posed to him

there in tractate Niddah,

Rab Shimi bar Hiyya to Rav. And he said to him

Rav:

Shimi, you!

A great sage such as you, and you do not know how to reconcile the Mishna?

This is the meaning of the Mishna: not that he actually has two backs and two spines, for this creature is not alive.

Rather, when his spine is crooked,

and it appears like two backs and two spines. Whereas I said [that it means] that he actually has two backs and two spines.

Mishna:

It is stated in the Torah: “or harum.” And the Mishna explains what this blemish is.

“The harum” is disqualified.

What is a harum?

The eye-painter

who can color

both his eyes at once,

because his nose is sunken between his two eyes, and when he colors his eyes he can draw the brush from one eye to the other, and the nose does not obstruct him.

And likewise the

two eyes are above

their places or

both his eyes are below

their usual places, and the kohen is disqualified [not on account of “harum”].

Or

one eye is above

its place,

and one eye is below

its place.

Or he

sees the room and the upper room as one.

For both his eyes stand in their places, but one sees downward and one upward, and it is found that he sees the room and the upper room as one.

The sun-shy,

who is unable to look directly at the sun .

And the zagdan,

whose one eye is different from the other .

And the tsiran,

whose eyes constantly shed tears.

And if the eyelashes of his eyes have fallen out,

the hairs of his eyelids,

he is disqualified because of appearance to the eye.

[And only this last blemish is disqualified solely because of appearance to the eye, as above in the Gemara].

Gemara:

The Sages taught: “Harum”—

whose nose is sunken

between his eyes.

His nose is turned upward,

short [see Rabbenu Gershom].

His nose is obstructing,

its openings having become blocked.

His nose is dripping,

long and hanging down below the lips—

from where

are they disqualified?

The verse says: “or harum,”

to include .

Rabbi Yosei says: It is not

called

“harum” except [one who can] color both his eyes at once.